User talk:bangerland

From War Thunder Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

old convo about mg table and pen probability

I'm pretty sure everyone is still busy with restoration, but I got a few mins off, so I wanted to ask, if there are any graphs around wiki with MG penetration values? At least per caliber? Because since I use a lot of light vehicles I'd like to actually try and estimate which vehicles are a potential danger to them (like French rank 6 tanks with 20mm autocannons for mg, speaking of overkill, lol), and which aren't really (so you can just laugh at them and wait for your reload as they don't use main weapon). I remember someone wrote on one of end-game French tank page (all of which are dead now, as well as jap, lol.) that 20mm gun coaxials only pen up to 34mm point blank, but I think I got incinerated through angled 35mm (so basically 65). Or it was lag and I got side-breached, despite insane angling (again, at 60 degrees it's probably around 40mm too). Comparing to AA pen value doesn't make a lot of sence with that either, as in attempt to bait enemy AA to test it's guns on me even soviet shilka seemed to wreck angled armor in about 3 seconds, so either it can deteriorate armor, or I'm just missing something. I am aware of , but it was pretty much empty before (like, all the pen tables were on tank pages and not linked from gun pages), and now it's surely dead. --bangerland (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2019 (MSK)

Do you mean just tables with the specified pen at each range, or proper nice line graphs? Creating tables like this for each tank machine gun shouldn't be too hard (I could probably write a program to read the game files then generate all the tables, that said may be quicker to just make them manually). I imagine it would be best to include such tables in the article for the machine guns themselves as it would add something of note to those pages, also having to update practically every US tank page on the wiki if Gaijin change the pen of an M2 50cal would be a right pain (obviously tanks which use the MGs as their main weapon, instead of as a secondary, should have the table on their page).
--Flame2512 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, having at least one table with general info per caliber at 10 and 100m would be nice (as i try to fill out on my page), just to know what they can or can't do. I also would like to know if those tables represent damage to rolled homogenous armour or aluminium (which one then?) or something else, because aluminium seems to have 30% or heavier penalty to armour, compared to homogenous, at least from what i gathered. Also i noticed, that AP-I does more pen for some reason( i mean, when you actually use it in game, not look at numbers), but ricochets more frequently and damage falloff is heavy. Though filling each MG's page would be nice, esp. if the table could be pulled out of there automatically, i guess.
I just wish i knew where to find proper info on them, because i'm tired of having random "LOL YOU DIED" moments, whenever i test them (that moment when i specifically let BMP-2 fire cannon at me on max ROF mode, just to test if it can pen striker at angle is flat out suicidal), so i wanted to make an easily fillable graph or coloured table, so people would know, what to be afraid of in certain light vehicles at their rank/BR, if you get what i mean. So that would be 6 or 10 tables/graphs, make it double if count aluminium armoured vehicles, unless someone goes out of their way and make one for each vehicle. Though it seems like the borderline numbers (like 33 armour vs 32 pen) aren't in favour of armour anyway, because it's then RNG if it pens or not and ROF is usually too high (so that must be included in pen table, even if there is one). Also would be interesting to see how vehicles with internal armour (like type 89) interact with those.
I hope that helps to understand what i meant. --bangerland (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The way armour works is each shell has a penetration value and each armour type has a armour modifier. You take the thickness of the armour, multiply that with the modifier and then compare that to the penetration of the shell. RHA has a modifier of 1.00 so in effect everything is given relative to RHA. So if you have 100mm of RHA (modifier of 1.00) a shell needs 100mm (100 x 1.00) of pen to get through it; if the armour is High Hardness RHA (modifier 1.25) you need 125mm (100 x 1.25) of pen to get through, and if it is structural steel (modifier 0.45) you need 45mm (100mm x 0.45) of pen to get through. Obviously once you take into account angling and other stuff it gets more complicated but that is the basic gist of it. A list of all the armour modifiers can be found here, although I am unsure how up to date it is. Here are the aluminium ones:
  • Aluminium Alloy AA 7039 - 0.47
  • Aluminium Alloy AA 7017 - 0.80
  • Aluminium Alloy ABT-10 - 0.53
  • Aluminium - 0.20
If I have time I will have a look at making penetration tables (like the one I linked to previously) and putting them on the page for each tank MG and auto-cannon.
--Flame2512 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, i figured RHA is the baseline for everything, but wasn't 100% sure. Thanks, that really helps a lot! --bangerland (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
It would seem, that new pen stats improved 60° performance on several tanks at cost of 0° performance. However, I also noticed, that several APHE or APCBC shells can now penetrate at almost 89° horizontal+ some vertical, when their stat card says 100% ricochet at ~64° and 71°. Also, these rounds seem to ricochet ingame inside off vehicle's roof (which they DO overmatch completely, but for some reason commander hatch says 220mm non-penetration, lol) down and only then explode, after they penned 30mm somehow. In garage hit detection test does not repeat this weird ricochet, but confirms, that penetration is possible, or that chance is not even 80% when angle is like 85°+vertical. So this begs a few of questions, is there any power% formula for overmatch in between 1.3X and 7.0X? Is Normalization of shell itself applied before hit or after hit (I/e does it counter ricochet chance or not)? And does it apply to vertical and horizontal separately or to sum of those? And do these rules even work after penetration happened? has nothing concrete. Not like I think it's false information, but it doesn't prevent witch hunt tendencies. --bangerland (talk) 11:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hullbreak mechanics oddity

