scavenjer

(17-6-2018) DM33 wrong performance

A detailed description of the issue you have encountered. It is also important that you describe how we can reproduce the issue, if you are able to reproduce it.

On the dev server the DM33 did not have the correct performance

 

If applicable, the full name(s) of the vehicle(s) affected.

Type 90

 

If applicable, the difficulty setting (e.g. Arcade) in which the issue occurs.

Not applicable, any.

 

If applicable, an attached screenshot showing the issue, as well the client replay file and the server replay.

5daaa9083f1cb4da.png

Attach the Client Log of the session in which the error occurred. If the problem is persistent, attach the latest one available.

2018_06_03_02_12_16__428.clog

detailed description of the fix you suggest. Provide sources including reference that underline your position. This is up to the discretion of the Technical Moderator handling the report, however the number of sources required depends on the type of source presented:

Currently DM33 does not have it's correct performance, not only are the penetration values wrong, but it also uses the wrong slope modifier.
DM33 has a L/D ratio of 22.4 which would classify it as a long rod penetrator

 

 

Page 5 and 6 of the APFSDS document.

Capture.PNG.d4e4b3ec818bd6536b0aaf3b1278
Capture2.PNG.e83e7eeb88aae6b387d5ecdd891

As you can see the document states the penetration of DM33 to be 480mm RHAe at 2km (this is likely to be 240mm at 60° doubled to represent LOS penetration)


820329_600.jpg
This picture taken from the swedish tank trials show that the DM33 is considered to have 610mm of penetration at 200m and 460mm of penetration at 2km

lzzHrc2.png
F6ADXT9.png

This Russian report states that the penetration of DM33 is 270-280mm at 2km and 60°

 

As you can see most of these reports agree that the penetration should be around 240-280mm at 2000m and 60°.

To conclude: the DM33 should get the long rod modifier and get the penetration changed from 215mm at 2000m and 60° to 250mm at 2000m and 60°.

 

Because it is a long rod however, the penetration at 100m and 0° should either be the 60° value doubled or lower than that.

Corrected performance :
5daaa9083f1cb4daB.png

apfsds.pdf

NoweAPFSDS.pdf

Mariusz MAGIER_Kierunki_139.pdf

LordMustang (Posted )

Your report has been approved
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @scavenjer,

 

Thanks for your report. I'll investigate this issue.

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page with test on ERAWA ERA protection with middle section done with DM33A1 

http://btvt.narod.ru/raznoe/erawa/ERAWA.htm   

 

Also http://docplayer.pl/29904086-Zywotnosc-luf-120-mm-armat-czolgowych.html  which conducts tests on barrel life and shows muzzle energy using DM33 with L44 cannon. It's table number 2 (Tabela.2 Podstawowe dane naboi stosowanych do 120 mm armat: M256 i Rh120L44)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scavenjer said:


820329_600.jpg
This picture taken from the swedish tank trials show that the DM33 is considered to have 610mm of penetration at 200m and 460mm of penetration at 2km

 

This is incorrect. The document is saying that 50% of the turret in question has equivalent protection to at least 610mm of RHA. The penetration of DM33 at 200 meters is indicated by the circled "1" on the graph, and is somewhere in the range of ~520-530mm. 

 

Likewise, it's saying that 75% of the turret in question has equivalent protection to at least 460mm of RHA. The penetration of DM33 at 2000 meters is indicated by the circled "2" on the graph, and is ~470mm. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that the Russian estimates listed shouldn't really be used as they often are very far off, the abysmal performance estimate of the DM53 on the Russian chart where it's actually listed as worse than the earlier DM43 should be enough proof of this.

 

Regardless of this any estimate, Russian or not, frankly can't ever replace actual figures such as those from the swedish trials, which due to the nature of the report has to be taken as the actual performance of the round.

