You see 76.2mm M62 in real life had 125mm @ 100m penetration but gaijin calculator calculates it as 149mm @ 100m.
The issue was the M62 and M82 were poor quality and didn’t achieve the penetration that they would have done. T50 APCBC fixed the poor quality issue.
Essentially M62 and M82 in War Thunder perform as if they were both made to same quality as T50 APCBC
Not that I’ve seen. Some later ballistics data for the M82 shows different performance but I’ve never seen any proof it was the M82.
M62 and M82 both had large caps, meant for face hardened armor. T50 would pen around 194mm at 2800 fps and a T50 quality M62 would pen around 153mm.
You did not provide documents proving different rounds existed. After all we have proof different guns performed differently. M3A1 has higher velocities for example.
You also did not provide evidence that the rounds are currently incorrect. T33 has evidence of penning at 500 yards, or ~457 meters.
And one penetration on what looks like weakened armor at 1000 yards, or ~914 meters, according to pictures from the Aberdeen tests.
Tiger does not have two versions of TankGrenade 39, TankGrenade 39 has 64 grams of H10 in all 88mm guns.
Im sure if you bothered reading MiseryIndex post you can find the different rounds listed. M82 having an Early and Late version is easily researchable knowledgeable that once again Misery just made a post for. The US didnt build an entirely new gun to fire these rounds, T33 and late model M82 can be fired by the M3 90mm cannon. Thats just poor guesswork on your part.
‘Weakened armor’ a constant poor excuse of a german main to further delusions of allied inferiority. The T33 can penetrate the frontal glacious of the Panther at 1000m, thats proven mathematically and in the field. What makes the round ‘special’ is that it has a high tendacy to shatter, which reduces vertical penetration but providing superb performance against sloped armor. But thats not something that Gaijins calculator can take account for.
The round that can ‘only’ penetrate the Panther at 500m is the M77, a much older shell that the T33 was based out of. Im not sure why you’d bring it up when not even it can do damage against a Panther at point blank in game.
Also, do us all a favor. Go to any of the Tiger tanks, and click on modification. Now start explaining why its fair that the fat cat can get two different APHE rounds and the US can’t.
Your entire first paragraph doesn’t address my post at all, and is just an argumentative strawman fallacy.
Your second paragraph screams Wehraboo argumentative.
Yeah, I’m ignoring your posts.
The M3A1 doesn’t have higher velocities. It has the same performance as the M3. The A1 just added a bore evacuator.
Here is proof of the velocities and performance.
https://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/90-mm-ammunition/index.html
At the minimum, T33 should be able to defeat the glacis of a Panther out to 1000 meters. With Gaijin not taking plate hardness into account, it would be closer to 1300 meters. T33 was tested against 3 3/8” plate before it was accepted into service. The live fire trials just confirmed what the ballistics testing already proved.
By the way, Gaijin will not edit a single ammunition’s penetration in WT, as they use an algebraic equation for all ammunition types in order to be egalitarian.
What you need to do is provide an alternative equation to the one Gaijin is currently using that is more accurate.
What proof do you have? The game?
Because even in-game this is not the case. The M36B2s in both the French and US tech tree use normal M3 90 mm cannons, and yet are still capable of firing 853 m/s M82.
On top of that, even a lot of the cannons that fire the earlier M82 with 813 m/s muzzle velocity still fire T33 APBC at 853 m/s. The only reason there’s a muzzle velocity difference between these M82 rounds is exactly because there were different versions of the round.
And the 853 m/s M82 wasn’t even a post war round, it was very much WW2. This suggestion on the old forums has a 1944 document that talks about it, and mentions 3 variants of M82, those normally being called “early”, “late” and “supercharged”, each one going 2650, 2800 and 2850 ft/s, or 807.72, 853.44 and 868.68 m/s respectively, with the supercharged variant being dropped as it caused too much barrel wear (certain documents give “early” M82 a muzzle velocity of 2670 ft/s, or 813.816 m/s, which is the value it uses in-game).
