yes explosive tnt packs
you provided nothing, you are still running in circles with your missed logic.
I thought I was clear.
here you annoying human being, wikipedia.
"According to German tactical instructions, a Panther had to close to 600 m (660 yd) to guarantee penetration of the IS-2âs frontal armour, while the IS-2 could penetrate the Panther at ranges of 1,000 m (1,100 yd).[140]
A Wa PrĂźf 1 report states that when set at a 30-degree angle the glacis plate of the Panther could not be penetrated by the 122 mm BR-471 AP shell, the lower glacis could be penetrated from 100 m (110 yd), the turret mantlet from 500 m (550 yd) and the turret front from 1,500 m (1,600 yd).The Pantherâs 75 mm gun could penetrate the IS-2 model 1943âs mantlet from 400 m (440 yd), turret from 800 m (870 yd), and driverâs front plate from 600 m (660 yd)."
you were clear that you canât read graphs.
130 of effective armor penetration = 190mm pen - angle
=/= 190mm pen - angle - effective thickness, because âangleâ already takes that into consideration.
as clearly stated in my source, Panthers would reliably penetrate IS 2 frontal armor up to 600 meters distance - which exactly fits the way how I tell you the graph is to be understood.
you
canât
read
1 Like
This is talking about the IS-2 M1943, which had a significantly different and weaker armor scheme (Upper glacis 140mm effective armor, lower glacis 130mm effective armor). This does not apply to the IS-2 M1944. (Upper glacis 180mm-90mm, lower glacis 160mm-170mm).
This absolutely stupid claim about an angled Panther withstanding 122mm hits has been thoroughly debunked by Peter Samsonov, a very respected military historian. He also goes to explain how line-of-sight/effective armor and reduction in penetrative power due to angles work in the following video:
Do you not understand that the line-of-sight thickness increases when you fire at an armor plate at an angle?
Crazy that you think so.
Go to my other response and try to debunk that video from Peter Samsonov. I am sure you know better than him about tanks and ballistics.
I tried, you cant be helped.
I honestly donât know how to make you understand.
How am I supposed to make you understand how to read those graphs? The whole issue, the entire issue is that you reduce the effect of the L70 twice, even though mathematically it only should happen once.
If you angle a 130mm plate at an angle of 30 degrees - you reduce the ⌠my god I am repeating myself⌠I quit, you are too stupid to even understand my point, both your videos donât talk about the main issue at all.
Have a good night, may Stalin bless your mighty IS2 into being the hero tank it always deserved to be.
I am unable to see your response. Your post was flagged.
I donât see what you said. Your post got flagged again.
Your post keeps getting flagged.
Do you want me to do the same? Because this will lead no nowhere, also it is clear that you read it anyways, otherwise you wouldnât have flagged it in the first place.
What are you rambling about?
Every tank spawn with maximum ammunition in storage. Try throwing TNT at a tank with depleted ammo and you will only set the engine on fire.
1 Like
Stepping in to remind you all to keep it civil and respectful. No more warnings.
That is all.
I was civil. Did he insult me in the flagged posts?
Irrelevant. The important bit is posts were flagged.
No more nonsense please. I donât want to have to close the thread.
Well my point is that a 25mm thickness on heavy tanks canât get penned by mere tnt pack that is known for blasting rocks only, not tanks. That like saying that a mere HE rounds can pen shit on Tiger 2.
