Jump to content


Shell Penetration Variance


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
5 replies to this topic

PSYCO_GANG #1 Posted Nov 04 2012 - 21:12

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 5930 battles
  • 123
  • [T2H] T2H
  • Member since:
    06-30-2011
In game shells can penetrate  +/-25% of  their given penetration value.
Is there much variation in shell penetration in real life?
If so, how much?

quidda #2 Posted Nov 05 2012 - 14:52

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 27404 battles
  • 25
  • [-KK-] -KK-
  • Member since:
    04-02-2012
hitting a flat, cold rolled steel plate (often tilted 30 degrees to simulate a tank) is the test of the round, and they are pretty consistant

the real variance is hitting an actual tank, where shape of the penetrator part of the round under a crumpling nosecone that gives it ballistic flight characteristics can change a lot.  Tanks are not flat, the flight path is not flat, and few hits are square on.  This can change all kinds of things in the actual impacts, and 25% is a good way to say 'you have a good chance of hurting it'

In WWII average tank kill ranges were 800+ Metres, which is 2/3 the size of large maps in WoT, and a point detonating HE round didn't allow itself to penetrate a tank, they have done a good job of making a playable, semi-realistic game with consistant physics.

INKRO #3 Posted Nov 05 2012 - 15:36

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 9797 battles
  • 1,051
  • [RD] RD
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010
I doubt it's +/- 25% like in the game, but as alluded to earlier a whole bevy of factors need to be accounted for when we talk about penetration in the field. Another one I should add after quidda is production variances, all aspects of tanks are subject to varying degrees of deviation in production quality from the mean when they come out of the factory. The shell might be out of spec, the armor it's hitting might be out of spec, and combined with combat situations that could indeed mean something like the RNG you see in-game. It's probably not a 25% range though.

Edited by INKRO, Nov 11 2012 - 01:44.


The_Chieftain #4 Posted Nov 05 2012 - 19:46

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13191 battles
  • 9,886
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I am inclined to side with Inkro. Test data from the range is conducted under controlled circumstances. Ammunition tends to be fired from the same lot for consistency, the armour plates are usually the same, and so on. In the field, variances in construction of both the ammunition and the target will lead to a significant variance. +/- 25% is an arbitrary figure, but I don't think it's unreasonable as a game mechanic.

Brummiger_Konig #5 Posted Nov 10 2012 - 03:12

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 25110 battles
  • 37
  • [RELIC] RELIC
  • Member since:
    04-12-2011

View PostINKRO, on Nov 05 2012 - 15:36, said:

I doubt it's +/- 25% in the game,

You're wrong. It is +/- 25%.

Link

Also, its not like they hide this range from you. The 17 cm PaK46 has an average penetration of 299mm. With +/- 25%, the range is 224-374mm of penetration exactly like it says in game. Many hours of personal testing confirms that the range is indeed this large.

Edited by Bayou_Boy, Nov 10 2012 - 03:17.


INKRO #6 Posted Nov 11 2012 - 01:44

    Captain

  • Beta Testers
  • 9797 battles
  • 1,051
  • [RD] RD
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostBayou_Boy, on Nov 10 2012 - 03:12, said:

You're wrong. It is +/- 25%.

Link

Also, its not like they hide this range from you. The 17 cm PaK46 has an average penetration of 299mm. With +/- 25%, the range is 224-374mm of penetration exactly like it says in game. Many hours of personal testing confirms that the range is indeed this large.

I meant to say LIKE in the game, I know full well the variation is 25 +/- in WoT. Thanks for pointing that typo. :)




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users