Purpose of this blog

Dmitry Yudo aka Overlord, jack of all trades
David Lister aka Listy, Freelancer and Volunteer

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

[WoT] Digging Through Archives: Some Penetration Tests

Not wishing to continue (pour oil on the flames) the gold old "underestimated penetration of  German guns" topic, just sharing some of the newly-found information (as always thanks to our military experts).

The tables below feature the penetration data gathered by the Soviet tank forces during the WWII. Unlike some propaganda materials, these figures were used directly for military purposes such as the calculation (and subsequent construction) of the necessary protection level for Soviet tank armour plates.

Table 1

Some explanation. The first column gives distance to target in meters, penetration is given for a number of guns for both 60 and 90 deg armour slope.
Tested guns (from left to right):
  • 45mm mod. 1938 for T-70 (USSR)
  • 57mm ZiS-4 for T-34 (USSR)
  • 76mm F-4 for T-34 and ZiS-3 for SU-76 (USSR)
  • 85mm D-5 for SU-85 and S-53 for T-34-85 (USSR)
  • 85mm experimental (USSR)
  • 100mm D-10S for SU-100 (USSR)
  • 122mm D-25 for ISU-122 (USSR)
  • 152mm howitzer (?) for ISU-152 (USSR)
  • 152mm gun (?) for ISU-152 (USSR)
  • 152mm OBM experimental (USSR)
  • 57mm (UK)
  • 75mm for M3 (US)
  • 50mm mod.1938 for Pz. III (Germany)
  • 75mm mod.1940 for Pz. IV (Germany)
  • 75mm mod. 1942 for Pz. V Panther (Germany)
  • 88mm for Pz. VI Tiger - L56 - (Germany)
  • 88mm for Ferdinand - L71 - (Germany)
German guns are marked with red square in the pic.

1. Fraction represents penetration value for AP (above) and APCR (below) rounds
2. Penetration is measured in mm.

Comparing that data to what we have got in the game at the moment:
50mm mod.1938 for Pz. III (Germany) - 74/110 (table) vs 60/96 (in-game) -18.9% / -12.7%
75mm mod.1940 for Pz. IV (Germany) - 103 (table) vs 106 (in-game) +3%
75mm mod. 1942 for Pz. V Panther (Germany) - 150 (table) vs 138 (in-game) -8%
88mm for Pz. VI Tiger - L56 - (Germany) - 120 (table) vs 132 (in-game) +10%
88mm for Ferdinand - L71 - (Germany) - 168 (table) vs 203 (in-game) +20.8%

Smell antyhing here?

You can compare the rest on your own.

Table 2

Table 2 basically repeats what has been given earlier, only 105mm K18 gun is added there. Plus the table at the bottom contains the data on armouring in mm (front, side, rear, top) of Panther (it's called a heavy tank there btw), Tiger, and Ferdinand.

And a bit of German tactics explained at the very bottom (also translated from the document):
  • high concentration of tanks on the main attacking directions
  • taking advantage of accurate guns at long-range combat (1500-2000m)
  • taking advantage of good armour and right positioning (hiding one's hull)


  1. - taking advantage of accurate guns at long-range combat (1500-2000m)

    You hopefully noticed that in the current game engine german tanks have no possibilities to play out that advantage due to too small maps and view range, etc?

    - taking advantage of good armour and right positioning (hiding one's hull)

    Good armour? Havent seen that on german tanks in this game. Especially not since you introduced your nice power creep-high penetration guns.

    It seems that your game engine gives german tanks an general disadvantage in what would normally be their advantage (Highly accurate guns, good armor, huge combat distance).
    This may or may not be intentional, but this makes us players not really belive you devs... just think about it!

    1. Again, that's not my advice, that was the description of German tank tactics done by the Soviets.

    2. As the German army got pushed back into heavily-populated parts of Europe, the long view ranges of the steppes gave way to what we have in the game. The Maus and other fantasyland weapons would have had to fight in built-up areas, not the steppes.

      At any rate, the game has to have map-size restrictions at some level, to keep down resource requirements to allow lesser-than-the-best computers to play.

  2. the main problem (pen / armor) is perfectly expained here :)


    check it out.

    1. Haven't really discovered anything new, though it's a good summary. My personal opinion is that there is too much penetration in game at the moment.

    2. If ANY of this is to be believed AT ALL, then answer this riddle,

      For the Continuation War, the Finns (or was it the Swedes? Either way that isn't the point) purchased about 80 STUGIIIs, some with the 75/48 and some with the L43, those STUGs went on to knock out over 300 soviet tanks and field guns.

      Among the tanks destroyed were plenty of IS2/IS-122s, SU and ISU-152s.

      The riddle is exactly this; how does a gun that - according to your bar-napkin style scribbles that you cite as being a defined truth (despite military experts like Hillary Doyle PROVING this the be little more than a random Soviet document with numbers that are, well, delicately altered so as to likely spare the lives of those who wrote it and their families from the wrath of that shit-brained fucktard, Stalin - who was notorious for killing scientists and engineers that failed to provide the results he wanted to see)

      Well, how EXACTLY does a cannon that was rated - by those scribbles - as having ONLY 103 MM of penetration at ONLY 100 meters - against 100% flat armor, manage to knock out tanks with a minimum of 90mm of armor in such great numbers? Only 80 of those guns managed to knock out about the same number of IS tanks - probably more, but not only that but survived to clear the battlefield of over 3 times as many tanks and field guns, the total figure being 300+, now TELL ME, Mr. Overlord, how was this even possible when a gun with the penetration listed in those scribbles - should not even be capable of scratching a T34 at any range beyond 500 meters?

      Are you suggesting the STUGs in question all managed to make it to within spitting distance of the vast majority of the tanks they had to face, shot and killed them, and then ran away without taking return fire - or very little of it in any case, because that is exactly what they would have had to do in order to do anything apart from scratch paint at any REAL engagement ranges - if your document is 100% true - and then to go on and take out over 300 guns that were more than capable of quickly returning fire and destroying a STUG with a single shot basically anywhere on a STUGIII chassis!

      Sorry, those numbers mean nothing to most of the world anymore. Again, Hillary Doyle has much more conclusive and comprehensive data that says otherwise - and the battlefield results say the same!

  3. So you're basically pointing out that the game is inaccurate and unfavoring for German tanks?

  4. No, he's pointing out that the 88mm gun on the Tiger and the Ferdinand is overpowered in the game compared to real-life stats.

