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
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.