DOI in WT, not in real life. There’s a difference dude (assuming you didn’t know that).
Oh hey look, shifting the goalposts away from the AIM and Clickbait and to the original M1A2 and Challenger 2, did not expect you to claim the original iteration of the chally 2 is good, but ok.
“No their performance was actually pretty average”
“Those were their winrates”
“GoALpOstING”
Coping about falling for bait, nice.
Already stated it a few times, I used 3BM42 as a metric as it is the most bog standard round across the board without being a turbodart, to that same end, you can penetrate the entire running UFP of the entire M1 series with A2 but this is not shown by the pen calc, something I have already highlighted.
Even if we do use 3BM-42, the penetrable area on the Leclercs is still significantly higher thanks to the upper plate being made from melted butter;
Then well, you straight up lie that the upper plate can be “penetrated in its entirety”, it cannot unless you’re negating some of its angle - this is why 2A6s upper plate is better than 2A7Vs, they ricochet APFSDS.
Yes because you seem to be interested in pulling data from 2019 to validate your arguments I get to pull dated info of other OP transgression as well, you cant have your cake and eat it too my friend.
I’m pulling WR data (like you are), not what was causing that WR lmao, get over yourself and stop playing the victim card.
For someone who has been around since 2014, I cannot believe you have no knowledge of how LOS penetration works in WT. Yes Gaijin treats all armor LOS as 0 degree RHAe, but saying the 60 degree perforation limit on APFSDS-T is irrelevant misguided at best.
LoS 60 perforation is only there to look nice on a statcard, it is not used in the game - if it was, projectiles like DM53 would be capable of perforating T-80BVM out to 1km in the game. The entire point is that it’s completely irrelevant in WT, because it’s numbers that are no used, whether you agree or not, that is a fact that cannot be changed.
Here, take a read of the old forums real quick : Question; What is LOS penetration and is it implimented to War Thunder? - Ground Forces Discussion - War Thunder - Official Forum
TLDR ish : LOS penetration is derived from doubling the value of the rounds perforation capabilities at 60 degrees but applies only towards APFSDS-T shells, meaning that your 60 degree perforation value is derives what your actual 0 degree perforation value is, this is indecently a uniquely APFSDS-T feature in WT.
The only important bit of information from that thread is AriesV explaining why LoS 60 performance is not applicable to the game’s simulation of armour versus projectile, and AnimeThighs (this was his name before his perma ban) saying “do not listen to him, I am right and he is wrong”, going as far as to imply that the game “simulates” composite armours (it does not, all WT does is take a block of armour, give it KE & CE modifiers and have it act like a finite block of steel).
Especially this part of his comment:
The fact that the game has different values for angled plates automatically means that LOS is automatically a part of the game.
That’s nothing more than the game calculating the line-of-sight thickness of the armour module or armour plate & then applying a flat protection modifier, that is then pittied against a flat perforation modifier. What’s more, some differences can be also explained by the existence of short & long-rod modifiers, the latter of which ““improves”” a KEP’s performance against armour - it is Gaijin’s attempt as simulating the differences in performance between early APFSDS projectiles (because their performance against spaced & composite armours was inferior to that of more advanced rounds, but still better compared to APDS) and later developments (i.e monoblocks) against composites, that’s all, there’s nothing more to it.
There used to be some much more in-depth looks into how gaijin implemented this but sadly the old forums are nearly impossible to root through now.
There hasn’t. It has always been flat armour modifier (performance) versus flat perforation stat - some people created bug reports in hopes Gaijin does actually change that, but they didn’t, and some of those reports date back to 2018.
There’s some variations to this (as I said earlier) where certain projectiles or types of projectiles receive special modifiers to improve their performance (such as Soviet APCBC or monoblock APFSDS) but at the end of the day it all still comes down to their flat perforation stat.
Right, good night to everybody, I’ll see ya later.