    As for German tanks, it's about the accuracy of the guns. Accurate guns can target weakpoints, while the rest are just conetent to hit the tank.

    1. Doubt there should be nerfing, though I wouldn't mind 7.5mm KwK 42 buff.

    2. What KwK 42?! Physics test says u take it from Pz 4 anyway.
      So stop talking nonsense:P

    3. Erik u r wrong.... read my post about Pak 43 below and get that book... it's an official militarry report. Besides: The DEVs missread the table... look closer. The value for the 88 in the table is no 90° one;)

  5. "taking advantage of accurate guns at long-range combat (1500-2000m)" Ok, then would you Overlord kindly point out on which maps German tanks can take advantage of this 1500+ meters long range combat you speak of?

    1. That's the translation of the document (ie RL advice), not my personal statement.

    2. Then stop with the "historical reasons" when nerfing German tanks and "its just a game" when buffing Russian tanks.

    3. No correlation with the previous reply.

    4. @ 007 Kenny

      Yes, Ferdinand with 128 mm gun and 30 km/h is very historical. The same is with KT with 105 mm gun or Tiger with long 88 :)

      Since I've started playing WoT I am surprised with huge amount of complains on German tanks. In many cases unfounded. Most hillarious I ever heard were complaints that WG gives Germans only tanks huge like barn, while Russian are getting small ones. Like Germans were making small tanks...

      Many people also forget that we have in game (for balance sake) some chronological shift, i.e. in most cases other countries have in the same tiers tanks made a few years after their German "tiermates". For example in tier VII we have Tiger (1942 - in service), IS (1943 - in service), T-29 (1944 - start of development) and M4 (1945 - start of development). This is why German tanks do not seem so powerful as in historical films. In real life Tigers were fighting mainly with T-34 and Shermans, so they where OP like hell :)

      I use mainly German tanks.

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    6. yeah sure like the nerfed Tiger 1 and Tiger 2 speed for "balance reasons" while IS keep its speed for "historical accuracy" seems legit

    7. Thats why historical battle is so dificult to implement but i I can not wait for that !

      Have over 1000 battles on Panther!

  6. L3gi raises a good point, as well as the usual fare of what 007 Kenny raises in response to seemingly weak sides (or perhaps perceptions thereof)

    I have had my streaks with artillery (german) with a 100% trained crew. Zeroed in on a stationary target, unmissable for sure.

    And the round went wild (historically and all other things aside not possible). Or weak tanks getting a full on hit and driving on. In another game, I hit a heavy two tiers up and peel off over 30% (same aiming etc.)

    Then i realise: it's a game. We all want historical accuracy. We are not going to get it. Weaker tiers get nerfed guns, higher tiers get beefed up guns. The maps cannot be made larger to accompany the usual advantages one side had over the other and so on.

    I am taking a German tank-oriented standpoint here.
    Huge maps also mean rounds of fighting which run in the hours, not 15 minutes. You can set up, communicate and spot and hit tanks at maximum range. While they cannot. But who would want to play a tank game which consists of 4 hours of driving and waiting?

    Secondly, I would have to deal with 5 to ten times more enemies, as the german tanks were always outnumbered.

    Thirdly, there is no way we can accomadate for the differences in culture, experience and training to explain the disparity in tank crews that led to the myth of the super-german-tanks.

    As a russian I would be severly limited. Tank communication would be by flag signals. One tank would eb a commander with a radio, the rest would loose all connection with their teammates when the command tank gets blown away. Not much fun in that either eh?

    Also, I would have a blast plinking away at the 500 meter range at Tigers with their sides exposed. The Tigers had massive frontal and rear armour. Side armour...... not so much

    Now the Russian tanks do seem a bit overrated (though, they were not bad to begin with, its the other factors like discipline, training, morale, communication and command structure that sort-of levelled out the playing field), it's also perception. Do also keep in mind that the devs are russian tank fan boys (being russian ofcourse).

    Then its all pretty logical. And not that bad when you look at it from an objective point of view.

    Making a balanced game is HARD. I ran a battlefield 1942 tournament with custom maps. It is impossible to balance everything out. Live with the decisions the devs make. They made it free for you to play. Now glaring faults in the game, they can use your input for that. Or a better idea on how to deal with the restrictions that are in place and adapting the various vehicles to work within that frame.

    1. Only problem is the devs are from Belarus, not from Russia. I find laughable how Americans can't diferentiate belarusians from russians.

    2. Anyone wanting realism in terms of driving distance and tank stats should have a look at "Iron Front" and stop bullying a casual game into that direction.
      WoT is ok as it is (including the ongoing fine tuning process), even though it took me some time to admit that :-)

  7. WoT is not a boring tank battle simulator. It is just a funny arcade with a few common features with real battles (models of tanks). That's the way we like it. So there is no reason to complain about some historical inaccuracy.

    1. +1. Especially if this inaccuracy in minor.

    2. I laughed so bad when u said minor. Cuz we all know german tanks were an absolute fail when it came to engineering and russian farming tanks where the pinnacle of their time.

    3. Ahh the myth of German tanks... hours and hours of American propaganda in movies, tv shows and whatnot pay off. Straight from Wikipedia to the forums, devs blog, in game chats, etc.

    4. so youre in a sherman, theres a tiger in the next field 1,5km away... whatcha ya gonna do? A:nothing,except maybe call in a thunderbolt or 2, cause yeah,anything but a firefly had to drive right onto a tiger and literally touch the damn front armor to pen it, same goes for T-34 Mod. 42/43, SU-85/76 etc. , and only the latest Panzer IV models could maybe pen at some normal distance,like 900m...

  8. Replies
    1. It would be, it had been published in "Pravda" or somewhere else. That's the document for tank designers, not for mass audience.

    2. There lacks info how these tests were performed, so they definitely cannot be taken as one and single truth :)

      Direct comparison of gun penetration is very difficult due to different testing methods used by the Germans, Soviets and Americans, shell types (including difference in manufacture), test plate quality, armor type, weather conditions on test site, gun barrel quality (some maybe worn our while others could be factory fresh), shell quality, testing samples performed, recording procedures, quality of testing crew, accuracy of recordings, translation errors, rounding errors, military censorship, conversion equations used and modifiers, incomplete information that needs to be interpolated from known data and any other assumptions and estimations.

  9. German vehicles have huge and obvious advantages compared to all others. Developers made great balance in that part of the game(compared to some other parts of it). You need more experience to play German vehicles good,so skip them if you're unhappy ATM,problem is in you,or you're just stuck in T8 medium :).

