Welcome to Wargaming.net Wiki!

Talk:Battle Mechanics

Jump to: navigation, search

Voice Messages

This page is already ridiculously long - does the dialog really belong here? It's not even a battle mechanic. I'd propose moving them to a subpage or a new page of their own, like Voice Messages. -Auron 09:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Normalization Example?

I just can't wrap my head around normalization. It seems to state that if a shell penetrates spaced armor, you're worse off. Why wouldn't you then just weld that armor on?

Here's the walkthrough:

"The ideal impact angle is along the normal, i.e. perpendicular to the armour plate."

The ideal impact angle is a 90° angle, however...

"The actual impact angle is calculated as the deviation from the normal."

Impact angle is deviation from a 90°... Ergo this 90° angle would be a ZERO DEGREE IMPACT ANGLE!

"The impact angle of AP and APCR shells onto a vehicles armour is normalized, i.e. adjusted towards the armour's normal axis at the point of impact."

The impact angle of AP(CR) shells is adjusted towards perpendicular... aka adjusted towards 0° impact angle, not 90!

"We are told the AP and APCR shells are currently normalized between 4° and 5°."

The impact angle of AP(CR) shells are adjusted toward 0° by 4-5°... aka the impact angle is reduced 4-5 degrees.

"If the normalized impact angle of an AP, APCR or HEAT shell on the target's armour exceeds 70°, a ricochet (also called a bounce) occurs and the shell is deflected off the target without causing any damage. A ricochet can also occur on the hull armour after penetrating spaced armour."

If the final impact angle after this 4-5° adjusting is over 70° AWAY FROM PERPENDICULAR (intuition would tell you this is a 30 angle off the armor plate or less) then a ricochet occurs.

"In case of spaced armour, shells are normalized twice at the point of impact on the spaced armour..."

For spaced armor, the impact angle is adjusted towards 0° twice, that is, reduced by 8-10°.

Regular Armor Example: You fire an AP shell that gets normalized by 5°. Your impact angle is 78° from normal. You get normalized by 5°, towards 0, so your impact angle is 73°. You ricochet!

Spaced Armor Example: You fire the same AP shell that gets normalized by 5°. Your impact angle is again 78° from normal, but this time against spaced armor. You get normalized by 5° twice towards 0, so your impact angle is no longer 73°, but 68°. You actually might penetrate now! Especially since "No additional normalization occurs when the shell hits the hull armour after penetrating the spaced armour."

So adding spaced armor makes a tank more vulnerable? I don't get it. Why wouldn't you just weld that armor right onto the tank?

Here's an example at 60 degrees against spaced and unspaced armor, 30mm total steel. Spaced is 20mm hull + 10mm spaced.


  • Penetration 54mm (we're ignoring overmatch for the example) at pen angle of 65°, AP shell normalization 5°. Target tank has 10mm spaced armor, 20mm hull armor. Normalization brings your penetration angle down to 55° (5° twice). A bit of math shows you're penetrating 17.43mm of effective armor. You have 36.57mm of penetration left over.
    • You hit the hull at the same angle ("No additional normalization occurs when the shell hits the hull armour after penetrating the spaced armour."). 20mm at this angle becomes 34.87mm of effective armor. You still have 1.7mm penetration left, so you penetrate!

Unspaced (weld that plate straight on!):

  • Penetration 54mm (we're ignoring overmatch for the example) at pen angle of 65°, AP shell normalization 5°. Target tank has 30mm hull armor (since XZibit heard we like steel on our steel so he put steel on our steel :P). Normalization brings your penetration angle down to 60° (5° but only once).
    • 30mm of armor gets doubled at 60 degrees, so your 54mm penetration comes up 7mm short. Now you don't penetrate!

Spaced armor has made your vehicle more vulnerable, as it makes the shell penetrate at an angle closer to ideal/normal/perpendicular.

