This has the same energy as “4 x 30 mm cannons is equal to a 120 mm cannon”.
1 Like
😂😂
Well, flat nosed shells are not great dealing with thick armor plates as we know.
I’m just curious how the 122mm would in fact fare against such armor, since we know the performance of 57mm, 76mm and 85mm shells pretty well, but 100mm and 122mm are still a bit of a mystery, when it comes to 0° penetration.
There’s a simulation out there but it only showed that it would pen the armor from 100m, which is like a very naive approach for simulation range, and Peasant didn’t belive it should even perform like that.
I don’t know how much we can trust this simulations (I’m not an expert), but I think they are somehow realistic:
Edit: sorry, have missed that part:
as it is directly talking about this video.
Maybe this is a bold statement, but I don’t think a witness plate was necessary in that simulation.
3 Likes
It’s time to sleep. I went to Youtube looking for this clip, got distracted, forgot what I wanted to do, returned here and you posted it, making me remember what I wanted to do 😂
1 Like
And I have missed the part where You were talking about it.
So ye, I’m going to sleep too.
1 Like
Yeah, seems plausible.
The 122mm isn’t nearly as flat as the 76mm shell, so probably the 0° performance wouldn’t be super bad, but the slope performance probably wasn’t crazy effective either.
There’s also a simulation against Panther armor and the shell didn’t perform spectacular for the range.
1 Like
I have no other pages, but I believe this is from a December 1943 trial. The 122mm AP is almost certainly the BR-471, because the BR-471B did not exist yet.
The hit on the main armour failed to penetrate, as expected, but one that hit tapered part near the gun opening (150 - 180mm thick) is stuck in the armour and, according to the description, is sticking out from the other side.
If one is observant enough, they might notice that only one of two shells fired at the armour was left intact. So, using the NPL formula we estimate the penetration performance of a 122mm 25kg ogival nose AP, under conditions where it remains whole.
170mm/20° at 1400m is in line what we see here. Vertical penetration at the same distance is about 182mm/0° so I reason it might stand a chance to perforate KT turret front under same conditions.
Before you run off to make a bug report to increase the penetration of this gun to 250mm/0° at 100m, let me shatter your hopes and dreams.
Just because this gun was able to (almost) penetrate this target at 1400m, doesn’t mean it would’ve been able to do the same at close range, much less penetrate greater thickness of armour. What happened was a fluke due to a combination of extremely favourable conditions to the soviet gun: the armour was thin enough and sloped not too much and the distance (ergo, striking velocity) was just low enough to keep the AP shell from shattering like the other one did, and allowed it to reach it’s theoretical performance.
1 Like
It hit right into one of the armor holes, where bolts were supposed to hold the gun mantlet.
So the armor was certainly compromised at that area.
Probably the reason why the shell is stuck in with that kind of orientation. After impacting the armor, the shell was pushed into that direction due to lower armor resistance.
Kinda like that:
1 Like
Yeah, I totally noticed that. I just wanted to see if you will spot it too, ha-ha! :D
1 Like
“For every player that has a good KD in the tiger there are 10 with a bad KD. It should be 3.7.”
Same argument
My argument was that player stats SHOULDN’T get used for balancing.
They should. But only using data from players that have at least a few hundred battles in the vehicle and have K/D ratio > 1-2, to filter out bots.
Even then it would be flawed. They could use player stats as an indication that a vehicle might be over/underperforming but it should always be manually reviewed.
Of course.
Why not simply cut out the data of the bottom 50% of players? Then you’ll probably only get people who can find two braincells to rub together and figure out what their vehicle is good/bad at.
1 Like
The relevant stats would be from the middle of the skill bell curve. Remove players and bots at the bottom, and reduce the weight from highly dedicated sweaty players who make everything look good.
Well, for Gaijin only the average player counts, since the performance of the vehicle in-game results in the vehicle earning the player more or less than what Gaijin wants.
If players are bad and lose against a bad vehicle, the bad vehicle earns more rewards and Gaijin doesn’t want that, so they put it against even better planes to make up for the lack of the average players skill.
It’s really only a problem because WT is F2P and has an economy.
Wont work either- minor nations tend to on average have better players, so it will screw them over.
I disagree, minor nations would just run into the problem where their stats can be skewed due to low population. Which is a problem right now, that won’t change.
Cutting out positive outliers such as hypersweats will 100% fix the problem that the Italian CL-13 squads lampshaded a long time ago. Stats will probably be slightly more difficult to interpret with lower total population per vehicle, but that’s not different to now.
2 Likes