Jump to content


Tanking /w Science! Pen'Testing


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

4TankersAndDog_US #1 Posted 15 March 2018 - 05:56 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 719
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013

Do the Tier 10 Light Tanks really have their long range shell penetrations nerfed?

Is it just Tier 10s?  Is it just Light Tanks?  Let's bust out some Science, the Truth is Out There...

 

Long story short:  No, not just Tier 10s, and no not just LTs.  Seems perhaps every tank, maybe even every gun, has it's own shell penetration performance profile, presumably applied for balance (or historic?) reasons.  Some guns are a-ok, some suck at long range, some suck before the shell even leaves the barrel.  Think of it as similar to the 'soft' stats of tank mobility and gun handling, the hidden per-tank repair speed values, or the 'average' frontal/side/turret armor values.  The WG published 'penetration' stats are really only rules of thumb that can be very misleading or flat out wrong once in a battle. 

 

And a little more on the WG published 500m penetration stats:

 

ps, if you're one of the many tankers grinding the BC12t, sorry. 

pps, aiming longer does not improve shell penetration!

 


[Previous episodes of TwS]

WoT 1.0 Arty View, parts [1/2/3]

Aiming Compensation for Range & Shell Velocity

Dispersion vs. Depression

Complaint System Complaint

Mr. Robot

Automatic Aiming

Fun with Stun!

The 6th Sense

Snapshot & Smooth Ride

Crew Retraining

MM, Tiers and 'Toons

Purple vs. Gold

REPAIR

Win the Hill, Win the Game?

Spall Liners, Ctrl Impact, and Ramming

Camo (concealment)

Fuel, O.R., and Clutch Braking

Deadeye & Designated Target

GLD vs. Vents

GLD vs. VStab

 

Any suggestions for a future version of Tanking /w Science?  Please post them below or in the video comments, Good Hunting and Carry Hard my friends.


Edited by 4TankersAndDog_US, 16 March 2018 - 02:54 PM.


Homer_J #2 Posted 15 March 2018 - 08:22 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Beta Tester
  • 27652 battles
  • 29,000
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Post4TankersAndDog_US, on 15 March 2018 - 04:56 AM, said:

 

Any suggestions for a future version of Tanking /w Science?  

Do bears poop in the woods?

 

Sorry but this stuff might be a revelation to players on the NA server but it's common knowledge over here, ever hear the phrase "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs"?



pucku #3 Posted 15 March 2018 - 08:43 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 29687 battles
  • 257
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

Great video!

 

One possible issue: Accuracy when you shoot at distant targets will affect where you hit the target and hence how likely you are to penetrate. This wont matter at 50 meters on the E100 turret. A second issue: the height of the gun when shooting at close range might affect the angle you hit your target and hence the effective armor. Third, I don't think you mentioned that APCR has less normalization than AP. But I don't think these things would affect your results in any significant way.



gunslingerXXX #4 Posted 15 March 2018 - 09:16 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10657 battles
  • 1,808
  • Member since:
    11-16-2014

View PostHomer_J, on 15 March 2018 - 08:22 AM, said:

Do bears poop in the woods?

 

Sorry but this stuff might be a revelation to players on the NA server but it's common knowledge over here, ever hear the phrase "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs"?

 

-1 for you Homer.

 

You don't need to respond to a topic if it's "not interesting enough" for you.


Edited by gunslingerXXX, 15 March 2018 - 09:16 AM.


Sfinski #5 Posted 15 March 2018 - 09:20 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 30869 battles
  • 2,317
  • [-PJ-] -PJ-
  • Member since:
    09-26-2013
Dont you see these pen values for 100m 200 and 500 m(or something like that?) for every gun in the garage? 

Aikl #6 Posted 15 March 2018 - 10:13 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 25167 battles
  • 4,253
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    04-13-2011

View PostSfinski, on 15 March 2018 - 08:20 AM, said:

Dont you see these pen values for 100m 200 and 500 m(or something like that?) for every gun in the garage? 

