https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/1lcqmpd/246034_246043_part_2/
381 mm/50 Ansaldo-OTO Mod. 34 (Roma): Palla APCBC: KE penetration: 820.2 → 901.31 mm
Yippee!
10 Likes
Not sure why you guys are cheering. They reduced the armour all around on the Roma making it easier to kill it.
It’s just wrong armor got corrected so we can’t complain, and not much a big difference. At least AP penetration got what it deserved, so what we should focus is getting SAP penetration and reload time corrected.
3 Likes
For the reload rate they’re pretty adamant rejecting every possible source that states or implies that those guns had a faster reload than 45s.
For every new SAP they confirmed that a 0.55 multiplier will be applied ( we can see that on Roma and Vanguard).
The only one who has a 1.0 multiplier for its SAP is Soyuz and we already made them notice. (no answer for now)
Let’s just hope that’s not a “everyone is equal but someone is more equal than others” situation.
4 Likes
We can expect later live server change, as USS Arizona does since introduction(her original reload time was 50 seconds Ace)
Isn’t it 0.87?
2 Likes
Right now it looks like a full 1.0 multiplier if you use the de marre calculator that Gaijin gave us (Калькулятор расчёта бронепробития снарядов | War Thunder Wiki) with Soyuz shell:
If it was 0.87 it should go almost at 500mm pen at 2000m.
Right now it’s calculated as a full AP shell (don’t know if they changed it compared to a previous datamine).
1 Like
We’ll have to see whether it is SAP or SAPCBC on data files.
PenetrationK 0.87 applied on APCBC is more closer to ingame penetration than those picure you uploaded.
2 Likes
Yup, let’s hope the dataminers will give us some additional info about its coding. Whithout it we can’t say much.
3 Likes
Such as?
Soyuz’s SAP’s penetrationK
I don’t think there’s much more to it than what we already know. Also all naval AP and SAP shells are treated as capped afaik, so you should always tick the APCBC box. So 0.87 is the value used as of now for Soyuz.
I’m not exactly sure how we can go about reporting this one and Roma’s shells.
When people were reporting the incorrect penetrationK of the Palla shell, there were some historical documents attached, one of which was about a comparison between official penetration values and their DeMarre formula. But I think their formula is a bit different from the one WT uses.
There is also a document about the penetration data of the SAPCBC shell, but it’s starts at 19km.
I don’t have the entirety of those documents, bit I was going to suggest trying to match the SAPCBC penetration from them to the one in-game. However we can only get penetration values of up to 15km in game so I’m a bit at a loss.
There’s a collection of tables and curves for ballistics that I believe is used by the devs, but I’m not sure whether it includes Roma’s SAP shell. So I don’t know if we’ll be able to extract data from it.
2 Likes
0.87
Hi gszabi, can I ask you wht’s the actual Penetrationk multiplier on the Soyuz, Vanguard and Roma’s SAP shell and if all of them are coded as SAPCBC or the Soyuz one is coded as pure SAP?
Just to see if there are inconsistencies in their logic as the Soyuz SAPCBC seems to be way too powerful righ now for what they told us.
Thank you in advance
0.87 as I have said in literally the previous post.
0.4
0.55
All of them are SAPCBC.
3 Likes
Absolutely no russian bias.
2 Likes
As expected, thanks.
@Taffu92 We definitely needs to buff Roma’s SAPCBC penetrationK as it has less filler/weight ratio than Soyuz’s one. Ideal would be 0.87 for Roma’s and somewhat between 0.6 and 0.87 for Soyuz’s SAP, but I doubt later one will be achieved as developers wrote SAP as speciality on devblog.
2 Likes
Gee, I sure wonder which ship will have an easier stock grind because of its incredible SAP shell when other nations will be bashing their heads against a wall trying to do damage with HE/lackluster SAP shells.
But in all seriousness, stock AP shells for rank 4 and above is seriously overdue for naval.
5 Likes
Thank you :)
That’s quite the big multiplier for such a shell, I wonder what kind of sources are they using to prove it.
Looking at the firing tables about the 381mm gun the values of the SAP round get close to that 0.55 multiplyer.
Still, those tables are not 100% reliable as they were mostly theoretical and the calculation capabilities are now better thanks to new technology.
The main problem that I see is that they’re overblowing the performance of Soyuz guns in every aspect, shells included.
A possible report about the filler/weight ratio of the shell can be made but you need factual data not only about Soyuz and Roma but also Vanguard to create a correct evaluation of their performance based on that parameter. (or they’ll bounce you with the usual “not a but” response)
Unfortunately I only have info about the guns themselves, not the projectiles, apart of the usual internal view that you can find about the Granata Perforante.
I think @qwert96 can help you with this if he’s still around, he’s your best bet about naval shells and their construction as he helped me quite a lot too in the past.
Yup, considering that Yamato, Iowa and Bismark start with a meager 100mm pen HE shell the stock AP round is a must.
At that rank even AI spawn in heavy cruisers and BBs, you’re just a big pinata that can’t even earn some XP because you can’t do enough damage.
For those 3 ships I expect a minimum 20 battles of pure frustration as you not only don’t have a decent round, but you have to research it before getting parts and FPE (which is still full XP price in naval compared to ground), meaning you’re prone to the endless cycle of fires-repair-shoot every 60+ seconds due to how naval work righ now.
How do Iowa’s shells compare to real life? Would the Mark 8 Mod 8 improve anything if added?