 

Edited by Panthera_Pardus
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, scavenjer said:


820329_600.jpg
This picture taken from the swedish tank trials show that the DM33 is considered to have 610mm of penetration at 200m and 460mm of penetration at 2km

 

If you were a historian you would actually have to go by these figures as they are bound to be the most reliable / accurate, seeing as they are from actual trials. Such data trumps any estimate any day, and to be frank Gaijin litterally has to use these if they don't want to be accused of abandoning realism in favor of artificial balance to what'ever side they see fit. It's as simple as that really.

 

These figures btw fall directly inline with the figures used in SB for the DM33.

Edited by Panthera_Pardus
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, muzzleflash98 said:

 

This is incorrect. The document is saying that 50% of the turret in question has equivalent protection to at least 610mm of RHA. The penetration of DM33 at 200 meters is indicated by the circled "1" on the graph, and is somewhere in the range of ~520-530mm. 

 

Likewise, it's saying that 75% of the turret in question has equivalent protection to at least 460mm of RHA. The penetration of DM33 at 2000 meters is indicated by the circled "2" on the graph, and is ~470mm. 

It seems you're right in this regard.

 

@Conraireran DM33 through the Lanz-Odermatt equation, and got similar results.

 

Quote

Estimated DM33 Based on 510mm Length

Class 4 alloy 18,500kg/m3

Vertical 250bhn

P.B. 528mm

100m 525mm

500m 516mm

1000m 503mm

1500m 490mm

2000m 477mm

 

60 from vert 250bhn

P.B. 308mm

100m 307mm

500m 301mm

1000m 294mm

1500m 286mm

2000m 278mm

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't devs use lanz-odermatt equation as the primary source for penetration values? It seems to be correct everytime and only differ with minimal values from sources.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/06/2018 at 03:09, muzzleflash98 said:

 

This is incorrect. The document is saying that 50% of the turret in question has equivalent protection to at least 610mm of RHA. The penetration of DM33 at 200 meters is indicated by the circled "1" on the graph, and is somewhere in the range of ~520-530mm. 

 

Likewise, it's saying that 75% of the turret in question has equivalent protection to at least 460mm of RHA. The penetration of DM33 at 2000 meters is indicated by the circled "2" on the graph, and is ~470mm. 

 

That seems correct, looking at it this is how I read it too.

 

And like Lanz Odermatt predicts 470mm at 2 km is akin to 270-280 at 60 deg for the long rod penetrator.

 

And again these figures are as accurate a figure as we're going to get on the matter until something more "official" is posted, i.e. Gaijin pretty much has to use these.

Edited by Panthera_Pardus
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/06/2018 at 12:01, DramaticPooP said:

Why doesn't devs use lanz-odermatt equation as the primary source for penetration values? It seems to be correct everytime and only differ with minimal values from sources.

because details critical to the completion of all variables in the lanz -odermatt equation would be classified in some munitions to especially include that of most Abrams APFSDS DU munitions. Unless somebody has a source that makes a fool out of me of course.

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/06/2018 at 19:01, DramaticPooP said:

Why doesn't devs use lanz-odermatt equation as the primary source for penetration values? It seems to be correct everytime and only differ with minimal values from sources.

Because Lanz-Odermatt is only able to calculate a very limited set of APFSDS penetrators. Monohlitic rods to be precice. The DM33 is for example the only true monohlitic design in the array of german darts.
 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, A3nur said:

Because Lanz-Odermatt is only able to calculate a very limited set of APFSDS penetrators. Monohlitic rods to be precice. The DM33 is for example the only true monohlitic design in the array of german darts.
 

 

Actually there's an equation for Sheathed Rods too.  DM23 and DM33 are monolithic.  Most of the US DU apfsds is monolithic as well.  You still have oddball designs like dm13 and M735 though. 

