So, I tried adapting the formula using the core weight and 17% of the carrier weight and it works ok for US APCR. I’ll have to check other rounds when I get a chance. I do remember Peasant and Conraire discussing how much of the carrier was applied during penetration but I don’t remember specifi values. I’ll see if I can dig it up.
1 Like
Now I remember why I left out shell mass. Using core weight and 17% of the carrier weight, the BR-365P went from 168mm at muzzle velocity to 244mm at muzzle velocity. I could never find a good compromise to account for it. It would either overestimate Soviet APCR or underestimate US and German APCR.
2 Likes
Well, it’s based on design, so no universal formula is going to fit every APCR round.
What’s important is the mass behind the core. US rounds generally have little to no mass behind the core, thus we can just look at the cores for armor penetration.
That’s my point. No universal formula will work, but ignoring shell mass was closer than trying to apply it.
The “blunt tipped” shells, such as BR-365 have performance comparable to ~1.1CRH (tangent) head projectiles against infinite aluminum targets.
Their shatter resistance is from changing the stress profile, and (associated) their ideal hardness pattern. In real life examples the fuse will tend to fire if the deacceleration is too high.
In 8752 038 where the coefficient of resistance changes steadily with the increase in hardness of the Fascist armor, which clearly indicates the projectile is not shattering.
2-09519 has птп against 230mm plates, псп against 200mm plates. And AHF claims… An птп limit against 180mm?
And I have to ask. What kind of brain compares BR-365 to a cylinder?
Why have they not done this already
3 Likes
They seem very set in their ways on issues like this. I guess they don’t want to create a controversy by rebuilding the calculator. My guess is they don’t want other people to start pushing minor modifications for one reason or another.
1 Like
But wouldn’t improving the penetration calculators be well-received?
1 Like
No. They’ve never put much effort in the proper performance of the rounds. The calculator shows that.
4 Likes
I guess I just don’t quite understand what would be so hard about editing the calculator to be closer to reality, like what was done with APDS. But maybe it isn’t as easy as I’m thinking it is.
Can all APCRs be estimated close to reality using a single formula, or will some fail to match up no matter what formula is chosen?
I don’t know what the reason is and I’ve never gotten a response from the devs but they have their objectives and that’s that.
I don’t know that you can accurately represent every round type in game using the same formula. There are so many factors that have to be talent into account. Material, hardness, shape, velocity and so on. Even in this post, you can see the debates about what’s best.
I’m aware there will always be outliers if everything is tied to a single formula. But what I’m wondering is can a single formula work for the vast majority of them (like it did for non-autocannon sharp-nosed APDS which has numbers that are just about perfect and therefore good enough) without too many outliers?
Like for example, if you based an APCR pen calculator on American rounds, would that give Russian and German ones numbers that make no sense (either too much or too little pen)?
How would the 3,7 cm Pzgr.18 of 700g at 790m/s act?
About 54mm, if I have the right data.
1 Like
From the results I have seen, Germany and US would be close. They generally used similar styles of APCR. Russian APCR used heavy carriers with smaller cores. That presents an issue where the carrier provides more energy for penetrating thinner plates at lower velocities but doesn’t carry over against thicker plates. Once the plate gets thick enough, the carrier can no longer push against the base of the core and that extra energy is lost. The smaller cores used then have lower energy, compared to US and German APCR.
1 Like
About where does the cutoff lie regarding APCR physics, according to your calculations?
What would APCR from Russian guns penetrate if the calculator was based on American rounds? If it means every other nation’s APCR rounds actually penetrate about what they should, then I can gladly tolerate possible overperformance from Russian 45mm, 76mm, 85mm, and 100mm guns - nobody in their right mind uses anything but APHE anyways.
1 Like
FN APBC is just artificially buffed on all tanks, it should have much worse nominal pen
2 Likes
This is yet another example of the garbage that is the penetration calculator used by Gaijin. When not all the necessary parameters are used, the result is what it is, which is completely wrong.
In an early version of armor pen calculator I saw from KillaKiwi, it gave 122mm AP and APBC around 165-170mm pen, and 100mm AP/APBC 180-185mm pen. I have no idea how accurate the penetration values for either gun’s postwar APCBC rounds are.
I remember I found a formula that gave pretty accurate results, to my knowledge, for flat nosed shell penetration against vertical armor.
Can’t remember it anymore though, since I pretty much gave up on this whole penetration calculator thing.
It was of course very simplified, since armor hardness would determine how effective a shell could penetrate a plate.
I remember that @Peasant_wb posted some calculators before that was as accurate as it gets, based on US research, taking both plate hardness and shell quality into account.
2 Likes