 

Yup.  It feels like it would make more sense to test if those values were correct (test if the expected penetration rate reflects the actual one), rather than introducing all sorts of variables (accuracy, penetration, angles, 'troll armour' target). From the data, I would guess that the Panzerwagen has a lot of shell dropoff compared to the WZ-132-1; especially seeing as the latter has 0.42 accuracy vs. 0.36. Can't check, since I don't have the tanks, but it would be nice to see how relevant this testing is; provided that the shell dropoff data provided by the client are correct.

 

As for tanks with 'inexplicably' high or low penetration, most can very well be explained by knowing the game mechanics. The Patriot looks like it has above-average penetration for a T8, but feels like it's on the low-end. Explanation is simple: APCR. I made a topic discussing that fact, but it's apparently "nothing new for people who actually play this game with presence of their mind.". That is sort of correct, but I've yet to see anyone actually illustrate the difference, or even make a reference to it beyond "APCR gets worse normalization". Actual battlefield performance? Not so much.

 

The below images suggests that the Patriot's 230mm APCR is about equivalent to 212mm AP. For that little 'scam', you get practically no benefit in terms of shell velocity. Patriot has 1021m/s. IS-3? 1007 m/s. Yeah. If that was well-known, people would bring it up on the forums when the tank was on sale, or not have bought it in the first place. I've yet to see anyone reference that.

 

 

Spoiler

 

Feels like the above would make for a far more informative video than sniping IS-7s at 400m with light tanks. News or not; it's very obvious it's not well-known what APCR means in terms of penetration, or that APCR is no guarantee for shell speed.



Dava_117 #7 Posted 15 March 2018 - 10:50 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 18506 battles
  • 2,719
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostAikl, on 15 March 2018 - 10:13 AM, said:

 

Yup.  It feels like it would make more sense to test if those values were correct (test if the expected penetration rate reflects the actual one), rather than introducing all sorts of variables (accuracy, penetration, angles, 'troll armour' target). From the data, I would guess that the Panzerwagen has a lot of shell dropoff compared to the WZ-132-1; especially seeing as the latter has 0.42 accuracy vs. 0.36. Can't check, since I don't have the tanks, but it would be nice to see how relevant this testing is; provided that the shell dropoff data provided by the client are correct.

 

As for tanks with 'inexplicably' high or low penetration, most can very well be explained by knowing the game mechanics. The Patriot looks like it has above-average penetration for a T8, but feels like it's on the low-end. Explanation is simple: APCR. I made a topic discussing that fact, but it's apparently "nothing new for people who actually play this game with presence of their mind.". That is sort of correct, but I've yet to see anyone actually illustrate the difference, or even make a reference to it beyond "APCR gets worse normalization". Actual battlefield performance? Not so much.

 

The below images suggests that the Patriot's 230mm APCR is about equivalent to 212mm AP. For that little 'scam', you get practically no benefit in terms of shell velocity. Patriot has 1021m/s. IS-3? 1007 m/s. Yeah. If that was well-known, people would bring it up on the forums when the tank was on sale, or not have bought it in the first place. I've yet to see anyone reference that.

 

 

Spoiler

 

Feels like the above would make for a far more informative video than sniping IS-7s at 400m with light tanks. News or not; it's very obvious it's not well-known what APCR means in terms of penetration, or that APCR is no guarantee for shell speed.

 

Noticed the difference a lot recently. I started to carry 5 APCR on my T-150 for IS-3s and 110s. But I saw it still hard to pen the unangled UFP even if a 219pen AP would pen it as butter. It would be nice to have a way to quickly evaluate the "effective penetration" on APCR.



discontinued #8 Posted 15 March 2018 - 11:42 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 7169 battles
  • 702
  • [-VOID] -VOID
  • Member since:
    08-22-2017

Well I couldn't see the video as I'm supposed to be at work.:hiding:

 

But judging by most of the comments I see where people are coming from,

 

The reality is very far removed form our game. Whilst serving as a cadet in the tank regiment we where told that even a .308/7.62 rifle can penetrate a lightly armored vehicle at short range.This is with standard ball ammo as well, not the armor piercing stuff. let alone a 76mm or 105mm  travelling at 1200+ feet per second

 

Physics does strange things to projectiles, wind, humidity, air resistance and of course the Coriolis effect (curvature of the earth)  can in reality mean a projectile is perfectly fine and holding  its energy at say 800 meters but at 820 meters it has lost all of its stability due to transitioning from supersonic flight to subsonic flight and dumps its energy very fast.