    Btw Overlord,whats with T8 med MM. When Ive bought T-44 Ive noticed myself getting in the same battles like with my light AMX1390. Then Ive told myself in a moment of anger(and im a man of my word) that i will delete WOT if i get 10 times in a row in the battles where im with 5-7 T10s and 3-4 arties with me in the bottom just above arties. Guess what,im on the 6 months brake now,didnt plan it...Sigh It could be tolerated before the T10 TDS+MEDs patch but with T10 meds i must admit im useless as a flanker/harasser/brawler against T10 meds,and im not a rookie. Compared to that T-43 got great MM post patch with almost All battles played as top dog,and ive managed to achieve 2000 average damage and 70% WR with it. Thanks for the response.

  10. you know, the actual reason we stopped the German tanks was not because we had better tanks or outclassed them in training it is cause the Russians literally mass produced and drove their tanks off the assembly line onto the battlefield and into the tiger tanks, this pinned the tigers and left them as sitting ducks for american and french tanks. if not for the Russians "disposable tanks" we would all be playing world of blitzkrieg...

    1. If only American and French tanks fought on the Eastern front with the soviets... Most false thing Ive read on here yet.

    2. Wow if that's how you think we won... You need to retake a history class...
      True however the soviets did ram tanks, but they adopted that tactic when they litterally could not pierce the enemies armor
      I don't think America was in the same front as russia... Just their vehicles were.

  11. Overlord, in response to your point about the penetration of the 88mm L/56, I have a table that refutes your statistics:

    "A later, British report gave the following figures for penetration performance of the APCBC round [Panzergranate 39, the standard AP round in World of Tanks] against homogenous armour plate:

    Range At normal At 30 degrees
    500 130 mm 110 mm
    1,000 119 mm 102 mm
    1,500 109 mm 94 mm
    2,000 99 mm 87 mm
    2,500 90 mm 80 mm

    The range statistic is in metres.

    Here's another table from the same book (World War Two German Tanks In Action, Author George Forty ISBN 0713716347 (0-7137-1634-7)) that details the penetration statistics of the 88mm L/71, which is the King Tiger's gun.

    "The gun's performance was formidable, a captured German report giving the following table of shoots [sic?] against homogenous armour plate:

    Range At normal At 30 degrees
    100 m (109 yd) 250 mm (9.8 in) 203 mm (8 in)
    1000 m (1094 yd) 215 mm (8.5 in) 165 mm (6.5 in)
    1,500 m (1640 yd) 160 mm (6.3 in) 148 mm (5.8 in)
    4,000 m (4374 yd) 80 mm (3.1 in) Unknown - figure not given

  12. LOL overlord you are really funny, I do not care the Russian test, do you know why? In That time the Russians were doing propaganda to hide the fact that the Germans had much better equipment.

    I will not believe any of these test, the same happened with the FW190,their "magic" test make it look like dirt.but I have research books best source of test scores in their field, and comparasiones were abysmal performance, the Russians did see the plane as junk, while Germany test showed the true performance.

    Really is so funny think the Russians have the most accurate data? what a joke, next time overlord post a real source not a russian test, LOL

    1. Again this was a military file, not a piece of info for mass audience. Why would they lie to themselves? And have you heard of this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Public_Enlightenment_and_Propaganda
      the whole ministry.

    2. I was not talking about that kind of propaganda, if not the information management, Russians manipulated test so that his troops had better moral, Instead the Germans raised their moral develop better equipment and technology, is not the same.

    3. Plus, the Soviets would lie to make the German equipment not so good just incase somebody like Stalin saw it. Of course they would lie to themselves, would you want to be the one that has to go and tell Stalin (or other high leaders) that your test showed that the German guns were amazing... You'd get shot just for saying such a thing. Yes, they lied alot, even if it wasnt for propaganda, who wants to be shot? So they lied about the reults. It happened all the time.

  13. http://books.google.de/books?id=ATawrvkJBAUC&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=L/71+penetration+leistung&source=bl&ots=HZV7woSCWP&sig=t2qj0JS2_sNR6SLCyPur2fPNOJ4&hl=de#v=onepage&q=L%2F71%20penetration%20leistung&f=false

    Why are there vast differences between both charts?
    100m@30°: 202mm vs 100m@90°: 168mm

  14. This is list of nerfed gun, probably in patch 0.8

  15. Not even a drunken dog should be abled to believe these figures for the 88 L/71.

    As example,with this penetration value the IS-2 modell 1944 frontal armor (120mm@60°) would not even be penetrateable.
    However, the L71 still penetrated it without problem on the battlefield.

    Everything else seems pretty much correct, expect the other 88's.
    Best data you get out there for german guns is the BIOS report, "GERMAN STEEL AND ARMOUR PIERCING PROJECTILES AND THEORY OF PENETRATION" from 1946.

    here is one pic of it:

    88mm L71 pen is listed as ~ 190+mm, that sounds realistic with some [old] 0815 ammo. BUT never 167mm. :)

    Also, L71 pen values are compareable but short 88 are a bit higher than in your report.

    Any changes planned for the ingame guns?


    1. Actually, even with only 168mm of pen the 88mm L/71 would still be able to pen an IS. Just look at the 90mm M3 on the American tanks.

    2. Q: Any changes planned for the ingame guns?

      A: It's a tough decision. Not sure at present.

  16. 120/60 from vertical (this table are for 30/0) armor could not be penetrated by the L/71. It failed against the 100/60 armor of the T-54 in real life (higher quality post-war steel but still).

    1. Also this is probably for 80% Russian certified penetration criteria, stricter than the German, and probably mass-produced (captured)ammunition was used. German home tests were made by high-quality ammo, excusicvely made for tests.

      Russian 16x penetration for 30 degrees, 1000 meters (60 from horizontal) in tables for mass-produced ammo could be well German home-made 190, high-quality.

    2. Your source for your assertion above that the L/71 could not penetrate armour that is sloped back 60 degrees?

    3. It's a historical fact.

      Google Yugoslavian comparative test results with the T-54, early 60s. They had all kind of stuff, German leftover weapons from World War II, US military aid and Russian import.

      Pak43 could penetrate the turret of the T-54 IIRC at 700 meters, none went through the glacis. The first western weapons was capable of this was the UK 20 pounder with APDS or the US 120mm M58 with AP.

      Also the mod44 IS-2 straight glacis is more like 90mm, not 120. Driver's plate and nose is 120 with much less slope.

