Wait for DF to update the game engine. I suspect the game still uses WT’s old pen calculation/armor formulas.
Then warthunder is wrong, just go google it, at the ranges we have in Enlisted, a Panther would have penetrated IS2 without any issues.
Enlisted literally uses the same exact penetration calculator as War Thunder. If it can’t pen in War Thunder, it can’t pen in Enlisted either.
I am talking about real life
Enlisted and WT both use the same penetration calculator, only difference is that Enlisted has no volumetric which doesn’t affect armor values/pen values.
I’m not sure about this, but I think it uses WT’s old pen calculator, which overestimated angled armor. There has to be a reason why Panthers can just eat 122s to the UFP and T-34s can eat the long pz IV’s rounds to the UFP.
1 Like
It is just Enlisted using older War Thunder model.
Accounting for angle, IS-2 M1944 has 170mm of effective armor at 40 degrees in the lower glacis. At 500m, at 30 degrees, Panzergranate 39/42 fired from 7,5cm KwK42 L/70 has about 130mm of penetration. 170mm > 130mm and it’s not even close.
1 Like
Oh yeah, Jagdpanzer IV and Panthers frontal armor simply eating 17 punder, 100m and 90mm guns like it doesn’t matter is ridiculous.
Angled armor is overperforming, just like explosive filler. I wonder why. No actually we all know the reason why.
Dude, you can’t read.
If you say the effective armor at 30 degrees is higher, then you can’t also use the reduced effective penetration.
from what i have seem they tend to update these types of things without telling us. For example, Pz IV J turret traverse and Panther A governor.
That is not how armor penetration works.
Here’s a very basic way of calculating it, putting aside all the other factors, like overmatch, armor quality, normalization etc.
Effective armor at the given angle - (effective) penetration at the given angle/range, if the result is larger than 15mm then it won’t penetrate.
Both effective armor at the given angle and effective penetration at the given angle/range are taken into account when calculating likeliness of penetration, this is common knowledge.
Here’s an example. IS-2 M1944 has a cast upper glacis plate 100mm thick angled at 60 degrees, giving about 170-180mm of effective armor. 7,5cm KwK42 L/70 has nearly 200mm of penetration point blank, so why wasn’t it able to penetrate IS-2 M1944s upper glacis even at close ranges?
1 Like
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