D-25T performance

[bierutreal]

The performance of the D-25T in game, although not the absolute worst, is not only unbalanced, but also inaccurate to real life.

1. Historical Accuracy

For reference, according to historical documents featured on the Tank Archives webpage, the BR-471 could penetrate:

-The armor of the upper front plate of a Panther tank at 2000 meters,

-The armor of the upper front plate of a Tiger II at 200 meters, although one document states as much as 600,

-The armor of the front of the turret of the Tiger II at 1100 meters

This is the Tiger II tank after penetration trials.
I am not sure the image paste will work, but as you may be able to see, it is the production variant, H variant in game.

2. Game balance

Between the IS-2 (1944) and the Tiger II (H), both at 6.7, there currently exists a degree of imbalance.

Let us compare the performance of their guns against the opponent’s armor.

The IS-2’s gun can penetrate the Tiger, at a combat distance of ~100 meters, at:

• The front of the turret

• The machine gun ball

• The lower front plate (which only takes out the transmission)

The Tiger’s gun can penetrate the IS-2, at a similar range, at:

• The front of the turret

• The cupola

• The lower front plate

• The driver’s optics (though this shot is unreliable)

It should also be noted the Tiger’s gun has over 2 times the reload speed.

3. A possible solution

I have made, through the use of the aforementioned documents, and an online penetration calculator, a possible new penetration table for the BR-471D shell (it’s the only one I had a good screenshot of).

It presents as such:

(Note that the BR-471D shell was an experimental improved variant, with greater performance than the BR-471 shell).

As you may see, the improvement in angle performance and flat penetration would allow it to match the gun’s performance in real life.

4. Issues

Such good performance of the gun could possibly cause a battle rating change. However, this appears as almost a non-issue, since this would still make the tank more accurate to real life.

If its performance, considering the higher tier, may decrease, one may also decrease the reload time, from over 20 seconds at an Ace level to about 16.5.

[Henge11220]

Against the upper glacis, the D-25T could manage a “partial penetration” (penetration by western definition) where the shell damages the back of the plate. This is because the target had armor hardness around 200 bhn, which drastically reduced it’s resistance.

BR-471D is APCBC, based on trials with real shooting against medium hardness, using the 2-09519 projectile, the penetration of a 200mm plate at the normal is achieved at 760-840 m/s. So 230 with low hardness armor is correct.

The reload is incorrect, but Western fans categorically cannot accept the facts or evidence. Ironically, the IS-2, and T-34 85, make use of a bustle rack scheme like the Abrams, but Western fans can only accept this fact for the Abrams.
In reality the correction is to improve reload to 4-6 rpm. On average (not the maximum) the rate of fire is 4 RPM stationary, from the IS-2. When shooting from the short stop it is 2-3 RPM (like ingame).
There is of course the small detail that this is for shooting a target 1.5 kilometers away.

[bierutreal]

Thank you for the reply.

I presume you’re right about at least most of the penetration statistics, as well as the reload rate ones.

I do have to say that, although I may have overestimated the penetrating power of the D-25T, I have some additional information about, at the very least, its angle performance, aswell as some followup questions.

1. The pen on the King Tiger UFP was a full penetration, however a partial penetration did occur at a range of 300 meters, both by the D-25T and the Tiger II’s own gun.

2. According to trials conducted in 1946, the front of the Tiger II turret was penetrated

• By a Tiger II’s gun at 400 meters

• By the IS-2s gun at 1100 meters, as stated in my original post

3. In the same 1946 trials, the D-25T was able to penetrate the upper front hull of the IS-3 at 200 meters, and the Tiger II’s gun was able to penetrate the lower front hull (the weaker of the two) at 300 meters.
   The Tiger II’s gun could not penetrate the UFP of an IS-3 at all, even when hitting the weld between the two upper frontal plates.

Having stated that, I am sure your source is equally as credible, and I would love to see the source itself.

Now, time for my follow-up questions.

1. Would you say an armor hardness mechanic could be implemented into the game with positive effect, judging by how it would affect german vehicles from late WW2?

