Yes and an other source with 150mm LOS at 1500m
The round doesn’t seem to overperform
at close ranges, it overperforms by about 10mm… it certainly isnt underperforming
it is in fact slightly underperforming but not by very much
idk why you say it’s over performing at close range but the only value we have to estimate that is 140 mm of equivalent protection pierced at 1500 m ( a 70 mm thick plate with a 60 ° angle ) wich seems almost correct in game
Not true, we have a CTAI graph for example.
really ? do you mind sending it ?
hmmm dont take it badly but that dont really look like an official graph to me …
why do you think that? it’s just getting on 20 years old…
and if it indeed is then the shell is underperforming at close range
i mean age dont really matter but where you ( or somebody else ) found it ?
how do you figure that?
By just reading the graph ???
0 meter = 175 mm of pen
in game 0 m = 160
the angle is 60 degrees. as demonstrated by the photo.
Thus 175mm presented, we have 184mm in game at 0m.
150mm presented, we have 152mm in game at 1500m.
but are the numbers showing thickness equivalent or real thickness
?
LOS thickness, we can guage that because the photo says 150mm at 1500m, which lines up exactly with the graph.
i kinda see what you did there idk if you can really just double all the value like that without taking any other parametres in count … but yes seing like that it does " overperform "
Thats how penetration at 60 degrees works, the armour is twice as thick due to the angle. (coming from a divide by cos(theta) term, which in this case = 0.5.
also that graph is from the 2000 's right ? dont you think both the gun and the shell got improved with the time ??
well yes armor wise but what about the projectile not all projectile are affected the same by angles