Probably Gaijin didn’t want to screw up the US rounds which have some detailed documentations.
So instead of fixing their calculator, they created fake shell values :3
1 Like
But then you have stuff like M93 which do have correct core weight and diameter and end up being basically useless, as you can’t even go through a Tiger II (H) turret face reliably with it, even at point blank.
M93 vs Tiger II (H)
And this value is backed up by my own testing against the Tiger II (H) in the test drive (all non-pens).
Basically your only chance is to shoot a weak spot like the gunner sight… and at that point you can also just continue to use M62 APCBC and aim for the lower half of the cupola, which is a shot that’s about just as difficult to pull off, but at least you won’t have to switch rounds to do.
And that’s not to mention tanks like the Ferdinand which are actually entirely immune to the M93 APCR even though they shouldn’t be.
Gaijin uses a ratio of core weight and carrier weight for their APCR calculator. It seems to boost rounds with small core to carrier ratios and nerf rounds with bigger core to carrier ratios.
According to this
105mm L28A1 APDS
245mm @ 2000m (0 Degrees) - 1294m/s
110mm @ 2000m (60 Degreee)
The Swedish claim this for 105mm L28A1
200mm @ 1820m at 30 degrees
110mm @ 1820m at 60 degrees
76mm @ 1190m at 70 degrees
105mm L28A1 velocity
1478m/s Muzzle
1294m/s 2000m
2 Likes
Now that I’ve modeled M304 to the Dimensions in the Swiss diagram… In order to meet the official mass of 8.05 lbs or 3.65kg, the density of the US Tungsten Carbide with Cobalt Binder is 14,025kg/m^3. This is very feasible due to the fact that the US version of Tungsten Carbide used up to ~15% Cobalt binder. Whereas the Germans were only using up to 3% Nickel binder. I still need to see what the density of the Soviet Tungsten Carbide with Nickel binder is. I suppose I could look at a couple of documents on their captured APCR rounds and see what the alloy percentages are to get a guestimate.
The Swiss diagram is a little thinner but longer than the scale M304 I found. I wonder how that would impact performance overall.
Basically the opposite, US HVAP underperforms the most of what’s in game. In some rounds it’s by 100mm even…
True but they never had that much performance to begin with.
Before the calculated values were implemented they had 10-20% more pen.
APCR should be the superior round vs AP, especially with US APCR with huge tungsten penetrators.
The issue with these documents is the use of softer armor, usually in the 220 BHN range and army penetration criterion. The game normalizes to 240 BHN, if I remember right, and used navy penetration criterion. The harder armor and tighter standards would show reduced penetration compared to these charts but not as much as the game.
Depends, I believe a fair amount of them actually use protection criterion. However, using peasant’s calculator sheet, normalized to 220bhn m304 is still coming up at around 290mm at muzzle velocity. I can link his sheet when I get home Monday, unless @Peasant_wb feels like doing it his self. I downloaded it so I’ve just been using it offline. I have one version saved as the original, and one that I can normalize the bhn to a certain value by just changing the first bhn field.
Once I get m332 modeled, I’m tempted to run a couple simulations comparing m304 and m332 at the same velocity, against the same target, to see if there is any penetration difference. I also want to get the 20pdr APDS modeled as well as m331. Also considering modeling the t137e1 mod 3 round, and that other 90/54mm round to see if they both used the higher density 14,300-400kg/m^3 carbide.
2 Likes
It would be very interesting to see the results from those tests. Simulations are perhaps the best tool to we can currently use to actually decide what matters and wouldn’t matter for the penetration of these rounds.
1 Like
That’s interesting. Not saying I disagree but the TBV3 charts are navy criteria and they put M93 at ~9.6” and M304 at ~12.4”. Must have been some soft plate for that result.
I wonder to what extent the devs are even aware that their calculator doesn’t work. There’s been bug reports since it was added but you have to wonder if those ever even make it up the chain of command. I can’t see why they’d willingly leave it in this state, since it only serves to make US mid tiers more of a balance nightmare.
Has anyone in this thread filed a report since the switch to the new forum?
1 Like
The calculator was never intended to give accurate results. It was intended to eliminate the workload of adding new rounds. Instead of having to figure out the real performance, they just throw in a few variables and use whatever it spits out.
2 Likes
Even then Gaijin ‘figuring out’ the performance of rounds was a complete mess most of the time. Combining the worst parts of the Early and Late M82 shell into one and the pure stubborness of modelling the T33 shell wrong despite mountains of info.
The M103 was the biggest victim of Gaijins questionable research into ammunition. A heavy tank hunter, with a monsterous AP round that actually cant penetrate a King Tiger.
Then came the calculator and it addressed none of the problems.
2 Likes
M358 was more of an issue with conflicting references on vertical penetration, combined with ww2bag ap slope modifiers.
However, let’s try to stay on topic, I’d rather not see my thread get locked.
2 Likes
Agreed, apologies for the derail.
Though i do have a question if later HVAP/APCR were able to address the lack luster sloped performance. I know its not one of its not one of its strengths but its not something I’ve heard about much.
From my understanding, pretty much all HVAP/APCR had poor “slope modifiers”. However, they overcompensated for this by just having much higher flat penetration than when compared to the normal AP rounds for their respective cannons, so even with poorer “slope modifiers”, the penetration as a whole was still higher even against sloped armor.
1 Like
I have a question, was the APCR of the Soviet 100mm gun really that bad? Because it has less penetration than the APCBC, and it seems strange to me.
If you need some computation power. My PC is probably better at running mathematicall simulations than playing games xD