2. Referring to especially the penetration trials against the IS-3, would you still be convinced that the angle performance of the gun should be improved?

3. Do you believe it could be possible to make reloading faster while not moving?

Thank you for taking your time to read the post.

[Henge11220]

The German armor is medium hardness, which benefits ballistic resistance.
In real life, 2 pdr and 20-K couldn’t pierce the frontal armor of Pz III (50mm) from point blank range.

If it says PTP in the definition then it is partial, tank archives is not very technical and often states penetration, when it is partial.

The angle performance of 2-09519 is enough to pierce a 90mm plate at 60 degrees for 625-775 m/s (partial to base through) which is somewhere around 800-1,000 meters.
For 625 it would be 1100m by velocity, no angle of fall.

This is in line with T-34 85 BR-365 performance which can pierce 63.5@45 for range 1700m iirc

This is for; RGAE 8734-8-125

[Henge11220]

2-09519 is the sharp tipped AP shell, so the stock shell should pierce about 220mm points blank.

[Sakura_520]

The problem with D25T obviously lies in the loading time rather than the depth of penetration of the shell. Gaijin is actually very sensitive to the depth of penetration of the shell, and 119mm 60 ° is obviously not in line with the existing game balance. You should know that currently, the 130mm shell of 279 in the game can only penetrate 120mm 60 °. D25T cannot be so close to M-65, and in War Thunder, the depth of penetration of the shell is calculated and processed by a unified formula. I don’t know if D25T performs better in reality, but in War Thunder, you cannot guarantee that everything is modified based on reality )

[Viper-team-45]

So question whats your take on the IS-3 and IS-4M only having 230mm of pen at 7.7 and 7.3? Meanwhile the T34 has 283mm and the tiger 2 has 237mm keep in mind both of these tanks are at a whole 1.0 BR below the IS-4M and being 0.6 BR below the IS-3

[PercussionCap]

@bierutreal

-The armor of the upper front plate of a Tiger II at 200 meters, although one document states as much as 600,

-The armor of the front of the turret of the Tiger II at 1100 meters

This is the Tiger II tank after penetration trials.

Yeah no wonder it penetrated, there’s more cracks and missing chunks than actual tank left.

[SoldatNr444]

Every time I see this picture I can only roll my eyes. This is a tiger ii after the soviets fired several hundred rounds at the front armour. It’s clear that at some point the armour was so weakened that the 122mm got through.

[Henge11220]

In my opinion, they should just have their real life reload.

IS-2, IS-3, IS-4, IS-5
KV-85, T-34 85, IS-1

These tanks have an excellent ready ammunition layout to improve their rate of fire. The issue isn’t penetration but that somehow they reload slower (+33%) than a Conqueror.
In real life, it takes about 9,5s to reload a shell in the IS-3, which is pretty reasonable. But War Thunder doesn’t use these reloads except to buff CW NATO

As an intermediate solution, 15s (the full cycle, including aiming, tossing out casing is 16.5s) or slightly faster is pretty reasonable.
On T-34 85 it takes under 7s (on average) to aim and fire at a single target for a 10 round rep.

The average ROF is 7.5, the peak is 9.2-10 (Panther is 7.5).

[Henge11220]

Several hundred?
Also didn’t you read?

What happened is the shell made a dent, it passed the safety limit at so an so distance. It won’t pierce this armor.

It is true the armor quality wasn’t great, especially for a Soviet audience, but at least it wasn’t as bad as American tanks with their low alloy steel armor.

The Soviets aren’t a great perspective on spalling because they use nearly twice as much nickel as the Germans per a given thickness.
In reality, British and US armor had serious issues with spalling because of their low hardenability (low alloy armor). So the first time they tested US armor in the cold, in 1943, most of the armor spalled badly even in fairly mild impacts. Not even close to what they subjected T-34’s armor to in 1939.

T-34’s armor can get away with it’s hardness because it’s insanely high spec.

