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.
1 Like
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
1 Like
Id say leave it up anyways. The more reports about the same topic there are the greater chance there is that theyll do something.
1 Like
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.
1 Like
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
2 Likes
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.
If it was offset, that’s 66 degrees (however perpendicular measurements are still the most accurate so we’re sticking with 67.1 here), where DM53 at 3km’s distance would still penetrate about ~700mm of RHAe… waaay above what the armour of T-90A can offer even with Kontakt-5 working as it should (against DM53 its resistance should be significantly lower due to anti-ERA).
Throw in the fact the armour in the simulation isn’t the overperforming one that we have in War Thunder - boom, explanation as to why DM53 could defeat that there, but cannot in the game.
1 Like
I always felt like T-90A wasn’t really top tier material, so in my opinion they really should just nerf K-5 to the point it’s pennable by top tier rounds and lower the BR of tanks in question.
T-90A (without 3BM60) should be pretty nice at 10.3, just like Bhishma is currently.
Armor in War Thunder universally over-performs because of simulation issues, but War Thunder also runs on a Core i3 from 2012.
At some point Gaijin will improve simulations of things as they have with SACLOS missiles this year.
There’s a lot of work tho.
DCS took 5 years to make atmospheric density as accurate as War Thunder’s atmospheric density, this is not dissing on DCS, it’s just to show how slow development can be at times.
Most of it is due to Gaijin mis-using protection standards. Right now all Soviet & Russian tanks are modelled per NATO/Western standards of rating their armours for 0 degrees LoS, whereas they should be modelled as 68 degrees LoS (so instead of needing, fx; 530mm of penetration to defeat T-80U’s composite, you’d need about ~440mm after conversion from Russian to NATO style methodology).
The entire reason why Kontakt-5 exists, is because Soviet Russia/Union was at a dead-end with their armour development, and as soon as DM23/33 & M829 entered the stage, they had two choices;
- add external armour elements
- expand the armour itself
They went with the first option. Heavy ERA is a thing because they were painfully aware their composite armour was not up to scratch against contemporary APFSDS.
Kontakt-5 is fine, if anything it’s slightly underperforming. Gaijin is however modelling the highly sloped Russian composite armours completely wrong, they’re taking X value and inputting it into NATO’s armour ratings so the X value becomes X*1.3 instead.
Oh, I always thought K-5 is to blame, not composite itself, good to know. Also, how would BVM’s UFP perform in that test, would it be pennable as well ?
Regardless, I feel like T-90A should get the Bhishma treatment for it’s own health, since Russia don’t have 10.7 lineup and only one 11.0 tank, so it should be nice seeing it go down to 10.3 without 3BM60.
We still don’t know how DM53 & Relikt really interact, but most likely better because it supposedly has 2 flyer plates instead of just 1… Bundestag also confirmed that dueling MBTs with Relikt is impossible at European Combat Distances a few years ago (think 1.5 - 2.5km’s) using DM53/63, which is why KE2020Neo has become a thing.
2 Likes
Seems strange to me we got this sabot casing thing added before we could even get AHEAD working.
2 Likes
eh technicaly sabot cases are easier with only 4 pieces compared to 162 that move circular