The IS-2-44 originally lost that shell, when shell selection was determined by historical use and not balance. Which is also why the T-44 and 54 have access to all those shells. They were added when vehicles were given their full historical shell load out.
1 Like
My point is the M26 should get its historical shell load out, same as those tanks.
1 Like
No they didn’t and it doesn’t need to be modified. It works just fine.
Shell load outs are determined by balance now not historical use.
No, it does not work just fine.
2 Likes
Then why didn’t the IS-2 44 lose the BR-471 and BR-471B to gain the BR-471D? Balance is supposed to be treating the tanks as equally as possible. That is not the case with how Gaijin handles the 90mm.
Why would they, those are completely different rounds, the M82 was just switched to latter version with more pen.
Early version had 199g filler = overpressure.
4 Likes
The early version is the one we previously had.
And it was wrong modeled
5 Likes
No it isn’t.
There are two M82 rounds, fired at four velocities. One M82 had .44 lbs of explosive D filler. The other had .31 lbs of explosive D filler. They were fired at 2670 fps, 2800 fps, 2850 fps and 3200 fps.
2670 fps was the initial muzzle velocity, with the plan to increase it. 2850 fps was rejected due to barrel wear from the M2 powder. 2800 fps was adopted and labeled M82 SC, for super charged. 3200 fps was the velocity for the T15 90mm.
1 Like
M82 has been upgraded for the aforementioned tanks. We have no plans to issue multiple M82 shells to those tanks. There simply is no need.
They have a superior shell now.
2 Likes
They have modified it though.
Gaijin has taken a De Marre formula that works via comparison between rounds and modified it to work using a single made up projectile as a basis for the penetration of every single AP round.
Context
This is the calculator on the wiki for AP rounds.
function gun_go() {
var kfbr = 1900;
var caliber = Number(document.getElementById('gun_caliber').value);
var mass = Number(document.getElementById('gun_mass').value);
var speed = Number(document.getElementById('gun_speed').value);
var tnt = Number(document.getElementById('gun_tnt').value);
var apcbc = document.getElementById('gun_APCBC').checked;
tnt = (tnt / mass) * 100;
var kf_apcbc = (apcbc) ? 1 : 0.9;
if (tnt < 0.65) {
knap = 1;
} else if (tnt < 1.6) {
knap = 1 + (tnt - 0.65) * (0.93 - 1) / (1.6 - 0.65);
} else if (tnt < 2) {
knap = 0.93 + (tnt - 1.6) * (0.9 - 0.93) / (2 - 1.6);
} else if (tnt < 3) {
knap = 0.9 + (tnt - 2) * (0.85 - 0.9) / (3 - 2);
} else if (tnt < 4) {
knap = 0.85 + (tnt - 3) * (0.75 - 0.85) / (4 - 3);
} else {
knap = 0.75;
}
document.getElementById('gun_rezult').value = (((Math.pow(\nspeed, 1.43) * Math.pow(mass, 0.71)) / (Math.pow(kfbr, 1.43) * Math.pow(caliber / 100, 1.07))) * 100 * knap * kf_apcbc).toFixed(2);
}
Effectively, it is this:
Speed is in m/s, weight is in kg, caliber in mm, “explosive penalty” is the knap value which depends on the explosive filler weight to projectile weight ratio, and “apcbc or not” is a multiplier that is either 1 or 0.9 depending on if the APCBC check box is marked or not.
And this is the formula that Gaijin has modified to obtain the aforementioned one that is currently used, which comes from “WWII Ballistics and Gunnery”:
Which, to make it more readable, is this:
Where values that start with ‘r’ are the reference values with which you would use a round with known penetration, diameter, weight and speed, to then estimate the penetration of a similar round where only the penetration is unknown.
The exponents have been rounded, some values are assumed, some have been switched. On top of that Gaijin has added a “k” value and other stuff like the APCBC and explosive filler modifiers, which are necessary in Gaijin’s case because of the fact that their calculator doesn’t use comparison between rounds to obtain penetration values.
3 Likes
I disagree. Theres a good reason - fun. Unelss the devs don’t want us to have some lol
I would (and many others) happily exchange a few useless mm of pen for the possibility of having a charge that overpressures tanks, that is +170g of tnt.
And thats the main deal.
1 Like
But overpressure, i want to kill panthers into LFP with pressure of 200gramm of ammonia expoding
And if to follow the same logic the Tiger 1 would lose its Pzgr. round, which would’ve been a disaster.
APHE rounds that are able to overpressure are a huge deal!
1 Like
I am of the firm belief that overpressure should just be removed from AP rounds. I am fine with HE rounds
having overpressure, but APHE rounds having overpressure just means that a lot more BS happens.
I’d also be happy if overpressure could be changed so 500+ gram TNTe is required in an APHE round for Gaijin to activate it.
4 Likes
With each passing year the game disappoints me more, it seemed correct that for historical reasons they removed the BR-471D from the IS-2 1944, since that minition is from post-war, but now they have put it back because they are modifying the Br of the tanks, leaving them as a disaster and throwing away all the realism that we could have. Gaijin should give the tanks the bullets that they historically used and then balance in this regard, for example in reality both the 100mm and 122mm cannons In WW2 they did not use their B versions of bullets, they used the BR-412 and -BR-471, since the BR-412B is post-war, and the BR-471B was only in tests during WW2 and was not used in combat. Afterwards, of the three T-54s in the game, the one from 1947 and 1949 should use the BR-412B as the best bullet, and the one from 1951 would be the BR-412D, so to fill in it would have to have been put the T-54A with the HEAT-FS in Br 8.0, the T-55A removes the APDS-FS and adds a 1980 T-55 with the APDS-FS.
But apparently gaijin has left aside focusing on the historical to continue with the badly done Br using data that who knows where they get it from to change it.
1 Like