To add slightly less controversial topic: did anything change about hull break mechanics lately? It seems that object 906 radiator can now tank ATGM and vehicle wont explode. Happened to helicopter and missile carrier on my eyes today, though normally they explode instantly. Strange. --bangerland (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

devs pretty much confirmed that they can tweak hullbreak on certain elements hit with centauro changes and patch notes... So probably whoever uses light vehicles must address probability of hullbreak on engine, radiator, and transmission hit (at least those), as opposed to just "hitting the hull = instant death", as well as turret and hull hits. --bangerland (talk) 11:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

New soviet ATGM

If someone actually uses the new "sturm-s" soviet ATGM truck, please do look into "tandem charge" missile and "proximity fuse" missiles and tell how they actually work. I wonder if they will add anti-ERA missiles to other factions, that were told to have those, and if they will simply have 830 pen like that one, or it will specifically ignore ERA blocks AND have 830 pen? The proximity missile also looks extremely useful, but I somehow doubt they really added missile that just explodes light tanks that drive too close to it. But it is soviets, so anything can happen, I guess? --bangerland (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Type 60 ATM - 2k range

- Looking at the page for the Type 60 ATM, I didn't see the stat card were you were referencing "Also, the Stat card (the one on top of page) states max range for missile being 2km in "detailed" which is wrong." The only reference I saw was for 1.8 km. What should the correct stat be and by correct stat, are you referring to historical data or game data? What section is the stat card you are referencing? AN_TRN_26 (talk) 11:52, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The one that gets stats from "star card", that gets pulled by that one command. As in, the one with ingame mini picture on right-top of page. If you press "detailed" there it says the range of main weapon, which is 2k. In game it says 1.8k which I already wrote into the table on page itself. --bangerland (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I see it now. So there is a discrepancy between in-game stat sheet and the Wiki stat-card. 1.8 km reflects the stat found on the in-game pop-up for the vehicle and the 2.0 km reflects the stat card in the wiki. AN_TRN_26 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Correct. --bangerland (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Japan map link

Does someone know if Japan map is present on Wiki? I can't seem to find it anywhere to link it. Japan in search gives me nothing, and in Ground forces map list it's absent for some reason, or I am blind as bat. --bangerland (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it just has complicated name here, "Emperor's Garden". --bangerland (talk) 10:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Night Vision and Optics


I notice you seemed interested in the optics of different tanks and created the original optics page and tables. I'm working on tables and an article for night vision stuff and as it is sort of optics related I didn't know if you would be interested. Feel free to check out the bottom of my user page to see the tables and discuss stuff in the relevant section of my talk page (there's a little bit more info about my plans there).

--Flame2512 (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Tank gun sight magnification

Hi, If you take a look at my user page I now have a list detailing the default and zoomed in magnification for the gunner's site on every tank in game. Figure this will be useful for filling in the optics section of pages. If you want to discuss it feel free to create a new section on my talk page. --Flame2512 (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Conqueror Weak Spot

I can't say I've ever seen that happen to me in the Conqueror - I've only been killed by an APHE shell from an IS or something else high cal properly penetrating the trap shot. I also can't reliably reproduce it in the (slightly broken) tank polygon, so maybe it's just another bug like the ability to machine gun the turret crew in the Centurion Mk.10. --_artek (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

