Never in any of my 100s of games with the IS-2 in both WT and Enlisted have I nonpenned a Panthers upper glacis with a 122.On the other hand, I’ve never been nonpenned by Panzer 4s or Panthers while in a T-34/85 or T-34/100 in Enlisted. I have never experienced those oddities.
I just wanted to point this out so the devs might see this and fix it soon.
I mean just wondering how a tanks get destroyed so easily by a mere tnt on a side of tank like these tanks are made of paper. Either the TNT is op or the tank armor profile is degraded.
TNT and explosive packs are vastly overperforming compared to what they would do realistically, and roof/belly armor of tanks, which is usually the one affected by explosive packs and TNT are very thin, usually 10mm-30mm.
You dont understand how to read those charts.
You reduced it twice.
Well are they really? Because in reality they do no shit to tanks with high quality steel unlike the ones these days and yet in enlisted, TNT can pen that so easily or blow up the whole tank. Remember TNT pack is just nothing but filled with explosives stick bundle that is made to blow up cave and shit for mining.
But when it comes to infantry, its range and damage sucks so they should buff that along with damage on it.
Panther:
IS-2 1944 empty tank:
IS-2 1944 with crews:
Tiger II H empty tank:
Tiger II H with crews:
Pershing empty tank:
Pershing with crew:
All of these heavies blows up with just 1 tnt except some honorable mention tanks lmfaoo:
KV-1 L-11:
KV-1 ZiS-5:
Tiger E (Can eat 1 tnt only 
):
2 Likes
The only one of those that could realistically take actual “damage” from reguar TNT - the Panther tank, because it had very thin roof and bottom armor.
The Panther was cheap for a reason.
Look, you are the one who doesn’t understand how ballistics work.
Effective armor is line-of-sight armor thickness. It’s literally is just how the thick armor is from your line of sight/point of view. If you fire at a 100mm plate at anly angle except 0 degrees angle, the effective thickness from your line of sight/point of view will be bigger. It’s literally just thicker armor, it has nothing to do with reducing the penetrative effect.
On the other hand, shell penetration decreases at angles because sloping deteriorates the heads of armor-piercing shells which causes the shells to deform and suffer a reduction in penetrative power.
Both of these are factors that influence the result, whether the shell penetrates or not.
However this only applies to kinetic energy shells. Chemical energy shells (HEAT) don’t suffer from deterioration at angles because the penetration is not caused by a standard kinetic shell, but by a super-hot jet of copper (or a different alloy) that slices through armor.
1 Like
Yep. They are greatly overperforming, they easily destroy even Tiger 2s. Realistically, they could probably blow up/damage light tanks and such though.
nvm I misread and thought you said underperforming 
Anyway but least it will help change some pro tnt guy’s mind that they need some nerf
Here you are using “effective” armor through angle
Here you reduced the power of the L70 AGAIN because of angle.
So the effective armor is 130mm
while Panther has 130mm of effective penetration.
Now you claim:
Which is wrong because you reduced it twice.
130mm effective armor penetration means how well it penetrates against a 130mm thick plate that is angled at 30 degrees. 130mm doesn’t literally turn into 170mm.
Your balistic cap claim is already considered in the 130mm of effective pen.
1 Like
Wrong
That’s a wild claim.
“When an armor plate is sloped relative to the angle of attack, the relative armor thickness, or line of sight, increases. The armor piercing shot therefore has to penetrate a greater amount of armor than the actual thickness of the armor plate.”
1 Like
Wild claim… dude, just look at Wehrmacht reports of fighting IS2, it is public knowledge at what distances Panthers could defeat their armor or turret.
My last response has nothing to do with IS-2s or Panthers.
My last response was debunking your statement that my claim (Effective armor is line-of-sight armor thickness) is incorrect. That applies to all tanks, not just IS-2 and Panther.
Don’t try to derail the topic to hide your lack of knowledge, so go ahead and respond to what I said.
I will respond to your other dubious claims regarding the IS-2s too.
1 Like
How so?
I provided evidence that my statement (“effective/relative armor is line-of-sight thickness.”), which you tried to challenge by claiming it’s incorrect, is correct by providing a visual illustration, as well as a credible source, and a quote.
Now go ahead and respond to that.
1 Like
Like I said numerous times, line-of-sight thickness/relative armor thickness has NOTHING to do with shell deformation due to sloping, except that they are caused by sloping. Hence you have to take both into account to get a correct result.
This illustration demonstrates effective armor thickness, or line-of-sight thickness, whichever you may prefer.
This graph demonstrates decrease in penetration power at angles of the 7,5cm KwK42 L/70.
(Thanks to my friend Slakrrrrrr)
They are not the same thing, hence you have to take both into account for a correct result.
Panzergranate 39/42 penetrates 130mm at 30 degrees at 500m.
IS-2s lower glacis plate is 130mm thick and would be impacted at about 40 degrees, which gives 170mm effective thickness.
170mm > 130mm, hence it doesn’t penetrate.
2 Likes
Dude, you really dont get it.
Effective armor penetration of 130mm at 30° means it can penetrate a 130mm thick plate that gets angled at 30°.
I dont know how to tell you how you are wrong so that you understand.
If I look at Wehrmacht reports claiming “something like” don’t remember the exact numbers - Panther would defeat IS frontal armor at 600m, while turret at 1000m - then it already proves that my calculations are correct.
I don’t know what your link is supposed to prove.
1 Like
Again false, 130mm at 30 degrees at 500m means exactly that and nothing else.