You realize that overmatching is diameter bound right?
I never said “overmatch”, I said overpen.
There is a completely separate mechanic in play.
There is not such a thing as an overpen mechanic… The thing that negates angled thin armour plates is overmatching, which is diameter bound, reason why apfsds still bounces off relatively thin armour plates.
here the side skires are overmatched while the rounds volume hits the 40 and 13mm plates negating the overmatch.
Improper Generation of Spall on this LAV-AD
Proper Generation of Spall on this M1128
There is an extent to which APFSDS bends the rules of its calculator. Spall is based on residual penetration, so thinner plates should always spall more than thicker ones, regardless of logical mass. This isn’t always the case, and many thinner vehicles can escape this calculation.
It is possible that this could be a bug, but it happens very frequently and doesn’t tend to show up well in the Hit Calculator.
2 things there youre hitting a fuel tank, which in game absorbs spall they absorb spall and unless they have a bulkhead they dont generate it, second spall is indeed penetration base, hoever the multiplier is constant over 400mm of extra pen, it is only variable under 400mm extra penetration
If you look at the LAV, that’s an ammo module, not fuel.
And like I said, it may even be a bug, but it has been a problem for years and has gone unfixed, so it might as well be taken into account seriously.
Modules do not absorb spall, outside of fuel. Gaijin made sure of that when they nerfed them to only be about 0.0002mm a few patches ago.
You can even see that lack of Spall Absorption right here lol
It’s inconsistent at best.
There you can see that the spall that its the engine is in fact absobed, then the spall is generated by the firewall/bulkehead which is behind the engine,
That is an actual bug, that being said not sure why you keep shifting the goal constantly…
I’m trying to point out that the penetrator system is extremely flawed, and you’re just accusing me of shifting goal posts?
I have attempted to explain to you that capped shells have normalization, that armor types matter extensively, that the game struggles with spall generation often, especially for thinner plates, and so much more.
You can see for yourself that spall is not behaving properly. I never shifted anything. My point has always been that certain things in this game do not behave as intended. Spall and Penetration within this game do not always act as intended, and it’s clear as day.
Sure it is flawed, but youre changin into unrelated things, firts it was with an issue of volumetric, then you claim an issue with spall generation while none of the examples shows an issue with it.
Literally nothing that you have shown relates to this… the russian cap rounds have a better angle modiffier, sure.
Like i said ammo does absorb spall… In fact all modules absorb spall to some extent, and some of those doesnt generate spall while other do, btw this is not exclusive to modules but to armour aswell, structural armour under 5mm doesnt generate spall, while rha under 6mm doesnt generate spall against apfsds.
That was actually my mistake, i though that the rounds was ricocheting down, internal armour often does not generate spall, that is a chice not an issue with spall generation
What internal armor?
Is the Spall being way in front of the dart not a visible enough issue?
Completely inconsistent, so no, not really. Some tanks do, others don’t.
That can easily be seen here.
The Merkava’s ammunition does not stop spalling, while the Type 10’s ammunition does
The T-34 situation absolutely does. Any shell that hits a 20mm plate on that angle is going to either ricochet up into the tank or down into the side. There should never be a 700mm thickness calculation on a WW2 vehicle.
That looks to me that it is absobing spall
The cap here has nothing to do with this issue… the only thing that it does is that the round penetrates better at agle, it doesnt not change overmatching or the ricochet angles or volumetric, which is the things that are causing that high value not normalization form the roudns
That’s my entire point. The tracks still add a lot of armor, even if they shouldn’t.
These absurd shots would have two extremely easy solutions.
One would be to add that bullet deviations only cause a slight loss of penetration, making the bullet deflect slightly downwards in that shot, piercing the flat side of the T-34.
The other solution would be to have the volumetric bullets penetrate the armor plate where they hit the largest percentage of it. If the bullet in the image hits more of the flat area, then the penetration of the flat area would be calculated, and if the bullet hit more of the angled area, then the penetration would only be calculated for that area.
It’s possible that the developers want to leave it as is to increase the already extreme randomness of the game.
CR1 has decent mobility mate, just it’s top end speed holds it back overall.
CR1 literally does not. and it’s a NATO MBT.
well if you’ve any sources to hurl my way I’d like to read it.
The posts I was reading where talking abotu them being done in 2010 to bring them up to a more modern standard.
Acceleration is mediocre but not unusable.
Yes, it is decent.
Well, it has ~1 HP/TON less than the T-80UD and slightly worse top speed… for much better reverse speed.
I’d rather take the Chally’s mobility over the T-80UD in all honesty.
Okay that’s great man, the CR1s are good tanks for their BRs unlike the CR2s which fall short a lot of the time.
But it still doesn’t change the fact the T80UD was a 10.7 tank before it got a reload buff and shouldn’t have been vibing at 10.3.