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…
That is irrelevant, what is important is the thickness of armour that can be defeated.
absolutely correct. the number in game is the plate thickness it can go through.
but converting that plate thickness shown in game to an LOS number helps no one. unless comparing to an IRL penetration table showing LOS penetration performance using the same formula Gaijin uses.
and that is what i’m trying to say. so LOS is irrelevant. at least without any sort of modifiers or context to a formula. LOS as a stand-alone tells us nothing.
Huh?
The entire ride side is the LoS/60 performance after division by 2. I don’t recall ever saying that LoS 0 performance is mulitiplied or divided by 2 either.
in my opinion it is inherently wrong. the round never actually goes through that amount of material.
No it isn’t (in my opinion). All it does is present you with a number, whether it is relevant or not to how the game calculates armour vs projectile interaction is irrelevant. Ignoring how LoS 60 isn’t used by War Thunder, when it comes to perforation & LoS performance, that is exactly the amount of armour the round goes through, the entire point behind perforation is that you’re specifying how much material the round can realistically go through without completely eroding (i.e the perforation limit).
Another thing is how 2x is a simplification of the process, however I digress.
well sure, but digestible isn’t necessarily accurate nor the numbers that would be used in game.
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.
Kinda the keywords.
I think they way you are saying this is what confuses me.
because 377x2=754 and not 652. same way 652/2=326 and not 377.
STRAIGHT LOS isn’t used in game, there is a modifier/formula used as well, which is what i’ve been saying the entire time.
again, STRAIGHT LOS tells you nothing.
the amount of armor the round actually goes through isn’t equal to a straight LOS number.
Here i made a VERY dumbed down version of what i’m talking about:
the amount of angular deviation a round experiences (at 60 degrees angle of attack) varies from round to round so the straight LOS can be exactly the same for two rounds but one deviates more than the other making one of them perforate and the other not.
What’s so confusing about me saying that Gaijin also uses cos(60) to show divided LoS 60 performance on the statcard?
STRAIGHT LOS isn’t used in game, there is a modifier/formula used as well, which is what i’ve been saying the entire time.
Irrelevant to the point I have made. There isn’t a modifier/formula for “non-straight” LoS as far as I know too, however, if you do know of one, do share.
again, STRAIGHT LOS tells you nothing.
the amount of armor the round actually goes through isn’t equal to a straight LOS number.
In your specific example it had followed a straight path until it reached the backplate, where the magic that L-O can’t make up for happens (this is why the 2x simplification is a thing!).
If we’re to be completely fair, this is how it should be shown:
(This is an image taken from the L-O website btw.)
Your representation of it was, to put it bluntly, incorrect. The projectile does not and will not deviate that much if it’s to perforate. Then again, the sims themselves have the round impact at a completely flat trajectory, despite the fact it would’ve hit from a slightly elevated angle, so they themselves aren’t correct either.
However, what I believe to be the core of the issue is the semantic definition of what’s being argued here, no? The round in question still defeated 150mm/LoS 60, so regardless of whetver it had followed a straight LoS path or not is irrelevant, the end result is still that it perforated an armour plate that’s 150mm thick as an angle of 60, and it can be shown that way.
the way you phrase it. like, the semantics of it.
“Gaijin also uses cos(60) to show […]”
had they done that the 60 deg number on that card would have been the 652/2=326 number, which isn’t what is being shown. The 377 is what is being shown, which is the number after the angled performance is factored in.
“divided LoS 60 performance” is what is BOTH shown and calculated.
I think we are talking about the same thing, you are just wording it in such a way that makes it sound wrong.
This is the one Gaijin uses for APFSDS
The difference is larger than you make it out to be (of course depending on materials of both penetrator and armor).
Take the previously shown stat card as an example.
