T62 does very little damage sometimes and its really stupid…
damage is calculated based on the darts speed, weight, angle of entry and amount of armor it has to go through at the point of impact and what type of armor it is. There isn’t a set number it does every time, it’s calculated for every shot based on lots of different factors.
Nope.
When it comes to “long rods”, residual pen is the stat tied to spall generation.
3 Likes
If you’re using the dart that has less straight pen but more angled pen it’s obviously gonna do less spalling as it will have less remaining pen overall left.
Both T-62 and T-55A APFSDS are short rod APFSDS, so they’re bound to have less spall than DM23/33 shells already.
T-62 tbh in game is just downgrade of T-55A (especially the in-game model of T-55A being 1972 one and T-62 being 1961 model) at higher BR that should be downtiered to 8.3.
T-62 and T-55 both use short rod.
And as far as i know anything below 4.5 kg gets effected by the weight but above 4.5kg they all do the same regardless of weight for the same speed and same residual pen.
T-62 and T-55A darts are short rods, first long rod USSR gets is 3BM28 and then 3BM42. All else before are short rods (quite fake debuff tbh)
Its just bad for gameplay when a shell like that deals so little damage. And from what i heard those steel shells should deal more damage because they would mushroom and displace more metal from the armor.
Compared to what?
To same caliber and length shell that uses tungsten pentrator. Its called maraging steel.
Well, the T-55A carries the 3BM25 ammunition, which dates from 1978.
For these Soviet BRs, I would make them historically accurate. I would keep AP rounds for the T-54 (1947), and APBC for the 1949 and 1951 versions. I would add the T-54A, with APCBC and HEAT as its best ammunition. I would remove the 3BM25 ammunition from the T-55A. I would add the T-55AMV, equipped with the 3BM25. And I would add the T-62 (1972), with the 3BM6 as its best ammunition.
I agree with you but thats a separate issue. The issue is that T-62 has too little damage. I dont think this is because of some formula mechanic. They probably just forgot about it and kept it like that from the olden days.
It is entirely possible that this ammunition contains some sort of programming error that prevents it from dealing the intended amount of damage. In principle, both rounds should have similar damage output, as they are identical in every respect except for the tungsten carbide tip—which, in the case of the tungsten-tipped round, should result in a greater number of fragments (at least provided the core remains relatively intact).
The issue of damage is quite complex, as many factors go into the calculation—any or all of which could contain programming errors that result in inconsistent damage output. This is difficult to fix, as it requires gathering data, and the developers have no intention of addressing serious flaws in the game.
There’s no choice but to get used to the low damage, focusing on ensuring you can at least get off two shots, even if it means dying more often than usual.
Did some testing in the protection analysis using the 125mm 3BM9 and 3BM15 and there seems to be no meaningful difference in damage even tho the latter round is longer and has tungsten penetrator instead of all steel. But when i compare the darts on T-62 to darts on T-62M-1 there seems to be significant difference in damage. I think its one of those “legacy” things when they just forget to bring old stuff to new standards.