Flat penetration is not the standard, under the same specifications of 60 degree converted to flat L15A3 in game penetrates 302mm at 1,000m.
???
2 Likes
It doesn’t have its 1km pen at 10 meters in War Thunder though… 1km it claims the following:
Leopard 2: 475.
Chieftain: 295.
M774: over 390.
And T-72/T-64 ~500mm.
Testing is normally done against 60 degree plates, and it doesn’t specify an angle.
We know M774 is correct.
In War Thunder M774 has 414mm of penetration. It is indeed above 390mm of penetration.
Spoiler
3BM42 does indeed have 500mm of penetration at 1km against a 60 degree plate, the standard test.
L15A3 has 302mm of penetration at 1km, more than the 295 cited.
L15A3 pens 324mm at 10 meters.
The equation is: armor plate / cos angle = LOS penetration.
Gaijin always gives NATO better ammo, yes. This is common knowledge.
3 Likes
Gaijin uses a standardized formula for determining pen.
5 Likes
Russia is almost always acquiring weapons with better performance than NATO. Let me give a simple example. Gaijin would rather reduce Abrams’ ammunition loading time than install M829A3. There was an issue about the incorrect fastest speed of KH38 that was rejected. Yes, issues that enhance NATO will be rejected, and issues that weaken NATO will be immediately installed. This already illustrates the nature of double standards and bias in the game
3 Likes
Ah yes, flat penetration is what matters and not sloped pen, there’s so much flat armour at 8.3.
3 Likes
M829A1, a round seen on M60 120S, has more performance than 3BM60, Soviet tech tree’s best round.
USA has access to M829A2, the best MBT round in War Thunder, for its M1A2 series of tanks.
So all you’ve done is prove USA has a better performing weapon than the Soviets.
KH38, which has the same capability of not dying to SPAA as F-16C and AV-8B, an identical weapon UNLESS some bugs are fixed and SPAA better than Pantsir is added.
So USA, Britain, France, Sweden, and Germany aren’t NATO countries…
Of course Japan vehicles got fixed in the positive direction as well.
LITENING II thermal bug was fixed. Leclerc turret traverse was slightly buffed.
All you’ve done is prove there is no Russian bias, and no double standards.
4 Likes
KH38 does not need to face Pantsir-S1. Let’s make a comparison. AV8B and Su25SM3, as aircraft of the same profession, start at the same points. The former needs to face Pantsir-S1, while the latter only needs to choose the target you want to kill. 4xAGM-65G 2x9m vs 4xKH38 2xr73 Russia is very backward XD; Russian attack aircraft also have IR missile jamming devices and sufficiently rigid bodies, with the latter always having the highest upper limit at the same technological level;
Although its performance in the game is better than Russian ammunition, according to your thinking, Abrams should receive either m829a3 or m829a4; Returning to the missile aspect, KH38 is almost a missile that has been in service in recent years. In history, the Soviet Union had various air to ground missiles. Why did Gaijin choose the latest KH38
The LITENING II thermal bug should not have appeared in the first place. At first, it was normal, but later gaijin reduced its clarity, and recently it has only been fixed again in this version
Neither does F-16C, as it our-ranges Pantsir with all ordnance.
And AV-8 out-ranges Pantsir with AGM-65Gs.
Su-25T doesn’t have KH38s.
That would make them 13.0 and thus wouldn’t face T-90Ms to begin with.
Was going to happen regardless of which tech tree got two different optics on an aircraft at the same time, cause that was the bug.
Clarity wasn’t reduced. Bugs are unintentional.
3 Likes
Are we really complaining about the T-55A having 3BM25, an APFSDS round so bad it’s worse than the preceeding 3BM-8 APDS???
3BM-8 spalls way more than 3BM25 while having better sloped performance, there’s legit 0 reason to use 3BM25 unless you want to spend a little SL as a way to ensure you will never encounter shell shattering, which pratically never happens with 3BM-8.
War Thunder has a lot of balancing issues; the T-55A having 3BM25 isn’t one of them.
