The authors of Tankograd call the term “Кондиционное поражение”, which I translate as “Conditional defeat/damage” as a nominal defeat
You’re literally making up terms, ignoring the words of the article’s authors.
I’m tired of correcting you.
Of course, because the game only counts penetrations when part of the penetrator penetrates inside the fighting compartment, and not the curvature of the rear part of the armor
Funny how Vant cannot achieve this level of performance according to L-O ))) Almost as if that’s pressXtoDoubt because of the quality of the tested steel (likely vastly softer than the standard 260 BHN that Gaijin uses)
Tbh it would be believeable if it was for 0km (which it likely was in all actuallity), as DM23 then adjusted for its proper dimensions perforates 415mm, making them basically equals ))))
The idea of armour LOS being provided in documents is that the type of projectile is irrelevant. In theory they should all be treated as long rods so wouldnt be effected by this.
Of course, my guess is that they don’t really care about the inconsistencies in how they treat things, because the players who do care are a tiny fraction of the player base. Either way I was just explaining why those simulations are hardly scientific work.
Dude has nothing besides his funny rusian books/chars from who knows where, that he takes as a given of course. I doubt he can even fathom the idea of rusian sources being full of bs.
You’re discrediting yourself and everyone I’ve spoken to incredibly.
After all, I only used the same sources they did.
@Fireball_2020 used “Частные вопросы конечной баллистики” to weaken the T-64A in his report; I cited the same data here.
Then they started using Tankograd here, and I started cribbing from there as well.
These sources were literally used by those I was discussing with. So either they brought the propaganda themselves and even based their report on it, or you just wrote complete nonsense.
Moreover, I mentioned “if you believe the source” and “if the source is reliable” many times during the conversation.
I, unlike everyone else, approach the issue with skepticism and compare data between sources to ensure they don’t contradict each other.