What am I missing??? --NanbanJim

1. If you are using spaced armor to reduce the penetrating power of AP and APCR shells, it's often sloped so that instead of normalizing the shells towards the main armor's normal axis, it normalizes the shells away or create a ricochet.
2. If you are using spaced armor to reduce the impact power of HE and HEAT shells, the spaced armor will cause a premature detonation of the explosives at a distance away from the main armor of the vehicle thus greatly reducing the impact.

--Immueggpain 08:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Spotting Range

Says here that there is no 500m limit on a tank's view range, and that the number can in fact exceed 500m. Later on in the page we are told that the game doesn't check beyond 445m for spotting tanks. Does the excess view range still factor in for countering camo values?

--Zyro_Falcon 08 Nov 2012 8:07 GMT+8

Yes. --Trifler 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This section states that spotting range is calculated individually based on the following formula:


Am I missing something here or does this formula always calculate to spottingRange = 50 * camoFactor [as "effectiveViewRange - (effectiveViewRange - 50)" always calculates to 50]?

--Rowdyfred 22:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Remember that multiplication takes precedence over addition, so the original equation can be written as:
spottingRange = effectiveViewRange - ((camoFactor × effectiveViewRange) - (camoFactor × 50))
--Leedar 08:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to correct you, it would be
spottingRange = effectiveViewRange - (camoFactor × effectiveViewRange) + (camoFactor × 50)
meaning that no matter how well you are camouflaged - at 50 m you are spotted --Tekumseh 12:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Good spotting. Forgot the parentheses (edited it). --Leedar 12:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


I'm confused with the 'nominalStat' in the formulae of tank stats. Is it after-0.7.2 version or before-0.7.1 version?

--Immueggpain 07:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's up to date. --Trifler 09:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I think it should clarified: Equation_explosion-damage.png Is that "nominal thickness" refers to the angled or not angled thickness? Cause in normal physics an explosion exerts equal force in all directions, making sloped armor ineffective. (While in turn kinetic stuff renders the spaced one ineffective.) Thanks! --MoZo1 17:13, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the guy who wrote all that stuff is gone now so he can't answer your question. --Trifler 10:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
It's should be not angled, since only in that way the damage is maximized. And also the angled armor is called 'Effective Armour Thickness'. --Immueggpain 08:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


[1] Here is a more up-to-date table of camo values for tanks. I would swap it out with the one the page has now, but the other one (not mine) appears to have some stuff this one doesn't.

You can add it in addition to the existing one if you like. --Trifler 09:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Module damage: fuel tank

I think a clarification is needed for the yellow state of fuel tank. Here's the quote Yellow: This state signifies that a module has taken considerable damage but is still operational. Tracks remain fully operational in this state, whereas every other module works at 50% efficiency. What does it mean for fuel tank? Since fuel isn't a stat in game and yellow fuel tank doesn't affect tank's movement in any noticeable way, what happens? Does fuel tank behave like tracks (when yellow, it's more prone to get destroyed by a subsequent hit because it already lost some HP) or is there any effect? --Italkronin 03:10, 10 March 2013 (CET)


Currently the battle mechanics guide does not mention impulse, which is an important factor in aiming. Would adding basic information regarding impulse be a good idea?

Basically put, each tank has a specific impulse value that differs from other tanks, and those with better impulse are more likely to hit dead center of the aiming reticle, regardless of how small the reticle has shrunk due to aiming time. Impulse is a hidden game stat that isn't documented in detail, but it allows people to make certain "lucky shots" with arty and tanks with better impulse value thanks to RNG. See https://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/187552-how-to-evaluate-a-tank-better/ and https://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/211374-impulse-and-other-voodoo-science/ Benlisquare 05:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

