~7.7 heavy tanks desperately need a reload buff

Yeah that makes sense.

I mean i think the use of formulas is better most of the time. Yeah it is not that accurate (IIRC IRL the US 75mm had higher pen with M72 tha M61, but correct me if i am wrong), but at least it is a standardised thing.

i think this also helps to elliminate some potential classified document leaks too, but i can be wrong on that.

The main point from what I remember was that different countries have different testing criterion, therefore the penetration value stated by one country won’t match the one from another country. By using a formula to calculate penetration, you stop relying on documentation.

The US alone had 3 entirely separate penetration criterion: army, protection and navy. It’s complicated.

2 Likes

I am not suprized. it is the USA after all xd.

That was the argument. By using the formula, they can ignore different standards and issues with specific rounds. That doesn’t mean they can’t try to make the formula reasonable or flexible.

Dude chill. What’s even the point?

Like he said, it’s a pixel spot. It’s not even close to a weak point that someone is going to aim for.

A moot argument when practically every AP round oveperforms due to not shattering on impact, allowing them to penetrate much thicker armor that they could in RL.

Not to mention that German penetration criteria required APHE rounds to penetrate intact.
Just because the round disintegrates itself on impact doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be able to perforate 230mm at 30°.

Just because the 0-45° would suffer at higher veloity, doesn’t mean that the performance at greater angles would suffer the same amount.

I am chill.

To prove that what he said was incorrect.

Anyone who knows about that spot can aim for it. It is not a pixel shot.
People don’T usually shoot there for the simple fact that they don’t know it exists. There are a lot of weak spots that people don’t know about, yet those few that does know about it will be able to exploit said weak spots.

This whole thing that the guy said is nonsense.
Like half the pen of the in game value? So an 88mm round at 1200m/s should only pen ~160mm?! Nice.

AP shattering should not be a thing in this game. The mechanic itself can be good, but if Gaijin with their utter incompetence implements it, then nothing good will come from that. See APDS and APCR right now.

This too much realism is also bad. From that point on, things like random engin fire, or ammo rack randomly exploding (khm Sheridan) are not far.

AP shatter is hard coded in the DeMarre equation. Every AP round shatters.

APCR and APDS have RNG shatter.

German test plate was also softer at greater thicknesses. Maybe it would have perforated more armor, maybe it wouldn’t.

Doesn’t really change anything about the overall performance of a vehicle.
If no one exploits a vehicles weakness, it’s like it doesn’t exist.

No they should only buff/nerf it, if it’s historically inaccurate. The only reasonable thing to do, is reduce it’s BR

That’s nonsense.

Shattering occurs at high velocity, against armor of caliber thickness or more and is influenced by plate hardness and obliquity.

Almost every AP round is able to penetrate more armor at 0-30° than they historically could.

And don’t even start with that 90mm AP can’t penetrate a Panthers front plate talk.
We all know that AP underperforms against heavily sloped armor.

Don’t act like you actually cared about historical accuracy.
If it was for you, you would have AP have the same penetration as APC but with better slope performance, just so that your beloved AP has the slope penetration it should have.

Pretty sure it’s not and depends on the condition.

Maybe one vehicle was built with worse armor quality then the other, maybe it didn’t.
It’s pointless to argue about that.

It’s not like the 128/88mm APDS has any significant advantage over the 128mm APHE anyway.

No, I want historical accuracy. I want the performance of vehicles to represent the real world prototype. I have been against this one size fits all crap from the day it was released.

Gaijin chose the WWII ballistics system. They have to accept the whole deal.

The DeMarre calculator applies a .9x penalty to all uncapped AP. That is their way of applying shattering to the game for full caliber AP.

Or it’s their way to have APC actually have better 0-30° penetration.

If you look at WW2 Ballistics data, solid shot is just straight up better.

Then again, the US APC rounds were pretty much all designed to deal with face hardened armor, rather than thick low obliquity plates.

They also have a chapter or two about AP shell shattering.
The penetration table is therefore just some theoretical data.

The whole point of APC was to prevent nose shattering to defeat FHA or thick vertical armor plates at the cost of general lower penetration potential.

The leopard 1 when the game took a dip.

It was the first crazy jump with tech iirc. Instead of giving Germany a T-55 or a M47/48 they just jumped up(most because people didn’t want Germany to have them)

It kinda forced them or at least, set the stage, for adding newer and more modern vehicles faster instead of slowly amping up to them.

1 Like

Can, but they haven’t and almost certainly won’t at this stage. At least in a way that benefits Western countries.

From what I remember from the old forums at least one person proposed a formula that gave rounds performance closer to what was historically observed, and even told Gaijin they could use it free and clear.

So what? Why does APC have to be better? Does it matter one way or another if you get killed by AP or APC?

Gaijin chose WWII BAG slope modifiers. They are intended to be used with their penetration tables. It’s either they use the system or they don’t.

It matters that one round is superior than the other depending on the target.

Just how APCR has a massive advantage in penetrating vertical armor but is not more effective, or even less due to the worse ballistics, than uncapped AP.

What you’re saying doesn’t make sense because the slope modifiers are universal.
If two rounds of the same caliber penetrate either 100mm or 80mm of armor, the slope performance of the second round will simply be 4/5 of the the other round.
If Gaijin gives a round x percent less penetration at 0°, it will just penetrate x percent less sloped armor.
Slightly more due to the difference in T/D ratio.

So no, the slope modifiers are not intended to be used with the values from WW2 BAG. They just came up with those 0° values based on historical data, normalized to the same standard.

We know the slope modifiers are intended to be used with their penetration data because it matches historical data when you apply the slope modifiers to their table.

The glacis of the Panther is 80mm thick at 55 degrees. The slope modifier for the 90mm AP vs 80mm plate at 55 degrees is 2.15x. That puts the 80mm plate at ~170mm effective. We know 90mm T33 can defeat the glacis of a Panther to 1000 yards. We know, if the plate was 240 BHN, that would happen at around 1400 yards using Navy penetration charts. DeMarre that from 1400 yards to 0 yards gives you around 210mm. DeMarre that to 100 yards and you get around 209mm, which is exactly what the WWII BAG chart says.

Reality doesn’t have slope modifiers. Real AP shatters. Real APC doesn’t keep the cap during penetration. Gaijin decided to ignore that.