If you mean the HE deleting conqueror by hitting it's turret, you just use not big enough gun. Maybe i should have been more specific. For example, SPGs like object 268 and Type 75 SPH can one-shot it. Also, if you want to try it with smaller tanks like IS-4M, just try it on M103 to see the difference between them, they're literally same thing, except M103 is even easier to destroy like this, even the IS-4M should be able to pull it off in a few hits. The conqueror is different in a sense that it requires more punch, but its ammo rack is right there, so if it penetrates... Well, not even an inaccuracy of the shooter will save the tank.
If you mean the hull side kill (Despite there being an actual track guard...), well, i can't really present you a solid evidence, especially considering the protection analysis does not fully simulate damage that happens in the actual game. Like how you can shoot the tank bottom from the side with 35 mm and the tank will explode with you receiving no hit cam like here , so you can't even be like "here, have a picture that it happened". All i can really make is an analogy with churchill, because i had pretty much same issues when AMX-13 (FL11) literally shot my hull side at 89 degrees, it penetrated and hit my ammo (since it is literally on the hull side) resulting in explosion. AB makes such shots not just a miracle but something you can actually fish for... --bangerland (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Anyway take a look at this here:
Weak HE damages conqueror via trapshot protection analysis.jpg
There is a hatch on conqueror's roof as well, which is about as weak as M103's entire roof, and it's possible to destroy breech at the same time this way, and you can do it even with 120 MM of a heavy. And considering you can do it from low ground, you can just continue molesting the drivers until you destroy the tank or their breech gets screwed so hard it just breaks and you can end them properly. --bangerland (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I get what you're saying now. I'll play around with this in Tank Polygon and see if I can't reproduce it... In probably hundreds of games of the Conqueror I haven't seen anything of the sort. --_artek (talk) 05:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, i mean, object 256 isn't very popular due to its entire tech line being... lacking. Not as bad as CA lorraine, but still. So it is rare to get attacked like this and i see like one unit per 30 7.0 games or so. The 75 did not even exist until 1.91 either, and its more spammed at 10.0 by memelords, rather than used at its proper BR for now, so there is that. It must be fate for these 2 to meet, sort of, lol. --bangerland (talk) 06:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
So after playing around with this over the weekend, I get what you're saying about HE rounds (but I suppose many vehicles are somewhat vulnerable to a lucky HE shot) but the skirt thing I simply cannot reproduce. I had it happen once but as far as I can tell it's pure luck, just like HESH shots landing below a vehicle - it has the potential to happen, but you've gotta be hella lucky for one of those pieces of shrapnel to go into your ammo stowage. Interestingly enough, I got it to happen on a couple tanks with sideskirts (even killed the driver on a T-44 with it once). So, I think the conclusion is: If you're super unlucky, you might get killed by someone shooting the front of your sideskirt, but you're probably more likely to die to a nearby HE shell. --_artek (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I see. Well, i just hope it doesn't happen to everyone else as often as to me, so i kind of wrote it out for people to know it may happen. Thanks for taking your time to double-check. --bangerland (talk) 20:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

ERA properties

Did someone notice any changes to ERA lately? M60A1 RISE (P) Seems to no longer be complete garbage as it managed to block 7 missiles shot, 3 of which were fired pretty much at the same spot. --bangerland (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, actually, I feel like the ERA on the T-64BV and T-80BV is much more effective than it was earlier, both against helicopter and ground-based ATGMs. --_artek (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Type 60 ATM edits

Hello there bangerland,

Can you please elaborate on this sentence that you added into the Type 60 ATM in the notice template?

If you do not want to deal with manual controls, to snipe above cover pull tank optics out of cover, so it does not block the space in between camera and missile (sniper sight itself is irrelevant and in AB reality "camera" can see in full 360 degrees).