    4. PaK 43 pen is about 200mm

      Source: US Army Technical Manual TM9-1985-3 from 1953

  17. Wow, 168mm penetration from the 88 L71, against a flat (90 degree) surface? That's significantly lower than multiple values listed in multiple studies where the gun was fired against 60 degree targets. Including reports from Hilary Doyle, a source you've cited before.

    Although I'm glad that you decided to go with the 200+ figure referenced by Doyle rather than the lowly 168 listed above, I can't help but notice that you referenced penetration vs 90 degree surfaces as a comparison to in game stats, whereas Doyle's listed 202mm was against a 60 degree target.

    Question: Are either of the last two 152mm guns on the list the basis for the BL-10?

    1. PaK 43 pen is about 200mm

      Source: US Army Technical Manual TM9-1985-3 from 1953

      The data in the DEV's table was missread if u look closer. They talk about 60°.

  18. Hey Overlord, I know this may be a weird request given how many of the German guns are apparently overrated in game, but could the 50mm gun get a pen buff up to, oh lets say 75mm or something?

    Right now this gun is distinctly inferior to the 47mm gun on the Panzer 38NA. The Panzer 3, Leo and 38NA could really use it.

  19. You should buff the 7,5 cm Kwk42 and the 5 cm Kwk38 according to these tables. Especially the former could help the grinders a lot in Tier VI-VII.

    1. KwK 42 will be removed with 0.8.0

      Byebye Pz4... after they runied high tiers with monster pen guns they ruin lower tiers nw by making copypaste crap of every good tank(T-28, SU-85 ad now Pz4).

  20. Thank you for the link - It is always nice to see historical data.
    However I would love to see the same comparison for similar russian and american guns. Not because I believe in the bias conspiracies, but because it looks interesting.

    Besides the real problem IMO with german guns are tier X cannons and the short 88. But as you mention it might just be all the other cannons in the game having too good penetration hehe. I'll support that and it would be more fun to play

    Except it would make people drive their tanks like bumper cars and facehug eachother all the time instead of a gentleman shootout at 200metres.

  21. http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/guns/88-mm.asp

  22. Read carefully:
    Compared to t-34 the Tiger was OP. With the 85 thinks got better.
    Nvm, you are russians and russian tanks must be OP.

    1. My gosh, why would the military lie to themselves when designing tanks?

    2. Only if they wish to lose the war, I believe.

    3. Heh I dont think mass audiences were reading military files during the Great Patriotic war anyway. The problem is Russian military data is simply not reliable. Why would they lie to themselves? The better question is why wouldn't they?

      There are large portions of the war that are simply omitted by Russian accounts, either intentionally or unintentionally. Most seem due to embarrassment or failure on a large scale. To name a few...Russian counter-offensives of summer to winter-41, counter offensives of summer 42, operation mars(nov-dec 42), operation polar star (feb-mar 43) and the list goes on and on.

      Heres a great source for more on this

      Problem with Russian gun/armor data is that it's not independently confirmed by any other sources. When we look at say the American, British, and German data they all seem to be pretty close together (taking into account different test methods and standards).

      The Russian track record in this period already shows some data manipulation(battles etc I listed earlier)so why would this be any different? I'm not saying that the West didn't do this either, because we know that there are cases in which they did. I'm saying that have 4 sources, 3 of which say close to one thing, 1 that says another...which am I more likely to believe?(an taking into account previously reliability on reporting accuracy)

      Most of us have seen that British report on the Tiger VIE, in which rather than report on how good it was(at the time) they simply omitted it.
      For the Russians it seems they went the other way, rather than omitting it they tried to play it down. "Oh, see these tests? Yeah they aren't that good".

      Your standing on shaky ground, if the Russians had some independent sources confirming their data I'd be much more inclined to believe it. As it stands, its unreliable AT BEST.

    4. Plus, the Soviets would lie to make the German equipment not so good just incase somebody like Stalin saw it. Of course they would lie to themselves, would you want to be the one that has to go and tell Stalin (or other high leaders) that your test showed that the German guns were amazing... You'd get shot just for saying such a thing. Yes, they lied alot, even if it wasnt for propaganda, who wants to be shot? So they lied about the reults. It happened all the time.

    5. "its all lies becuase its soviet! the evil empire! oh wait.. its military information... then it must be lies because Evil Stalin must be pleased at all costs! That's it!"

      LOL there goes years and years of media-driven american propaganda. Read some history please, there's some good european historians out there, but not some half assed conservative american who has a political agenda on its back.

    6. Creators of this document might not lie intentionaly, but we dont even know, if those values are based on real tests or only some coefficient-based estimation...

  23. Did they use a defective PaK 43/2 in the tests? That penetration is not even close to the actual value. It achieves 202mm penetration at a 60° armour plate from 100m. The value for KwK 36 is also a bit off, it should be 120mm on the 60° plate and probably very close to what we have in-game for the 90° plate.

  24. Yes; i'm baffled by these tables used by real military experts for real military purposes. Not very surprisingly; they're soviet again and completely reliable; because science and engineering is completely propaganda-proof...

    On a side note: i was not real susceptible for german armor propaganda of WWII surviving into our day and age and always took those reports of "invincible Tigers only defeated by superior numbers and air superiority" with a huge grain of salt; but WG's approach is getting even more laughable by pointing out the complete deficiency of german tanks at every corner.

    So; due to the fact that i'm immeasurably bored by tables showing off that german tanks were actually complete clown cars with absurdly lucky drivers; when does this get implemented in game?

  25. So the 152mm BL-10 needs to be cut back in pen according to your own soviet tests then?

    1. You DO NOT EVEN deserve to write down the name of the mighty Soviet Warmachines masterpiece! THIS IS BLASPHEMY!

  26. Hello, Storm
    Sorry for off topic, but can I ask something about suspension system in WoT? I'd like to ask if we will get a new one, because right now I can't see any how suspensions work, its just a flat tank moving around, jumping, flying. I'm according this to 8.0 test server. Also, here is quite simple and good example what I'm talking about.
    Thanks for reading, and maybe answering.

  27. It's all a lie unless its a german file(which it obviously isnt), period.

    1. For the KwK and PaK 43 american and german tables say 200mm pen at 100m 90°.
      The DEVs missread their table. This value OL put on looks more like a 60° data. This is never a 90° test for a PaK 43. Imagine how stupid it would look to have a 88 with only slightly more pen than a KwK 42... they talk of smeling things but they don't smell their own mistakes:3

  28. All Soviet information is taken as lies...

    1. Cold war syndrome is still around us.

    2. Whole soviet empire was based on lies, uneffective management and government of dicks. And im saying this as a former soviet citizen :)

    3. Not that much as you think. I wouldn't take german Test Files at face value either; because it would show the same biased tendencies; and i'd be careful with american or english tables from the early cold war too. If you truly think science and / or engineering are unaffected by political agenda; check out something called "Lysenkoism" if you'd be so kind.

