Jump to content


Tanks.gg Effective Armor

LOS armor Effective armor Angled Armor tanks.gg armor inspector

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

XxKuzkina_MatxX #1 Posted 05 October 2019 - 11:02 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,631
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Hello,

 

For a while now the effective armor values shown in tanks.gg have been inaccurate with some models bugged and with some artifacts. The values are always lower than shown in armor.wotinspector.com and they don't follow the LOS thickness equation:

 

 

To confirm which values are correct, this is a part from a post by one of the developers on the RU forum...

 

Block Quote

  • Бронирование ВЛД 140 -> 120 (приведённое бронирование 298 -> 255)
  • Бронирование НЛД 110 -> 95 (приведённое бронирование 201 -> 174)

 

He was talking about changes of the E75 TS in the supertest. The upper plate was 140mm @ ~62° so it should be 298mm effective. This conforms with the values shown by wotinspector...

 

 

While in tanks.gg the upper plate is around 220mm effective...

 

 

It isn't a big deal but i believe wotinspector is a better alternative.

 

Have a nice weekend!

 

Edit: Thanks to Nishi's post below, the difference in effective values is due to the inclusion of shell normalization in tanks.gg calculations. The normalization isn't part of wot inspector model by default. You've to use that part of the site which takes into account the shell normalization.


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 05 October 2019 - 06:01 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #2 Posted 05 October 2019 - 01:01 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9184 battles
  • 6,444
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

First of all: you got a different angle of impact there.

By your own words, the first has an angle of 62° while the tanks.gg one has an angle of only 55,8°.

Additionally, tanks.gg automatically calculates the shell normalisation ontop, and any possible overmatches.

That makes for an effective 10° difference in impact angle between the two calculations.


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 05 October 2019 - 01:02 PM.


XxKuzkina_MatxX #3 Posted 05 October 2019 - 01:08 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,631
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 05 October 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

First of all: you got a different angle of impact there.

By your own words, the first has an angle of 62° while the tanks.gg one has an angle of only 55,8°.

Additionally, tanks.gg automatically calculates the shell normalisation ontop, and any possible overmatches.

That makes for an effective 10° difference in impact angle between the two calculations.

 

You're right. I forgot about the 5° normalization for AP and 2° for APCR. Tanks.gg by default uses the standard shell of the tank you're looking at. So unless you change that, it will show the effective values including that normalization i.e. with the reduced angle. Still some of their models are a mess. :)

 

 


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 05 October 2019 - 01:48 PM.


MeetriX #4 Posted 05 October 2019 - 01:28 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 24173 battles
  • 3,957
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 05 October 2019 - 01:08 PM, said:

 

Did you read the quote from the developer carefully?

 

Are you joking?

 

  • &$€=%$1&$_/^$&140 -> 120 (:"&$_$^$&^$&$&$&$&$€43   298 -> 255)
  • ■□■●{◇☆★ НЛД 110 -> 95 (;€^&■□□hhkoKjh^%$/^&!*&201 -> 174)


XxKuzkina_MatxX #5 Posted 05 October 2019 - 01:50 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,631
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostMeetriX, on 05 October 2019 - 04:28 PM, said:

Are you joking?

 

Do you need an exact translation or do you understand its meaning from the context of my post?



Balc0ra #6 Posted 05 October 2019 - 02:05 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 73571 battles
  • 20,964
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 05 October 2019 - 01:01 PM, said:

First of all: you got a different angle of impact there.

By your own words, the first has an angle of 62° while the tanks.gg one has an angle of only 55,8°.

Additionally, tanks.gg automatically calculates the shell normalisation ontop, and any possible overmatches.

That makes for an effective 10° difference in impact angle between the two calculations.

 

If you line up the models on both the same way, it will indeed show different values, with gg being way lower. But if I set tank GG's effective angle to 62° on that upper plate. As in telling it to ignore the stuff you listed. He shows it at 298mm effective on tank.gg as well.

 

 



XxKuzkina_MatxX #7 Posted 05 October 2019 - 02:13 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,631
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View PostBalc0ra, on 05 October 2019 - 05:05 PM, said:

If you line up the models on both the same way, it will indeed show different values, with gg being way lower. But if I set tank GG's effective angle to 62° on that upper plate. As in telling it to ignore the stuff you listed. He shows it at 298mm effective on tank.gg as well.

 

Nope, tanks.gg deducts 5° for the AP shell normalization. With the tank level on flat ground, the upper plate is at ~62°. Including the normalization that becomes 57° hence the lower effective values. In tanks.gg, to get 298mm effective on the upper plate in tank you need to tilt the tank back like it's on a ridge.

 


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 05 October 2019 - 02:18 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #8 Posted 05 October 2019 - 02:20 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9184 battles
  • 6,444
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostBalc0ra, on 05 October 2019 - 02:05 PM, said:

If you line up the models on both the same way, it will indeed show different values, with gg being way lower. But if I set tank GG's effective angle to 62° on that upper plate. As in telling it to ignore the stuff you listed. He shows it at 298mm effective on tank.gg as well.