I bolded the questionable part in the quote above. What do you mean by "AB reality "camera""? It is a pretty vague term and I can only infer you mean the third-person view of the camera from the context. Can you please verify if that is what you meant?--Inceptor57 (talk) 17:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Normally the ATGM camera (gunner seat) is also the laser pointer of a tank, so it has to see its target in order to guide (if you cant put the sniper crosshair on target due to lack of depression - you are out of luck. Especially out of luck in RB, which has special rules for SACLOS, unlike AB and disallows "reticle" aiming as a backup) in case of type 60 ATGM the "binoculars" are the camera, but you cannot move them around, since they are bound to the pole and only move along with the hull. This means that you would be blind and unable to guide it like this via sniper scope, therefore unable to use it directly. But since in RB type 60 ATM guidance is gen1 (WASD controls) and not Gen2 it's an exception, so in AB you can guide missiles anywhere you want from any angle you want, anywhere, as there is no "turret rotation". It just sees in full 360 degrees, or in full sphere around it while sniper scope may make you think otherwise. At least that's what i tried to convey, but probably failed. --bangerland (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Copy and pasting from RU

Hello please do not copy and paste texts from the Russian wiki, in the future - Please do not use google or an automated translator, it isn't perfect. P.s. Keep up your great edits! If you need help always feel free to poke one of the wiki team o7 ) --patrioticalien (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Just so you know, i can read Russian and the text is not copy-pasted (which also explains mine less than perfect grammatic "the" displacement, which automatics usually place in overabundance, so you can tell i'm actually writing these things manually). Also, .ru version of wiki is as bare as .com one in terms of ATGM vehicles, however, as i am filling information on british vehicles, mainly completely absent from .ru wiki, so are SU vehicle pages are much better filled with info on .ru wiki. Since i do not own any SU tanks, finding any reasonable confirmation of information and my own hypothesis of how these tanks work outside of youtube "rb experts" videos and me fighting them (just so you know, most SU player think that ATGM tanks are for cowards, or sth along these lines, so you will rarely meet more than one in 4 battles) is ridicilously hard, so compromises have to be made at times. The result is something of the likes of IS-7 counter tactics section (for example, the weakspot screenshot was taken by .ru wiki member, which i comissioned at the time, as IS-7 armor was impossible to preview if you didn't own it at time of writing the text, so yes.) . It's not like i don't at least try to confirm what i write by at least watching someone's replay. --bangerland (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Optics subsections

On a side note, i do see some mods to hide/remove optic subsections i made, while others keep it around or even add it, as a table and minor notes without comments (which is understandable). What is the consensus among mods on that at this moment? As far as i understand, NVD optics table is still being the most used one at this point (unless in exception somewhere)?.. Also, as far as i know, the optic system was re-done and new parameters are being visible in-game for most tanks (like you don't need to guess FOV of optics now, it is written, even though i still didn't make sense out of the numbers). --bangerland (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

NVD table comments

Hi, the NVD optics tables don't seem to have any comments attached, so they should all be fine as is (unless I'm misunderstanding). Many thanks, DnaGonite (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The ones that i initially added to pages still do have comments. Such as swingfire. I can fix them myself, i just need to comprehend, what is the moderator position on them. --bangerland (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
The instructions are present on the linked optics page, so it isn't really necessary to have them accompanying every table as well (similar to the ammo racks table), especially once they've been filled in. Having said that, there's no need to go around specifically removing the comments either. -DnaGonite (talk) 11:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I see. So i am removing the comments from normal small table, and killing off comments from nvd table pages, which are already adequately filled. The reason why i am even asking, is because some people hidden entirety of tables or removed them outright from some pages, like on warrior page, was mildly confused, as to what to do about this - just fix them or add them and see how it goes and then forget about it? IG there isn't much point of repeating them on many of British pages, since their scopes are near identical for 2 ranks, but rank V was a changing point, and it had NVD, so i did list it. /shrug --bangerland (talk) 12:08, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Optics & NVD


please send me a message on the forums so we can talk about optics and NVD tables. -

--patrioticalien (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I did, but it was not read even today, even though i kept the tab open to answer immediately. --bangerland (talk) 06:29, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Overpressure mechanics


It would seem that new "hullbreak" is affecting all of the tanks in the game, so it would be nice to collect information about it somewhere outside of that dev blog post, which says pretty much nothing concrete about how it works.

Since it affects virtually all tanks, i am asking for people's opinion on:

1) hullbreak is shortened to HB, how do we shorten overpressure damage? OVP (OVerPressure)? OD (OverpressureDamage)? OP (OverPressure which collides with OverPowered)?

