Before the calculators were a thing ,Gaijin intentionally nerfed the T33s flat pen without doing anything about the now terrible sloped pen. The system they use to calculate sloped pen needs to have it’s original data inputed or you’ll get the wrong results.
Besides, Russian APHE still has their uber special slope normalization.
How does AP penning more from 0-40 degrees matter when APC is already over performing across the board? Proper APCR performance would out perform AP from 0-40 degrees anyways.
There is was no “original” data. It was all just calculted data but from WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery.
A slope modifier only works when you consider “theoretical” penetration values.
At high velocity, AP rounds will deform and have reduced penetration against vertical and near vertical armor.
The whole reason why APC was used, apart from the obvious benefit against face hardened armor.
APC isn’t overperforming across the board. A few rounds penetrating more than they should due to Gaijin only looking at the weight of the shell as a whole, doesn’t compare to practically all AP rounds that would penetrate more 0-40° armor.
APCR and APC fulfill practically the same purpose, to penetrate thick armor plates that you wouldn’t be able to penetrate with AP.
Atm APC is superior to AP because it has more 0° pen while nearly the same slope performance.
That missing 0° should be working extra for +45°. Making AP better against sloped armor.
Hence why a simple adjustment to slope and overmatching modifier would be the simplest solution for proper working AP.
I never liked the whole idea of slope multipliers in the first place. If you are gonna calculate the 0° penetration of all shells, and then estimate their penetration at X° by applying slope multipliers to that estimate, you might as well estimate the sloped penetration directly from shells mass, caliber and speed like you did for 0° values, without introducing another source of possible error with slope multipliers.
Every APC round that I have found reliable data for is over performing in game.
If you can accept M62 APCBC over performing by ~20%, why can’t you accept T33 over performing by about the same?
What so difficult to understand when I say a few vs. practically all?
Pretty sure that the 75mm and 88mm Pzgr. 39 and British APC rounds are pretty spot on.
I’m not saying that some APC rounds that overperform shouldn’t be changed but this has nothing to do with making nearly every AP round overperform.
It’s whataboutism.
It’s not whataboutism. All APC rounds are over performing. Allied testing of PzGr 39/43 put it around 225mm, not 237mm like in game.
Not all AP shattered and deformed.
If the game can ignore AP cap loss and APC deformation, it can do the same for AP. That’s the system they chose.
Oh no. That one German round that penetrates 5% more than it should, of cousre means that all APC rounds overperform.
Do you have the same data for 17pdr APC and 75mm Pzgr. 39?
It’s just nitpicking. You know how many AP rounds in-game overperform 0-30° wise?
Let’s focus on what should be important: APC rounds penetrating more 0-40° armor while AP rounds penetrating more >45°.
It’s not nitpicking. All APC rounds are overperforming to some degree.
Gaijin chose a standard, one size fits all system. The system has to be fairly implemented.
Nice. I was looking for this document for quite some time.
Well, it says BHN ranging from 250 - 325. So depending on the hardness you get different results.
In-game we don’t have some specififed armor hardness and all armor is treated equally.
I understand. I’m just trying to find information using the same standard to eliminate any debate about what constitutes a penetration.
They buffed accuracy of the gun. Some good news.
It passed to developers!
Also, can you help find T.I summary N139 Aug 44?
Will do more harm then good.
Have fun with your T25 at 6.7 and your M46 and M47 at 7.7.
Not to mention how tanks like the M36 will go up in BR leaving the US with no high powered gun as TD.
The overpressure mechanic for APHE is BS anyway. Would require way more explosive to have the same effect as HE.
I mean I’m not against players choosing between APHE with more or less filler but the ovepressure mechanic is just dumb.
There is no justification for moving tanks up in BR over stock APHE.
There is justification to move tanks up in BR because they start performing better.
With overpressure the old M82 is much more better than the M82 with less filler but higher muzzle velocity and penetration.
The difference between hitting any tank in the turret just once and knock it out is just way more valuable than the slightly better velocity and penetration.
To be entirely fair the M36 already barely has a reason to stay at 5.3.
It already was quite good before, and now both the M82 and the 90 mm cannon have been buffed on it with higher muzzle velocity and less drag on M82, and less than half of the maximum dispersion on the cannon itself.
True. Much better than the M18 at 5.7.
Now the only difference between the M36B2 is that one gets HEAT for being much less mobile and having a giant muzzle break.
Yeah the M36B2 is much more of a side grade to the M36 than an actual upgrade due to the massive loss of mobility.
The Japanese M36 and the Italian M36B1, however, don’t lose nearly as much mobility, specially the Japanese M36, which I do believe to be the best overall M36 in the entire game.
So why isn’t the Tiger E like 7.0 with its high filler APHE?
