Personally i think yes. For example, PzG. 43 weight match with we have ingame so looks like Gaijin think this table is accurate.
1 Like
The more funny is this feature is already in the game. The BMP-3 gun reload speed change when you select ATGM or HE.
But for Gaijin Germans tanks dont care a sh-t.
1 Like
Personally i think yes. For example, PzG. 43 weight match with we have ingame so looks like Gaijin think this table is accurate.
Seems to be accurate enough for them to add it if they consider manufacturer information as real.
The more funny is this feature is already in the game. The BMP-3 gun reload speed change when you select ATGM or HE.
Thats what I ment with the barrel launched ATGMs.
But for Gaijin Germans tanks dont care a sh-t.
StuG 4 when?
1 Like
its still a very good heavy i dont see why people struggle
Exactly. and ofc people will stilll say “wEll tHe 90 iS bEttEr bEcAuSe iT hAs mOrE eXpLoSiVe fiLLeR” its not that OP, it has less pen and double reload time
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone say that the long 90 mm is better than the long 88…
Only not because of reload, but ive seen people say its fair because the filler is good.
It’s only worse due to the reload if it was faster I think it would be better or at least equal to the long 88. I prefer the long 90mm as the angle pen seems a lot more consistent and the HE is nice to have too but as long as the L71 reloads twice as fast it’s no contest.
Long 88 has more pen at all angles at all distances. The 2 extra mm of diameter that the long 90 mm has over the long 88 do not provide any meaningful performance advantage against angled armor.
Better filler on the APCBC is nice to have, yes, but the long 88 still has very nice explosive filler on the APCBC round.
Even if the reload were identical, I’d still rather have the long 88 due to better penetration and accuracy with the drawback of worse but still very good damage.
From my experience especially when shooting soviet side armor at an angle the 90mm goes through much easier than the 88mm. The reload difference is still massive and the 88mm is the better gun overall.
No disrespect but your experience is meaningless to me.
I’ve had discussions with people saying that the German 75 mm KwK40 with PzGr 39 APCBC has worse slope effects than the US 75 mm M3 cannon with M61 APCBC, because of their experience. In reality, these two projectiles use the exact same slope effect table (capped AP round) and have the exact same caliber, therefore they have the exact same slope effects.
Relying on experience alone can reinforce a belief that was already there even if untrue. The game is run by math, and the long 88 and long 90 are so close in caliber that they have extremely close slope effects, with the long 90 having slightly better ones, but that simply doesn’t compensate for the better penetration of the long 88.
Testing slope performance
Using a T-54 (1949) for ease of testing.
Using datamined slope effects for capped AP rounds against the 100 mm upper glacis of the T-54, at 60° the long 88 and the long 90 mm end up with slope multipliers of 3.1916 and 3.168 respectively.
Using protection analysis to test this confirms it, as with the long 88 it ends up with 319 mm effective armor (100 × 3.1916 = 319), and with the long 90 it ends up at 317 mm effective armor (100 × 3.168 = 317) due to rounding.
Does the long 90 mm get slightly better slope effects? Yes.
Is it at all meaningful? No, not at all. Keep in mind I picked this test plate specifically to show the difference in effectiveness. Against plates of armor that the cannons can actually penetrate, the difference is smaller, and even with this 2 mm effectiveness change the long 88 more than compensates by just having 11-13 mm more penetration.
1 Like
It does it indeed almost always guarantee KO once penned, where the long 88 occasionally only nuked some crews and lack finishing blow.
This is because the automatic loader in the BMP-3 cannot load the missile without damage, so it’s the job of the loader to shove it down the tube. Apparently in BMP-3M this was fixed and it can load the missiles and low pressure HE at the same rate.
Giving only certain tanks variable reloads based on projectile mass would be unfair and confusing, too.
Is the increase in mass for a one-piece APCBC round worth an increased reload time relative to an APCR round for the same gun? Does that mean that UK tanks firing APDS that is lighter than their full bore ammo get to shoot even faster?
Unfair ?? you mean like the IS-6 relaoading a similar weight shell with one loader in smaller space faster than the Maus with 2 laoders in a big turret??? thats kind unfair???
Less damage compesate by faster firing rate, sound balanced to me.
The T32E1 went from 7.0 to 7.7 and got no buffs. It doesn’t get its proper APHE, and its APCR and AP rounds are under performing.
The recent trend for vehicles moving up has been to buff their reload or add additional APHE rounds. The T32 and T32E1 should get buffs.
1 Like
Was it really the T32E1 at 7.0 or was it the standard T32? The E1 model at 7.0 or even 7.3 would be op and tbh they and Conqueror need this buff the least. Don’t get me wrong they still need it but the other 7.7s are a lot worse.
I never challenged the math however that doesn’t change how the round feels in a live game.
The T32 was at 7.0 and the T32E1 was introduced at 7.0. They both went to 7.3, then the E1 went to 7.7.
7.0 for T32 and 7.3 for T32E1 would be more than fair considering how terrible their reload rates are, especially since the long 90mm already struggles at 6.7 thanks to the reload rate.
And yes, there’s the “muh armor” complaint, but at 7.0 there’s still plenty of TD’s that can pen its turret front that it needs to worry about at its same BR or lower, and because its turret is flat on the sides APCR is still effective against it. Hell, anything that gets 90mm HEATFS can pen the mantlet and take out your breech.
I agree. Every nation has at least one vehicle in tree that can frontally penetrate a T32E1 in the 6.X BR range.
1 Like