https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=pdf&docid=DE000002851205C2&xxxfull=1
https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=pdf&docid=DE000002655520C3&xxxfull=1
https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=pdf&docid=DE000002741789C1&xxxfull=1
https://depatisnet.dpma.de/DepatisNet/depatisnet?action=pdf&docid=GB000002179519A&xxxfull=1
162 in the 30mm one
The 35mm has an option for 400
Thanks!
Still a lot.
i am salivating for the day we get actual AHEAD and not this butchered version
Edit: Found the 30mm document again
that ones already reported and gajin is aware of it, was a suggestion from the old forum
Huh… I’ll leave it up and hopefully they’ll have an answer this time. Old forum reports were purged, right?
No, on top of that pass to devs goes to an internal file system unconnected to everything else.
oh…
Yeah companies relying on forums or a bug report site for all their data can be an issue.
Every company I’ve come across with a suggestion system has the passed suggestions in an internal system that they can access from any computer. Far easier to search through it that way.
You can save yourself, the Gaijin support is just ridiculous.
My report with a reference to the source and everything necessary from a specialist book was rejected on the grounds:
Quote:
"What is appropriate source material for historical issues?
OEM Manuals (primary source): User manuals, repair manuals, factory manuals, operating manuals, technical manuals etc. Single source is required (preferred source).
Authored works (secondary source): Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships ('coffee table books'), biographies, specialist books, "expert" opinion publications, industry magazines etc. At least two unrelated sources required.
Please be reminded that Wikipedia or other private websites are not considered reliable sources.
You need to provide the following information about the source:
Title and if applicable: publication date, document number, ISBN.
Author or organisation
Image of the cover
Images of all the referenced pages and their page numbers
References for photographs
What is appropriate source material for historical issues?
OEM Manuals (primary source): User manuals, repair manuals, factory manuals, operating manuals, technical manuals etc. Single source is required (preferred source).
Authored works (secondary source): Reference books on collections of vehicles/aircraft/ships ('coffee table books'), biographies, specialist books, "expert" opinion publications, industry magazines etc. At least two unrelated sources required.
Please be reminded that Wikipedia or other private websites are not considered reliable sources.
You need to provide the following information about the source:
Title and if applicable: publication date, document number, ISBN.
Author or organisation
Image of the cover
Images of all the referenced pages and their page numbers
References for photographs
Id say leave it up anyways. The more reports about the same topic there are the greater chance there is that theyll do something.
What else do you expect?
Even from 10m it wouldn’t work, you don’t need 3km!
KNDS also states 70 km/h for all Leopard 2 models on the website and Gaijin refuses to make the tank faster.
Because there are indications of 68 - 72 km/h in the literature, the tank is made worse and the manufacturer data is not from interested.
Here on the Website 70Km/h for 2A4/2A5/2A6/2A7
1 - 4.2 degree hit in that simulation measured using Krita’s ruler tool.
So in relation to LOS of 67, that’s a hit angle of 63 - 66, which pens in War Thunder at 2km using L/44.
We can test this in test drive using OFL 120 F1 which shares the 2km pen of DM53 out of L/44 but OFL F1 does it at 10 meters.
Angle confirmed:
Screenshot of video showcasing it’s on the edge of penning [video is 8.2MB, above the 4MB limit]:
Since War Thunder doesn’t simulate barely-perforating, nor does it simulate dart degradation during penetration, this is rather accurate for lacking those simulation factors.
If at least the barely-perforating part was simulated, then DM53 could pen at longer ranges.
The best part is that DM53 in the game is in fact, underperforming;
The tip is part of the penetrator itself as seen on this DM63;
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/553364431636004885/1168350113215828048/image.png?ex=655aac55&is=65483755&hm=54cc039bdb3ef776174639d62e4d0daadf055c8cb7542bdd7cf5744b2858b217&=&width=876&height=892
You’re truly a special breed.
The LoS angle is give or take ~67.1, APFSDS don’t drop much over distance anyhow. However shots like this are still impossible in War Thunder, especially because Gaijin doesn’t model anti-ERA (which was part of the simulation!).
Angle confirmed:
???
Check the 2nd simulation of the video, I used that since it was more clear of what was happening to the dart all the way through.
There are more minor simulations to add to War Thunder for sure, and it’d be the first ever game in the world to have those features too if they were added.
Mate, the camera PoV is from behind, AND above the armour plate in that shot. Always take the perfectly perpendicular one, otherwise you’re introducing a measuring error (hence why you got a much smaller angle than it actually was).
That shot was also 1 degree offset.
There were two, tho the perspective I looked at was from slightly below.
66 degrees, which sadly War Thunder still doesn’t model barely perforating rounds.
