There is nothing intentional about incorrect things.
All APCBC rounds underperform, including Sovet & German ones.
Unless you know where the M36 was shooting from you don’t’ know what angle the shell struck the plate, and you therefore don’t know whether is is “impossible” in WT or not…
Eg another photo of the same JP shows how much of a slope it is one - it is easily conceivable the shell came from top/left and so negated much of the benefit of the angled glacis -
There’s nothing intentional about the arbitrary restrictions on what ammo 90mm tanks are allowed to field?
What German APCBC is under performing?
3 Likes
You’re right, I was being sarcastic.
4 Likes
There is nothing arbitrary about ammo choice. Everything is decisive based on gun capabilities as well as intended BR.
M3 cannot fire HEATFS for example, but M3A1 can.
The M3 absolutely can fire HEATFS. The T26E5 mounted the M3 and was used as a test bed for T108 HEATFS.
Also, what ammo is available is arbitrarily restricted. The large filler M82 is not in game. The M26 Pershing doesn’t get the supercharged M82, despite it being shipped as part of Zebra Mission. The M36 doesn’t get T33 or supercharged M82. Later 90mm armed tanks don’t get either early version of the M82. I can go on, but it’s pointless. All this has been discussed many, many times and sources have been posted many, many times.
9 Likes
This is wrong even in-game. Both the French and US M36B2s use normal 90 mm M3 cannons, not M3A1s, yet are capable of firing M348 HEAT-FS, and M82 APCBC at 853 m/s muzzle velocity, not 813 m/s like other M3 90 mm cannons.
So yes. Ammo choice is arbitrary. Very much so when it comes to the US 90 mm cannon.
7 Likes
Yeah, gaijin has been very lazy specifically on the US 90mm for some reason. All the way up to the M48, none of the full caliber AP shells can penetrate a Panthers front.
Which, you know, the idea that the M48 Patton can’t penetrate a world war 2 Panther until HEAT is something i’d expect from History Channel.
3 Likes
M318A1 can, due to its higher muzzle velocity of 914 m/s and therefore improved penetration.
Still, the range at which it can penetrate is comparable to what M77 AP seemingly could do, about 600 or so yards against a Panther UFP. It falls quite a bit short of what the penetration of T33 APBC would be, and even shorter of what M318A1 in real life could accomplish.
3 Likes
No bug reports for current or last few weeks of updates.
So… it’s not that they’re lazy, it’s just that no one’s bug reported them to the same standard as all other historical reports yet.
You still haven’t told me which German and Soviet AP rounds are under performing, or addressed the arbitrary nature of 90mm ammunition availability.
6 Likes
Missery and one other poster had already posted Gaijins report system. Specifically dealing with revamping the AP formula.
But even after they made those reports, Gaijins next posts says that they wont be implementing anything because their was a lack of reports on the new forum, despite two posters addressing the issue.
3 Likes
Bug reports for penetration are not valid now that Gaijin uses the formula. Bug reports are acceptable for things like shell weight or velocity, but not penetration. That’s why I made a suggestion to modify the calculator.
7 Likes
Yeah, it was a good idea. Although even when Gaijin was judging penetration by documentation they still dropped the ball hard on a significant amount of US guns.
Fingers crossed on your formula suggestion though!
5 Likes
It’s got a few votes. Not sure if it’s enough yet.
Per extensive testing, the T33 was more than capable of penetrating a Panthers UFP. Do you have a single credible piece of evidence saying it was only possible because of “muh bad armor”?
10 Likes
Make sure to hit reply so that it’s easier to see who you’re responding to.
But yes, discussing allied guns that can penetrate a Panthers front is headache inducing. It’s either metallurgy shortages or repeated hits that ‘weaken’ the armor plate as reasons to handwave every single allied ballistics reports.
It becomes very difficult to have a discussion or debate with people who uses those excuses, because your told that all those primary sourced documents are false. So uh, good luck debating someone basically ‘nuh uh’ your sources.
3 Likes
All those arguments only work if they are discussing live fire trials. Ballistic limit testing was done to test plates, so lack of materials, poor quality plates, repeated hits all don’t apply.
8 Likes
It’s basically a no win scenerio. Want to use live-fire trials torwards the debate? Oh but the armor is weakened! It doesn’t count!
Want to use scientic data on an extensive research report? Oh, but allied metals aren’t good as German ones so its wrong.
I’ve been around discussions on the 90mm long enough that most nay sayers always use those two frustrating excuses. Its annoying as it is sad.
4 Likes
It’s actually a win, win, win scenario. Ballistics testing is backed up by live fire trials, which is backed up by combat experience. The performance of the T33 is extremely well documented.
8 Likes