So it would be worse than IRL and by gaijins calculator?! (By the Panzer Beschusstafel at least 38mm/30°/200m for the 745m/s 3,7 cm Pak L/45)
(Neither can even penetrate the M3 Lee at 30°/100m. in game.)
Maybe I’m understanding it wrong, I don’t speak German, but the document says the PzGr will penetrate the M3 side armor at 200 meters. The side armor is 38mm at 0 degrees. I don’t know the velocity at 200 meters, but I don’t know that it would be drastically less than 38mm.
Yes, it can penetrate the side armor at 200m and 30°, for less than 30° they write “Nur bei nahezu Senkrechtem Beschuss” → Near flat hit next to it.
Example on the turret back.
For some reason they didnt write the 30° rule extra in every one, or the page is simply not shown on that web side, but here it also sayes that. (See little drawing.)
“Die angegebene Wirkung bezieht sich auf einen Seitenwinkel von 60°” → “The mentioned performance is for a side angle of 60°”
Pz Besch. Tafel Page
With the above in mind, would there be a “refinement” (for lack of better words)?
I can make adjustments if I have actual numbers to work with.
Well, 38mm/30°/200m?
And by the 1942 version of Pz. Besch. Tafel also through the 40mm/30°/100m of the Matilda
The blue arrow represents the AP, the green arrow represents APCR. The blue is pointing to a 40mm flat spot at 100 meters.
At 30°, again, all marks are for 30° otherwise they give extra note. But otherwise yes. A flat 40mm plate at 30° from 100m.
Also what about the 3,7 cm H-Pzgr for Flaks with 16mm core of 231g at 1150-1170m/s?
Does this chart account for angled pen for APCR? APCR is underperforming by like what 400%? on 60 degree slops, making it unusable
What chart do you mean?
Anyway, if that ever comes, then i really want the Pzgr. L’Spur and H-Pzgr. L’Spur for Flaks.
Would also be interested to see their performance by this calculation.
Consider a solid shot and the round would go through.
It’s just Gaijins formula that assumes that APHE will always lose X percent penetration, regardless of the cicumstances, which of course doesn’t make sense.
1 Like
If I use the same AP formula and apply the filler penalty, I get 58mm at 0* and 45mm at 30* at muzzle velocity. If the chart equates to 30* side angle as you say, that would be a reasonable match at 100 meters.
1 Like
I was wrong with my initial calculations. Using the original formula, it would be 49mm at 0-* and 39mm at 30* at 745 m/s. So it would match in game but be a little under the 100 meter performance show in the chart.
And at 762 m/s? Some sources (mainly american) give it as a max velocity.
IIRC @Thodin mentioned that the german velocitys are for Mid life barrles.
Example:
Tactical and Technical Trends No. 21-30 US War Department
At 762 m/s it’s about 51mm at 0* and 41mm at 30*.
1 Like
Just curious, why are you using * instead lf °?
I’m posting from my cellphone.
Existing semi-empirical armour penetration models predict that plain AP shells would over-perform APC shells every time, because such models do not take into consideration the very reason APC shells were invented: shell (nose) shatter. This matter is as important as the calculation of penetration itself.
I believe I have come up with a model that is both realistic and useable for a video-game: for every set of conditions of target obliquity, thickness and other factors, a chance to experience (nose) shatter is specified in the game’s code for every uncapped AP shell in the game (and some APC as well). When it happens the normally superior penetration of an uncapped AP shell gets cut by up to 1/3rd.
Face-hardened armour can be implemented by setting it’s chance to shatter an uncapped AP shell to 100%, for most conditions.
1 Like