2) Since it affects all the tanks, should i mention in detail where to hit tanks to instagib them and how huge must be the shell for that to happen, or is there any ongoing effort to update damage mechanics? Bombing and rocket spam survival strats are a subject to a particular scrutiny now, as some tanks cannot survive carpet bombing anymore. I'd assume two such tables could help with eyeballing tank's survivability for future reference:

Shell type Calibre General penetration amount Instant kill on X RHA:
HE 90 15 10
HE 120 30 25
HEAT ATGM 163 700 15

Should include: HE,HESH,HEAT,HEAT-FS,HE-FS(if it still exists),HE-PF should be mentioned in detail due to how it works, All SAM variants, all atgm variants (i never seen the roof-pounding ATGM but its probably different, too)

Aircraft ammo Mass or explosive mass (as seen in WT tooltip tonnage) General penetration amount Instant kill on X RHA: Fatal explosion range:
whichever bomb 1000 40 40m
whichever light rocket  ? 30 0m
whichever heavy rocket  ? 40 20m

Do note that i just wrote whatever in that table, you can edit it as you like and it's not necessarily correct.

3) Should all old texts with HB in it be moderated immediately or is it ok to leave as is for indefinite period of time?

4) Do HE ATGM and SAM finally count as entirely different things mechanically or not? Are HE ATGM able to do same overpressure damage as HE shells? (Asking since HE ATGMs were weaker than shells even before that, and Stormer HVM got nerfed and unable to do jack anymore, and i don't have Shturm-S or other HE SAM to see if it's just a new trend or not, which would change A LOT of things in context of 9.0+)

- bangerland (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding question 1, neither hull-break nor overpressure should be abbreviated in article text, simply because there are many clashes that they could be confused with, and are not really long enough to be worth abbreviating. - DnaGonite (talk) 10:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Angling in a SU

The whole "angle to the left" strategy does not persist throughout the entire SU SPG tree. Aside from the SU-122 and the SU-85 who sit at low BRs and still can exploit the angling tip, other SU Soviet tank destroyers can not rely on it:

  • Enemy cannons faced by the SU-85M, SU-100 or SU-122P are much more powerful and will punch through the front plate no matter the angle.
  • The front plate on these tanks does not increase in thickness or angle.
  • The SU-85M, SU-100 and SU-122P become equipped with a cylindrical cupola well that is only 45 mm thick, meaning exposing your right side even slightly exposes a weak spot to enemy fire.

Engaging enemies from long distance should be the real advice given to players. Angling won't compensate the lacking armour when being too close to an enemy tank. --Colok76286 (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

In my experience, a lot of players fail to penetrate SU-85M and even SU-100, when I angle to the left, in the worst case the commander dies or I lose gun breech instead of a tank. At the very least, it increases the chances of enemy tanks aiming at your cupola weak spot flinching and firing at your side armour instead, where the shell will bounce, instead of being a guaranteed hit. The thickness on SU-85M does increase compared to SU-85, so you probably should check it again. It's actually thick and sloped enough to take point blank shots of short tanks at a BR. You are correct, with increased armour it gains the cupola which is a weak spot. The cupola, however, is penetrated regardless of angle as it is round, angling to make the front more defensive does not affect this weak spot whatsoever, and moreover, it is only a target when you try to hull-down and peek on enemy tanks, and they just fire at the only thing they see. As for the tanks penetrating the late SU tanks, it is due to them being taller than said tanks, not because the angle tactic is inefficient. Saying that it shouldn't be angled is the same as saying that Panther A is easy to kill, "just aim for cupola"™ , by time you do that they will obliterate your tank and its faster AND safer to just fire at their gun. That being said, I play at AB mode, where you do not have to guess if you can or can't pen, so if angling actually makes people stare at your tank for more than 5 seconds and then botch the shot anyway, it does work, sounds logical to me. You could also argue that their skill is beyond garbage, so every time I get to survive a shot it was their fault, but I do not survive random shots in ASU-85 compared to SU-100. I can agree to disagree, but I do not count on you playing against full lvl 150 squads, that would be kinda ridiculous? Maybe it's more like that in RB? --bangerland (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't advocate for never angling, I merely point out it becomes much less relevant at higher BRs. I understand the mindset behind angling. You made your point, I approved the edit. --Colok76286 (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
It's just that this tank tree in particular is an easy target, so i felt it important to write as extreme as it is, kind of like often necessary strategy on IS-1 is to give up frontal armour and just turn 180 and attack with engine up front (also maybe angling) because in uptier it often can't take a hit, especially with aim assist. Your point about using spgs over range rather than up close is actually something i often overlook due to how agressive the fights are on small maps. Every point of view is necessary. --bangerland (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2021 (UTC)