I did correct you math because there is no way your claimed methodology made sense. You should also know that outside of thought experiments 100% certainty can never be reached. You still claimed it.
If gaijin doesn’t use a probabilistic model, then it would be a deterministuc one. So each ammo rack would detonate exactly after the same number of hits… every time. That’s what it would mean to “not use stochastics” which also is a weird way to phrase it. You don’t use stochastics in that way, you just put in an RNG and stochastics simply apply. You don’t have to do anything. Gaijin doesn’t have to use anything. That’s not how it works.
And that’s my point it’s also the applications of occams razor. Ammo detonation is chance based, so my calculation apply whether gaijin does something or not. You act like gaijin has to do anything for my calculations to be correct, that they need to implement it that way… they don’t. It simply follows from using a chance based system. Your idea needs gaijin to implement special rules. But again occams razor, the less assumptions the better.
And as i stated before if the system isn’t chance based the ammo racks would explode after the same number of shots, every single time (assuming the shots are identical, if the damage is random per fragment again it stops being deterministic and my calculation applies again, of course there are nuances regarding the models being used, but your hypothesis is Impossible at that point).
No, I never claimed that 100% can be reached in the math sense.
ALL I claimed was War Thunder may not use stochastics, that’s it.
There’s been a miscommunication between us.
If someone finds the code it would be interesting. We know from how the devs have explained ammo detonation that damaged ammo is more likely to implode with repeated damage. This is why the double spall (two hit) is usually how the BVM goes down.
I have trouble understanding you. What makes RNG pure? Again as soon as any RNG exists, you need to use stochastics to model the effects of that RNG. As said before gaijin won’t need to implement a thing other than the RNG itself. The calculations are just the modelling of said RNG.
Experiences are anecdotal and not very useful. You do those videos, but even those lack controls since nothing is stopping you tonrepeat your recording until you get the right results. You can proclaim your honesty as much as you want but, for it to be a real test it needs those controls and if you are what you claim you are, you should know that.
But a very simple video is a video where you shoot a random tank with another tank that doesn’t reliably detonate the ammo rack. Shoot from the same position as often as you need until the rack detonates.
Kill the same tank with the same gun a sufficient number of times. For an infinite(!!!) Population the sample size if a yesno question would be just 385 by the way (95% confidence, 5% Margin of error). Just to give you an idea why i said that thunderskill has a decent sample size, it doesn’t need much to have a great sample size. But since what we are looking for is even more simplistic then a yes and no question 50 times would be sufficient. And simply count the number of shots needed for each attempt until the ammo rack detonates. If it isn’t the exact same number of shots for each of the 50 attempts, then there is RNG.
It is also very unlikely that there is no RNG since Gaijin pride themselves on realism and RNG is simply realistic.
As you can see below: same gun, same distance, same rounds… different results.
Sure, conditional probabilty, easy to implement, easy to screw up if you are a layman. This might even be a point where gaijin screwed up, because their knowledge about probability isn’t any good as they have proven.
It also adds another source of inaccuracies since declassified damage assessments afaik usually don’t account for cumulative damage so gaijin has little real world evidence to go on.
It’s pretty obvious to me, that the BVM is spalling the VCC’s dart, and the fragments are damaging the charge. The first frag does not destroy the charge, yet the second frag does, every time, in video. I’m using absolute language, a more careful observation, and continued testing would be ideal to try to add any degree of certainty here.
Whereas the Black Knight, in the comparison, has a near complete dart (as when they still have considerable penetration capability, they are modelled in kill cams) that destroys not one, but at least two, or more charges in a single shot.
Just on that alone, you’d see twice the ammo required for the same result, which without inspection, would suggest the BVM armor is like 200% better. However, when you watch the Black Knight testing, you see that it’s a destroyed charge, every time, and usually multiple charges blown, the detonation chance is actually: p=0.2775 (probability of at least 1 destroyed charged detonating, if 2 charges are destroyed in one shot).
If you look at the layout of the black night, from 90 degrees exact, depending on the where along the tank you shoot, anywhere from 2, to 4, to 12 charges can be hit with ease.
The probability at that rate sky rockets from 27.75% to 47.79% to 85.77%
I watched the video and it seems like BVM is being destroyed at a significant higher rate when using 3BM46. Is your friend shooting through relikt or beneath the era? If you have time, I’m willing to do the test with you.
It is 6mm structural steel, which does not spall. The spalling thickness for structural steel is 17mm, which corresponds to the internal plating on some centurion tanks. 15mm structural steel for comparison does not spall.
No, iirc every T-72, T-80 and T-90 have the 6 mm structural steel armor box.
What some early T-72 vehicles are missing is the additional 20mm rolled homogenous armor plate that reduce survivability in warthunder. This plate only ““protects”” the non-fuel tank frontal aspect of the vehicle
I realize that I wasted my money on reference books for the Su-30(which isn’t even in game yet) when I should’ve bought some reference books on Soviet armor. Can you kindly share what source you got this from, I’d really like to improve my knowledge, because 20mm of steel like that would definitely add to the spall, and be a huge oversight by the devs.
The 20mm does add spall like i said in my post. Like i said it reduces survivability.
The 6mm carousel structural steel comment you can find in the game files. Its this 6mm structural steel carousel armor that does not spall.
Structural steel has an arbitrary spalling cutoff at 17mm. Where below that it will not spall. If Gaijin made 6mm structural plates generate some amount of spall i think it would solve bascially everyones issue with ammo not detonating.
Edit:
When i say some early T-72 vehicles dont have the 20mm plate i mean its just not there because its not supposed to be there. The extra 20mm plate is on later versions of the vehicles
Well, the 20mm plate is there in the xray view in hangar. Exactly what vehicles us supposed to have it idk, but every T-80 and T-90 have it i believe and every T-72 that is not the earliest models like the A and M1
I cant doublecheck in game right now, but i had a check in regards to this in a thread i made a few days ago and i believe it was the case.