Try switching to HEAT which has no normalisation and then come again.



Balc0ra #9 Posted 05 October 2019 - 02:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 73571 battles
  • 20,964
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
 

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 05 October 2019 - 02:20 PM, said:

Try switching to HEAT which has no normalisation and then come again.

 

And that was more or less my point. If you have AP as default. It will show as he said, until you tell it to go for the angle ignoring shell type. If you set it to heat, it will indeed show 298 at the same view angle.


Edited by Balc0ra, 05 October 2019 - 02:33 PM.


tajj7 #10 Posted 05 October 2019 - 02:55 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28271 battles
  • 16,543
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014
Some of the tanks.gg models are borked yes, but the shot calculator is actually more accurate because of all the above mentioned, normalisation etc.  

Balc0ra #11 Posted 05 October 2019 - 03:04 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 73571 battles
  • 20,964
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Posttajj7, on 05 October 2019 - 02:55 PM, said:

Some of the tanks.gg models are borked yes, but the shot calculator is actually more accurate because of all the above mentioned, normalisation etc.  

 

 AE Phase 1 is still not working to name one that I've had to go to other sites. But I still prefer gg over other sites when the model works due to their tools indeed.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #12 Posted 05 October 2019 - 03:08 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,631
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

There is a shot calculator in wot inspector too guys but part of it is premium. It doesn't work for tier 9, 10 and premium tanks.



tajj7 #13 Posted 05 October 2019 - 04:49 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 28271 battles
  • 16,543
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

View PostBalc0ra, on 05 October 2019 - 02:04 PM, said:

 

 AE Phase 1 is still not working to name one that I've had to go to other sites. But I still prefer gg over other sites when the model works due to their tools indeed.

 

UDES 15/16 as well. A lot of the new models actually. 



Balc0ra #14 Posted 05 October 2019 - 04:55 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 73571 battles
  • 20,964
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Posttajj7, on 05 October 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

 

UDES 15/16 as well. A lot of the new models actually. 

 

Well gg has never had a reputation to be fast to update new models tbh 



UrQuan #15 Posted 05 October 2019 - 06:06 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21400 battles
  • 7,229
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

View Posttajj7, on 05 October 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

 

UDES 15/16 as well. A lot of the new models actually. 

 

Aye the newer tank models tend to have issues on tank.gg but that is more on WG's end. They changed a bit on the armor model data resulting in some bad armor models for newer tank models on tanks.gg (VK 72 was among the first with the new model data resulting in the inaccurate 0 damage armor stripes on its sides/back of turret).

 

As noted above, the difference in armor displayed in tanks.gg & other armor models is usually the shell normalisation bonus that AP (and APCR) get affecting the calculated armor value. Tanks.GG calculates it, quite some don't. 

Also note that 7 degree difference (as in OP's pictures between the two sites) can amount to a large armor difference with angles & AP involved. This is also ingame tbh. Angling your tank 5 degrees more or less can mean the difference between being swiss cheese or a steel wall behemoth.


Edited by UrQuan, 05 October 2019 - 06:42 PM.


fwhaatpiraat #16 Posted 05 October 2019 - 06:07 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 59705 battles
  • 1,957
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    05-04-2013

View Posttajj7, on 05 October 2019 - 04:49 PM, said:

 

UDES 15/16 as well. A lot of the new models actually. 

Even the Polish heavies (turrets).



mateyflip #17 Posted 05 October 2019 - 07:43 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 36872 battles
  • 487
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011
OP, this is maths so I have no idea what's what, but have a good weekend too :)

LordMuffin #18 Posted 05 October 2019 - 09:01 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 53498 battles
  • 13,409
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011

View Postmateyflip, on 05 October 2019 - 07:43 PM, said:

OP, this is maths so I have no idea what's what, but have a good weekend too :)

It is early elementary school maths.



XxKuzkina_MatxX #19 Posted 05 October 2019 - 09:12 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 53231 battles
  • 5,631
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

View Postmateyflip, on 05 October 2019 - 10:43 PM, said:

OP, this is maths so I have no idea what's what, but have a good weekend too :)

 

Thank you my friend but you never know the aptitude of someone toward math. Some Siberian tribesmen can count up to 1024 using their fingers. :)



mateyflip #20 Posted 06 October 2019 - 07:49 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 36872 battles
  • 487
  • Member since:
    05-07-2011

View PostLordMuffin, on 05 October 2019 - 08:01 PM, said:

It is early elementary school maths.

 

That might be the case good sir, however you are chatting to someone who failed their GCSE (state exmination) 3 times.  After the 3rd attempt, Maths and myself came to an argreement - I dont bother maths and it doesnt bother me :teethhappy:

 

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 05 October 2019 - 08:12 PM, said:

 

Thank you my friend but you never know the aptitude of someone toward math. Some Siberian tribesmen can count up to 1024 using their fingers. :)

 

1024! I can just get to 10!






2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users