Dude i support your stance but please never spell bro that way again…
True, it’s cro*
8 Likes
The problem is that people try to perform incomprehensible numerical calculations and compare them to a static number in the game, which, in my opinion, is sometimes more misleading than informative.
They don’t perform any in-game testing and claim that something is wrong, even though this approach is completely wrong.
First, the exact firing angle is truly unknown. A 5-degree difference won’t be visible externally, but it affects the result.
This is taken into account in the game. A similar shot simulation, as in the tests, will yield a similar result. We have a 60mm depression in testing and a roughly identical result in the game (I set it to 500 meters to show that a shell can get stuck in the first plate with a slight decrease in velocity, as it would have penetrated it in testing (60mm depression at 100 meters).
Furthermore, it’s not entirely accurate to equate a 60mm depression in a supposedly infinite steel barrier with the same 60mm penetration of composite armor.
Plates tend to break through from the rear, which won’t happen if you have a meter-thick steel blank simulating a turret. I hope it’s clear what I mean.
Essentially, the in-game durability matches the testing (keep in mind that in the protection analysis, we have a +/- 10% shell penetration margin). However, for some reason, many forget that you can’t transfer the test results of the ERA from the turret to the ERA in the hull, as they are mounted differently. which also affects efficiency.
What do you mean by 550mm of penetration? This figure could be vaguely accurate for penetration at 60 degrees at 0 meters (if we count the LOS, not the thickness of the penetrated plate).
The in-game 3BM42 matches the real data perfectly. In the game, it has 235mm of penetration under the same conditions.
As I already said, the X-ray information is extremely approximate. In practice, when simulating a shot, you’ll get results at the level of the test.