The Soviet BR1 tank T-60 20mm AP-I shell does too little damage to vehicle track. It take seventeen 20mm AP shell to destroy a track and the cannon overheat after fast firing 22 shots with roughly 9 seconds cool down. I think the penetration value is fine, but the damage per shot is too low.
Maybe its the vehicle track HP is too high as it’s fairly easy to destroy tank engine with the same shell, in that case reduce the HP of vehicle track.
All the 20mm armed tanks arent using their “good” amunition
I would like 20mm armed tanks accross the board to get access to their best ammunition.
thill they don’t give to Ha-Go and the other tanks HE shells who they have but for X or Y reason, devs refuse to give it, I won’t agree
Lol wrong, except for T-60 all 20mm armed tank are using their good ammunition that have the best damage unless you are talking about shell that is not available for the tank/not in War Thunder.
T-60 Enlisted is using AP-I 27mm pen Max
T-60 Warthunder optional belt API HV 32mm pen Max
German and Italian 20mm Enlisted using API-T 37-38mm pen Max
German and Italian 20mm Warhtunder optional belt using HVAP-T 48mm pen Max
Lol, read again what OP want. He literally said that penetration is fine but damage is not.
HVAP shell indeed have better penetration, but it has less damage.
Thats what hes saying. What Im saying is if you could have the higher pen, you would use it. It might be only a few mm, but It crosses a significant Threshold for the T-60 (lots of tanks it sees have 30mm armor, that more damage on 27mm pen rounds wont do much).
Why buff the damage on API when you can just outright replace it with API HV? and then worry about the damage that shell does.
It won’t have much change. The 32mm is for 10m, The penetration will only be 28mm on 100m. So unless you get really close, you will have no chance of penning it, not to mention it must be perfectly straight to you.
(Somehow War Thunder protection analysis show that such shell cannot pen 30mm PZ4C armor even at 0m.)
OP is talking about damage, you are talking about penetration, so you aren’t even answering what OP wants.
Im presenting a counter point of discussion, Not “answering”
gives you situation potential though doesnt it? (that is unachieveable even at point blank with the current round) And then there are the tanks it sees that Have 25mm armour at 100 meters where the extra pen will be beneficial.
By all means…buff the damage to tracks. But perhaps with a better round aswell. More Important to kill a crew than a track.
That should still mean that those auto guns could penetrate German side armor, which is often 30mm thick
Though, I would say that OP has a good point, if AT rifles take out tracks in just a few hits, then should auto guns do at least the same, considering caliber.
There is no counter point of discussion on your original answer. You just said there is better shell. It is very misleading consider that this topic is talking about damage, people will think that you are saying the better shell will have better damage.
Basically useless potential.
Lol you made this thing up, you are just making up a number that will be beneficial for the round.
Flanking is rarely feasible in Enlisted due to the grey zone.
What I said was accurate.
still a difference between completely useless, and basically useless
the tank in his post has 25mm side and back…
What accurate? He wants better damage, you give him better pen.
So what? Flanking is rarely feasible in Enlisted due to the grey zone. When talking about armor, people will assume it is front armor unless you specifically mention side armor.
I mean, what I said was…“accurate”
you said I made it up. thats what, and that is all. rebutted.
Nope, OP standard is better damage, you give him better pen, so it is not better shell using OP’s standard, so your “better” is not accurate.
Yeah you made it up, because if not specify the armor should be assume as front armor. Or else I can say king tiger only has 40mm of armor.
grasping at air their mate. Came in trying to be all smart ass with “lol wrong.”
and for what…
I’ll keep it simple. Answer these questions.
Would you take API HV or API
Would you take HVAP or API T
Would you take a chance over no chance.
yes…it’s a trap. Then look at what I said, and “quote” the “words” that are inaccurate.
Not related to the topic.
I can say 1+1=2 is accurate, but it is still not related to the topic.
Its related to you calling wrong/bullshit classic deflection. Its okay mate…it was rhetorical anyway.