That depends. Certain tests explicitly state the penetration against 0 degree plates.
3 Likes
The swiss method is not exactly accurate since it has not accounted for the thickness of rounds and certain characteristics of rounds like the 3bm42’s special structure and different alloy. The Chinese round we do have clear indication it can pen 600 at 2000m but Gaijing failed to acknowledge it. So the future round for USSR should be 3BM59
Oh look, 616mm penetration at 2km 60 degrees.
306 / cos 60.
This is one of those cases where the quoted penetration is explicitly stated to be against 0°.
For obvious reasons that document cannot be posted as it is confidential.
No as in it is calculated from some weird angles like more than 50% chance of penetrating 220mm of armour angled at 71.2 degrees at 2000m. The calculation will give you 683 at 0 degrees, 2000m, but with APFSDS it will have a slightly better chance of penetration against tilted armour so it will be around 600, and the penetration at 0 metre should be around 650mm.
220mm at 71º isnt really far of from what it currently pens, bear in mind that’s a 232mm target and even with the .95 modifier for ww2 armor it is 220mm, so using your values you would currently lack 20mm of pen at 2000m at 0º so still under 600mm at 0m
Gaijin uses the Lanz Odermatt formula to calculate shell penetration. It relies on measurements of the shell and other data (such as the type of the material used in the round) - Gaijin has deemed it will use that as opposed to Primary Docs (see L27A1 bug reports - despite primary sources showing L27A1 as requiring to meet a value of penetration of 700mm, L27A1 has 564mm in game)
So the stats are based on 90% chance rather than 50% so just a correction, and the penetration would be 1.08 times as effective as at 2000m. I used the side of the turret since it is flat.
Also APFSDS is 1.18 times as effective against armour of this angle, by 205/cos(71.2)/512 , so 683mm/1.24=551 at 2000m, 551*577/533=596mm
This modifier no longer is in the game.
1 Like
Why does it still show as post war then?
What do you mean?
that he is gonna get oiled up, cant you see?
ZTZ96 LFP for example still says 60mm RHA(post war)
Those are entirely different modifiers? This is about the old modifier that late war German WW2 tanks used to have that made their RHA weaker.
Ahh, yes, so if I say the Strv 103 was upgraded with thermals, ERA, and 2000hp engine, a 120mm gun, a 1.5 second autoloader, and was physically invisible, you would believe me.
Have you ever heard of propaganda? Or maybe lies?
2 Likes
Actual penetration values are of course secret for obvious reasons, however we can base them on being advancements of declassified munitions. Gaijin doesn’t seem to do this.
For example the Chieftain has its APDS penetration at 1KM from point blank and the APFSDS on the mk10 (and challenger 1) is lower at 0m in game than it was at 1KM in real life
THIS IS DECLASSIFIED DONT GO CRAZY and I will also be bug reporting the penetration values after posting this
yes but is the modern steel using (post war) supposed to separate them from WWII ones?
How did they obtain T64 stuff, guess work from T72? I don’t think any T64s fell into the west Germans and only T72M1s did, which should not be able to pen 500 at 1km, HEAT is accurate though.
captured and export examples, this is a document from quite a while after the 64 came into service and I guess its under the assumption that the 72s updated gun has near identical