      One might complain that showing that document here leads to aggressive reactions on our side; but since this could very well lead to WG nerfing further german tanks due to "historical evidence" - taken at face value on their side with no consideration whatsoever for tests showing higher penetration.

      And since this would lead to the demise of the last remaining useful german tanks - namely Tiger H and P and Tiger II and the Tier VI VKs; and please do not try to sell as the rest as still viable - you can maybe understand that this makes the players kind of anxious? There may be too much penetration ingame; but that does NOT concern the german Tier VI / VII / VIII with their guns as their only appealing advantage - it concerns Tiers IX and X; and the germans are useless there even now.

    4. Funny thing is Serb said pretty much the same about German gun data. All lies and propaganda. ;)
      Obviously somehow even US and UK reports are German favored in their opinions...

    5. Oh, Overlord, you're so amusing! Europeans don't care about Cold War because they have won it, only little people like you and other developers still can't get over Soviet Union's demise. The way you completely disregard Western sources that go against your worthless chart is enough of a proof of your anti-westernism.

    6. nah ,ya can milk money in such a capitalistic way and call yourself anti-western then

  29. IMO, both armor and penetration values have gotten out of control in WoT. The steep curve at which the tanks and td's armor climb is only creating the need for higher penetrating guns. That in turn creates the need for a tank with better armor... it's a horrible cycle. Take the new tds for example, the t110e3 has 305mm hull armor. Yes, it's the same as the t95's hull - but this td can actually move around the battle field. But who I really feel bad for is Maus drivers.

    The Maus has a idiotic 200mm hull armor that was overkill for it's time and was designed in-game to be the big rolling bunker you had to use some form of strategy to take out. Now with the cycle of up gun and up armor everything, it's turned into a massive target most tier 10s can penetrate. In fact, every new tier 10 td can penetrate the front of a Maus with every shot using standard ammo without having to bother aiming for a weak point.

    To sum this up, I do like having new tanks and extended trees to make the game more varied, but when we start talking gun that can go through a tier 10 heavy like butter and armor levels that would make a tank unmovable in real life - this is getting out of control.

    -just my 2 cents....

  30. The data for the PaK 43 in the table are wrong.
    With regular ammunition (PzGr. 39/43 APCBC-HE) the Pak 43 had a penetration about 200mm on 100m... on 2km it was still up to 132mm. The data in your table maybe are the 60° ones... but not the 90° data.

    Source: US Army Technical Manual TM9-1985-3 from 1953

    So the data in game is quite correct.

    1. So far the only thing I smelled was someone reading the table wrong... doesn't look well if this happens that often... reminds me on the wrong KT lenght...AAAAWKWARD!:D

  31. It is pretty clear that the values for the non-Russian guns in that table are NOT based on actual test data, but have been calculated using some sort of DeMarre type equation using the Russian gun test data as reference.

    This is a bad idea, because DeMarre type equations only produce accurate results if the shell quality for the reference shell penetration is the same as the shell that is having its penetration calculated.

    US, UK and German shell quality is well known to have been noticably superior to Russian shell quality in WW2, so using Russian guns as reference to calculate US, UK or German gun penetration would produce penetration significantly less than the actual real world value.

    Here's DeMarre calculated values using the Russian 57mm gun as reference, starting with the Russian guns:

    Demarre extrapolations using 57mm gun firing 3.16 kg shell at 990 m/s for 115mm penetration (Russian 57mm gun on chart)

    Russian 76mm gun firing 6.3 kg shell at 662 m/s = 78mm penetration (table = 75mm pen)
    Russian 85mm gun firing 9.2 kg shell at 800 m/s = 119mm penetration (table = 119mm pen)
    Russian 85mm gun firing 9.2 kg shell at 900 m/s = 140mm penetration (table = 143mm pen)
    Russian 100mm gun firing 15.88 kg shell at 900 m/s = 174mm penetration (table = 170mm pen)
    Russian 122mm gun firing 25.00 kg shell at 800 m/s = 164mm penetration (table = 165mm pen)

    As you can see, the calculated penetration for the Russian guns is fairly close to the table penetration, which is to be expected as Russian shells would have had similar shell quality.

    Now for the non-Russian guns:

    UK 57mm gun firing 2.86 kg shell at 837 m/s = 84mm penetration (table = 83mm pen)
    US 75mm gun firing 6.32 kg shell at 590 m/s = 67mm penetration (table = 64mm pen)
    German 50mm gun firing 2.06 kg shell at 835 m/s = 76mm penetration (table = 74mm pen)
    German 75mm gun firing 6.80 kg shell at 770 m/s = 103mm penetration (table = 103mm pen)
    German 75mm gun firing 6.80 kg shell at 1000 m/s = 150mm penetration (table = 150mm pen)
    German 88mm gun firing 10.20 kg shell at 810 m/s = 125mm penetration (table = 120mm pen)
    German 88mm gun firing 10.20 kg shell at 1000 m/s = 169mm penetration (table = 168mm pen)

    As you can see, they are very close to the table penetration values again, demonstrating that the non-Russian guns are NOT test data, but calculated values that, due to being calculated using inferior Russian shell quality as the reference, produces penetration values that are significantly below actual Real World penetration values.

    1. Overlord. Get WG.net to hire this guy.

    2. USSR had the land-lease tanks and shells, thats easily covers the UK-US section. They now have both USSR and US tanks and shells for tests, they can compare them and have a good guess on the german ones. Also, this data may come from captured german vehicles too.

    3. The USSR had access to US, UK and captured German shells, but the DeMarre calculations indicate the penetration values in this table are not from actual tests, but just calculations.

      The table directly contradicts my research on this topic, so I was initially dubious of its reliability; further investigation appears to confirm my suspiciouns.

      Here's a source for the shell quality differences; http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm#PENETRATION_VS._ARMOR_BASICS


      "During WW II, German tank effectiveness was due in large part to the superior effectiveness of the ammunition, which is related to nose hardness considerations.
      British tests against homogeneous armor at 610 m/s impact velocity, which are documented in Miles Krogfus' AFV News article, resulted in:

      102mm penetration for German 75mm APCBC
      90mm penetration for U.S. 76mm APCBC
      75mm penetration for Russian 76mm APBC

      U.S. penetration tests for Sherman 75mm indicate 89mm penetration at 610 m/s.