For example, the Matilda has the OQF 3-inch Howitzer Mk. I with an impulse value of 0.48, which means that 50% of the time a shot will hit dead center, while the QF 2-pdr Mk.X has an impulse value of 0.26. (Source: https://gamemodels3d.com/worldoftanks/vehicles/b3 ) Arty in general has an impulse of around 0.5, which means it's a 50% dice roll to hit dead center. Impulse also explains how players can snipe using the KV-2 derp gun 400m away with good precision. Benlisquare 05:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
According to SerB, 'impulse' has no effect on accuracy:
Misfire42: In this forum thread, there's a discussion about a hidden stat found in the game files called "impulse", or sometimes "accuracy2". What is this? Why isn't its meaning public?
SerB: Unfortunately, there are a lot of remnants which remain from the early development of the game. I'm not even sure what they all refer to. However, rest assured that the current game mechanics have only 1 "accuracy" statistic.
Assuming this isn't trolling with terminology (e.g. accuracy vs precision), the dispersion statistic is the only one that differentiates gun accuracy (besides penalties which expand the aiming circle from the minimum size). --Leedar 08:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


"Players often confuse battle tiers and their vehicle's tier. The two are unrelated. Vehicle tiers are irrelevant for matchmaking."

I think this is confusing at best. While the matchmaker does not match vehicles by vehicle tier, vehicle tier certainly IS relevant for matchmaking - the vehicle tier determines the applicable battle tiers (as shown by the chart), and determines the initial battle value (weight by vehicle tier).

Updated it to remove the 'unrelated' part

Armor homogenization and HE impact angle

I made two modifications. For one, I mentioned that armor homogenization no longer exists. https://ftr-wot.blogspot.cz/2013/04/1742013.html This blog has translations of the Russian Q&As with the devs. According to them, it's been removed. They've said so repeatedly and it's been confirmed by testing (example: WoT Armory's armor tests showing the Tiger's front armor doesn't get the 120% factor), so I've edited the wiki to reflect that.

I've also clarified the HE penetration mechanics. The damage section was correct, but the penetration section claimed HE didn't take angle into effect. It does, however (the damage section even said so). I've clarified this section. Link to tests if someone needs proof: https://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/179093-105-heat-and-the-cougar/page__st__60__pid__3060001#entry3060001 https://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x406/Toasted_Rofls/shot_204.jpg 105 HE failing to pen a T-50-2.

--Tishler 02:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Gun Accuracy and Aiming Circle

According to https://worldoftanks.com/news/2334-some-changes-coming-86-update/, it looks like both the Gun Accuracy and Aiming Circle have contained some incorrect values. In their news, WG says that the aiming circle has represented 1.3 sigma, while the wiki article says it represents 3. Also, if the aiming circle has represented 1.3 all along, then it's doubtful that the wiki's explanation for gun accuracy is correct where it says that a guns accuracy rating represents 2 sigma. Why would the game go off that statistic if it hasn't even been possible for a shot to veer more than 1.3 sigma? Maybe someone can shed some light on this. Viperatorizer 22:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the "Aiming Circle" section to reflect the information from the article. As far as the information in the "Gun Accuracy" section goes, I believe it is wrong but don't feel comfortable changing it without getting facts from the devs. I'm pretty sure accuracy would be better described as simply "the smallest the aiming circle can get with 100% crew when aiming at something 100m away", but I haven't seen any official word on that. Maybe in 8.6 we'll get some more information, at which point the "Aiming Circle" section will need to be updated again to reflect the new values. Viperatorizer 18:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

How tank stats are calculated

Any idea where these equations and values came from?

I ran these through a spreadsheet and got the following:


Nominal Skill Effective Skill 50 0.79 60 0.84 70 0.88 80 0.92 90 0.97 100 1.01 110 1.05 120 1.10 130 1.14


Nominal Skill Effective Skill 50 1.27 60 1.21 70 1.15 80 1.09 90 1.04 100 1.00 110 0.96 120 0.92 130 0.89

Worth including here?

TooOldToRnR 12:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Aiming circle: shots fall or fire outside?

