Yeah the 20mm is somewhat underperforming. However historically the tungsten core wasn’t able to go through that much armor, afaik. Maybe because they tested it against better steel plates than your average WW2 steel, or it’s just too much to handle for it before it evaporates :D
I found some images that suggested that this APCR drilled something more than it does in the game.
I would love to see a nerf to APHE, it will make other rounds seem less bad in addition to imo improving general health of the game.
If thought from a balance perspective it should lessen the amount of instant kills encountered by early players giving them an honest chance of learning the game
Gaijin announced they are looking into different post pen fragmentation for APHE. It should be more conical, depending on the filler to weight ratio and residual velocity.
1 Like
Oh nice, I was not aware. Could you link it?
Cool, i really hope they over-deliver on this. It’ll elevate this game from something I hate myself for playing & increasing my bloodpressure to what i’ve always known it’d had the potential for being.
Ugh, I’m using the marder and it’s real garbage, the missile itself is horrible, with ridiculous damage for what it penetrates, and even on top of that the 20mm cannon doesn’t pierce anything or cause damage. It’s a real suffering vehicle.
Haven’t used in in some time. The change to missile mouse tracking probably didn’t do it any favours.
It was alright but it was always limited by just carrying 4 missiles.
And apart from that the Milan missiles are horrible, even more so when in the Br del Marder you face American heavy tanks, for example I have come to need the four missiles to destroy a heavy T34, or even kill just one crew member of an object 905. In fact, I am using the M48 and the M109 along with the marder, the M109 is a camouflaged Br 7.3 to 7.7, and the heat-fs of the M48 works infinitely better than the milan missile. It is too sad.
I have been trying to adapt the DeMarre system to more closely match the results of the tungsten carbide calculator but I haven’t been able to. There’s too much variation with the smaller cores, like the 20mm DM43. I’m not sure something as simple as the DeMarre calculator can account for the differences. Or at least I’m not capable of taking it into account.
Spoiler
Source: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA137873.pdf
What I take from this: the result of interaction of a rigid, KE projectile and high obliquity steel armor plate is sensitive to the yaw of the projectile, therefore under these conditions there will naturally be greater spread of the results and greater uncertainty about the ballistic limit.
Something to keep in mind while analyzing data from live ballistic testing.
1 Like
Another thing: the calculator needs to somehow account for the fact that uncapped AP shells, especially the large capcity ones, like the german 10cm Pzgr., have their penetration “capped” after some point. Which is the main reason why APC shells exist in the first place. This is not as simple as giving these shells some flat malus of -20% pen, as for low velocity impact and thin armor they are actually better.
Have you been considering how this can be implemented, mathematically?
1 Like
No, I’m not because I don’t think it’s relevant for the game.
Because the game is not simulating “quality” of armour and shells?
But this is different. No matter the level of quality, in some conditions the shell will just shatter, not because it’s “bad quality”, but because it’s dictated by the laws of physics.
Just like a vertical 10mm plate will not stop a 75mm AP shell, regardless of its “quality”.
One aspect is I’m trying to minimize the changes needed to hopefully get Gaijin on board. I don’t want to push for a major, complex system they won’t want to do.
Also, this kind of complex work is beyond my excel skills, so I don’t know how to set up the formulas for variable penetration based on filler to shell weight ratios or t/d ratios.
The sequel to one of my old posts in this thread has dropped:
The cap appears to have a considerable effect on penetration of thin, highly sloped armour here. It’s mass % seems to not be as important as its external shape, more angular being better.
On other other hand, its effect on normal impact can be easily modelled by taking into account just its relative mass %. It appears that it’s effect is weakening with increase in T/D ratio, or the striking velocity, which seems more likely. We can hypothesize that the amount of energy it is subtracting from the shell is not proportional to its initial energy, but is an absolute fixed amount. Therefore, as the striking energy gets higher, the relative amount by which it is increasing the ballistic limit is decreasing.
1 Like
One of the conclusions that is stated on ADA954868 “Comparative Effectiveness of Armor-Defeating Ammunition” is that capped steel shots are better than uncapped steel shots when it comes to penetrating heavily undermatched angled armor. At the bottom of page 3, the following is stated:
Capped steel shot are superior to monobloc steel shot for the defeat of greatly overmatching armor, (over 1-1/4 calibers in thickness) at obliquities in the range of 20° - 45°, but both capped and monobloc shot are greatly inferior to HVAP shot in the low obliquity range against heavy armor targets.
I guess the shape of the cap just makes it easier to transfer energy into the armor without getting deflected. I imagine the same result from flat nosed shells.
Hence why Germany really wanted capped shells to defeat those evil 30° plates.
The same source also states that sharp nose rounds tend to perform better against thicker armor that overmatches the projectile while blunt nose rounds tend to perform better against thinner armor that undermatches the projectile.
An important consideration in the penetration of armor by kinetic energy projectiles is the ratio of armor thickness to projectile diameter (the e/d ratio) since the mechanisms of armor penetration and projectile behavior vary with the e/d ratio. When the e/d ratio is greater than 1 (armor overmatches the projectile), the penetration tends to be effected by a ductile pushing-aside mechanism. Relatively sharp nosed shot are most effective, and the resistance of the armor generally increases as its hardness increases. When the e/d ratio in less than 1 (armor undermatches the projectile), the penetration tends to be effected by the punching or shearing out of a plug of armor in front of the shot. Relatively blunt nosed shot are most effective under this condition of attack, and the resistance of the armor generally increases as its hardness decreases.
This isn’t quite reflected in the game, as blunt nose rounds can perform better against thicker armor armor if the angle is lower. It only really applies for very thick armor at extremely high angles, and against very thin armor uncapped sharp nose AP has an advantaged at very low angles but loses the advantage at higher angles. These tables are taken from a calculator I made, with the values themselves being taken from Gzsabi’s datamine github repository, and have the angle at the top and the caliber divided by the armor thickness at the right.
Sharp nose, uncapped AP:
Blunt nose AP:
Yes, blunt nose AP has an armor multiplier of 1690 against armor at an angle of 85 degrees when the armor is twice the caliber of the projectile itself. No this doesn’t matter because against armor that thick the ricochet is already 100% at a much lower angle.
1 Like