      Based on the above figure at 610 m/s, the Panther 75mm penetration is estimated at 188mm at 935 m/s and 0m range (DeMarre equation extrapolation). Actual U.S. tests with Panther 75mm APCBC obtained 190mm penetration at
      0m and 935 m/s impact.

      German projectile nose hardness advantage over U.S. APCBC, 61 to 54.5 Rockwell C Hardness, also assured that German hits were outside "shatter gap" region.
      During U.S. tests with 76mm APCBC, hits that over penetrated armor resistance by 5% to 25% would FAIL due to shatter when results exceeded certain velocity and armor thickness figures. It turns out that low nose hardness results in excessive energy absorption when round over penetrates armor, and nose may crack and break-up."


      While I don't have access to the original source of that information, the poster that provided that information was Lorrine Rexford Bird, author of WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery, and so can be considered very reliable.

      Using DeMarre extrapolations off that shell testing, it is possible to achieve fairly good penetration values for most WW2 anti-tank guns.
      The Russian gun penetration in Overlord's table agree fairly well with those figures, which supports the assertion that the Russian guns are based on test data, while the non-Russian guns are based on calculations.

      It is possible the Russian guns are based on calculations aswell, but if that were the case then it is highly probable the original reference was a Russian shell, which would produce similar results in calculations to actual tests due to similar shell quality.

    4. actualy penetration depends on many thing. while you are correct about this, no test result can provide anything close to the actual reality. as you stated already, shells are one of these things. but an other thing is the quality of metal they shooting at. at tests they probably using normal quality steel, maybe just simple molding. It can be made with layers riveted together, or just pure metal. Not to mention hardened steel, and different alloys.

    5. But the difference in armour is already accounted for in the game. Every tank has an armour multiplier simulating the quality of their armour.
      The only thing you have to keep in mind at that point is to have all the gun tests be against the same quality armour.

    6. All nations used tank armor quality steel in their gun penetration tests.

      The actual armor quality used was sufficiently close in each nation's testing that this is a factor that can be largely disregarded.

      At most, the differences would have only made a couple percent difference in penetration results.

  32. Considering that you have normalisation the wrong way around that does not surprise me.
    Penetration tests show that as the slope of a tanks armour increases, the effective horizontal penetration of a shell is reduced.
    A shell that could penetrate 100mm of armour sloped to 90 degree's could only penetrate 40mm of armour sloped to 30 degree's. In game said shell could penetrate 60mm of armour sloped to 30 degree's
    The conclusion being that a significant proportion of kinetic energy is being lost when a shell hits sloped armour.

  33. Well, thats very nice, this document, how about taking this document, finding more documents from other countries compare them and also look at the kill ratio per country/tank.

    Also, you just bring this up, show some - / + figures and state:

    Smell antyhing here?

    Are you wanting us to smell something ? A lott of people state that WG see german tanks as the underdog bc WG is a Russian company. It is also clear that while the german tanks were uber during WWII, WG decided to place them in higher levels against tanks from another era. It is like racing with the first Porsche 911 against Porsche 911 model 2012.....you can not compare them, let alone race them against each other.

    - taking advantage of accurate guns at long-range combat (1500-2000m)
    If you shoot a tank at 1500 meters, it means the accuracy has to be ENORMOUS good.... since we don't have maps that cover that space, it means Acc has to be even better with current german guns.

    - taking advantage of good armour and right positioning (hiding one's hull)
    Sorry ??? Every Tier II and IV tank pentrates my Tiger armor..
    1 shot, ammo rack
    2 shot, driver dead
    3 shot, detracked
    4 shot, engine hit....
    5 shot, well....you get it...

    this happens to me so many times, it makes playing a Tiger (and even Tiger II) unplayable.

    1. Also Tiger is the most expensive Tier VII tank to repair, and to equip it's modules...

  34. When you mention gun penetration in WOT, most people start complaining on stats and forget / do not describe the most frustrating bug in this game there is.

    Tankers - 0 damage hits. 0 damage hits - tankers. I'll try to bring this (and it's effects) into more light.

    At first, there were this rattling sound that indicated critical hits. Then, introduced probably with the spaced armor, we started getting hits that played this sound and did zero damage.

    The studio understood that this was a frustrating problem and tried to resolve it in a way it does not hurt the experience with as little change as possible.

    In my theory what they did was to remove the rattling critical sound completely, and then substitute the client notification with the one used for hitting the target.

    I've watched this for weeks now. I went into platoons where we watched each others' shots fly. The player who is sitting in the tank gets a 'penetration' message, where in most of the cases it is clearly visible from the platoon mate's client that the shot bounced or had hit spaced armor. It is hard to create a video evidence of this, but we can arrange if required.

    Anyways, what's probably happening is that the messages between the server and client are somehow messed up, and there are cases (timeout?) where you simply get notified of a hit while the server registers a bounce. That really can ruin the fun!

    I also noticed a tendency that these defects occur much rarely when the number of online players / battles is lower. My clan mates too have registered a drop in the occurrences when you added new hardware to the server. Before the upgrade 50K people was nearly unplayable (every second or third shot was defective), now this only occurs when it's over 80K. Probably another upgrade is due?

    I believe this is a software quality issue (it cannot be localized to certain vehicles but does occur more often with more complicated models) that I think you may well be aware of. Please tell us if you're doing something about it! It would certainly mean a lot less complaints and more money for you :P

  35. First of all there is no source.
    Just claiming that it's discovered by your historian experts
    and that it's straight from the research labs...
    This is like saying: scientists recently discovered the earth is flat after all!
    Before posting some documents showing the earth as a disc.
    This does not make the information suddenly scientific.

    Second the data for the 88s is vastly different from ANY other reliable source,
    be it Russian, German, US or UK.
    Also some of the data is highly physically implausible.
    Giving the 88 guns some of the weakest penetration,
    in relation to their ballistic energy (velocity and shell weight).
    Other (US) tests showed that the German shells had better penetration
    with same caliber same ballistic energy shells due to better shell nose quality (less shattering).
    That's according to experts like Jentz.

