Yet they spam 6BR with rat vehicles
Only rat stuff i see 98% of the time is rat stuff that is around that br.
2 Likes
Some elements of this game are crap and I can accept that but please don’t try to tell me they are not crap.
3 Likes
I can because that is your opinion.
3 Likes
No tank in those trials has suffered ammunition detonation, because all the ammo and delicate equipment was taken from the hull before then.
Can you post the detail of this trial with animals inside a Panther tank? I believe you are misremembering something, because the only kind of trial like this, that I know of, was carried out much later with the T-72 tanks.
Here is some experimental work that attempts to quantify the relative effectiveness of various high caliber HE shells: ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ ПОРАЖАЮЩЕГО ДЕЙСТВИЯ ОСКОЛОЧНО-ФУГАСНЫХ СНАРЯДОВ ПО БРОНЕ
The first time I heard about it was from an interview to Peter Samsonov, who often goes through the Soviet archives for tests on AFVs. Since it was an interview however no source was cited, so I’ve just left a comment to him asking if he can point to a source documenting this test.
While looking, I did find something about HE performance that (while not involving blast studies per se) is pertinent to the wider topic I think.
During tests with a Tiger II, the Soviets fired a 122mm at the target a bunch of times. Most shots were with AP, but the very first shot was with HE. Here are the results:
“Shot #1. Target: upper front plate. Shell: 122 mm HE-fragmentation.
Result: spalling across an area 300 mm by 300 mm. The welding seam between the upper front plate and the machine gun port burst on 3/4 of its circumference. Internal bolts holding the machine gun ball were torn off. The welding seam between the upper front plate and the right side burst, and the right side was displaced by 5 mm. The tank caught fire internally.”
Report here: 38_11377_129
2 Likes
I say “surprising” in the sense that a lot of people talk about the IS-2 purely in terms of anti-tank performance, but in reality it was T-34-85s that were expected to run into enemy tanks more often, while IS-2s as you say were specialists meant to hammer enemy strong points.
3 Likes
The actual damage would have been damaged to the armor welds and a destroyed hull machine gun.
The machine gun was removed, thus the blast from the explosion could enter the tank through the ball mount. There is no internal spalling, just some scratches to the armor where the shell hit.
4 Likes
Sir that is after being hit by a 16inch HE round, but go off.
I’m quite sorry to tell you, but like many things related to WW2 imagery, that claim is a myth. Where’s the blast crater of the 16-inch shell if it’s true?
From what I am reading on Reddit, it wasn’t hit by that, but was blown up by demolition charges instead.
1 Like
All of the above remains pissing into the wind.
Heavy Tanks “are not allowed to actually function as HEAVY TANKS” because the BR system matches them against (more or less) equally effective opponents - not the historical opponents they could bully.
That is all there is to it, now and forever, glory to the BR, amen.
4 Likes
I’ll go ahead and remove it from my post, then- The rest, of course, still stand on their own :P
The IKV isn’t a heavy tank. It’s a tank destroyer. It having thin armor is a design choice, it’s not a flaw of the game. It was never meant to take hits from large caliber guns, so it’s shouldn’t beg a lower BR due to its armor.
1 Like
So what about the fact that it’s open-topped, has no turret, mediocre mobility, and poor velocity for its shells?
That’s the entire reason BR exists: To balance based on vehicle capability and place vehicles as such, not the hackneyed pure silliness that intro-date-based BR would bring.
1 Like
Samsonov has gotten back to me. However, the report is undated and there is no specific as to which target was used. The other test referenced, with HEAT penetrators, is from 1968, but the test with APHE and HE is not dated. So all in all I conflated two different memories.
However, it does seem to corroborate that animals were used more than once in this type of test, and not just in relation to T-72s.
1 Like
Yes, thank you for taking your time to find it.
I remember now, I saw this post a long time ago.
I tried to find it again myself, but the original source in now deleted, only the translated copy at tankarchives blog remains.
It clears some misconceptions:
-
The damage behind the armour from large caliber HE is not effected through spalling of the armor but through overpressure wave transmitted through the armour. Some internal equipment attached to the armour might be prepelled from impact as projectiles, but that’s it.
-
High caliber HE strikes will likely disable a tank through affecting its crew, before enough mechanical damage is achieved to stop it from functioning.
-
Modern composite armour made of heterogeneous materials and/or empty air pockets is likely to be much worse at transmitting the shockwaves to the crew compartment than the full steel earlier tank designs.
Br is a measure of effectiveness - both offensive capabilities and defensive, mobility, resources, etc - all combined into a single figure…
Now go away and wite me 50 pages on what you just posted is arrant nonsense.
1 Like
You could take a static gun from the 60s or 70s and it would have to be towed but it could still be out of canon and make a mockery of WW2 armour. Armour and penning power was in some way relative and is reletive mostly in the WW2 meta ,only when you leave that do we get 3 or 400mm of pen killing the WW2 game and the need for WW2 style tanks.It’s called redundancy or obsolescence. Fact is the 103 does not rely on velocity due to the nature of its ammo.It is not WW2 that is the point .So much changed in so little time and that is why time can be so important in tank development and why War Thunder gets it so wrong.
The Op is not actually on about this ,He is questioning the physics in the WW2 arena between two tanks that actually fought each other.He does imply that the Panzer IV was totally incapable of destroying a Churchill VII.
Penetration.
Is not.
The only relevant metric for a gun/shell.
Otherwise, do you think people would still use M82 when it’s inferior in pen to the 88mm? M61 shot, the American 75’s lifeblood when it’s inferior to the German 75 in pen?
HEAT and HEATFS suffer from (as I’ve told you many times) the important downsides of (A) practically random postpen compared to the current APHE nukes and (B) being almost entirely unable to shoot through even the thinnest of bushes without causing problems.