Penertation tables....

[Nemisis]

Can we have an official penertation table for all cannons (above 20mm) that fire AP rounds (preferably out to 3200yds), and get a table with the armor thickness for each tank (front, sides, rear, top and bottom)?

Would make it so much easier when trying to decide wether or not I should take the shot. Often I do, only to have it bounce off and get me killed.

[AirFlyer]

Google is your friend, you should be able to find a lot of this with a bit of searching, AH2 should be working off these values so long as you get an accurate source.

[guncrasher]

wouldnt it be better to get the tables that ah is using?  and by that i mean the only accurate source would be ah.

semp

[Ghosth]

It all depends on the distance and the actual angle of impact. And where that impact happens to be.

[Infidelz]

Penetration
 <cough>

The red line under the word means you didn't spell it right.

[The Fugitive]

Can we have an official penertation table for all cannons (above 20mm) that fire AP rounds (preferably out to 3200yds), and get a table with the armor thickness for each tank (front, sides, rear, top and bottom)?

Would make it so much easier when trying to decide wether or not I should take the shot. Often I do, only to have it bounce off and get me killed.

You've been here long enough to know HTC doesn't give out hard numbers or sources on anything they use in the game

[USCH]

well then we should make our own.... find a level ground offline and fire away... if one of the 2 tanks has any type of hight advantage it would screw it all up so you need to make sure both tanks are level with eachother.


ps.  see you in a few months if you do it properly  good luck m8 

[Karnak]

Tankers in WWII didn't have this data, why should we be entitled to the exact information?

[Tupac]

Tankers in WWII didn't have this data, why should we be entitled to the exact information?

they also didn't have channel 200 and a forum where they could complain.

[Nemisis]

You've been here long enough to know HTC doesn't give out hard numbers or sources on anything they use in the game

Fugitive, armor penetration isn't something thats classified by the governement. I can get close by finding the data, and making my own chart. I just want a chart posted somewhere (like in place of the speed/climb rate charts) of armor and penetration capabilities of the gun.

Tankers in WWII didn't have this data, why should we be entitled to the exact information?

Tankers didn't have the ability to check their ammo count at a glance either. They didn't have the ability to tell if their track had been blown off when they were standing still. They didn't have detailed maps of enemy concentrations (the spawn points).

There is a lot of stuff we have here that didn't exist in WWII for the most part (ammo counters for example). They also didn't have exact climb rate and speed charts for enemy aircraft (or aircraft being used by their allies for that matter). But no one is whining about that, so get off your high horse.

[SmokinLoon]

There are loads of info out there on the internet about cannons and the AP ability of the projectiles they fired.  I too am trying to dig up as much info on the various AP rounds and the abilities of those rounds to penetrate armor at certain distances.

I had no clue the US 75mm M3 cannon firing AP rounds could not penetrate the armor of a Tiger even at POINT BLANK range.  The US 76mm M1A1 AP could do so only out to 400 meters and the front of the Tiger's turret at 700 meters.  Interesting stuff you learn while doing a bit of reading.  

On an interesting note, in AH the HE rounds that the M4A3/75mm fires is only surpassed by the Tiger and T34/85mm in damage.  The Tiger HE does 234.3 "lbs" of damage and the Soviet T34/85mm does 231.8 "lbs" worth of damage.  The US 75mm M3 HE does 173.8 damage. Oh, and the US 76mm M1A1 cannon has the worst HE performance of all the tanks at 103 lbs per HE shell (both destructive power and splash damage are weak in comparison).  Remember it takes 312 lbs of damage to bring down an OBJ.    

So, if one were to take into consideration the amount of damage those above mentioned HE rounds do, the reload times of each cannon, and the amount of ammo available... which tank can take down a town faster with HE alone (without being re-supplied)?        

Below are tables for HE comparison that I put together:

Country   Tank            Caliber/Gun         Reload Time           HE Dmg (in lbs)

Britain   Firefly    76mm Q.F. 17lb      7.2 sec      146.3
Germany   Pzr IV            75mm KwK40 L/48   5.4 sec      156
Germany   Tiger I    88mm KwK36 L/46   6.3 sec      234.3
Soviets   T34/76    76mm F-34              8.2 sec      156.2
Soviets   T34/85    85mm ZiS-S-53      6.8 sec      231.8
US      M4A3            75mm M3         3.6 sec      173.8
US      M4A3-W    76mm M1A1      3.6 sec      103
US       LVT-4    75mm M2         3.6 sec      154.5

I cross referenced the AH Trainer's Website.  The data for the Firefly, T34/85, and all 3 US guns were tested by me in the offline mode.