4 Likes
Please do not take it out of context. Abrams received m829a3 or a4 as the result of reasoning based on your previous ideas
I didn’t mention that su25t has kh38
Why are you quoting the meaningless 0° pen you should only ever look at 60° and at 60° the chieftain is pretty good its probably the best gun to use at the br if you consider the great spalling it has too
L15A5 only has 10mm extra angle pen
8 Likes
The Su-25 has to actually face the target when its firing its AGMs the western aircraft with TGPs dont you can also pretty reliably shoot down the KH38 they have an extremely obvious smoke strail id also say its disingenuous to use the harrier because its not the top CAS plane the F-16C is which gets 6x AGM-65D as well as 2x Paveway III thats double the Su-25 on a far better airframe with far better optics
IRCM exists only on the Su-25T/39 a pretty meh CAS aircraft and it also only works from the 45° rear arc against only Stingers but you’d be stupid to get within Stinger range anyway mind you the Su-25T has to face the target its shooting at the entire time until it kills the enemy
Also if you get hit once in the 25 its usually a kill the control surfaces get destroyed pretty easily
4 Likes
I have never seen KH38 intercepted by NATO air defense missiles before, but it is almost common for AGM65 to be intercepted. AGM65 and KH38 are almost incomparable. KH38 can exceed the range of NATO air defense missiles, but AGM65 needs to be launched within the range of air defense missiles and has a slow speed, making it very easy to intercept. How long do you think Western planes with TGP can have a shooting window when facing Pantsir-S1? AGM65D damage does not perform well in the game because its penetration depth data is incorrect. Fully armed F16c is heavy, costly, and you also need to avoid 95ya6. As a fighter, you should not compare it with professional attack planes. AV8b Due to the fox3, it is now the highest attack aircraft of NATO BR
Invalid arguments.
Until in this game the Warsaw Pact forces have the historical 2:1 numerical advantage over NATO team, we’ll just have to deal with Gaijin gimping western tanks.
no it doesn’t have you even used the maverick it has LOAL you can launch it at 20km and once it hits 7km or closer it locks onto the target
The pantsir is incredibly easy to dodge and you have plenty of time to use the TGP, against a supersonic target at range the pantsirs missiles literally dont have enough energy to hit they’re SACLOS ince the booster runs out they act like fireflashes
This is just bullshit all the HEAT warheads got a massive buff ive literally not had a single maverick fail yet since the change
The F-16C is the top CAS plane its multirole just like the harrier just because russia couldn’t develop a good multirole doesn’t mean you cant use the F-16C
5 Likes
I don’t play tanks anymore, but as a pilot I can say it’s similar with aircraft. First all aspect missiles goes to Russia the R-60M and we had to wait few months to add all aspect to NATO aircrafts. First air-to-ground radar goes to Su-39, when we got A-6E TRAM few month before (still without radar despite few reports existing).
But this topic does not change anything. Maybe even get closed soon.
1 Like
Which is wrong in game, it has comparable performance to DM13 105, except having better spalling (still bad due to short rod) than just it’s APDS competitor.
Counterargument to the thread, why is the HEAT-FS projectile soviet tanks use stops progressing from 1978 (3BK18M)?
Soviet tanks could have 3BK31 with Tandem warhead and 800 mm of penetration.
So seeing this maybe years argument is terrible?
Or Swedish low tier tanks being built in one time and their shells being from another after-life.
Doesnt make these swedish tanks any better.
Also, only in this game M-60/48 gun mask can stop stuff like 3BM28 with DU core in WT, or 3BM42, all while even 3BM20 is enough to go through in GHPC.
One of the most worst cases of volumetric.
3 Likes
AGM-65 does not need to be launched within 15km as your post falsely claims.
Not a thing.
Our tanks have the best ammo, best reloads, and some have more armor than T-90M.
Western tanks are already universally better than the russian toptier the only ones you could consider worse are the challenger, ariete and maybe the merkava compared to pretty much every other toptier russian tanks have worse Mobility, reload, gun penetration, gun handling, gun depression and survivability
9 Likes