Jump to content


WOT Armory - we are the armor nerds of this game

armor test blog

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
200 replies to this topic

Zergling #21 Posted May 23 2012 - 07:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 16684 battles
  • 4,681
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    02-09-2011
I'd like to see a 3 value representation of armor; a 'can penetrate but not very often' value, a '50% bounce/pen rate' value, and a 'will usually penetrate' value.

OOPMan #22 Posted May 23 2012 - 09:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 14621 battles
  • 4,045
  • [IOC] IOC
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011
WoT Armoury rocks :-)

vit12345 #23 Posted May 23 2012 - 11:06

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 10965 battles
  • 593
  • Member since:
    02-11-2011
Really thks for the hard work. Hope you guys do M103 or E-50 next :Smile_Default:

Oddball31 #24 Posted May 23 2012 - 11:06

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View PostElepole, on May 23 2012 - 04:09, said:

So, there is that website who previously was showing the 3D layout of internal, module, and now they also show the 3D layout of the armor, did you decide to test if they are accurate and are you using it to test supposed weakspot ?

We use nothing besides some historical armor schemes and first-hand experience.

That site has not slope information, just different colours for nominal thickness.

Oddball31 #25 Posted May 23 2012 - 11:08

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View PostZergling, on May 23 2012 - 07:05, said:

I'd like to see a 3 value representation of armor; a 'can penetrate but not very often' value, a '50% bounce/pen rate' value, and a 'will usually penetrate' value.

It can be done, the 50% bounce/pen armro value is usually the same/close to the sin/cos equation conversion. The "usually penetrate" might be 80 percent of the possible penetration roll is above the converted, effective vertical armor in WOT-terms or such. Just had to adjust to the closest avg pen value of a certain gun to keep it practical

Supposing we have the nominal values and the slope from somewhere, it's not always the case. For the T110 for example, we had nothing, it took almost a week.

Oddball31 #26 Posted May 23 2012 - 12:05

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011
All right, let's keep the KISS-principle (keep it simple, stupid), I can add tables, which would contain:

1. Nominal armor and slope for frontal armor
2. Converted armor into its WOT-equivalent, head on and with 30 degree side angle = 50 percent for penetration/bounce with gun having the same avg as the converted, in theory at least -
3. The usual 5/7 seven shots protection value
4. Pen values for 100% penetration criteria, where the minimal pen value of the gun equals the WOT-equivalent effective vertical armor, head on and 30 degree

For example: 100mm/60 degree from vertical armor equals 162mm WOT armor (100/cos52 with 8 degree slope compensation).

For 100 success, a gun supposed to have 162mm minimum penetration, 216mm average penetration and 270mm maximum penetration, head on.

With 30 degree side angle (162/cos20 with 10 degree side angle compensation) it must have 172mm minimum penetration, 215mm avg penetration and 258mm maximum penetration for 50% success.

There you go

Oddball31 #27 Posted May 24 2012 - 13:03

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011
Update! YouTube-channel review for NA-user Moltar!

Foraven #28 Posted May 24 2012 - 13:23

    Captain

  • Players
  • 10957 battles
  • 1,386
  • Member since:
    04-28-2011
I like what i find on that site so far, but i wish it was made easier to find older vids and other infos. I don't like having to go down the whole thing to find what i'm looking for or have to use google to find them...

Oddball31 #29 Posted May 24 2012 - 13:46

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View PostForaven, on May 24 2012 - 13:23, said:

I like what i find on that site so far, but i wish it was made easier to find older vids and other infos. I don't like having to go down the whole thing to find what i'm looking for or have to use google to find them...

This week we will made a gallery from old armor schemes (some redrawn) right now I move  bit upwards the drop-down nav box "site navigation".

On the second thought I rewire the "archives" in the header.

The whole blog will change in time, only time shortage is an obstacle..

Oddball31 #30 Posted May 26 2012 - 16:14

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011
Update: penetration odds workshop is on, any feedback is welcome!

