The Challenger and Abrams have a higher ammo detonation chance than all other top MBTs, so of course that video will have Challenger go off easier.
Carousel only has armor on T-72s.
Abrams doesn’t really matter since all of it is protected ammo, Challenger gets shafted more.
Mistranslated & misidentification. T-72s have wet ammo storage in the front next to the driver, and that’s likely what was misidentified.
USA never serviced Mig-29s & T-90A, thus will never get one in-game.
Stop begging for inferior vehicles that weren’t even used. Your Russian preference is noted.
Soviet tanks cook off if you shoot the ammo.
Half your video had no shots on ammo at least. If you shot ammo a 2nd time in the 2nd half and it didn’t explode, a stat pool of 2 ain’t a lot.
You have zero evidence that T-80s survive that much and never will cause they don’t.
@DerGrafVonZahl
I don’t get you people. You make up stuff about people & insultingly provoke everyone that criticizes your precious Russian tanks.
The fact you call EVERYONE names & dismiss all science & math proves to us everything we need to know.
Thunderskill records less than 4% of matches in a month.
You have zero credibility. Everything you’ve accused me of doing is obvious projection & derailment.
And therefore if the carroussel’s spalling was modelled correctly, the whole argument about ammo & charges being behind one an other would be moot, because the spalling would just spread inside the whole carroussel in the t-80.
I don’t know enough about the carousel explicitly, as to if it has any sort of “Wet feature” in real life, but I’d reckon it probably doesn’t. Unfortunately I believe this may be improperly modelled. Extra shell storage however is certainly “wet” so anything outside of the carousel deserves that treatment. The question is, does the Black Knight have wet stowage in the rear of the hull’s crew compartment? It doesn’t seem to be modelled if so.
I’ll be persnickety all day, you have to test stuff as evenly as possible, otherwise you’re not actually helping solve the problem.
No they did not. Holy, yeah…
You, dadale, DerGraf, and warthogboy love Russian tanks more than anyone else in this thread if you cannot read English well enough to know that’s a mistranslation.
The code for ammo det chance is identical for Arietes, Leopard 2s, & T-80s.
Would it be moot? How do you know the spalling should follow through and hit more objects with the same intensity of the penetrator itself? How do you know that the carousel’s physical composition is improper? Coding like the wet rack issue is one thing, but the 3d fidelity of the model is another.
A better way to say this is: “if the spalling issue was corrected, we’d have a better idea of how the tank could/would survive a side shot to the carousel”.
Yes, that’s what it should be, however, the bug report in question does not specify “second stage ammo” but “ammo”.
Also, considering the bug report is specifically about tow2B, which penetrates from the roof, i’m going to risk myself at assuming the reporter is mentionning the ammo under the turret, so stored in the carroussel.
The reporter is, the staff member is the one that mistranslated/misidentified.
And you’re taking an innocent language mistake and making up a conspiracy theory that the game’s code dismisses.
Because the carrousel is steel ?
Because if i hit the ammo with my apfsds, it means it penetrated the carrousel, and therefore should spall like any armor plate ? Not even talking about the first metal bits ripped off the side armor plate by the “main” penetration
Someone should retest by changing the Black Knight storage until it only has one propellant charge, if it detonates the tank every time, it still won’t be a perfect result, but it will get us closer. Next thing to do is discover if there’s a better angle to induce spalling damage instead of direct contact with the penetrator. It’s very clear in the videos provided thus far that the fragmentation damage is degrading the ammo in the first shot, and destroying the ammo in the follow up shot.
What’s the code written for single stage ammo? I’m curious how Leo 2 and Abrams work if damaged with spall vs direct contact with penetrator.
Then again, your claim, neither of us are in the staff member’s head to know what he was thinking. At the end of the day, he closed the bug report before the reporter could explain, and here stands the bug, 6 months later.
I do not give a damn about russian tanks (tank gameplay in WT is a joke and i mostly fly US, you could have looked that up, but you are only good at making claims, not at backing them up). Math an science however i do care a lot about.
And your claims and methodology is painful.
I do not provoke, i present your mistakes and complain about you butchering the scientific method.
I never called you a name nor did i insult you, i criticized you. If you cannot deal with that then that’s on you.
I also didn’t dismiss your math, i corrected it. It was wrong. 7 shots of 15% do nit equal 100% i even showed you the correct math.
And when it comes to science… you didn’t do any science. Science must adhere to the scientific method, which you did not.
I just call you out on your BS that’s all. If you don’t like it, learn the proper math before you post. Learn what science actually is.
As stated before you like to make big claims without knowing what you are talking about
4% is a lot and more than sufficient. The problem is that you think it wouldn’t be enough.
I reiterate my point you do not know what you are talking about.
For beginners there are online tools to help with these kind of problems you have:
It’s a very rudimentary sample size calculator. But it gives you an idea how small good sample sizes actually are, since you don’t seem to understand that.
Usually every thing above 400 is overkill for most applications.
better experience would be to do it with a side shot on a leopard 2, leclerc, or abrams, and see if you kill or not, and can disable the firing capabilities of the tank more often, be it by killing it, or injuring the crew (an other side effect of non spalling on russian mbt’s, if you shoot to low, the crew survives easily)
It’s already been said, but 4% is a very sizeable sample. IRL samples sometimes don’t even reach 1%
As long as your sample is representative (IE same characteristics as the population (and population doesn’t necessarily mean people here) you’re trying to draw conclusions on)
Here is my test for 3BM60 vs Leopard 2A6 https://youtu.be/7G2U7iYkZiM
Leopard had 10% ammo survival chance and 20% side shot survival chance.
T80BVM had 52 for both ammo and side shot.
I’m sorry what? The devs have been giving soft buffs to the T-series tanks as far back as the T-64As introduction. It literally used to be a near 100% ammo rack from the LFP for T-series. It all stems from the Russia mains whining and usually having the most easy to use vehicles in the game. The BVM is just the creme de la creme of their soft buffs amalgamation.
I offer evidence and experimental results to support my claims. So far, you Russian supporters haven’t offered any evidence or experiments to support your case. The 0.15 means nothing when actual experiment proves it to be wrong. Like I said, if you doubt my experiment, record yourself doing the same thing and show it to us.