Edit: Oh yeah, about this:
T33 in-game has a less than 50% chance of penetrating the Panther UFP even at 200 meters (169 mm of pen, Panther UFP is 171 mm effective against it), and basically 0% at 500 meters. So even if what you say here is true (which it isn’t), it still underperforms, a lot.
I’m not expecting them to change it for one round. Solid, uncapped AP across the board is under performing. Some rounds had shatter issues, some did not. I believe Gaijin used Soviet rounds as the basis for their calculator.
Here is a suggestion to fix AP I made on the old forum. I’ll have to redo it for this one but it has all the data.
Except it doesn’t affect just T33, this issue affects all US AP rounds, most notably the M103’s M358, which should have FAR higher sloped pen (and also vertical pen), at up to ~150 mm if I recall correctly. It should easily be able to blast Tiger 2s, IS-3s, IS-6s, T-10s and the like through their UFP at 2km.
Gaijin uses an equation made by math people unconnected to any nation or games company.
But yeah, if you want more accuracy, gotta find a more accurate equation.
Gaijin attempts to use a “de Marre” equation, a formula which works by comparison. The equation uses one round of which you know all the characteristics (weight, caliber, velocity, penetration at said velocity), to then calculate the penetration of another round, which is generally similar to the previously mentioned round, or even just the same but at a different velocity.
Gaijin takes half of that and throws it out the window. Their calculator just assumes every single round is the exact same. On top of that, it also uses a completely made up round as a basis for the calculator.
Besides those issues, there’s issues pertaining to how projectile caps and TNT filler work.
A round that has a filler weight that is less than 0.65% of the total weight gets no penalty to penetration. This can be seen on the German 75 mm APCBC rounds, and the Russian 57 mm rounds. Then there are the issues where (most) capped rounds get no penalty to their flat penetration, while capped rounds get a 0.9x multiplier. Even then there are capped rounds that still get a 0.9x flat pen multiplier, like the “90 mm Obus de rupture” APC round for the ARL-44, or the “Shot Mk.4” APC round for the Sherman Firefly.
Gaijin used a mathematical formula but modified it for their purposes.
The standard formula uses the shell weight, diameter, velocity and a unit less variable. Gaijin then added a modifier for HE filler and a standard .9x modifier for uncapped rounds.
If you have a capped round and uncapped round of the same weight and diameter, the uncapped round should penetrate more armor. The capped AP round has a smaller penetrator because part of the weight is in the cap. The cap is designed to protect the point of the penetrator, especially against face hardened armor.
Gaijin doesn’t take the weight of the cap into account for APC rounds, then applies the .9x modifier to AP rounds.
Pretty simple really, parity and US ground hardware is something that rarely is used in the same conversation in this game.
Any more said than that and it’s politics
Although I haven’t seen it referenced here, Hunnicutt on page 121 of his Pershing book states that T30E16 round could penetrate the Panther’s glacis at “up to 450yds”, while the T33 with a MV of 2800fps could penetrate “up to 1100yds”. “Both rounds were available for the Zebra mission” so they should be accurately represented in the game. I took my M26 on a test drive and with 10 rounds of T33 ammunition at 70M on the Panther target got 2 partial penetrations. The other 8 were deflected.
Just saying…
The 90mm guns are underperforming to various degrees, but it seems like that is all intentional. Dozens of bug reports and suggestions have gone ignored.
It’d be great if Gaijin stopped Cucking American hardware. It’s so annoying to snap a US 90mm into the turret of a Panther, Tiger or IS and the mantlet just blackholes it.
I posted in another area the quotes from Hunnicutt’s Pershing book, pg 121. T30E15 AP would penetrate Panther glacis at up to 450yds, the T33 hardened and capped APC would penetrate at up to 1100yds. Both rounds were available for the Zebra Mission in early 1945. I took my M26 for a test drive and parked square in front of the Panther D in the test drive scenario. I fired 10 T33 rounds at 70 meters into the main glacis, not at the machinegun or driver ports. 2 of 10 rounds made partial penetrations. All the others bounced. So I agree completely that the penetration isn’t close to the real capability of the weapon and it’s ammunition. Apparently only the HEAT round on the M36B2 TD can reliably punch the glacis or mantlet.