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
I’m curious about that myself. But it’s difficult at best to find any information on that round since it wasn’t really a widely used round.
Not really, that’s why the US eventually moved to the later APDS models in the late 50s and 60s. Even then they were still also developing apfsfs to try and replace it.
My 5900x is pretty stout when it comes to doing that too.
Edit: I’ve made a comparison of values that result from this chart and the 50% limit:
Based off your spreadsheet, what plate hardness matches the TBV3 charts?
How should I know? The original chart says “220-300 BHN plate” and that’s all the information we get.
The chart follows a natural hardness to thickness curve. Which means the thicker the armor, the lower the hardness. Tbdv3 from what I can tell, seems to be mostly 220bhn protection criteria for the hvap rounds.
Just to be on the safe side, I’ve collected some data from ammunition collectors on the exact average diameter of the core for 90mm HVAP round, to be sure the value found in the Swiss doc is not a fluke.
“Just picked up this tungsten core today. Weight is 8.0 lbs (3.636 KG), it is 6.7” (170.8mm) long and is 1.892" (48.05mm) in diameter. The info on the base is pictured."
"Weight 3.6kg, diameter 48mm, total length 167mm, length of cylindrical part 123mm, density about 15 point something, so probably tungsten carbide. "
“…my best guess is its the core from one of these 90mm rounds.
The core on mine is 48mm wide, 170mm long and weighs 3637g.”
“This object is 6.75 inches long, 47.8 mm in diameter and, get this, weighs 8 pounds! It is one of the heaviest objects for its size that I have ever lifted.”
“the core is 170mm long and 47.8mm diameter.
It weighs 3642g”
1 Like
However, notice the difference in the definition for a complete penetration
Good lord that’s a lot of variability between cores… Granted a military archive document is more likely to work with the devs as what is intended for the rounds production, than from random production and metal density variances.
2 Likes
In other words, TBDv3 is basically using protection criterion, instead of navy?
So the charts could be navy or they could be protection but they match charts that are stated to be navy?