Mr Truman (lol), what you are failing to realize is that you shouldn't have to angle the front plate of the Mk. III at all against the T-60. Even from a dead-on, 90 degree hit, the 20mm shot simply cannot penetrate that much plate.
What you describe is actually the main problem with the armor model, in my opinion. It all seems to be about deflection angle. The only way people live is by having the magic angle that bounces all shots. If this angle doesn't exist, shots penetrate even though in real life they would not have enough power. This also means any vehicle with sloped armor (like the SU-76) has unrealistic resistance to large caliber shots, simply because angle is present.
The devs need to:
1. Examine the armor angling and tone this factor down to realistic levels.
2. Stop allowing weapons that were uncapable of penetrating certain plate thickness from doing damage.
3. Partial pentrations need to be taken into account. Just because a 14.5mm round can pentrate the side of a Panzer IV doesn't mean it will do any appreciable damage.
Max penetration of PTRD is 34mm at 100m, so if you have a Panzer IV with 30mm side armor, the round is just barely penetrating. In fact, the four excess milimeters over 30 equals 13.33% of the total thickness of plate, which is less than the 15% generally needed to cause more active spalling (CMBB takes this into consideration).
So what you would really have is a partial penetration that would do little damage. In CMBB, Panzer IVs can take sometimes like 15 such penetrations without any damage to equipment of crew, but in ROOST, a side penetration with the PTRD usually means the tank blows up.
4. Finally, take into account the "normalizing" effects of blunt-nosed shot. Certain kinds of APBC and APCBC had blunt noses under the BC that were much less prone to glance off angled plate. The shape allowed them to "grip" into face-hardened, angled plate better than standard AP shot.
What you describe is actually the main problem with the armor model, in my opinion. It all seems to be about deflection angle. The only way people live is by having the magic angle that bounces all shots. If this angle doesn't exist, shots penetrate even though in real life they would not have enough power. This also means any vehicle with sloped armor (like the SU-76) has unrealistic resistance to large caliber shots, simply because angle is present.
The devs need to:
1. Examine the armor angling and tone this factor down to realistic levels.
2. Stop allowing weapons that were uncapable of penetrating certain plate thickness from doing damage.
3. Partial pentrations need to be taken into account. Just because a 14.5mm round can pentrate the side of a Panzer IV doesn't mean it will do any appreciable damage.
Max penetration of PTRD is 34mm at 100m, so if you have a Panzer IV with 30mm side armor, the round is just barely penetrating. In fact, the four excess milimeters over 30 equals 13.33% of the total thickness of plate, which is less than the 15% generally needed to cause more active spalling (CMBB takes this into consideration).
So what you would really have is a partial penetration that would do little damage. In CMBB, Panzer IVs can take sometimes like 15 such penetrations without any damage to equipment of crew, but in ROOST, a side penetration with the PTRD usually means the tank blows up.
4. Finally, take into account the "normalizing" effects of blunt-nosed shot. Certain kinds of APBC and APCBC had blunt noses under the BC that were much less prone to glance off angled plate. The shape allowed them to "grip" into face-hardened, angled plate better than standard AP shot.
Upvote
0
