the M36 used different AP in Oct and Nov(and after)

[Erwin.Rommel]

I just test the M36 vs panther and Kingtiger, used the same test map, when I set the time in Oct, In about 200m,Every AP that hit the upper hull front achieved the penetration, when vs Kingtiger, the AP penetrated the lower front hull at about 600m. However, the I set the time to Nov, Dec, Jan, The AP rounds can not achieved any penetration in the same place of armor.

I also oberseved that the ricochet AP rounds of Oct will not exploded when hit the ground, but the AP rounds of Nov Dec Jan exploded in the same situation.

So I guess the M36 used M77 AP rounds in Oct, and used M82 APCBC in Nov Dec and Jan, because compared to the M82, the solid M77 AP can better deal with the slope armor plate.

Am I right,BFC?

Edited April 24, 2016 by Erwin.Rommel
change

[snarre]

i think m36 using apcra ammo ewen its not listed on unit ammo. sou mayby its sooting then on octber only thous.

[SgtHatred]

Definitely a bug. After October, both variants of the M36 lose a lot of penetration.

 

also...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWBGX4Skj5o

 

Also, I believe other vehicles suffer from the same issue, although not sure if they have the same penetration issues the M36 has.

 

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, SgtHatred said:

Also, I believe other vehicles suffer from the same issue, although not sure if they have the same penetration issues the M36 has.

Could you be more specific? The M36 was reported to BFC last week but I am not aware of other vehicles with the same issue.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[SgtHatred]

9 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Could you be more specific? The M36 was reported to BFC last week but I am not aware of other vehicles with the same issue.

That's a good point. I haven't witnessed any other odd penetration issues. I am extrapolating from this post.

 

 

If the M36 models that suffer from the "exploding AP shell" have weaker penetration, but the M36s that don't suffer from it have fine penetration, it stands to reason that other vehicles that suffer from the same problem also have reduced penetration, but again I have no direct evidence of other vehicles suffering.

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

That is also a bug, but it has no relation to the M36 issue that I am aware of.

[Erwin.Rommel]

21 hours ago, snarre said:

i think m36 using apcra ammo ewen its not listed on unit ammo. sou mayby its sooting then on octber only thous.

No,that's not true. the 90mm T30E16 HVAP(APCR) first been delivered to ETO with the T26E3 tank in operation Zebra

[Erwin.Rommel]

11 hours ago, SgtHatred said:

That's a good point. I haven't witnessed any other odd penetration issues. I am extrapolating from this post.

 

 

If the M36 models that suffer from the "exploding AP shell" have weaker penetration, but the M36s that don't suffer from it have fine penetration, it stands to reason that other vehicles that suffer from the same problem also have reduced penetration, but again I have no direct evidence of other vehicles suffering.

 

No, these are different bugs, the exploding AP is not related to the penetration value. For the M36, I suppose, the different penetration value is caued by different ammo that maybe the BFC's mistake.

Quote

 

 

[snarre]

well i meaned whit this apcr that mayby there is wrong ammo used , sou normal ap ammo have same penetration value than apcr.

[Erwin.Rommel]

1 hour ago, snarre said:

well i meaned whit this apcr that mayby there is wrong ammo used , sou normal ap ammo have same penetration value than apcr.

Acording to the US's test, the T30E16 only can penetrate the panther's upper hull front at 470yards, but the T33 APBC can achieved this at 1300 yards, maybe the BFC give the T33 APBC to M36 at Oct?

[snarre]

yep mayby , now we had to wait that BF chec this issue out. 

[Erwin.Rommel]

13 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

That is also a bug, but it has no relation to the M36 issue that I am aware of.

Is there any official response to this problem of M36?which AP is right?the Oct's or the Nov's?

just in my further test at Oct, the AP of M36 achieved the partial penetration on the upper front hull of panther at 1300m, this is far beyond the M77 can do, only T33 can achieve this.

[shift8]

T-33 should only be available in numbers in extremely late 44 or early 45

[shift8]

On 4/24/2016 at 6:16 AM, Erwin.Rommel said:

I just test the M36 vs panther and Kingtiger, used the same test map, when I set the time in Oct, In about 200m,Every AP that hit the upper hull front achieved the penetration, when vs Kingtiger, the AP penetrated the lower front hull at about 600m. However, the I set the time to Nov, Dec, Jan, The AP rounds can not achieved any penetration in the same place of armor.

I also oberseved that the ricochet AP rounds of Oct will not exploded when hit the ground, but the AP rounds of Nov Dec Jan exploded in the same situation.

So I guess the M36 used M77 AP rounds in Oct, and used M82 APCBC in Nov Dec and Jan, because compared to the M82, the solid M77 AP can better deal with the slope armor plate.

Am I right,BFC?

Nope. Although I am not BFC

Being solid shot, M77 AP would perform the worst against the Panther. AP projectile suffer greatly from slope effects. M82 also cannot penetrate due to other reasons. Only HVAP at 400m, and T-33 APBC @1000m could pen the panther glacis reliably. 

[shift8]

Update: I tested the 1.01 patch and the 90mm is now performing accurately as it if were firing the most common round (M82). 

It cannot penetrate the panthers glacis even at 200, unless it shoots APCR. During the later months, you will occasionally see "AP" penetrate up to 1000m, which I presume is because every so often a T-33 shot is modeled. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

T-33 is not in the game right now and won't be until the timeline is extended (it will become available in March). It's M82 @ 2650 fps in October and M82 @ 2800 fps in November through February, with HVAP showing up in January (I'm surprised no one else has commented on the appearance of HVAP since it was not in the game at all prior to the patch).

Penetrations of the glacis plate at 1000m are probably weak point penetrations, which become less rare on late model Panthers because of flawed glacis plate modeling.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B

[shift8]

Ah that explains it then. It only happens like 1 in 10 so I think that is pretty well modeled. Honestly I only saw it happen twice out of way more than 20 hits, so probably less than that. 

[DasMorbo]

One idea about different penetration performances in different months:

how about enviromental effects, temperature in particular? Are such physical effects modeled in the game?

 

Regards

Morbo

[Vanir Ausf B]

For temperature I don't know, but my guess would be no.

[Sailor Malan2]

7 hours ago, DasMorbo said:

One idea about different penetration performances in different months:

how about enviromental effects, temperature in particular? Are such physical effects modeled in the game?

 

Regards

Morbo

Which environmental effects? Air temp? Metal temp of the armour? Not really sure those are significant except in really badly designed tanks in extreme cases...

[shift8]

7 hours ago, DasMorbo said:

One idea about different penetration performances in different months:

how about enviromental effects, temperature in particular? Are such physical effects modeled in the game?

 

Regards

Morbo

It would be insignificant. 

And there isnt any dispute as to how the gun performs. It is performing accurately for its most common ammo type in the time frame of the game. In the later months it gets some HVAP and can pen the glacis at 400m and the turret at 1000+.  However, M82 APCBC is the most common round of the 90mm gun and it is useless vs the glacis even at point blank range excepting when it strikes a weak point as Vanir pointed out. It can however, pen the turret and lower hull at well over 1000m. 

[DasMorbo]

Okay good to know.

It was just a thought that came to my mind and I have no knowledge about it.