Effective armor changes for 8.0 – Tier IX

All right, I know that lot of things were asked for in the previous days. I can always do promises, but the test servers are not really cooperative. It’s almost impossible to get online before the late evening hours when ordinary fellas go to sleep, so things moves a bit slowly this time. Maybe if our Russian friends get finally bored then our work will begin at earnest. Until then, let’s take a look at the 8.0 sloped armor changes in Tier X.

The rules again, skip if you remember them from the last posts

  1. Most numbers are calculated, but they correspond with gameplay experience and previous test results. Basically, effective armor thickness is the same as we call WoT-equivalent armor, an armor value a gun with the same average penetration has 50 percent chance to defeat at short-range without side angle. Our “seven shot protection numbers” are usually lower than these by 10-15 percent.
  2. The average compensation for AP against sloped armor is 8 degrees at this time (confirmed by Storm in 7.3), this will be lowered to 5 degrees in 8.0
  3. It’s recommended to multiply the WoT-equivalent armor values by 1.2 to measure if your gun is up to that particular target and armor plate.
  4. 8.0 will affect the compensation of lateral angle the same way as vertical, it will be halved. Tanks with two-dimensional slope (IS-3/7/8) will gain more head-on effective armor than the rest.
  5. 40-45 degrees side angle means about extra 1.25X multiplier for effective armor, although  thin sides (80 mm and below) at such high angles  usually become vulnerable.
  6. 70 degrees slope means auto-bounce unless the thickness of the armor is overmatched by a factor of three by the projectile caliber. Thicker armor with 70 degrees slope and above does not receive any previous normalisation.

Tier IX armor changes


21 responses to “Effective armor changes for 8.0 – Tier IX

  1. E-75 lower glacis is 130mm 60 degree.

    According to this :

    armor_1 160 _armor_1
    armor_2 130 _armor_2
    armor_3 120 _armor_3
    armor_4 120 _armor_4
    armor_5 120 _armor_5
    armor_6 40 _armor_6
    armor_7 40 _armor_7
    armor_8 40 _armor_8
    armor_9 40 _armor_9
    armor_10 0 _armor_10
    armor_11 30 _armor_11

  2. Nice!

    That E75 will become a complete madness towards lower tier enemies.

    -JT as far as i know, features only the historical 100mm on the LFP.
    my KV-5 did pen it very well last time i saw one.
    Only the KT uses the boosted 120mm.
    -not sure about that foch slope, i thought it was less.

    & Good work.

    Sorry for being such a correct bastard :)!

    • They are the same IMO.

      Just re-checked. 90mm M3 with 160 avg penetrated the KT and the JT LFP at the same rate (~50%), all Kwk 42 138 avg shots ricocheted from the JT.

      Not sure about the Foch either, wish I could join 8.0 test because I have access to only there.

  3. To fix my comment above, I think IT MUST BE 130mm LFP for E75, because a lot of players find that E75 LFP bounced alot more than E100 LFP. I own both E75 and E100 I experienced that same thing. Also, there are a lot of info on the forums to confirm this.

    – Patch 7.5: 130mm is at 211mm effective and It does act like ones, more than 195mm as stated here. So in 8.0 it should be 226mm

      • In 7.5 and earlier, the Long 88 does penetrate (with some 50% consistency) the LFP of E75 from front (unangled) at short to medium ranges. The 225 Pen guns (long 10.5 and BL9) almost always penetrates the LFP from front at short to medium ranges.

        BTW, the test server is slightly more accessible now, so do try (keep pressing ENTER, till you see the words ‘logging in’).

      • When patch 6.6 hit the servers we tested the E-75 lfp vs the long 88 and it penetrated 8/10times at 80meters distance. I’m 100% sure it’s 120mm and not 130mm.

  4. Yea the testserver is more accessable right now.

    By the way, does anybody know that the changes regarding normalisation were applied already?
    I didnt feel much of a difference yet – TX TD guns are still far too powerfull.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s