mtm78 Alpha Tester 19,378 posts 6,105 battles Report post #76 Posted August 9, 2016 I assume you meant to write 68 here, but anyway: whether is applied before or after the game tests for auto-ricochet is undocumented and a point of contention. Based on training room trials with the bugged Tachibana shells, I would say normalization is applied before auto-ricochet (like in your example), but I'm not certain. It would be better to only explain normalization as a reduction of impact angle. You're right in both accounts. So normalisation is basically what a APCBC shell does? Where the softer metal on the tip changes its form on impact and turn the actual shell so that it will penetrate the armor? Yes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[UNICS] Nechrom Beta Tester 4,870 posts 10,112 battles Report post #77 Posted August 9, 2016 I've never understood why WG insists on implementing "normalization" at all as a general mechanic for every AP shell. Normalization, as in the reduction of effective penetration angle on impact, only noticeably effected a small number of WW2 AP shells and even then we're talking about -4° max. Every single AP shell having at least -6° of normalization and some upwards of -10° is ridiculous. Never mind that actual normalization isn't a set amount of degrees and varies based on the angle of impact. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LeonardoBlue Beta Tester 80 posts 4,728 battles Report post #78 Posted August 9, 2016 All WW2 naval AP shells are APCBC... This should be common knowledge. Well based on the shell design blue prints that I saw I thought they wouldn't be. The same time I thougt it would make no sense not to use APCBC because a ship is ... like only sloped armor. But I didn't question it that time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