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Spoiler

DM33_1.thumb.JPG.0c23e2125fc15bb306b5d30

 

Spoiler

DM33_2.thumb.JPG.543c1e521239a2cea271f00 Unbenannt.JPG.dc30ed55d0da80496c41c463e0

 

Spoiler

DM33_3.thumb.JPG.46650ae921e6b89a26a7ab9

 

Spoiler

DM33_4.thumb.JPG.42bfb22879b2d81d64096e0 

 

Spoiler

DM33_5.thumb.JPG.104ce27d226796da91d7d63

Unbenannt.thumb.JPG.52996b80610c78a0a7a6

 

Spoiler

DM33_6.thumb.JPG.cfd74ccc5be206579258abf

Unbenannt.thumb.JPG.61bab1c99cfd0c6eaace

 

Spoiler

DM33_7.thumb.JPG.95bd7f8f8b5c31580779176

 

Spoiler

DM33_8.thumb.JPG.111a21287c25f0328cd1412

 

Sent to me by an anonymous source.

It is from a polish ministry of defense research paper on penetration characteristics of monolithic APFSDS-T penetrators.

 

EDIT: Added translated tables for the most relevant charts.

Edited by Das33erBison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/06/2018 at 10:20, Conraire said:

 

Actually there's an equation for Sheathed Rods too.  DM23 and DM33 are monolithic.  Most of the US DU apfsds is monolithic as well.  You still have oddball designs like dm13 and M735 though. 

Would you so happen to know the name of this equation? Would be a useful tool for later:vanga:

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that the excerpt from the swedish trials is part of a LEAKED document that has NOT been declassified and therefore as per gaijins guidelines can not be used as a source.

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/06/2018 at 14:18, Das33erBison said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

DM33_1.thumb.JPG.0c23e2125fc15bb306b5d30

 

  Reveal hidden contents

DM33_2.thumb.JPG.543c1e521239a2cea271f00 Unbenannt.JPG.dc30ed55d0da80496c41c463e0

 

  Reveal hidden contents

DM33_3.thumb.JPG.46650ae921e6b89a26a7ab9

 

  Reveal hidden contents

DM33_4.thumb.JPG.42bfb22879b2d81d64096e0 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

DM33_5.thumb.JPG.104ce27d226796da91d7d63

Unbenannt.thumb.JPG.52996b80610c78a0a7a6

 

  Reveal hidden contents

DM33_6.thumb.JPG.cfd74ccc5be206579258abf

Unbenannt.thumb.JPG.61bab1c99cfd0c6eaace

 

  Reveal hidden contents

DM33_7.thumb.JPG.95bd7f8f8b5c31580779176

 

  Reveal hidden contents

DM33_8.thumb.JPG.111a21287c25f0328cd1412

 

Sent to me by an anonymous source.

It is from a polish ministry of defense research paper on penetration characteristics of monolithic APFSDS-T penetrators.

 

EDIT: Added translated tables for the most relevant charts.

Thanks a lot!

On 12/06/2018 at 05:38, CaptainBallistic said:

Would you so happen to know the name of this equation? Would be a useful tool for later:vanga:

Take a look here: http://www.longrods.ch/

 

On 14/06/2018 at 12:22, Sp15 said:

I would like to point out that the excerpt from the swedish trials is part of a LEAKED document that has NOT been declassified and therefore as per gaijins guidelines can not be used as a source.

I don't know where you got this from. As far as I'm aware, such a guideline doesn't exist. Care to provide me with a link to this guideline?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/06/2018 at 12:22, Sp15 said:

I would like to point out that the excerpt from the swedish trials is part of a LEAKED document that has NOT been declassified and therefore as per gaijins guidelines can not be used as a source.

I don't really think that's true since they clearly used swedish documents to model the armor on the Leopard 2A4, it is very similar if not almost identical to what the swedish documents said.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bug report has been submitted.

This thread will remain unlocked for 7 days in order to allow anyone with information/examples or additional sources to post them.


It will also serve as a place where the developers may post questions, so please keep up to date here.

Thanks for your time and effort

  • Thanks 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.