Jump to content


Armor Penetration Better at Long Range


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

Dave_181 #1 Posted Apr 18 2016 - 15:54

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 23588 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    01-28-2016

7.5cm/48 cannon on my Panzer 3/4 appears to penetrate better at 400 meters then at 40 meters. Which suggests to me WOT physics for armor penetration aren't working properly.

 

Anyone else have this problem?



werecat #2 Posted Apr 18 2016 - 15:59

    Captain

  • Players
  • 33427 battles
  • 1,362
  • [TRULL] TRULL
  • Member since:
    11-02-2013
No that works exactly the opposite here. AP and APCR rounds lose penetration over distance while HE and HEAT is unaffected 

kreddy_ #3 Posted Apr 18 2016 - 16:02

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 408 battles
  • 470
  • [GWAII] GWAII
  • Member since:
    09-17-2015

I honestly doubt that you actually have (or anyone else actually has) that "problem".

 

Post a replay clearly showing occurrences that make you "feel" like your pen is better at long ranges and a unicum guru or two will probably be able to very quickly and easily explain why it's not really the case (or a real bug could be found, who knows, stranger things have happened).

 

A replay is absolutely essential to finding the truth. The fact that you used words like "appears" & "suggests" makes me think you sincerely want to know the truth.


Edited by kreddy_, Apr 18 2016 - 16:07.


MFGrant #4 Posted Apr 18 2016 - 16:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 12376 battles
  • 2,244
  • [DVAB] DVAB
  • Member since:
    01-04-2015
You might need more evidence than a blanket statement for anybody here to believe your claim.  Replays will help.

Wyvern2 #5 Posted Apr 18 2016 - 16:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 35835 battles
  • 3,124
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011
While I generally agree with hte people above that a replay is the only way to determine the truth, keep in mind that penetration has a +/- 25% RNG modifier and the penetration loss is a joke, like 2% every 100m or something(not actually sure on the exact number, but its paltry) Thus a high roll on a 100 pen gun at 500m will get you better penetration capabilities than a low roll at pointblank. since you range from 75-125 penetration. Furthermore, theres arc and plain old RNG, so at long range you might hit a weakspot like the roof or just luck out and hit a weakspot because RNG feels like being nice. For example, I once preloaded HE in my Obj704 for a WTE100 and the only tank that poked was a T54E1 at ~450m. I fired since i wasnt gonna waste a good shot, RNG blessed me, i penned and did 1100 damage. Its HE, it doesnt lose/gain pen, and it shouldnt have penned. But RNG said yes and i probably hit his roof, that doesnt mean its something i'd ever count on happening.

otacon237 #6 Posted Apr 18 2016 - 16:51

    Major

  • Players
  • 25222 battles
  • 4,370
  • Member since:
    01-08-2012
Plunging fire effect at long range might get a better angle on sloped armor or even hit the top of the tank

aswitz87 #7 Posted Apr 18 2016 - 16:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 5921 battles
  • 6,974
  • Member since:
    06-10-2012

View Postotacon237, on Apr 18 2016 - 10:51, said:

Plunging fire effect at long range might get a better angle on sloped armor or even hit the top of the tank

 

This.  Pen RNG aside, the change in angle can easily be better than the loss of pen over distance.  Specially in facing those which steep slopes but weak armor.

Hurk #8 Posted Apr 18 2016 - 17:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 55849 battles
  • 17,382
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostDave_181, on Apr 18 2016 - 06:54, said:

7.5cm/48 cannon on my Panzer 3/4 appears to penetrate better at 400 meters then at 40 meters. Which suggests to me WOT physics for armor penetration aren't working properly.

 

Anyone else have this problem?

the reverse is true. except in one case. sloped armor at long range, the shells do arc in flight. thus, better correction on impact angle meaning more effective pen. 

 

for instance:

100mm armor flat is 100mm effective. 100 at 60 degrees is 200mm effective

at long range, your shell can be coming in at a 10 degree angle, that reduces the 60 degree to 50, changing the effective armor from 200 to 156. 

 

the loss of 44 effective armor may be less than the AP loss over distance.

 


Edited by Hurk, Apr 18 2016 - 17:04.


DiePanzerGeist #9 Posted Apr 18 2016 - 17:06

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7211 battles
  • 5,495
  • [DHO6] DHO6
  • Member since:
    04-28-2014
This "problem" has been the least of my concerns with WoT lately.

Dave_181 #10 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 19:39

    Staff sergeant

  • -Players-
  • 23588 battles
  • 410
  • Member since:
    01-28-2016

Speaking of RNG....

Once I scored a penetrating hit with 10.5cm derp gun (on Panzer IVH) which did zero points damage to enemy vehicle. Seems like punching a 4" hole in enemy vehicle should cause significant damage even if shell fails to explode. Only happened once and it was before latest physics change. Hopefully WOT programmers fixed the problem.



Hurk #11 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 23:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 55849 battles
  • 17,382
  • [KGR] KGR
  • Member since:
    09-30-2012

View PostDave_181, on Apr 19 2016 - 10:39, said:

Speaking of RNG....

Once I scored a penetrating hit with 10.5cm derp gun (on Panzer IVH) which did zero points damage to enemy vehicle. Seems like punching a 4" hole in enemy vehicle should cause significant damage even if shell fails to explode. Only happened once and it was before latest physics change. Hopefully WOT programmers fixed the problem.

there isnt a problem. you likely penned spaced armor, then the explosion was wasted.



ToothDecay #12 Posted Apr 19 2016 - 23:50

    Major

  • Players
  • 26964 battles
  • 6,014
  • [NARC] NARC
  • Member since:
    06-29-2011

This one time...........

someone told me...............

I heard.................................

 

[edited][edited][edited]

Replay or you are being delusional.

Thank you.



TheLightKnight #13 Posted Apr 20 2016 - 00:20

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 19002 battles
  • 1,371
  • [X-COM] X-COM
  • Member since:
    06-09-2014
It could be because tanks you're firing at range would typically have less armor than the tanks at point blank range like heavies.

Horribad_At_Tanks #14 Posted Apr 20 2016 - 00:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 2268 battles
  • 6,263
  • Member since:
    11-07-2012
Didn't we have a reasonably gud player recently make a post about trying yolo snaphots all the time and he did about as well as he did fully aiming down on weakspots? Not as good mind but far far better than you would have expected.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users