The issue with Gaijin is that their entire premise of disregarding the report is flawed.
Smin pretty much came back to the forum (probably dreading the result) and told us that ‘the devs tested firing the in-game L27 at the in-game T-80U with K5 and it didn’t pen’.
Well dur! That’s what the bug report was trying to resolve…
With this kind of myopic circular logic - is it any wonder that CR2 doesn’t get fixed?
Vibe coding L27 vs Brain coding K5
If CR2 get fixed then these spreadsheet nerds gonna flock to UK asap … gonna play by the META or else I can’t win :D
“Murr, dokument was very vague about wording” → they think official military gonna test firing at the tank like a 5 years old and lying the test result like a 5 years old :D
Meanwhile, “Murr, Кomяadє, тнє КН38МТ ѕєєкєя іѕ νєяу яєаl, нєяє іѕ тнє ніgн qυаlіту рнотo оf іт іп яєаlіfє.”
Most sketchy photo I’ve ever saw.
No. They fired L27 at the T-80U withOUT K5 and it didn’t pen. Clearly because it couldn’t pen the T-80 without ERA that means it can’t pen it with ERA. And because Gaijin is never wrong the T-80 and L27 are performing to real life specs which means SRL is wrong and definitely not a primary source.
10.7 truly feels like the last BR that is actually broadly balanced across MBTs/light tanks/IFVs/SPAAs alongside fixed wing and rotary CAS.
Sure, there are a couple of exceptions, like the Tunguska being way better at intercepting munitions than any other SPAA at the BR, and full uptiers into the BMPTs being pretty gross, but compared to 12.7 with magical helicopter LDIRCM and MITL on every Mach 2.0 airframe, 10.7 is absolutely lovely.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I don’t need to prove anything
You yourself base your opinion on one vague phrase
I question the way you interpret this
I already showed you what the T-80U looks like in a game against the L-27
Honestly if the BMPT went up to 12.0 and the Pantsir went up to 12.3 then the non-existent 11.0 lineup would be very nice.
If all the bug reports got fixed then the Challenger Mk 3 and Vickers Mk 7 could easily be 11.0 and the Challenger 2 Prototype with L26 would fit in at 11.3
War Thunder =/= Real Life
If you can’t get your head round that you really need to broaden your reading material.
You can also add 2 + 2 and see that the penetration zone in WT is greater than 0.4.
This is despite the fact that the game doesn’t take into account all the specifics of dynamic armor. If they were taken into account, the game would have even more
I already realized that you latched onto one phrase and you have nothing else besides it. You don’t have to write anything else
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
And what does this probability actually mean? The probability that a shell will hit any point on the T-80U’s frontal profile and penetrate it? The probability that a shot aimed at a random spot will strike a point vulnerable to penetration? The chance that the tank will be destroyed by a single shell upon penetration?
We really ought to get Gajin to issue an official statement. Maybe some YouTubers could cover this, I don’t know but I’m afraid that these artificial nerfs will be staying with us for next three years or so.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/ojFgCJ6Jnos4
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/nzUoCC2yxJx5
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/qZAtZXFlUseB
Ah - another one - something of a conveyor belt of DOZOR folks appearing on the English forums isn’t there?
Break it down simply. SSPK
Single Shot Probability of Kill - in this case the figure given is at a range of 2000m. Usually given as a decimal figure such as 0.5.
This is the chance / likelihood of ONE ROUND achieving a KILL at a stated distance and from a certain arc. The direction of attack will usually be given such as ‘HO’ - Head On.
The clue is in the name of the term… it really isn’t hard.
SSPK can thus differ depending on range (e.g. greater SSPK at shorter ranges) or even due to mean accuracy of a shell. Hence why it is given as a probability.
A little bit of critical thinking here would answer your question. After all, PK (probability of kill) is not unique to tanks. Missiles are not for example, given a PK based on how much volume of their target they can actually hit successfully…
How is this chance calculated? Do they take 100 shots, where half penetrate and half don’t?
The maths would be as follows.
A combination of whether they hit and whether they kill the target. After all - you can have a round that kills ANY target every time - but if it never hits it then you still have a SSPK of 0.
This why the crude attempt to say ‘0.5 means only 50% of the T-80U is vulnerable’ is completely flawed.
This is typical nonsense maths that LLMs love to spit out. You’ve asked it how the probability of a kill is calculated, but in order to calculate the probability of the kill, all it is doing is multiplying the probability of a hit by the probability of a kill, so you are no closer to actually determining the probability of a kill in the first place, because already knowing the probability of a kill is a pre-requisite to this equation functioning.
It’s absolutely meaningless.
(PDF) Damage accumulation and probability of kill for gun and target engagements
Feel free to read up - the maths is all open source. I just used the search result to illustrate how the final figure is not solely a function of the % of a vehicle’s surface area that is vulnerable to X or Y munition.
Agree?
I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with anything - I can say with certainty that you have not fully read and understood either of the two papers you have just sent though.
All I’m saying is your original Google AI search result screenshots saying X = Y * (X/Y) were absolute worthless drivel that proved nothing.
Right… you can tell I what I have read, what I have understood and indeed my level of expertise because…
I’m intrigued by your telepathic powers. Can you also tell me what I had for breakfast this morning? Do tell!
Item one is illustrating how PK is a function or result of several factors - NOT JUST how much of the target is visible or vulnerable. The basic principles apply to the argument on this thread.
Item two explains the different models that NATO use to assign PKs to different simulations. It also describes the methodology - look under ‘direct fire’ for specifics on AFVs.
Is the maths of probability of kill based on the likelihood of hitting and then the likelihood of destroying the target? Yes - in most models it is. So quibble with the precise mannerisms all you like - saying that a SSPK involves a function of probabilities of both hitting and killing is correct.
Unless you just see an AI search result and go bananas for it’s own sake. You appear to just want an argument for it’s own sake of having an argument - which is fine - everyone needs a hobby I suppose.
What is the hit chance for the L30?