Basically a shell with higher penetration increases the range at which the penetration fails, this is effectively the functional difference between improved shells. which would able to be empirically mapped onto each map in game to find the actual difference that it would make.
Ok so the first step would be to figure out for any given shell, for each armor array (for simplicities sake assume that impact angle is equal to the construction angle of the array) what is the distance at which it will fail to penetrate, that is the first step.
Then take all points in the playable space for each map and compare the furthest visible point also within the space at said distance from each point, for each permutation of shell and armor array in the game.
What this would do is create a heatmap of penetrating engagements allowing for a more direct useful data set to be derived than a pure player based statistical approach, since it would allow for a focus on map control as an effective empirical analysis tool. ( it would also allow for unbalanced maps and power positions to be exhaustively discovered).
it wouldn’t be particularly hard to set up, but much harder to maintain due to how often things change.
I think the angle of attack against the enemy plate should also matter, if something like this were to be made.
T-80UD, for example, may not be directly facing head-on with an M1 Abrams, at 500m out.
Japan has a 405mm pen dart at 9.0 on both the type 74 E and F (type 93 shell). I don’t see any reason the m1 should be limited from m833 considering the timeframe of the rounds production is only 3 years after the tank and one year before the m1ip. It was used plenty in both models. and even in the US tree the 120S is at 10.3 with a 598mm pen dart with the same reload rate of the m1 (granted its a 120mm). Adding m833 wouldn’t cause a whole heap of change.
Tbh, it wouldn’t change much, so no I don’t think it should get M833. M774 hits the same weakpoints. M833 would basically just be a placebo, and might give gaijin an excuse to up the M1 above the Leo 2s.
Its the same change with the HC’s moving from M829A1 to A2. They wont pen anything more than what they already do bar some extremely niche situations, you will still be aiming for the same exact weakspots. However, A2 is more reliable than A1 due to that extra bit of pen.
Now if the M1 went from M774 to M900 that would be a gamechanger, but as you said, 774 to 833 just improves reliability and thats about it, heck, its not even at the top end of 9.3 darts to begin with, let alone 10.7 where proper 120mms are already being tossed around.
Since I expect someone will also take it out of context, no I don’t want the base M1 to get M900.
Well said. And something I brought up. If we were so wanting the imbalance the game, we’d want the best and keep it at 10.7.
To me this is patently absurd. M833 is parity and yes, maybe just a placebo, but it’s enough to warrant players enjoying the vehicle a little more when playing it.
I agree, generally speaking, problem is where you draw the line. Do we give decades old vehicles in minor nation inventories updated rounds that put them at unfavourable BRs simply because they carried them? Its a recipe for frustration.
This is already the case in game because the type 74 with the type 93 shell didn’t receive that shell until 1993 whereas the type 16 which entered service in 2007 doesn’t get it for balance reasons
Two years ago, December. According to the WT Data Project the US had a WR second only to Sweden, at ~65%. You want to know why? There’s literally no reason. They added the SEP w TUSK in October, and the WR plummeted in November, but then climbed to insane levels in December. Between these months, nothing significant changed. Just a rotation of players, as good ones probably came to play US to get the SEP and F-16 combo, before jumping ship to nations with players that weren’t so trash.
Welcome to the game War Thunder where reload rate has explicitly been said to be used as a tool of balance.
So do you want to answer my question?
It would provide parity as they shell would of almost equal penetration to the leopard 2A4 whilst having the same reload.