377x2=754 but on stat card its 652. that is 102mm material difference that it hasn’t gone through in a straight LOS. so the deviated amount must make up for that 102mm which is quite significant.
isn’t it “penetrate”? perforation is where it deviates the most, penetration is what is shown in the IRL images you posted where it deviates less as there is less material present to deviate the round.
somewhat yes, but still some technical stuff as well.
Semantically Gaijin doesn’t show LOS in game nor the cos(60) values of LOS. it shows the Odermatt calculated values using the formula provided above with the appropriate materials applied as modifiers (which is why you get the differences shown above).
Absolutely, but my issue is when people take the 60 degree value, multiply by 2 and claim that number as the one representing the amount of straight line armor the round can penetrate (not, as you much better put it: “defeated”) when it isn’t.
I also have an issue with people using that LOS number on its own when it just unnecessary math applied to make a number look bigger. it doesn’t help you compare to other rounds any better/easier and just introduces unnecessary math to numbers already calculated and presented in game that can be compared directly.
No, per the definition for APFSDS, penetration when the projectile burrows into the armour block without actually going through it (usually occurs when the projectile is too weak or it’s going against a semi-infinite RHA block). Perforation is when it actually goes through the entire finite armour block.
This is the one Gaijin uses for APFSDS
This is what the L-O uses, and per L-O, this is the result:
Odermatt & Lanz disregarded the angular deviation a KEP may experience because it in most cases isn’t high enough to affect the results as much as it had in your example (mostly cause it was striking a much more angled armour piece than LoS 60 that @Fireball_2020 was calculating results for, and still higher than what I showed in both of my examples).
had they done that the 60 deg number on that card would have been the 652/2=326
Why would they attempt to show LoS 60 performance for a flat angle? That goes against logic itself.
377x2=754 but on stat card its 652.
Because 652mm on the statcard is for LoS of 0 degrees, APFSDS will not normalize against plates that aren’t angled, they will continue going straight through it until they either completely erode (semi-infinite targets) or perforate (finite targets).
Ignore the estimates, it’s just to show how normalization does not accur at very shallow/flat angles:
Absolutely, but my issue is when people take the 60 degree value, multiply by 2 and claim that number as the one representing the amount of straight line armor the round can penetrate (not, as you much better put it: “defeated”) when it isn’t.
Sorry to be the one saying this, but you’re just pedantic. The way they’re going about this is absolutely fine, the deviation from the straight line is absolutely miniscule in most cases (hence why L-O completely ignores it) and mostly only occurs when the projectile has already traveled through most of the target. That particular sim you had chosen is about the only time I have seen it suffer from so much deviation, then again, the very high inclination of the armour and how short DM13 itself is may have played a part in it.
The difference is larger than you make it out to be (of course depending on materials of both penetrator and armor).
The difference still is not large enough for us to not use “straight LoS” performance in any case.
oh, i think you’re right here, i might have mixed up the terms (why in all hell use a word that literally means “to go through” to mean “not go through” … )
that is exactly where i got the formulas from:
https://www.longrods.ch/perfeq.php
Do you have a source for this?
in my hade this makes no sense as the formula i showed clearly has modifiers to the COS(angle).
exactly. so why calculate a number that is just a steppingstone in a larger formula used for the penetration values?
why would anyone on the forum calculate that number?
What could it possibly be useful for on its own?
exactly, this is why the LOS number by itself is completely useless. its a tool to get to an end. using it by itself with no further calculations as mean to show penetration capabilities is not correct.
then how come the differences become so large when using those numbers compared to the actual values in the stat cards in game if not an angular modifier?
it isn’t useful for anything other than further calculations. it will just confuse players/users who don’t know that there is more to it than that.
It’s MUCH more correct to use the values represented in game when comparing rounds to each other.
again, source on this?
i chose it to be exaggerating to easier show what i ment rather than as an example of a standard deviation. Which i also stated in that post.
why would we ever use that number when comparing capabilities? it isn’t useful for anything in game other than as a steppingstone. the already presented numbers on the stat cards are more than enough as they are.