The Aiming Circle section of this article says "Based on a standard normal distribution...4.2% of your shots would fall outside the aiming circle" and the article also says "Only 0.2% of shots go outside this circle." These seem to contradict one another, unless the first description of an "ideal" standard normal distribution is meant to contrast with an in-game "real" distribution, which actually affects shot trajectory. This needs to be clarified, but I don't know enough about it, to explain it better. One interpretation which is possible, according to the language used, is that the 4.2% refers to where shots end their paths ("fall") and the other refers to the initial path of the shell, not where it ends up; but the aiming circle isn't a guide to the "actual" path of the shell, the shell's destination, the end of its path; it is a guide to how where shell will be fired, or launched—its path's beginning. catsmoke:na (talk) 10:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Outside of circle shots were a more common phenomenon in older versions of the game, so it may not be of benefit to retain the language at all. I would probably avoid using either verb, to be honest, in favor of a statement along the lines of 'approximately 0.2% (or 4.2%, I literally don't know which and that's part of the problem) of shells fired will not follow a path within the outline of the aiming circle.' ForcestormX:na (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

SPG shell arc

The importance of ballistic trajectory for SPG shells should be mentioned. At their maximum range the steepest falling angle is achieved, in which case the shells are most effective at:

  1. Shooting over cover,
  2. Hitting the weak top armour of tanks (and potentially penetrating with HE),
  3. Flattening the aiming circle, making shots that miss hit the ground close to the tank rather than wildly overshooting, especially on sloped terrain.

This actually makes low range a positive attribute for many SPGs, as they are able to utilise all of these benefits for more parts of the map than longer range SPGs that would have to be outside of the map to hit those parts with the same trajectory.

Additionally, the greatest range is achieved when the gun is angled at 45 degrees from a level surface at the most positive height differential with the target. This is also constrained by the artificial gravity system WoT uses, where the acceleration due to gravity (i.e. gravitational constant) is customised for every gun, and the 'automatic' ballistic aiming system used with the aiming circle (although it is hypothetically possible to shoot manually and arc the shell yourself). Presumably the gravity system was done so that a good balance of shell velocity and range on the tiny WoT maps could be achieved.

Considering the above, the slope of the surface an SPG is on, the SPG's gun elevation limit and the height differential must all be considered to determine the maximum range (along with the baseline v^2/g for the shell).

For instance, SPGs that don't have at least 45 degrees gun elevation (e.g. Sexton II) need to be sloped backwards (by terrain) to compensate, so they can achieve their highest range and steepest arc, and similarly for SPGs that are sitting on forward sloping terrain which effectively limits their elevation (this would almost never happen if the SPG has 70 degrees elevation, as a player normally can't drive up more than a 25 degree slope).

Also, because of the automatic aiming system which will not elevate the gun above 45 degrees from level, it isn't possible to improve the arc steepness by shooting from a negative height differential. However so long as the target is far away enough, a positive height differential will improve the steepness beyond what it would be on flat ground, possibly beyond the normal 45 degrees at termination (*). E.g. locating an SPG on the hill on Himmelsdorf encounter would increase the player's chances to hit enemies on the cap hiding behind buildings.

(*) Actually, I'm not sure if the aiming system takes the steeper or flatter solution in this case, needs to be tested perhaps? Leedar:sea (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

They are not stats. They are specifications.

I realize people have been referring to the parameters in question for a long time as "stats" but they have nothing to do with statistics and hence, it is wrong to call them that. The correct term for numbers like these is "specifications".--Nautical_Metaphor:eu (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Some BS about dispersion is based on IRL accuracy

I remember long ago that I read WOT dispersion exist because IRL (or in WW2) accuracy varies due to the shell charge, gun maintenance etc. That is kinda BS and misinformation. AT crews were tested back in WW2 and they have a 97% hit ratio at 2km. How does 0.35 dispersion for a tank make any sense for 97% at 2km? War Thunder has it better for its accuracy on the accuracy of gunnery.