Oddball31 #31 Posted May 28 2012 - 19:44

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011
The M103 article is up!:Smile_honoring:

Shackram #32 Posted May 28 2012 - 20:18

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9156 battles
  • 4,531
  • [PSTNS] PSTNS
  • Member since:
    01-17-2011

View PostOddball31, on May 28 2012 - 19:44, said:

The M103 article is up! :Smile_honoring:

About the frontal turret weakness, mainly the spots beside the mantlet.

The issue is that besides being thin, the small areas on each side of the mantlet(behind the trunnions) aren't actually angled following the shape of the turret. That part of the armor is indented and they form an almost flat(it has some angle, but negligible for slope calculation), frontaly facing surface, both vertically and horizontaly.

It's easy to see what i meant when looking at the turret front from above. It wouldn't be such a big issue if WG gave it the historical armor value(180mm for the turret front, we got 127mm instead).

Mow_Mow #33 Posted May 28 2012 - 20:19

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11502 battles
  • 14,799
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
I posted a comment about your M103 article. It's very well written, but I think in some cases you may be mistaken - in testing the eggshell shape works well, but in a combat situation, one of the weaknesses of the eggshell type armor is that there is ALWAYS a point on the frontal armor which is pointing directly at the enemy, and therefore has little slope. For example, the lower plate should realistically be expected to bounce almost nothing, as if you angle it, there will still be a point on the shell which is pointing at the enemy tank.

However, one of the strengths of the eggshell shape is also that it allows for more "luck" bounces than the wedge shape armor, and when slightly angled increases the odds of an auto bounce. Grossly simplified, but I suppose this image could work.

Posted Image

Oddball31 #34 Posted May 28 2012 - 20:24

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View PostShackram, on May 28 2012 - 20:18, said:

About the frontal turret weakness, mainly the spots beside the mantlet.

The issue is that besides being thin, the small areas on each side of the mantlet(behind the trunnions) aren't actually angled following the shape of the turret. That part of the armor is indented and they form an almost flat(it has some angle, but negligible for slope calculation), frontaly facing surface, both vertically and horizontaly.

It's easy to see what i meant when looking at the turret front from above. It wouldn't be such a big issue if WG gave it the historical armor value(180mm for the turret front, we got 127mm instead).

I went as far as TankNet after the historical armor scheme of M103 turret, and I was told, actually WG did it right.

Would be glad to be mistaken though.

Mow_Mow #35 Posted May 28 2012 - 20:33

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11502 battles
  • 14,799
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
In-game armor values for M103:
Hull Armor:
<armor>
<armor_1> 127 </armor_1>
<armor_2> 114 </armor_2>
<armor_3> 51 </armor_3>
<armor_4> 38 </armor_4>
<armor_5> 44 </armor_5>
<armor_6> 25 </armor_6>
<armor_7> 25 </armor_7>
<armor_8> 38 </armor_8>
<armor_9> 32 </armor_9>
<armor_10> 38 </armor_10>
<armor_11> 0 </armor_11>
<armor_12> 203 </armor_12>
<armor_13> 114 </armor_13>
<surveyingDevice> 40 </surveyingDevice>
</armor>

<_120mm_Gun_M58>shared
<maxAmmo> 33 </maxAmmo>
<models>
<undamaged>vehicles/american/A66_M103/normal/lod0/Gun_05.model</undamaged>
<destroyed>vehicles/american/A66_M103/crash/lod0/Gun_05.model</destroyed>
<exploded>vehicles/american/A66_M103/crash/lod0/Gun_05.model</exploded>
</models>
<hitTester>
<collisionModel>vehicles/american/A66_M103/collision/Gun_05.model</collisionModel>
</hitTester>
<armor>
<armor_1> 254 <noDamage> true </noDamage></armor_1>
<armor_2> 203 <noDamage> true </noDamage></armor_2>
<armor_3> 127 <noDamage> true </noDamage></armor_3>
<armor_4> 102 <noDamage> true </noDamage></armor_4>
<gun> 50 </gun>
</armor>
<shotDispersionRadius>0.37</shotDispersionRadius>
<reloadTime>10.9</reloadTime>
<aimingTime>2.3</aimingTime>
<invisibilityFactorAtShot>0.19</invisibilityFactorAtShot>
<pitchLimits>-15 8</pitchLimits>
<shotDispersionFactors>
<turretRotation>0.1</turretRotation>
<afterShot>4.0</afterShot>
<whileGunDamaged>2.0</whileGunDamaged>
</shotDispersionFactors>
</_120mm_Gun_M58>

