shturmovik_rs is right here.
If lower plate would be 130 mm thick this would give about 176 mm of effective thickness, while Panther G can pen less than 130 mm at 500 m and at that angle.
1 Like
Again, Panther does not have 130mm of pen.
If you use effective armor which already considers angle of impact ASWELL as the line of sight - you would calculate with its flat penetration power.
At 100 meters:
Penetration power 185mm versus 170mm effective armor.
Why donāt you folks believe me, 30 degrees of angle doesnāt double its armor protection, that statement is utterly ridiculous.
You either calculate with its real armor thickness vs panther pen at 30 degrees angle
(130mm armor vs 138 mm pen at 100m)
Or you do effective armor vs panther pen at 30 degrees angle
(170mm effective armor vs 185mm pen at 100m)
You dont do both, that is wrong math.
Here I even found a calculator
absolutely incredible your amount of stubbornness, go ahead make the shell come from an even higher angle
The angle of impact is accounting for ābullet dropā at 500m range.
1 Like
sure thing buddy
Lol.
Are you then forgeting about normalisation of the shells? While the shell might come at that angle the actual penetrator will come at a less shallow angle. Not sure if your simulator has a setting for the normalisation.
And in WT the panther can pen the lower glacis at the distances most common in enlisted so why should it differ in a game by the same publisher?
Due to the (relatively) small size of the penetrator, normalization effects arenāt as notable as that of the 122mm BR-471B for example. And regardless, shell normalization couldnāt turn this into a non-penetrating hit simply because the effective armor is so good. The shell would just dig further downwards into the armor anyway.
Also WT Panther canāt penetrate the IS-2 M1944 lower glacis plate.
If you want to be 100% sure that a Panther wonāt penetrate IS-2s M1944 lower glacis plate, angle it slightly.
Thatās what Iām saying.
1 Like
Ah yes, myself, my sources and all people who agree with me are all wrong. You know better than all of us.
Because I play the game and I know how the things work.
First one:
IS-2 (1944) and 1943 version. The same cannon, the same max penetrationā¦ but 1944 has better penetration of slope because of better ammo.
Second:
Effective thicknes about 190 mm, so IS-2 and SU-100 should kill Tiger II through frontal plateā¦ but that never happens ?
This post has been previously reminded to keep it civil if you want to argue with someone one on one do it in your DM and keep the general post civil. If this last warning is not heed action will be taken.
Well, lets end this discussion that way:
IS2 ingame indeed has a 100mm plate there which makes no sense - which is the real original content of this topic anyways.
So this should change.
If we want to talk about full penetration physics, someone can open up a new topic - which I have no interest in doing so, I rather talk with a bunch of elementary schoolers about global politics and religion than having to endure this here for one more moment.
I need a break or Iāll risk getting a stroke.
Have a nice day everyone.