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.
again no:
still no proof provided from you.
Are you saying Lanz-Odermatt doesnt calculate the LOS thickness of armour perforated?
The problem with your argument is that his method works. He used an APFSDS angle modifier which can be inferred from the L-O calculator, fx; DM53 - > 802mm at LoS 60 per the calculator will do 686mm at an angle of 0. From that we get this modifier: 1.16909620991
The same applies in reverse; 175mm LoS 60 - > 0.85536159601 - > 149.7mm (~150mm).
This is universal and every APFSDS when being calculated from 60 deg to 0 deg (or vice versa) will give you this.
1 Like
The penetration performance i said is literally primary sourced data which is then calculated to give 0 degree values too…
that is exactly what i’m saying.
I would love screenshots of the calculator that gives you 2x values.
well yes, using a modifier for penetration. you cant use straight LOS. and straight LOS isn’t represented in game either.
Edit:
the photo you posted even states it used DeMarr formula whilst Gaijin uses the Odermatt for APFSDS
@FurinaBestArchon
To get a modifier absolutely.
But the straight LOS number isn’t represented/shown/used in game. And that is what so many people get wrong.
Then you’re arguing a completely different issue of LoS perforation simply not being used by the game to calculate whether the projectile can or can not defeat an armour plate (I don’t think many people even really care about this, seeing as LoS performance is only ever brought up when discussing the performance of X projectile, or when there’s an argument about the protection of Soviet/Russian tanks).
Another thing, his using of cos(60) to show performance at LoS isn’t inherently wrong (in case that has been also one of the point you’ve been arguing), Gaijin does that as well on projectile statcards.
Other than that, there’s nothing wrong with how he has performed his calculations. In the absence of actual projectile dimensions, all he did was apply the universal modifier to get flat performance of the KEP and presented it in a digestable way.
he stated:
in my opinion it is inherently wrong. the round never actually goes through that amount of material.
they don’t? no numbers on any stat card for APFSDS are 2x for 0 vs 60 degrees.
well sure, but digestible isn’t necessarily accurate nor the numbers that would be used in game.
I did, because LOS cos 60 is the plate thickness which is given in game…