The game itself.
Thunderskill is only good at telling people how skilled ~2% of players are, and nothing else.
so around 12k players daily (thats ur 2%) is still a sizable number to get an good avarage
Which is still only addressing their skill level, not how powerful the vehicles they’re using is.
Cause it’s a skill comparison site.
But its the same 2% that use all vehicles there so if vehicles do much better it not because of skill but the vehicles are better as the skill dosnt change.
Anyway its 00:36 am here i am going to bed need to get up at 5am
No, it’s not the same 2%. All are different players, which means skill is always a factor.
Funny that you’d say that, considering wet storage is still not implemented on any sherman tank. (That’s what the “W” stands for)
3 Likes
Same goes for Top tier tanks.
For example M338 on Merkava series should not get explode when its penetrated yet Gaijin claims this feature is not implemented while Russian tanks have fantasy wet storage.
4 Likes
so where is this data from the game itself?
I tried to find DM53’s perforation from L/55 cannon at 3 KM’s and I found this value.
1 Like
Real world testing found that the early T-72B had 540mm of RHA equivalent protection against 3BM32 Vant, a DU monobloc projectile, which is more than it actually has in game
Source is the memoirs of it’s chief designer:
I think people in this thread are getting bogged down in trying to figure out the RHA equivalency of the individual components of the composite when that’s not how it really works, the the efficiency of the composite as a whole isn’t just the sum of it’s parts.
3 Likes
Real world testing found that the early T-72B had 540mm of RHA equivalent protection against 3BM32 Vant, a DU monobloc projectile, which is more than it actually has in game
The same testing was also done from a point blank range, and at the constructional angle of the hull (in said test, Vant perforated ~522mm of the armour as well, whereas it is a significantly less powerful projectile than DM33, which at the same angle and distance, can perforate ~610mm).
Although that’s irrelevant to this issue, since what happened here is Gaijin misuse of Western armour measuring methodologies.
8 Likes
People here still talking about calculating LOS of RHA+Air+Rubber lul
This is exactly why I stopped play ground RB long ago, there is simply no meaning playing it.
Super close range map + RU unrealistic hulls make the game unplayable at all.
Just leave it, the game isn’t worth it.
2 Likes
lol I play top BRs explicitly because Soviet tanks are the easiest to kill & my side has the best CAS in the game.
This is a completely false assumption.
What you see in game is a flat penetration equivalent value. Not the LOS value. The 540mm protection you found is a LOS VALUE at 68 degrees provided by the 60-10-10-20-20-50 array.
Its not your fault none of this is explained. But in game the T-72B should have 450 flat pen equivalent at 68 degrees. OR 540mm LOS at 68
1 Like
You are right about the individual protection addition to get the total.
I wrote a +40 page paper on how to do it correctly with accurate, repeatable, and consistent results across all publicly available information.
If you want i could tell you about it. Im just lazy and havent published it
2 Likes
I’ve been in anticipation of this document for ages.
2 Likes
Ill try and get back on it, just for you 😁.
Been on a warthunder hiatus bc i got a little burnt out playing against fake russian tanks.
2 Likes
nice copium where is the fake russian tank tell me i want to know i would rather say there is more fake nato tanks than russian as there is alot more info on theirs protection than nato ones like the current T-90M that is being added having T-90A hull armor with relikt on top
Its not copium if you had the patience to research and figure out everything as to why i can make that statement.
And with how your response is worded, it doesnt seem like you care to know either.
I could explain it to you however, if youd like.