    Third the data for the KwK 40 is for the L/43 not the L/48 according to the muzzle velocity.
    And that would have ingame: 98mm this source: 103mm, -5%

    The data for the short 88 is not specified.
    All the Tigers that fought mainly T-34-76 and Shermans ~42 used an old FlaK round with a larger filler:
    "The early Blitzkrieg up to early 1942 saw the use of the large capacity Pzgr.
    with penetration less than 100 mm at 30 degrees."
    Which would fit almost exactly with this data. 97mm according to Jenz, 98mm to this source.

    The long 88 data seems just entirely wrong (maybe bad ammunition?).
    No idea how all other sources could have had it THAT wrong.

    168mm vs 238-250mm. -42%
    137mm @ 30° vs 202, 203mm for PzGr 39 (-47%) or 237,238mm for PzGr 40(had a bigger load, 1030m/s not APCR) (-73%).
    According to the following sources:
    Panzer Truppen The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1933-1942, Thomas L. Jentz, 1996
    Panzer Truppen The Complete Guide to the Creation and Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force 1943-1945, Thomas L. Jentz, 1996
    Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two, Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle, 1999
    World War II Infantry Anti-Tank Tactics, Gordon L Rottman, 2005
    Panzers At War, Michael and Gladys Green, 2005
    New Vanguard 88 mm FlaK 18/36/37/41 and PaK 43 1936-45, John Norris, 2002

    Lastly you neglect to mention that "some" Russian guns also seem to be too powerful ingame.

    76mm ZiS 3 75(table) 78(in-game) +4%
    76mm F-34 75(table) 86(in-game) +15%
    100mm D10s 170(table) 175 (in-game) +3%
    122mm D25 165(tabble) 175 (in-game) +6%
    152mm BL-8/10 244 (table) 286 (in-game) +17%

    While the 85mm and 57mm guns seem roughly right within ~1%.
    Not sure about the 45mm, in-game we have two not fitting guns. One would be slightly weak the other much too strong.

  36. Dear overlord,

    Most of the resentment about how you balance German tanks is that your " military experts" seem to be structurally underestimating German tanks. And that you fail to check data correctly.

    Within a day of posting this new source there have already been a few well documented (you know, with actual references to the sources.... and comparison between said sources) posts that, to me, prove that your data is less then accurate.

    Next time you want to talk about German stats, please keep in mind that Germans actually use scientific methods to check and compare data..... So trying to make a point without doing some checking will just result in even more loss of credibility.

  37. Justifying the ingame Characteristics of German Guns based on a Russian Military propaganda Paper. Yes this is pure propaganda.

    Ingame the 88mm Guns should have much more penetration Thus following changes are required imho:
    88 KwK 36/L56 - 155mm Pen RL -> 175mm Pen ingame
    88 KwK 43/L71 - 185 Pen RL -> 225 Pen ingame

    nuff said

    1. keep in mind that the tiger is a tier 7 where or when it should be a tier 5 and fighting t-34 and kv1. so, moving it to tier 7 needs to have its gun balanced with the rest of the tier 7.

  38. So how do these tests explain, that German T10 heavy tanks have barely better penetration values than T8 heavy tanks and less penetration than any T10 tank in the game, including meds?

  39. This will be the next announcement:

    "Our experts have just discovered that all German penetration data so far published has in fact been drawn from German propaganda sources, not Allied testing as previously thought, and is therefore totally biased. Since historical accuracy is very important in World Of Tanks, we will be introducing a hot fix as soon as possible to reduce all German tank guns' penetration by 40%. Also, after checking comparative data from the wartime documentary film 'Kelly's Heroes' our experts have determined that shells filled with red paint should be able to penetrate a Tiger H's armour; we will therefore be reducing the Tiger H's all-round armour to 20mm, and introducing Paint Shells as a special gold ammo option for German tank players."

    You were right about one thing, at least - we can all smell something...

  40. No response from Overlord to the numerous well-written, logical and sourced refutations of his tables?


    Also note the 'K = 2400' in the second table.

    This is a constant used to account for armor plate quality in CALCULATIONS; further proof the tables are just calculated data based on flawed assumptions, not actual penetration tests.

  41. Dear Overlord, I know you have feelings about the accuracy of Russian Reports, but what if you did a Poll to see what country The players think produces the Most reliable Result for these tests...
    Personally I'd rather WG would make Really Long and Not very wide Maps And to solve the problem with not very much space is to give All tanks their real-life accuracy and Make Level of Quality for Armor for all kinds of tanks...
    Obviously a German gun can hit and kill at over 4,000m unlike other guns... Most German players would like to be able to experience this...
    I think a Long, Thin Map would be great... It would require a whole lot more team effort than we see on average and could be quite treacherous for a player who shoots on the move with Cliffs and bridges and Lower Passages... It would have Multiple Levels Like Main (Sniper and Scout territory) where German tanks will Dominate... and a Lower area... with Plenty of Passages and you cannot see anything around the corner so a KV-2 Derp could just be waiting for you and you would not notice until it's too late...

  42. Zergling, the amount of work you did here is truly amazing. Too bad people with soviet mentality don't care about facts - that's why Stalin is still worshipped in Russia, that's why Putin can get away with multiple political murders - the whole modern Russian culture (which is shared by Belarus) is based on mental and emotional retardation. This is very hard for Europeans to comprehend (because of the unfortunate relativist paradigm claiming that all cultures are equal), I recommend reading Solzhenitsyn and Bulgakov (both hated by soviet-loving drones).

  43. Its depressing that numbers that are proven not to be test numbers but numbers created from a formula that does NOT follow the real world of tank combat should be the basis for the numbers put into the game.

    The red army at the time followed many of the Soviet traditions of creating their own reality and then force everyone to follow that imaginary reality. The people who paid the price for that way of thinking were the Soviet soldiers and the Soviet people. :(

    The German army at the time has political rulers that were just as dishonest and evil as the Soviet ones and their tanks were build by slaves who were worked to death rather than patriotic workers (one of my friends grandfather made t34s in Krasnoyarsk during the war and his family took root there and stayed). But the political leadership never got to rule the reality of the German army until the last years of the war, where the communist ruled the Red Army's reality for the entire time of their dictatorship.

    1. What a typical post. 'T-34s made in Krasnoyarsk' and the like illiterate and ignorant statements actually do say a lot about the level of most of the comments to that post.

  44. Before we even start to think this data is useful in any way:

    What kind of metal, alloy, strength was used for these tests?

