2 Likes
Unlucky, he prolly had premium acc.
The A-10’s Anti-Tank ability was exhagerated for propaganda, however, a 2S38 should not be eating those rounds lol
1 Like
It’s Soviet fuel tanks vs. 30mm depleted uranium rounds that spall worse than some APCR shells.
It didn’t deal any damage inside the tank, so bad is the spalling.
So fuel tanks ate all the damage, while the other rounds didn’t damage anything because you need a direct hit.
You shot it head on from like what i guess is 1km away (and was a bit unlucky at the same time).
If you think there is something wrong with how a round is modeled in the game then feel free to report it with appropriate sources.
1 Like
The post-pen damage is just pathetic.
Compare that to 30mm APHE on Ground vehicles like the Falcon.
One 30mm APHE can kill a vehicle in one shot while you need at least 3-4 hits to kill the crew with 30mm HVAP.
And considering you need direct hits you need to fire like 10 times more HVAP than APHE to take out a vehicle.
Which again makes HVAP completely useless in WT since the penetration increase doesn’t mean anything when a round with less penetration can kill much more reliable as AP or APHE will cause the same amount of kills in the end.
I tell you, if the gun fired APHE, it would simply be better or at least as effective.
🤷🏻♂️
The round penetrated and flew 10cm by the drivers face and it didn’t cause any damage inside the vehicle.
The Falcon doesn’t have APHE rounds, it’s just the belt that is called that, i’m going to assume you mean the SAP-I rounds. At the same distance (i don’t know why you have set it to zero distance since a plane will never be that close, you’re lucky if your at 500m distance) they have about the same chance of penetrating the 2S38.
HVAP is a solid shot that spalls based on residual penetration once it’s gone through, SAP-I is a small grenade that explodes inside the tank after having penetrated. Of course they are going to be very different in effectiveness after penetration.
APHE and SAPI is practically the same thing.
It doesn’t make any difference in the game for how the shells deal damage.
Also I know that a planes own velocity is added to the velocity of the shell fired, thus the range setting protection analysis is nearly irrelevant other than when you fire at a target that has the same relative speed as your own plane.
Against ground targets this basically reduces the actual firing range, since your shell is flying faster than just the muzzle velocity.
I also don’t understand how that is relevant and why you bring it up.
The damage isn’t going to increase at range and I just showed how the round will penetrate a target and deal 0 damage to it because how little spalling it causes.
Everyone and their mother knows that the damage effect of APHE in WT is massively exaggerated and doesn’t follow the laws of physics.
Not to mention that killing crew is much more important in WT because other components can be repaired in seconds, making post pen damage much more important than armor penetration.
I don’t know what your trying to argue here.
HVAP is literally a worse vehicle killer than rounds with less penetration, while being more advanced and more expensive to produce than just AP or APHE.
A tank shouldn’t be able to fight after a 30mm HVAP embedded itself into a vehicles gun breech through the roof of the tank.
I actually didn’t know this, cool if that is actually true and taken into account by the game engine :)
I brought it up in connection to this:
So the more penetration the HVAP has left after penetration the more spall it creates and damage it does. So the distance (and apparently also plane speed) plays a large role in post pen damage for that round.
I’ve heard the same and also believe it to be true (but i haven’t researched it myself so i’m just going by what others have said), you’re free to create a suggestion for changing/improving it.
Agreed.
I would ask you the same, to me personally, comparing HVAP to shells with explosive filler isn’t really fair nor does it really prove anything. I’m a bit confused as to what you’re trying to convey about the HVAP shell and what part of my first statement you’re trying to argue against.
If you have any proof of the round being modeled incorrectly in WT you’re free to bug report it with sources.
There’s no point.
I can’t report that a crew shouldn’t be able to fix a broken breech or engine in 30s, can I?
Nations didn’t spent time and money to create HVAP to have them be worse in taking out ground vehicles than the AP rounds they were already using.
As long as WT doesn’t built their game mechanics around reality, real life performance doesn’t matter in a game.
No but that’s because that isn’t a statistic used in game, that’s just game convention numbers. Projectile data however is something reportable (if you have the numbers to back up the claim) as they are modeled after real world values.
This might be true but without proof it doesn’t matter.
They definitely try to, but it is still a game and it has it’s limitations on what is reasonable to do and calculate for every shot taken, compared to what is better to just have relative curves and values for.