Jump to content


T110`s Armor

Over 5000 pages of comfort!

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
109624 replies to this topic

The_Chieftain #61 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 01:37

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13191 battles
  • 9,886
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
I've been asked to poke my head in here. I'm going to hold my peace on T110 for a bit, a new source of information which quite possibly covers as much as has ever been written officially has just been made available in the National Archives, we'll know more after rummaging around for a few days next week. Part of the problem is that some of the stuff (believe it or not) is still classified, so even if we know what's there, it could take a while for extracts to become declassified (It's handy to have a security clearance, so we can read these things in the first place). There's some interesting stuff in those archives, I was just handed the 120mm M58 APDS penetration specs yesterday for example.

Or maybe there's nothing on topic. We'll know in a bit.

But we know what we're looking for, so if the official documents exist, hopefully we'll find them.

Mow_Mow #62 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 01:58

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 10 2011 - 01:37, said:

There's some interesting stuff in those archives, I was just handed the 120mm M58 APDS penetration specs yesterday for example.

This might be an odd request, but would it be possible to share this information? ^^;;

The_Chieftain #63 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 02:51

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 13191 battles
  • 9,886
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostMow_Mow, on Nov 10 2011 - 01:58, said:

This might be an odd request, but would it be possible to share this information? ^^;;

What do you think of 14.5" 30 degrees at 1,000 yards?
(Standard APC was 8.4")

Arzoo #64 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 03:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 10 2011 - 02:51, said:

What do you think of 14.5" 30 degrees at 1,000 yards?
(Standard APC was 8.4")

I think I'd rather have that than the HEAT rounds.

Thanks for the update. It's nice to be kept in the loop, even if you still can't tell us much yet.

Mow_Mow #65 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 03:22

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 10 2011 - 02:51, said:

What do you think of 14.5" 30 degrees at 1,000 yards?
(Standard APC was 8.4")


I'm not sure exactly what that means, only that it's good. :Smile_honoring:

I hope the devs don't go with HEAT on the T110. Because the E-100 already has HEAT, it'd be a little redundant to have the T110 use HEAT as well :(Not to mention the evidence of APDS penetration values means its more reasonable to expect AP-based shells on the T110 instead of HEAT IMO.

<-- is tank-dumb other than WoT ^^;;

nublex #66 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 04:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 17549 battles
  • 2,992
  • Member since:
    01-05-2011
It has like 368mm penetration hitting a plate 30 degrees away from center if I read it correctly.

But AP only have 213mm on the plate set up the same way, so 266mm pen in WoT.

Noble #67 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 06:50

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 7325 battles
  • 465
  • Member since:
    04-30-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 10 2011 - 01:37, said:

I've been asked to poke my head in here. I'm going to hold my peace on T110 for a bit, a new source of information which quite possibly covers as much as has ever been written officially has just been made available in the National Archives, we'll know more after rummaging around for a few days next week. Part of the problem is that some of the stuff (believe it or not) is still classified, so even if we know what's there, it could take a while for extracts to become declassified (It's handy to have a security clearance, so we can read these things in the first place). There's some interesting stuff in those archives, I was just handed the 120mm M58 APDS penetration specs yesterday for example.

Or maybe there's nothing on topic. We'll know in a bit.

But we know what we're looking for, so if the official documents exist, hopefully we'll find them.

Does any of this information now present actually surprise you about the T110? Or is it stuff you already knew/guessed? :o

Batosi #68 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 13:02

    Major

  • Players
  • 38194 battles
  • 2,811
  • [MUPS] MUPS
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
What I am concerned about is the Paper Tanks.  See if you let WWII Tanks be what they are, you don't need to get into such heavy balance wars, the historcial facts speak for themselves.  But when you bring in Paper Tanks, with their supposed values, then you are going down a slippery slop of balance and players really want what they are driving to be the best.  For Paper Tanks opens up a door for players to go down and cause alot of greif.

Now comes the T110, its realistic stats may not be enough to deal with the present Paper Tanks.  

It seems like its damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of situation.  If the historcial values are great, they will nerf it for "balance reasons".  If the stats are not good enough it will need to be buffed within the present system but then you are moving more away from a game that claims historical as its background.  And it opens up the doors to balance arguments.

There just does not seem to be any firm rules in place.  You have late era T-59s who can bounce my T34s 120mm rounds but you can't have a M-48 Patton.  You have the Ears on the T29 that are weak points but you can't have what those Ears were meant to do, Artillery that works like Missile Command, etc, and Paper Tanks that far out do the Classic Tanks.  

Things are just getting Wonky and the lines are very blured.

Cmd_storm brought up a good point, I think WoT needs more stats for its Tanks simuliar to EVE that create more pros and cons because the stats we have now, are very limiting and more and more Tanks are coming out, the less they can stand out on their own befor they look like any other Tank.

I will be very surpised if the T110 stands out on its own merit and is competitive and does not end up UP or OP.

SFC_Storm #69 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 21:47

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010

View Postnublex, on Nov 10 2011 - 04:36, said:

It has like 368mm penetration hitting a plate 30 degrees away from center if I read it correctly.

But AP only have 213mm on the plate set up the same way, so 266mm pen in WoT.


213mm@30 degrees and 1k meters, theres no way its only 268mm

WOT is 100 meters at 0 seems like it would be more.

But the 14 inch is 365mm and Im sure they would carry it standard.  