The AP data is still a work of progress for me.  I'll post when I can.  But as a few already mentioned, there are a lot of variables with the effectiveness of AP.  Armor slope, pitch of the target vehicle, etc, etc.  

[E25280]

To me this is much different than providing the thickness of armor for the tanks.  A casual player should be able to know generally where his armor protection is best and where his opponents is weakest, and the easiest way to get a feel for that is through thickness.  You also get a general feel that a shot from closer will more easily penetrate than a shot from farther away.  Don't really need a table to for a casual player to know that.

Providing penetration data would probably end up being counter-productive with multiple complaints daily about "hacks" and "bugs" that are nothing of the sort.  Player A insists he hit a vehicle and it didn't die when the data table says he should have penetrated the armor, and therefore the other guy must have been cheating or the game is FUBAR.  The problem is Player A's perception is often skewed by what he wants to see and believe instead of what happened.  It was a 60 degree hit when he insists it was 90 degrees.  The range was 900 yards when he insists it was less than 600, etc. etc. etc.

And even if you penetrate the armor, is there still sufficient force to destroy internal components?  That won't be easily answered by any table, but will be cause for much whining and gnashing of teeth.  Great, the data table says you should have penetrated the rear armor at that range -- by 1 mm -- which did not damage the engine.  "But but but," the player whines, "it got through the armor so the tank should have 'sploded."  Unfortunately the player doesn't understand / won't accept that the damage model is more complex than that.

Perhaps I'm being a bit unnecessarily cynical, but given the true complexity of the issue, having two tables people think they can simply cross-reference seems like asking for trouble.  

[E25280]

On an interesting note, in AH the HE rounds that the M4A3/75mm fires is only surpassed by the Tiger and T34/85mm in damage.  The Tiger HE does 234.3 "lbs" of damage and the Soviet T34/85mm does 231.8 "lbs" worth of damage.  The US 75mm M3 HE does 173.8 damage. Oh, and the US 76mm M1A1 cannon has the worst HE performance of all the tanks at 103 lbs per HE shell (both destructive power and splash damage are weak in comparison).  Remember it takes 312 lbs of damage to bring down an OBJ.

You stumbled upon the reason for the oft-criticized decision to use the 75mm dual-purpose gun on the M4 instead of a better tank-killing weapon.  The HE round for the 75 was quite good, and when your armored doctrine says the primary purpose of your tank is to support the infantry, most of the targets you will engage will be soft targets for which the more powerful HE round is more desirebale.

[Nemisis]

Of course there are loon. As you said, even the area of impact comes into play. But its hard to aim for the base of the hull, as opposed to the hull at 1700yds.

I just want something to help me know if taking a shot is worth it, or if my rounds will just bounce off and give away my possition.


And E25280, my rule of thumb is to give myself 400 yds of lee way both when getting in close to make a shot (I will get 400yds closer than nessecary, if possible), and when keeping a safe distance (I will try to keep my tiger 2000yds out, as opposed to 1600yds out, which is the range the T-34/85 has any affect on the tiger). That way, I'm rarely unhappy with the results.

Also, HTC should simply put a foot note on the tables sayin "note: this is just the range at which *gun model* can penertate *armor thicnkes* at *x range*. This does not indicate the range at which *gun model* will kill *tank with  x armor thickness, or the range at which *gun modle* will damage a component behind *armor thickness*.

You are going to get the same problem with home made penetration tables, unless HTC just lies and says "no, that table is wrong. Your round wouldn't have penetrated at 800yds, only at 600". They can't do that because they will get called on it.

[AWwrgwy]

Fugitive, armor penetration isn't something thats classified by the governement. I can get close by finding the data, and making my own chart. I just want a chart posted somewhere (like in place of the speed/climb rate charts) of armor and penetration capabilities of the gun.

Tankers didn't have the ability to check their ammo count at a glance either. They didn't have the ability to tell if their track had been blown off when they were standing still. They didn't have detailed maps of enemy concentrations (the spawn points).

There is a lot of stuff we have here that didn't exist in WWII for the most part (ammo counters for example). They also didn't have exact climb rate and speed charts for enemy aircraft (or aircraft being used by their allies for that matter). But no one is whining about that, so get off your high horse.

Where do you suppose we got these numbers?

Some enterprising individual went out and did the research for themselves.

But, it's much easier to sit at home and get your welfare che.... oops, I meant, it's easier to sit and say "gimme, gimme."


wrongway