Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Frenzier

WoT pen values VS War Thunder pen values

Recommended Posts

Out of curiosity and because i dislike when WG warps a vehicle´s uniqueness by changing its historical values to whatever suits them, i decided to compile a list of all the guns found both in WoT and WT and to compare the pen values at 100m on the same shells preferably. WG treats many shells as APCR(Armor Piercing Composite Rigid) despite the fact they where in reality as an example a mere APC(Armor Piercing Capped), APCR  in WoT has disadvantages in normalization. War Thunder as far as i am aware respects the historical penetration values.

Take into consideration Wargaming uses quite a few fake guns usually by adding a letter to the end of the name of the gun and same gun with same ammo can have different pen values in different vehicles, its a mess that its pointless to go into detail. From what i can tell, it shows wargaming its very lazy when it comes to ammo and even with ammo there are probably fake ones, it would be better if WG didnt even use the real name of the shells since its simply for show and apparently its what they have started to do as can be seen in the light tanks, specially tier 10 ones.

On the left pen values in WoT for AP, APCR, HE(when main ammo), HEAT and even HESH, on the right pen values for WT same shells, however when i specify the kind of shell in WT side it means WT doesnt use same shells as in WoT more or less...

 USA

  • 12.7mm M2 HB: 27 - 25
  • 37mm M5: 48/70 - 76/66
  • 37mm M6: 56/78 - 89/78
  • 75mm Howitzer M2/3: 38(HE)/91 - 10(HE)/89
  • 75mm M2/3: 92/127 - 88/137
  • 75mm M6: 96/143 - 88/109(AP)
  • 3-inch/76mm M7: 101/157 - 125
  • 76mm M1: 128/177 - 125/215
  • 76mm T185E1: 145/210 - 231/200
  • 76mm M32: 175/210 - 231/
  • 90mm M3: 160/243 - 164(APCBC)/188(AP)/260
  • 90mm M3A1: 192/243 - 192(AP)/270(APCR)/305(HEATFS)
  • 90mm M41E1: 181/250 - 102mm(HESH)/169(APCBC)/270(APCR)/320(HEATFS)
  • 90mm T15E1/2: 170,192/258 - 216(AP)/202(APCBC)/266(APCR)
  • 90mm M54: 219/275 - 169(APCBC)/270(APCR)/320
  • 105mm M4: 53(HE)/101 - 26(HE)/130
  • 105mm T5E1/2: 198/245,260 - 248/310
  • 105mm M68: 268/330 - 127(HESH)/320(APDS)/355(APFSDS)/400(HEATFS)
  • 120mm T53: 248/297 - 246(AP)/319(APCR)
  • 120mm M58: 258/340 - 302/380
  • 152mm XM81/M81: 76(HE)/85(HE)/152 - 354(HEAT)/431(ATGM)

 

 UK

  • 40mm QF 2-pdr: 64,78,88,121/121,145 - 72(APCBC)/79(AP)
  • 40mm Bofors: 63/101 - 74(AP)
  • 57mm OQF 6-pdr Mk.III/IV/V: 110/180 - 111(AP)/126(APCBC)
  • 75mm OQF Mk.V: 91/144 - 91(APCBC)/109(AP)
  • 76mm OQF 17-pdr: 171/239 - 168(APCBC)/226(APDS)
  • 77mm OQF: 148/208 - 149/203
  • 84mm OQF 20-pdr: 226/258 - 215/283(APDS)
  • 90mm T208: 202/238 - 297(APFSDS)
  • 94mm OQF 32-pdr: 214,220/246,252 - 239(APCBC)
  • 105mm L7: 268/210(HESH) - 302/127
  • 120mm L1A1: 259/326/120(HESH) - 361(APDS)/152(HESH)
  • 120mm L11: 270/310/140(HESH) - 397(APDS)/408(APFSDS)/152(HESH)
  • 183mm L4: 310/230(HESH) - 254(HESH)

 

 USSR

  • 12.7mm DShK: 22 - 25
  • 20mm TNSh: 28/39 - 25/34
  • 37mm SH-37: 46/62 - 57(AP)
  • 45mm 20-K: 51/88 - 68(AP)/94(APCR)
  • 57mm ZiS-2: 112/189 - 134
  • 75mm KT-28: 38/37 - 34
  • 76mm L-11: 66/85 - 76(APBC)
  • 76mm ZiS-3: 78/120 - 104(APBC)/130(APCR)
  • 85mm D-5S: 120/161 - 142/175
  • 85mm ZiS-S-53: 126/167 - 142/175
  • 100mm D-10: 175/235 - 208/250
  • 100mm LB-1: 190/247 - 208/235
  • 100mm D10T2S: 201/330 - 235(AP)/298(APDS)/330(APFSDS)/390(HEATFS)
  • 107mm ZiS-6: 167/219 - 195
  • 122mm M-30: 61/140 - 36/160
  • 122mm D-25: 175/217 - 196/223
  • 122mm M-62-T2: 258/340 - 276/400/360(APDS)
  • 130mm B-13: 196/171 - 223
  • 152mm M-10: 86/110/136 - 54/122/130
  • 152mm M-64 90/303/395 - 54/229/250
  • 152mm ML-20: 86/135/250 - 49/165/250

