Kinetic energy of tank rounds against objects

[moot]

Are we sure the round's velocity doesn't matter?  I've lobbed M4 HE rounds at objects from pretty far out (5K or so), and it seemed to take way more than the usual 20 odd rounds.  I'm asking in case anyone has tested this.  It'd save me the time to do it when the results are already available.

Thanks.

[Murdr]

No need to test, with ground structures range has no effect.


HiTech

[AWwrgwy]

Objects = Structures?

Rounds vs. Structures, takes the same amount of rounds to kill a particular structure no matter the distance.  You just need to hit it.

Rounds vs. GV's, anecdotaly would seem distance makes a difference.  However, I have bounced rounds off of close gvs as well as far gvs. 

On the other hand, it may just seem rounds bounce on distant targets more because the number of hits in general is less.  Therefore, the number of hits vs. the number of bounces is greater.




wrongway

[Murdr]

Objects = Structures?

In HT's quote, yes.

Rounds vs. GV's, anecdotaly would seem distance makes a difference.  However, I have bounced rounds off of close gvs as well as far gvs. 

On the other hand, it may just seem rounds bounce on distant targets more because the number of hits in general is less.  Therefore, the number of hits vs. the number of

Actually the armor penetration model is the most complex damage modeling in the game.  Velocity, impact angle, and armor thickness are all taken into consideration.  The conundrum is that from a player perspective the results are generally unpredictable, even though the physics model is highly detailed.  The rounds trajectory/angle in relation to the armor surface varies more from shot to shot than one might think.

[moot]

It definitely is at work on GVs. I've sat a tiger at the top of one of the hills at the center of OzKansas' TT island, and not a single round from the 4-5 players shooting upwards at me with all types of tanks damaged me, despite hearing the hits as "true" hits (not ricochets).

Thanks.