Wake up nerds, new research has dropped: Cast vs Rolled homogeneous armour equivalency | WW2Talk
Your conclusion in your final comment matches what the game has, where cast armor receives a 0.94x multiplier to it’s thickness compared to RHA.
Surprisingly. With so many other things that Gaijin got wrong, I didn’t expect things to match so well. But I am not complaining.
I recall discussions that cast armor gets closer in effectiveness to RHA the larger the plate is. No clue about the evidence behind it though.
1 Like
Yeah that was stated in “WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery”.
Yes, however what real life testing did they use?
No clue. I think they just came to that conclusion, probably based on same US test.
But considering that the authors had the habit of coming to wrong conclusions, I wouldn’t be suprised if there was no concrete evidence.
1 Like
On the topic of shatter and “capped” penetration of uncapped AP. It would look something like this:
1 Like
What’s kinda funny is that WT got more and more advanced, e. g. composite armor and missiles with infrared and radar seekers, countermeassures and notching etc.
Yet good old aircraft cannons and regular AP rounds are just so basic that almost nothing makes sense.
I mean how does it make sense that we have modern tanks with composite armor but not a single tank that has face hardened armor?
Or that HHA is just a better armor type than RHA at all cicumstances. They can’t even declare T-34s armor as HHA or everyone would just call out Russian Bias.
APFSDS bounces from Abrams upper glacis into the neck but T-34 driver hatch stops a Panthers 75mm from point blank.
The game just goes forward but doesn’t really care about the things that are already in the game.
Only when they add something new that affects older vehicles, something changes.
1 Like
What makes me laugh is the naval devs will adjust the penetration formula to match historical performance but the ground devs won’t.
3 Likes
I’ve noticed how chill and polite are naval players on this forum. That explains it.
1 Like
Chart for the 75mm M3 and M6.
1 Like
Your estimate for the penetration of M61 is a bit high. The mass of M61 APC filled and fuzed without counting AP cap and windshield is 5.67kg (12.5lb).
1 Like
@MiseryIndex556 Check this out. Looks pretty neat, right?
QF of 0.9 - 1.0 can be used for capped solid shot, 0.8-0.9 for APCBC-HE, 0.7-0.8 for uncapped solid shot, 0.7 and below for uncapped APHE.
1 Like
That sounds like a (way too much) broad simplification.
1 Like
I was also thinking about a way to nerf the 88mm Pzgr.
At the moment it is hardly worse than the 88mm Pzgr. 39. The only thing making it worse is the amount of filler, since KE is more or less the same.
→
As we can see, there’s quite a difference between the 88mm Pzgr. and the 85mm BR-365.
Even though they have almost the same filler content, the 85mm has a lot more “meat” above the cavity.
And with meat, I mean steel 😂
Not sure, if there was a univeral way to change it. But one issue with Gaijins penetration calculator is certainly that Gaijin doesn’t consider the cap weight.
Like the APC modifier turns an AP shell into an APC shell of the same weight with more penetration, even though for that to happen, the penetrator must be smaller to make up for the weight of the cap.
In this case both 88mm Pzgr. and 85mm BR-365 get around the same reduction for filler, even though the 88mm Pzgr. penetrator integrity is obviously reduced by a greater amount, as seen by the picture.
I guess one factor that is also not considered is the massive fuze, that adds weight to the shell but actually makes the shell weaker, requiring an even greater cavity to fit.
It’s crazy but the fuze for the 88mm Pzgr. weighs a whooping 950g with tracer, compared to the Pzgr. 39 fuze, which weighs merely around ~333g.
What’s interesting is that the 128mm Pzgr. and Pzgr. 43 are pretty much the same design as the 88mm Pzgr., having an enormous cavity but the fuze for the 128mm is actually much smaller, weighing merely 124g without tracer and detonator.
1 Like
Yes. Indeed it is.
Things like US solid shot was not the same as the UK solid shot. Even among shells of the same nation and caliber, stuff like the heat treatment can significantly change the way it behaves under certain conditions (see 90mm M77 vs T33E7).
The QF will likely have to be set manually for almost every shell in the game.
I suggest you re-check your sources because those fuze weights seem very unrealistic.
My notes says that the Bd. Z. 5103 for small cavity 7.5cm pzgr.39 has a mass of 107g.
The Bd.Z. 5127 for small filler 88mm APHE weights 333g.
Yeah probably some typo :3
A bit of a tangent, but, have you ever wondered, why the soviets introduced the sharp nosed 85mm BR-365K shell? From the FT it looks to be a direct downgrade when compared to the earlier, blunt nosed shell.
I have been thinking about it and have developed a theory that might explain it.
If we compare the 85mm BR-365 and the 76mm BR-350(A?) with large cavity, we can see that their designs are pretty similar.
In the 1943 trial the soviet 76mm gun failed to perforate the Tigers side armour, it didn’t even come close, with maximum depth of dents left at about half of total armour thickness. Which is why they introduced a new design BR-350B which was robust enough to do potentially it (if angle and range are small enough).
So, I wonder if the 85mm BR-365 had the same problem with defeating thick armour? At the time of it’s introduction in 1939 there were no tanks with 100mm+ thick armour, so maybe it wasn’t designed to deal with it and was made of steel poor in alloying elements and with no complex differential hardening treatment, in order to improve the production numbers. It would’ve worked just fine when fired at 800m/s against targets with 50-60mm of armour anyway.
Spoiler
'>inb4 tankies come and say I’m a wheraboo who’s looking for every possible excuse to denigrate the GLORIOUS SOVIET TECH!