 

Germany

  • 20mm KwK38: 23/46 - 45/63
  • 20mm FlaK38: 39/51 - 45/63
  • 30mm MK103: 95/110 - 53/93
  • 37mm KwK34: 40/69 - 54/83
  • 37mm KwK36: 40/74 - 64/90
  • 37mm KwK38: 42/74 - 67/91
  • 47mm PaK: 62/115 - 87/102
  • 50mm KwK38: 60/96 - 73/130
  • 50mm KwK39: 67/130 - 96/149
  • 75mm KwK37: 38(HE)/43/87 - 10/54/100
  • 75mm PaK40: 108/154 - 146/195
  • 75mm KwK40 L/43: 103/139 - 133/173
  • 75mm KwK40 L/48: 110/158 - 135/176
  • 75mm KwK42:150/194 - 185/225
  • 76mm Pak36: 96/166 - 133/188
  • 88mm KwK36: 145/194 - 162/219
  • 88mm KwK43: 203/237 - 232/270
  • 105mm StuH42: 53(HE)/64/104 - 22(HE)/84/115
  • 105mm K18: 169/227 - 200
  • 105mm KwK L/68: 225/285 - 244/272
  • 128mm K40: 231 - 224(APC)/237(APCBC)
  • 128mm KwK44: 246/311 - 264(APC)/267(APCBC)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly im fine with WoT changing values for balance purposes. But I was expecting WoT to have higher values for the most part, and the quick skim I did of those values most of them seemed to be lower for WoT. Interesting.

(Giving those 37mm M5/M6 guns their historical pen would make the Tier 3 american tanks a lot nicer to play against those tier 5s WG!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WT is using far more ``real`` values as wot, something i dont get WG fucked up so bad, because while at firts high(er) pen seems bad (armour even more useless), armour is also too weak (and so are large caliber shells)

Irl:

  • Big, heavy, shells will have far more overmatch power as in wot (caliber > armour thickness = almost always penetration)
  • Sloped armour is far better, normalisation in wot increases pen power, IRL it works the other way, the penetration of a  shell is worse as expected on sloped armour (shells tend to deflect, not dig in, the tips they use to make them dig in only counter the deflect part (a bit)

a T-34 was imprevious to 50mm APCR, despite 50mm APCR having more then enough penetration power to pen the armour (say it can pen 120mm flat armour, but fails to pen 60mm @60 deg), at the same time, an 88mm round would pen a T-34 at almost any range (even 3-4 km) due to overmatch / shell weight

Thickness of armour also has irl much more effect as in wot (complex)

so TL:DR:

  • Thick armour is in wot weaker as irl
  • sloped armour is in wot weaker as irl
  • Shells have less pen as irl
  • large caliber shells have less pen as irl
  • HEAT is both too good / has too little pen

SO if they would have made everything realistic, it would have been better for the balance and ``real``, now we have invented numbers with fake history and crappy ass balance...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2017 at 5:34 PM, Strigonx said:

Where's WoT equivalent to 800 pen ATGMs??

T-92 AP round, "the finger of god". (I mean with the 261 you could actually hit shit, but the damage wasn't there).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to necro this, but your comparing of values is not complete.

 

Its a bit quick but you've been crediting the D-10T with BR-412's performance. That is a APC round which is not as effective as other guns. BR-412D (APCBC-HE-T) has around 245 millimeters. It appears similar deviation from the actual figures applies for the data.

 

D-54's data is missing, and the penetration figure for that can be estimated at around 'at least' 290 millimeters with armor piercing. The performance for the M62 should match.

 

D-10T2S I am not aware has performance changes; it simply has access to better ammunition than the BR-412. Simply put, the Soviets had ammunition manufacturing issues with APCBC shells before the war, and their only design suffered from 'excessive complexity'.

 

88/71 for example has 'deceptively high penetration', because it lists 232, but its not something it will readily achieve. You are putting too much stock into not enough mass.

 

88/56 is actually not that strong a gun, so its not about to kill a T-34 from 3-4 kilometers. Indeed, the T-34's armor effectiveness even up the rear is rather silly, as in totally immune to 70%+ of Germany's prewar anti tank inventory, so it is not a good example. Actually, the Soviets 85mm Zis is directly comparable in anti tank, while being a lighter more mobile weapon. If you compare their performance using Demarre formula, you will find their performance to be the exact same.

 

And HESH works differently IRL than you would expect. If the target armor isn't going to be overmatched by the sheer amount of HE, its hardly better than HE itself.

 

What you aren't taking completely into account is slope modifiers. Simply put the object 430 would suddenly break the game with over 430mm frontal effectiveness against first gen APDS, which is pretty much the only thing that is being fired.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...