 

Don't even get me started on ammunition inconsistencies, ie slight variations in shell diameter and propellant especially during time of conflict.

 

So if every tank could pen every tank and we always got an exact amount of damage it would,

 

1. Make the game boring.

 

2. Actually be less realistic



NaW_TheRisingSun #9 Posted 15 March 2018 - 01:06 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 20357 battles
  • 29
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    02-08-2014

View Post4TankersAndDog_US, on 15 March 2018 - 04:56 AM, said:

Do the Tier 10 Light Tanks really have their long range shell penetrations nerfed?

Is it just Tier 10s?  Is it just Light Tanks?  Let's bust out some Science, the Truth is Out There...

 

[...]

 

Long story short:  No, not just Tier 10s, and no not just LTs.  Seems perhaps every tank, maybe even every gun, has it's own shell penetration performance profile, presumably applied for balance (or historic?) reasons.  Some guns are a-ok, some suck at long range, some suck before the shell even leaves the barrel.  Think of it as similar to the 'soft' stats of tank mobility and gun handling, the hidden per-tank repair speed values, or the 'average' frontal/side/turret armor values.  The WG published 'penetration' stats are really only rules of thumb that can be very misleading or flat out wrong once in a battle.

 

[...]

 

Any suggestions for a future version of Tanking /w Science?  Please post them below or in the video comments, Good Hunting and Carry Hard my friends.

 

Awesome work! I've seen statements about these pen drops several times and heard some general rules (AP vs. APCR, caliber influence) but your work shows that it is way more complex (and as usual with WG, not really logical). I have done some small statistics on weird things (MM) but nothing as solid and detailed. The scientist in me approves.

 

If you look for something else, that's totally off logic, look at EXP calculation:

http://forum.worldof...3#entry15486253

 

I have noted some unexpected results before but I realized the full magnitude during the ranked battle season. It defies any possible logic.



Simeon85 #10 Posted 15 March 2018 - 01:29 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 1097 battles
  • 2,231
  • Member since:
    04-19-2013

They are in the garage these days, for example you get to see the horrific drop off of the tier 10 lights at 500m some of them barely have 180mm of penetration. And then the weird case of the T92 which IIRC has 175mm of pen at 100m and this only drops to 172mm of pen at 500m so a tank with 175mm of standard pen is only slightly worse at longer ranges than tanks that have around 230-240mm of standard pen.

 

Plus as Aikl highlights the whole APCR v AP thing, people forget about the normalisation so for like tier 10 meds v tier 10 heavies, they pen similar stuff even though the meds on average have higher listed pen.

 

So the 215b/Super Conq 259mm of AP pen vs an IS7 LFP, actually has a slightly better chance to pen than the E50M's 270mm ACPR round. 



Bordhaw #11 Posted 15 March 2018 - 11:43 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 10823 battles
  • 1,957
  • Member since:
    01-29-2017

View PostNaW_TheRisingSun, on 15 March 2018 - 12:06 PM, said:

 

Awesome work! I've seen statements about these pen drops several times and heard some general rules (AP vs. APCR, caliber influence) but your work shows that it is way more complex (and as usual with WG, not really logical). I have done some small statistics on weird things (MM) but nothing as solid and detailed. The scientist in me approves.

 

 

If you look at the ammo data in the garage it already tells you penetration drops off with range which is pretty obvious even without looking. 



4TankersAndDog_US #12 Posted 16 March 2018 - 02:55 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 251 battles
  • 719
  • Member since:
    08-10-2013


NaW_TheRisingSun #13 Posted 16 March 2018 - 04:19 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 20357 battles
  • 29
  • [TEC] TEC
  • Member since:
    02-08-2014

View PostBordhaw, on 15 March 2018 - 10:43 PM, said:

 

If you look at the ammo data in the garage it already tells you penetration drops off with range which is pretty obvious even without looking. 

 

Yes, it does. But you only get a few points. That's not enough to extrapolate a curve. Also, his tests showed that it is more complex than they make us believe (imo). It's not like these curves follow one simple function.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users