Also My buddy said alot of the T110 will still be classified because some of the Armor combo`s are used on certain vehicles today, also like I said before layered Armor changed the entire tank warfare game.

Usually 20 yrs after something is done with its declassified, but alot of the stuff designed on this must still be in use.

Makes sense why here is not much info on it. But as far as I can tell the T95E6 is still not that much different.

But getting the actual silacious amounts and molds of it is what makes it so strong, and just like the Abrams mixture is classified because it protects so well, Im sure they found something worth keeping it classified still.

Arzoo #70 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 22:00

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
Rather than trying to take WoT's conversion, just consider it like this. It was about 1.73 times better than Standard APC.

SFC_Storm #71 Posted Nov 10 2011 - 22:25

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 15366 battles
  • 3,855
  • Member since:
    12-30-2010
Wait so what is the exact formula for loss of Pen with range?

Ok lets say 100mm pen@0 degrees@100m

WHat would 200mm be
What would 300 be ?
400m?
500?
600? [Does it get expotential ofr the same fall off?] And yes you can shoot at 600m you just need see your crosshair green but not tank.

Mow_Mow #72 Posted Nov 11 2011 - 00:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010

View PostCmd_Storm, on Nov 10 2011 - 22:25, said:

Wait so what is the exact formula for loss of Pen with range?

Ok lets say 100mm pen@0 degrees@100m

WHat would 200mm be
What would 300 be ?
400m?
500?
600? [Does it get expotential ofr the same fall off?] And yes you can shoot at 600m you just need see your crosshair green but not tank.

5% per 100 meters, maxes at 25% at 500 meters. HEAT does not lose penetration over range. (Neither does HE)

Arzoo #73 Posted Nov 11 2011 - 01:07

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View PostMow_Mow, on Nov 11 2011 - 00:37, said:

5% per 100 meters, maxes at 25% at 500 meters. HEAT does not lose penetration over range. (Neither does HE)

I always though it varied linearly from 0 to 20mm from 100 to 500 meters, but I've never been 100% certain. I've never noticed a particularly huge drop at long range but it's hard to tell.

A dev recently said that apparently certain premium ammo loses more penetration over range than normal. Since we know HEAT doesn't lose any that leaves the various premium AP ammo types.

Regardless, I don't think WoT models it the same way you would calculate it in real life; they just try to get a good estimation.

Mow_Mow #74 Posted Nov 11 2011 - 01:14

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
THat's the explanation I've heard from this forum, I don't know if its a real world formula or the formula that the game uses.

Also, IIRC all premium ammo is either APCR, HEAT, or HE. So maybe the devs mean the difference between HEAT and APCR? In addition, each shell has a different normalization factor so it might be true that each shell might also lose different amounts of penetration over distance. This might be a flat % (meaning that in terms of raw numbers a higher penetrating shell will lose more penetration than a low penetration shell) or different %'s for each shell.

Arzoo #75 Posted Nov 11 2011 - 01:15

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View PostMow_Mow, on Nov 11 2011 - 01:14, said:

THat's the explanation I've heard from this forum, I don't know if its a real world formula or the formula that the game uses.

Also, IIRC all premium ammo is either APCR, HEAT, or HE. So maybe the devs mean the difference between HEAT and APCR? In addition, each shell has a different normalization factor so it might be true that each shell might also lose different amounts of penetration over distance. This might be a flat % (meaning that in terms of raw numbers a higher penetrating shell will lose more penetration than a low penetration shell) or different %'s for each shell.

Agh, I think I noticed another ammo-type once. I'll see if I can find it.

Mow_Mow #76 Posted Nov 11 2011 - 01:23

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
All I care about in terms of ammo is how much penetration it does and how much damage it does, and whether it behaves like AP or HE. So it's quite probable and likely that I missed that detail >_<

Political_Malcontent #77 Posted Nov 11 2011 - 01:27

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 14881 battles
  • 337
  • Member since:
    05-13-2011

View PostPhosphorus, on Nov 03 2011 - 23:46, said:

Sooo much words.....

JK this is some nifty info tho. And you got this off "confidential" papers surprises me.
If all that you say is true, bye bye Russian bias. :P

I truly don't believe that they will ever allow an American tank that out shines the Germans and certainly not the Russians. I am just grinding the line to get the free tank slots. Wont be surprised at all if the t34 becomes the tier 8 equivalent of the T14, and the M103 and T110 will either have weak armor or a weak gun or both.

Arzoo #78 Posted Nov 11 2011 - 01:27

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011

View PostMow_Mow, on Nov 11 2011 - 01:23, said:

All I care about in terms of ammo is how much penetration it does and how much damage it does, and whether it behaves like AP or HE. So it's quite probable and likely that I missed that detail >_<

When I realized that their were stats behind the scenes (normalization and pen-loss-per-distance) I got kind of annoyed that we can't see them. That and tank armor layout are two things they really need to make available to players.

Arzoo #79 Posted Nov 11 2011 - 02:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 6061 battles
  • 1,780
  • [SF-G] SF-G
  • Member since:
    05-09-2011
So I looked through the ammo selection. It's all listed as Composite-Rigid but some has APCR after the name and some has HVAP.

Mow_Mow #80 Posted Nov 11 2011 - 02:48

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 12060 battles
  • 14,881
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    10-25-2010
Maybe HVAP stands for "Heavily Vexing, Almost Penetrating" :P




21 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 21 guests, 0 anonymous users