152mm - 0° - 0m
87.5mm - 60° - 0m
130mm - 0° - 1500m
75mm - 60° - 1500m
CTA 40mm APFSDS penetration
87.5 x 2 > 152
…but that image shows 150 at 60… tho
yes, thats LOS…
the actual plate is 75mm thick, angles at 60 degrees giving a LOS thickness of 150mm which the apfsds penetrated
you can’t just do cos 60 degrees to get the thickness of penetration this way.
I gave a tldr about this here:
I’m only applying standard precedures for apfsds rounds to get penetration values at 0 and 60 degrees.
that isn’t a standard used by Gaijin or anyone within the field of ballistics.
Gaijin uses the Odermatt formula (https://www.longrods.ch/perfcalc.php)
It absolutely is?
Catagorically it has penetrated an 87.5mm plate at 60 degrees, and yes the reason why it defeats more armour at angles is because it doesnt follow the LOS, hence 152mm LOS at 0 degrees vs 175mm LOS at 60 degrees, this is standard for all apfsds rounds in game and real life.
what? no? in what table of any APFSDS do you find straight 2x values at 0 compared to 60 degrees?
Then by definition it hasn’t defeated the LOS amount of armor at 60 degrees, it has defeated the amount that it actually went through during its path (referring back to my images in the previously linked post). Meaning that it can’t penetrate the inflated 2x number (or 1/2 if going backwards) in pure penetration at LOS no matter how you put it. Its always going to result in a lower number of armor thickness that it actually can penetrate than the calculated cos60 one.
Here is the post by them when they changed to the new formula.
Here is their Q&A.
Here is even more Q&A.
which is irrelevant? frankly if your building ammunition you care about how much armour it can defeat, not how much it can travel through.
Oh but it can? In game the cos60 value is used, this is also the same in penetration tests where LOS thickness and angle is given.
exactly, so the LOS cos60 is a meaningless number as that isn’t the path the round is taking. its also not the number represented in game.
The number shown in game is the thickness of the armor it can go through, not the LOS number.
i can find no instances anywhere where the cos60 value is represented, presented or used in game. feel free to provide proof to tell me otherwise. I have linked several sources that say you are wrong.
It is the number presented in game, and it’s not meaningless because it tells you exactly how much armour at a given angle is needed to stop the round.
They are the same thing? 87.5mm of armour at 60 degrees, which is a LOS of 175mm.
What exactly do you have an issue with here?
it literally isn’t…
did you even look at the links i sent?
they are the result of calculation in either direction. but BOTH numbers are NOT represented in game. Only the armor thickness the round can defeat is written out on the stat cards and the LOS number isn’t what the round penetrated or even a number used when calculating the penetration.
Again, look at the links i sent, they literally state what formulas are used.
the usage of the LOS number. it doesn’t exist in game, it isn’t accurate and misleads players/users as to the actual performance of a round.
stating things isn’t proof either, if you have any sort of actual proof of the LOS cos60 number being used ANYWHERE within the game then I’ll be more than happy to be proven wrong.
COMPARED TO THE OLD CALCULATOR
It is exactly what is calculated when calculating perforation
I would like to point that none of the values i gave are LOS, what is LOS is the 150mm at 1500m quoted by CTAI as you can see in the graph.