[Alpakinator]

These claims about armor quality of allies and soviets are stated by you as if they’re common knowledge. But they’re not. So please provide historical primary sources. I’m genuinely curious.

[Alpakinator]

Unfortunately, suggesting penetration changes in War Thunder is almost pointless, because Gaijin seems adamant about maintaining their approach to purely calculating penetration based on velocity, mass, caliber, type of shell, drag and HE filler. That’s why many guns have more pen than they had IRL and some less.

Their formulas don’t account for shell metallurgy, tip shape and more, only for general shell type like AP, APC, APBC (sharp tipped), APBC(soviet blunt tipped), APCBC. Would be cool if they figured out a formula including actual metalurgic data and tip geometry.

Also you didn’t provide any sources. This picture is not a source without full primary source document and/or link.

[Max_Damage]

In 1946 trials d25t performed better than pak43 in all aspects when tested in parallel. https://youtu.be/FScZLjCNYc8?si=W96e4c6fwxKwxJOM

In game the pemetration model and formula doesnt reflect this and it penetrates worse.

Additionally, d25 has greatly nerfed reload rate in game.

Finally, volumetric armor and ammo model means that you can’t hit weakspots with large caliber ammo because it gets caught on something else before reaching said weakspot. Which results in tiger 1 casually shrugging off 122mm with driver ports, volumetric mantlet and machineguns.

So i kinda don’t worry about it anymore it’s broken on so many levels it can’t ve fixed

There simply should be a condition

If hit by 122
Rip

With the exception of things like tiger2.

Range less than 200m
Rip

Range between 200 and 600
Yellow crew and modules

Else
Bounce

[KillaKiwi]

@Henge11220

In real life, it takes about 9,5s to reload a shell in the IS-3, which is pretty reasonable. But War Thunder doesn’t use these reloads except to buff CW NATO

Yeah only in Soviet Russias dreams.

There was a video about a T-54 firing in like 8s, most likely modern ammunition that doesn’t weigh 30kg.
So how the heck would you reload a 25kg shell and then a 16-20kg propellant cartridge in just 9.5s inside one of the most cramped turrets of all time?

[Max_Damage]

Historically Accurate Panzer '46: IS-3 in 1945

15 sec for is3
8-14 for kt. Kt turret sacks a little bit and the amno is long and cumbersome.

[KillaKiwi]

@Max__Damage

In 1946 trials d25t performed better than pak43 in all aspects when tested in parallel. https://youtu.be/FScZLjCNYc8?si=W96e4c6fwxKwxJOM

In game the pemetration model and formula doesnt reflect this and it penetrates worse.

You are comparing apples to oranges.

The 122mm in-game firing APBC has better sloped armor penetration than the German 88mm APC round.
Because WT doesn’t make any difference between AP and blunt nosed APBC, APBC is simply superior in both ballistics and sloped armor penetration.

In WT the 88mm can penetrate the Panthers UFP up to 1300m while the 122mm APBC can penetrate up to 3000m, potentialy even 3100m.

Spoiler

The 122mm is superior when it comes to defeating most armor plates.

[Henge11220]

Have you tried quantifying anything you say… Ever?
If tank design was still stuck in the neolithic era like the Tiger, sure, you’d need an 1800mm turret ring to fit an 88. Fortunately we have moved on from turret designs more backwards than a Panzer IV.

Since you’re a primitive I’ll illustrate with diagrams.

In reality the badly designed Tiger turret has more in common with designs of the early 1930s. It wasted a huge amount of space with it’s widely spaced recoil mechanism.

In reality, compact turrets like on T-34 and Panzer IV are possible because they have a better arrangement of parts.

A well supported 76 field gun, ie Su-76 can be loaded and fired in under 3 seconds. Considering time to cycle that’s about 2s to load the round.

[Henge11220]

Yeah the 88 can’t pierce this target point blank in real life. Maybe with improved rounds it can barely do it at close range.

[Henge11220]

RGAE folders 8752 and 8734, Domestic Armor by Watertown arsenal, metallurgical investigation into German tanks, etc
Trials on Tiger II (incl metallurgical part)