Asinine, yes.
Cope, no. It’s literally how the game calculates it. Read the wiki.
I completely agree that it’s not att all how it SHOULD work and that its a dumb way of doing it BUT it is sadly how it works at the moment.
Why do you always take the 60 degrees pen and multiple it by two to make russian darts look worse/western darts look better? Are you regularly shooting targets at 60+ degrees AoI?
Cause only Maus has flat armor near that BR…
Most shots in War Thunder are shot at angled plates.
4 Likes
They are worse, no matter how you look at it the 3bm25 is worse than the dm 23, even if they have the same flat penetration.
2 Likes
You’re aiming poorly if you’re consistently hitting targets with 60+ degrees impact angle. Like you would have to be actively aiming for sloped surfaces to do that badly.
Yeah if you only compare the penetration I guess, and ignore the post-pen damage. Regardless, 3bm25 vs dm23 wasn’t even the comparison discussed.
You’re hitting plates that are 40 - ~68 degrees almost always.
Usually the thinnest armor at that BR too.
4 Likes
germany suffers noises and the russian aphe is better then 8.3 apfsds
1 Like
Depends on what Russian APHE and the scenario.
Man the weird thing is to actually hit conpletely flat armor, 60-70 degree shots are quite common specually of you try to aviod frontal armor
Side armour is usually pretty flat, but you’d still expect to hit it from a wide range of different angles.
40 degrees is a lot less than the 60+ degrees you’ve been insisting. More than a 50% reduction.
Regardless, if you’re almost always hitting targets at 45 degrees or greater, you should try aiming for weak spots which better presented to you.
Side armor at 70° is a wakspot specially at top tier
We’re talking about 8.3, not top tier.
In this case, shooting side armour at 70 degrees is extremely unlikely to work out.
Not if they are in a Russian tank, and have space-age ERA which can stop 120mm APFSDS impacting at 0 degrees.
Nobody argued that penetration at 60 degrees is unimportant, being confused and wrong isn’t an excuse to put words in people’s mouths.
I said that multiplying the 60pen value by 2 proves absolutely nothing. You’re not accounting for the armor vs projectile type modifier, that’s why multiplying by 2 doesn’t match the 0 deg value.
If that’s how the game calculates it then why doesn’t dividing it by cos(60) give you the 0 degree value in the table? Lmao. So close yet so far
1 Like
the 60 pen value is obtained form the specific projectile modifier.
1 Like
Because of the armor coefficient and the rounds angle coefficient. Equal penetrating rounds might behave differently where one round at 60 degrees might bounce while another goes through. And not because of different penetration ability but different angular coefficient.
For example: if you have a round that tends to flatten and spread sideways it won’t like a 0° angle as it spreads to the sides, but at 60° that side expansion will help the round penetrate as that expansion goes into the tank instead of to the sides.
I hope I explained this well enough to be understood.
I’m trying to explain this in a calm and constructive manner so I would ask you to at least stop being condescending.
Except when you take the inflated flat pen figures obtained with this conversion, it doesn’t match the flat pen that the dart actually has at 0 degrees in game? You literally just explained how having better angled penetration might not correlate with better flat angle performance. So why is it fine for the Russian players to take western darts and just double the 60 degree value, to make them look better than Russian rounds?
Ok, there are variations to the formula value, so you can’t take it as an absolute value, right?