Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Erwin.Rommel

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

Recommended Posts

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 by Erwin.Rommel
change

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

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  

×
×
  • Create New...