Turret 2
<armor>
<armor_1> 127 </armor_1> //Front Armor
<armor_2> 137 </armor_2>
<armor_3> 127 </armor_3> //Side Armor
<armor_4> 51 </armor_4> //Rear Armor
<armor_5> 70 </armor_5>
<armor_6> 114 </armor_6>
<armor_7>101.6</armor_7>
<armor_8> 51 </armor_8>
<armor_9> 25 </armor_9>
<armor_10> 0 </armor_10>
<armor_11> 40 <noDamage> true </noDamage></armor_11> //Likely rangefinders
<surveyingDevice> 40 </surveyingDevice> //Scopes
</armor>
<primaryArmor>armor_1 armor_3 armor_4</primaryArmor>


Shackram #36 Posted May 28 2012 - 20:41

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9156 battles
  • 4,531
  • [PSTNS] PSTNS
  • Member since:
    01-17-2011

View PostOddball31, on May 28 2012 - 20:24, said:

We tried only solid angles, but the

I went as far as TankNet after the historical armor scheme of M103 turret, and I was told, actually WG did it right.

I believe they got the turret shape right, but what i meant is that the way it's shaped, those locations on the turret front doesn't have angle to affect their LOS thickness enough to negate it's thin armor.

I've read that the turret front was 180mm thick, but don't have a reliable source for that and the number might come from after angle calculation.

When i'm home in a couple hours i'll provide a picture to show what i mean.

Oddball31 #37 Posted May 28 2012 - 20:46

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View PostShackram, on May 28 2012 - 20:41, said:

I believe they got the turret shape right, but what i meant is that the way it's shaped, those locations on the turret front doesn't have angle to affect their LOS thickness enough to negate it's thin armor.

I've read that the turret front was 180mm thick, but don't have a reliable source for that and the number might come from after angle calculation.

When i'm home in a couple hours i'll provide a picture to show what i mean.

That would be great.

Any road, here is the TankNet thread I made several months ago.

Mow_Mow #38 Posted May 28 2012 - 20:47

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 11502 battles
  • 14,799
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
It would seem strange for the rest of the turret to be designed to deflect at least 200mm weaponry, and have the points most likely to be struck (front of the turret) be vulnerable to those kinds of guns.

Shackram #39 Posted May 28 2012 - 22:56

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9156 battles
  • 4,531
  • [PSTNS] PSTNS
  • Member since:
    01-17-2011

View PostOddball31, on May 28 2012 - 20:46, said:

That would be great.

Any road, here is the TankNet thread I made several months ago.

Here is what i meant, the turret model is a bit wonky in that area, not a smooth curve like the rest of the turret and seems to have some weird angles. I think the armor hitbox might not have the proper slope in those locations.
Spoiler                     

I used the WoT Model viewer to take those pictures.

Oddball31 #40 Posted May 28 2012 - 23:01

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 21 battles
  • 328
  • Member since:
    07-31-2011

View PostShackram, on May 28 2012 - 22:56, said:

Here is what i meant, the turret model is a bit wonky in that area, not a smooth curve like the rest of the turret and seems to have some weird angles. I think the armor hitbox might not have the proper slope in those locations.
Spoiler                     

I used the WoT Model viewer to take those pictures.

Did Chieftain see this? I don't think it would do anything with Tier balance, if the M103 got let's say 200mm effective front turret.