Do you realise you have just successfully argued that the Rhino FAV is correct, not what I expected but knowledge is good
Shermans too stronk, Cromwells too puny, panzers in the middle
- Thread starter IM a potato
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I dont understand how i did. Let me see.Do you realise you have just successfully argued that the Rhino FAV is correct, not what I expected but knowledge is good
My commend was only aimed at the Jumbo. 100% 24/7 jumbo !!!! Because it has 5 av more then what it should have and it is an outrage.
Maybe i did but then im fine with it hope you liked this info.
Thank you for the document it's much clearer.
We don't try to select a single plate that make the most sense, instead we take the whole profile into consideration and make a medium.
Shermans armor is a bit of a problem since the edges of the turret have huge armor values and artificially increase the medium.
So we have to determine "centers of mass" that weight armor depending of the distance to these areas.
That's why we don't consider Jumbo turret armor to be 178mm. This is the weakest value of the gun mantelet while the rest of the turret is almost entirely impenetrable.
It's a matter of weighting armor depending on position.
Just for a very graphic and easy display:
We have 85 mm which penetrates 145 mm at 100m/0degrees
lets try 100mm jumbo UFP and similarly angled 80 mm panther UFP at 250m:
Jumbo explodes
Panther doesnt
As a conclusion 80 mm on a panther turns out to be better then 100mm sandwitched on a jumbo.
We have 85 mm which penetrates 145 mm at 100m/0degrees
lets try 100mm jumbo UFP and similarly angled 80 mm panther UFP at 250m:
Jumbo explodes
Panther doesnt
As a conclusion 80 mm on a panther turns out to be better then 100mm sandwitched on a jumbo.
Wikipedia:
"The M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo" assault tank variant, based upon a standard M4A3(75)W hull, had an additional 38 mm (1.5 in) plate welded to the glacis, giving a total thickness of 101.6 mm (4.00 in), which resulted in a glacis of 148.97 mm (5.865 in) line-of-sight thickness, and over 180 mm (7.1 in) effective thickness. The sponson sides had 38 mm (1.5 in) thick plates welded on, to make them 76 mm (3.0 in) thick, a significantly thicker transmission casing, a new, more massive T23-style turret with 177.8 mm (7.00 in) of armor on the sides and rear and a 25.4 mm (1.00 in) thick flat roof, and a gun mantlet with an additional 88.9 mm (3.50 in) of armor welded on which resulted in a thickness of 177.8 mm (7.00 in). Intended for the assault to break out of the Normandy beachhead, it was originally to be armed with the 76 mm gun, but the 75 mm was preferred for infantry support and was used."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#M4A3E2
Books put it around 175mm-180mm effective overall. Not that far from the King Tigers 185mm.
"The M4A3E2 Sherman "Jumbo" assault tank variant, based upon a standard M4A3(75)W hull, had an additional 38 mm (1.5 in) plate welded to the glacis, giving a total thickness of 101.6 mm (4.00 in), which resulted in a glacis of 148.97 mm (5.865 in) line-of-sight thickness, and over 180 mm (7.1 in) effective thickness. The sponson sides had 38 mm (1.5 in) thick plates welded on, to make them 76 mm (3.0 in) thick, a significantly thicker transmission casing, a new, more massive T23-style turret with 177.8 mm (7.00 in) of armor on the sides and rear and a 25.4 mm (1.00 in) thick flat roof, and a gun mantlet with an additional 88.9 mm (3.50 in) of armor welded on which resulted in a thickness of 177.8 mm (7.00 in). Intended for the assault to break out of the Normandy beachhead, it was originally to be armed with the 76 mm gun, but the 75 mm was preferred for infantry support and was used."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_Sherman#M4A3E2
Books put it around 175mm-180mm effective overall. Not that far from the King Tigers 185mm.
This wiki quote is just very wrong because KT will tank 100mm, its own gun and 122 mm if the armor quality is good. jumbo will die to 100 mm from 2 km easily.
KT has a single 150 mm sloped plate. Jumbo has a sandwitched 100 mm plate. There s like 1.8 times the diffirence and you are calling this even? 1+1=?
Last edited:
Are we back to using War Thunder as a source?
Yeah I was thinking the same thing, only a different face, given the widely known serious issues that game has with reguards to its armour vs shell mechanics etc....
I mean, its nice for "hard stats" if they are accurate and not changed for balance reasons, such as the raw thickness of an armour plate, but dont just jump in and assume they are 1) correct or 2) showing a correct effect vs armour.
Theres multiple instances of incorrect loadouts in that game which have been mentioned to them and ignored, I would recommend staying away from war thunder, hell, does the conq in that game even have its floor plate yet? That thing wasnt there even 6 months after release but I stopped following it.
Yes as the best ww2 tank sim currently.Are we back to using War Thunder as a source?
"Theres multiple instances of incorrect loadouts in that game which have been mentioned to them and ignored" can you provide a source
As for incorrect loadouts well thats SD44 for you. I mean Jumbo has the same armor as a king tiger do you even..
A simple google brings up plenty of examples where they have been wrong lol.
It also doesnt help they "would demand" 2 sources for changes, even if your source is a direct factory blueprint.
They are exceptionally slow and ineffective in correcting armour, dont just assume whats ingame is correct automatically.
1 example would be the cromwell-comet tanks that had people complaining for several months to a year iirc and no changes.
yeah i would like an example of incorrect armor please. maybe im missing something? What exactly is wrong?
You re saying you dont like cromwell in war thunder. Whats wrong wit hit? And i suppose your fine with war thunder's jumbo? But then you ll have to accept how it has ~135 armor.
That would help if people who are biased against war thunder actually used arguments but apparently they dont have anything that would back them upLOL Rage thunder as a source omw lol
. The point is to troll war thunder i see
Max i am sorry but war thunder is very russian bias and i mean when a short barrel sherman can pen a tiger full front armor from about the other side of the map then yea not very realistic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II
https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/314317-properly-implement-overmatch/
youre looking at an upper glacis of 150mm at 50° from the vertical
using the multiplier for that slope we get a massive 283,5mm of effective armour. (234mm los)
so using your sources i get 100mm more than youre claiming. so either you simply dont know shit or youre intentionally misrepresenting
been there for a couple years
You re just a salty person who is upset t-34 is quite a good tank in war thunder nothing new. British people hold grudge on war thunder because their tankers decided to not use APHE during the war
its comedy with a million "AP doesnt do enough damage" threadsRussian bias but dude in your example sherman isnt russian
been there for a couple years
You re just a salty person who is upset t-34 is quite a good tank in war thunder nothing new. British people hold grudge on war thunder because their tankers decided to not use APHE during the war
Russian bias but dude in your example sherman isnt russian
WT is a terrible source.
also russian tanks have a massive advantedge because its a game. sighting systems and communication is the same for every tank which is where russian tanks had a massive disadvantedge and irl once your tank gets penetraated youre not going to stay inside so ap is performing worse at knocing out tanks than it should.