It has cos angles because those are required for calculating the perforation channel length in line of sight at an angle…
Otherwise I see no indication that those are being used to somehow, someway, calculate the angular deviation the projectile experiences.
Their own image where it’s all laid out shows no deviation what’so’ever, it’s a straight LoS channel.
exactly. so why calculate a number that is just a steppingstone in a larger formula used for the penetration values?
why would anyone on the forum calculate that number?
Because… they want to?
exactly, this is why the LOS number by itself is completely useless.
But so is complaining about someone using it in a forum argument.
then how come the differences become so large when using those numbers compared to the actual values in the stat cards in game if not an angular modifier?
Where are you seeing this “difference”? Because the game doesn’t even really use LoS performance greater than 0 degrees to begin with, it’s hard for me to spot any discrapency.
why would we ever use that number when comparing capabilities?
Why would we ever play WT? Simple, because we wan-, no, because we’re suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.
and i showed you the underlying formulas from the exact same website (that Gaijin uses) that does have modifications made to the Cos value that is input.
the image you posted just shows the visual explanation of the units used in the formulas. Not the actuals formulas used.
well yes, but its isn’t useful in that context other than to be deceiving.
not really when its use is disingenuous.
again, the 102 mm difference i showed earlier.
<3
None of said math indicates that the guys behind L-O or Gaijin accounted for deviation the KEP experiences when it travels through the armour…
If anything, that image speaks volumes about them having ignored its existence because the calculator is physically incapable of accounting for it.
again, the 102 mm difference i showed earlier.
I think you’re having trouble understanding what I’m asking here for, where’s the difference?
what do you think all of the added coefficients do?
i think you are having trouble asking a question the right way to get the answer you are looking for.
652/2=326 . actual number 377 . DIFFERENCE 377-326=51mm
Please show me how they can account for angular deviation. I’ll wait.
i think you are having trouble asking a question the right way to get the answer you are looking for.
652/2=326 . actual number 377 . DIFFERENCE 377-326=51mm
My dude. You’re trying to divide flat performance by two to somehow make it appear the same as LoS 60 performance, arghhh. Are you trolling? Please tell me you’re not being serious, 'cause i’m this close to just giving up on you.
the [cos(angle) to the power of “m”]. where the value “m” modifies the LOS angle value to account for deviation. as in that value matters more the bigger the angle.
That is exactly why i’m mad at people doing this!!!
that is EXACTLY my entire issue ffs.
That’s… for calculating the angle modifer. At least as far as I know, otherwise I don’t see how else it would be used, or how that would be capable of account for angular deviation, unless the calculator assumes it’s the same for every projectile that’s being estimated.
That is exactly why i’m mad at people doing this!!!
that is EXACTLY my entire issue ffs.
Would be cool if you weren’t badly imitating what they’re doing, cause I haven’t seen anyone yet, apart from you, attempt that this way.
“angular modifier”, “accounting for angular deviation”. its the same… you are adding a number to account for the differing ability to penetrate due to the angle.
oh, i see it a lot. just search “Cos(60)” and look at the results.
“angular modifier”, “accounting for angular deviation”. its the same… you are adding a number to account for the differing ability to penetrate due to the angle.
It’s not. Angular deviation is completely different from the “angle modifier” that me & Fireball have talked about previously. Seriously, I see nothing in that equation that would be able to account for the former, however, maybe mailing Willi Odermatt would be beneficial here. You up for that?
oh, i see it a lot. just search “Cos(60)” and look at the results.
Most of them are doing it for cos(60) numbers… they aren’t doing the same that you are, and I have to stress it really, no matter how much you hate them see use values that are useless for the game and only serve to show that the person has no idea how the game handles armour vs projectile interaction, they are not trying to apply cos(60) to the flat armour performance of the projectile.
How is it different?
Both are numbers applied to the cost(ø) value to moddify the penetration capabilities depending on angle.
They could easily be consolidated into a single constant.