    Cobra 6

  45. So, the russian 85mm has more penetration than the german 88 high velocity gun? Can you smell something here?

  46. There are a bunch of factors that come into play, ranging from what year the shell was made to the BHI of the metal used. Soviet shells produced domestically had been somthing of a wild-card, most factories recived material from different suppliers who all refined the material to there own grade. As such, tankers often never knew how a shell would perform. Some shells performed far beyond what was expected while others failed miserably to achieve the assumed result. Quality gradually increased and reached a plateau in 1944 when shell production and testing became standardized, but by this time they had so many shells imported from the US under lend lease, that few acually made it from the line to the tank before the war ended.

    I think it is wholly possible to ponder if said shells didn't come from mixed dates, Soviet guns using recently produced shells, whilst non-Soviet guns used war production. Such a thing would be possible, given the surplus of German shells available in 1945, and early US shells imported to the Soviet Union for the Lee and Sherman.

    Another issue I would question is what grade of steel did each shell get tested against? While as pointed out that this was for Soviet military analyst eyes only, I can't help but wonder given that these results are very different from any test I've seen. Most testing that I've seen involves the US 75mm drastically out-performing the Soviet 76mm and 57mm, while the US 76mm achieved marginally higher penetration than the 85mm. I can't comment on the other guns because I don't really study any of them, but somthing is fishy, one can't just get so radically different results from other testing. I'd need to understand the methods used, too bad I can't read Russian. I love looking at ex-classified data about military.

  47. I want the Germans to have accurate figures.

    Especially the one where the Tiger I's turret takes 65 seconds to perform a full rotation.

    It's only fair.

  48. I hope that with the "Löwe" going to be a normal tanks and not a premium tank that they will indeed will refund some if NOT all the money people payed for the "Löwe premium tank"

    This will not be popular with other people that have bought the löwe and will indeed make people think twice before investing in any "PREMIUM TANKS"

  49. Well german and awestern allies datas are completely different but we all have to assume than soviets got always right, right comrades?

  50. This comment has been removed by the author.

  51. Welcome to the comments section on Overload's Blog. Where everything Russian ever must be a lie, all data is Russian Biased, and the world revolves around cunning masterminds plotting to keep German tanks on the down low.

    Cold War Propaganda, you're still leaving your mark, huh?

  52. This is actually hilarious how people think that Wargamming is out to get everyone that isnt Russian haha keep the fail posts coming haha

  53. I am not a WoT gamer, but I've played tank wargames for 35+ years. I even play WoT games with 1/72 models at our wargames club.

    FOr all the knocking of the developers of WoT, and the introduction of terms I don't understand, "nerfing" and "OP" , we should take a step back and give credit. (To any wargamer OP means Observation Post, so no idea what you talk about saying OP).

    However, there is one thing WoT has done that is superb. It has concentrated minds world wide, and produced non-English documents, research on guns, prototypes, etc out of the closet in interminable detail that we love. I've plundered the forums for data that was impossible to get years ago. So kudos to the developers, you've speeded up archival research on WW2 tanks by a factor of 10, and for this alone you must be applauded.

  54. The different figures are based on the definition of "Penetration". Most western penetration tables are based on the thickness of armor that will be penetrated by a weapon 50% of the time, while most Soviet armor penetration figures were based on penetration of 75%-80% (I've seen both numbers in different sources). The following source uses the 80% figure and is generally in agreement with the table published in this post.

    What is important here is it makes clear how much of the poor performance typically attributed to Soviet guns is caused by the difference in penetration measurement. That is, penetration tables that show the 85mm Soviet gun having penetration comparable to the US 76mm gun are shown by these tables to be inaccurate, while these tables show that the 85mm/L51 soviet gun was instead roughly comparable to the 88mm/L56.

    Before we were comparing apples to oranges--50% chance of penetration of US guns vs 80% chance of penetration of Soviet guns. This table gives us an apples-to-apples comparison of Soviet, German and US guns. This doesn't show that the German guns were weaker than we though, it shows that the Soviet guns were much stronger than we though.

  55. Digging deeper in various sources, this data is strange. The discrepancy isn't able to be accounted for by Soviet certifid penetration standards, as this only would create a small difference. For example the difference between 20% and 80% penetration is fairly small in the source I posted. Yet at the same time, the Soviet testing numbers here are very similar to the numbers from other Soviet sources, so it is unlikely that the discrepancy is caused by different ammunition than would have been used by other tests. Surely the Soviets didn't didn't manufacture a small stock of ammunition compatible with German weapons to their preferred low quality standards--much more likely that the ammunition was simply captured German ammunition--so it seems unlikely that the German ammunition was a problem as such. It can't be that this was some batch of captured late war slave-labor-produced German ammunition that was unexpectedly low quality either, because the US M3 penetration is also much lower than what would typically be expected (The MV is similar to what would be expected for M3 APCBC).

    At this point I see only two possibilities, the non-Soviet data is fabricated, or that they use much tougher armor plate for testing purposes than everyone else uses.

  56. Or the figures were derived using a DeMarre equation as already pointed out much earlier...

  57. Yep, this is calculated data.

    Read the post above, thats quite obvious.
    Further things that proof this is the mentioned "K" factor.

    And now one more thing:
    The german guns from short 7,5 to short 8,8 penetrate as much armor as they did in the german test.

    You might notice a certion relation.

    But the long 7,5 has a whooping 12mm more penetration.
    Somehow the relation is missing here.
    Now have a closer look at the table. The long 7,5 is listed with 1000m/s muzzle velocity. That however is 65m/s faster than the actual muzzle velocity of that gun.
    For the calculation, this wrong muzzle velo data has been used creating a value without relation. Strange that such a gun didnt even existed ..

    Oh well Overlord.

    That can even be engineering data (for non propaganda purposes) - yes, that is possible. What the soviets did here is what the could do. This is the fastested way to find out how much mm of armor the enemy might penetrate.

    However, actual testing did for sure produce different values. You might search for those and do a repost.

  58. so you found a russian penetration table and it's supposed to invalidate everything written and tested before? lol... get real.

  59. Comparing and making sense from official armour penetration tests are difficult, at best. In the example above we need to consider why the German, US & UK definition of a penetration required 50% of the shots to penetrate compared with the Soviet 75%/80%. In an ad-hoc meeting engagement the Germans typically got the first shot off, got more shots off and more hit their target than the Soviet tanks. The Soviets were very scientific and they realised this and to compensate they had to ensure when a shot hit, it had a much better change of a kill. Using the Soviet testing system on german weapons can be of some interest, but it does not reflect the reality on the battlefield. The Germans did not need a 80% kill rate. Nonetheless the values for a 25% penetration do seem low, but I suspect we lack sufficient data to determine why.