Jump to content
4 hours ago, Leplivo said:

Balancing the game by adding obsolete shells and then nerfing them, buffing them or just giving them the correct values like the Italian bias shell with 625mm pen, seems like a very stupid way to balance a game.

That's the only way they can somehow balance the top ranks, and you are sadly mistaken, if you think that the soviets are the only ones using obsolete rounds.

The italian tanks, don't have that much (luxury) to aim completely properly, because if they need to sit and hesitate, they will just lose their own tank, and fast.

4 hours ago, Leplivo said:

For the inbalance in this game I blame the players because they want the game to be realistic and historically accurate but then they also want the game to be balanced (you can't have both).

So are you willing or prepared, to lose the Soviet / russian armor (meta) advantage?.

Some balance, is probably the lesser of two evils tbh.

 

what would you call balance then? or what would your balance look like?

 

And i've heard that gaijin was considering adding Svinets to the tank, but decided not to, which was the correct decision for now imho.

 

Edited by mursuttaja
  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/09/2020 at 11:42, Leplivo said:

Germany, Italy and Sweden are full of braindead tanks

 

I'd love to know about which xxxxxxx Italian tank you're referring to.

 

 

Becharita (Posted )

2.1.8. Profanity and insult via direct statement or implication (full or partial circumvention). This includes the use of swearing, medical-related reference (such as cancer, mental illness, etc.), offensive and abusive language, and other references of an insulting or profane nature.  Automatically filtered items are exempt from action.
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole constant "X needs this better round!" debate just seems so thoughtless to me.

 

Fix the tanks in game first and fill gaps. See how they look then, it'd be a totally different world before just using power creep to try and solve inaccurate modelling. That goes for every nation.

Edited by TheFuzzieOne
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/09/2020 at 20:44, mursuttaja said:

That's the only way they can somehow balance the top ranks, and you are sadly mistaken, if you think that the soviets are the only ones using obsolete rounds.

The italian tanks, don't have that much (luxury) to aim completely properly, because if they need to sit and hesitate, they will just lose their own tank, and fast.

So are you willing or prepared, to lose the Soviet / russian armor (meta) advantage?.

Some balance, is probably the lesser of two evils tbh.

 

what would you call balance then? or what would your balance look like?

 

And i've heard that gaijin was considering adding Svinets to the tank, but decided not to, which was the correct decision for now imho.

 

I already said how it should be balanced but I will say it again. All nations should have tanks that can compete with each other not some nations have OP tanks, some have useless tanks and some are in the middle. If i am being honest this game is being advertised as a military simulator, there is no balance in war so if they are sticking to their advertisements, they should make the game completely historically accurate (as much as possible). You can't have a realistic/historically accurate game and it being balanced. Oh look Hans zey have ze churchill, our tanks can't penetrate ze armor, please tell them to nerf it. At least someone couldn't bother anymore and is making a realistic tank game that is more realistic and more fun than WT (Gunner Heat PC), I am definetly moving to that game once it realeses.

On 23/09/2020 at 21:13, Necrons31467 said:

 

I'd love to know about which braindead Italian tank you're referring to.

 

 

R3s, Centauros, AUBLs and Arietes.

Edited by Leplivo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Leplivo said:

I also forgot to mention why is T-72B3 missing it's laser warning system?? or is that only for suffering nations like Germany??

It doesn't have one; I think I know the sight you got that from and it's wrong. I haven't seen it claimed anywhere else to my memory.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Becharita
Becharita gave Guinespsj a warning for this post
Reason: Verbal Warning Only · Points: 0 ·
On 23/09/2020 at 11:42, Leplivo said:

Italy and Sweden are full of braindead tanks

 

Quite funny that you are saying that, while:

 

- You have gained only Rank 1 and 2 vehicles from Italian tech tree

- And seems like you have only 4 Swedish vehicles

 

So instead and saying that they are magically xxxxx to use or OP. What if you first even gain and try to play them? Instead of rambling here and asking more power creep for your beloved main nation?

Becharita (Posted )

1.1.19. Profanity and insult via direct statement or implication (full or partial circumvention). This includes the use of swearing, medical-related reference (such as cancer, mental illness, etc.), offensive and abusive language, and other references of an insulting or profane nature. Automatically filtered items are exempt from action.
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guinespsj said:

Quite funny that you are saying that, while:

- You have gained only Rank 1 and 2 vehicles from Italian tech tree

- And seems like you have only 4 Swedish vehicles

So instead and saying that they are magically braidead to use or OP. What if you first even gain and try to play them? Instead of rambling here and asking more power creep for your beloved main nation?

 

Topic is called T-72B3 historical inaccuracy , so please keep it to T-72B3 instead of making an offtopic comment about an offtopic comment !

 

 

Edited by Raldi92
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop using the word  "braindead" please........

 

2.1.8. Profanity and insult via direct statement or implication (full or partial circumvention). This includes the use of swearing, medical-related reference (such as cancer, mental illness, etc.), offensive and abusive language, and other references of an insulting or profane nature.  Automatically filtered items are exempt from action.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/09/2020 at 15:28, Ariesv said:

It doesn't have one; I think I know the sight you got that from and it's wrong. I haven't seen it claimed anywhere else to my memory.

Also, if they had such system it would have visible sensors in the 3d model. The only "unhistoric" stuff about T-72B3 is the missing Svinets which doesn't seem to currently need anyway. 

 

On the other hand @Becharita no te tenía de moderador por acá.

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27/09/2020 at 23:57, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Also, if they had such system it would have visible sensors in the 3d model. The only "unhistoric" stuff about T-72B3 is the missing Svinets which doesn't seem to currently need anyway. 

 

On the other hand @Becharita no te tenía de moderador por acá.

Ah yes but USA and Italy need a shell with 625mm pen, France needs a shell with 575mm pen. Because we all know USA and Italy suffer. USA definitely needs those lol pen shells. I will just move to reddit because it seems people on here are braindead. And I love how Gaijin tries to silence everyone who speaks against the bs in this game.

To balance the game give M1A2 SEPV3 for USA, Leopard 2A7V for Germany.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leplivo said:

Ah yes but USA and Italy need a shell with 625mm pen, France needs a shell with 575mm pen. Because we all know USA and Italy suffer. USA definitely needs those lol pen shells. I will just move to reddit because it seems people on here are braindead. And I love how Gaijin tries to silence everyone who speaks against the bs in this game.

To balance the game give M1A2 SEPV3 for USA, Leopard 2A7V for Germany.

You should be a little more mature if you want to discuss stuff seriously. Where do you get that Gj is trying to silence you? 

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Becharita
Becharita gave Leplivo a warning for this post
Reason: Rule Breaking Warning · Points: 1 ·
On 27/09/2020 at 11:36, Guinespsj said:

 

Quite funny that you are saying that, while:

 

- You have gained only Rank 1 and 2 vehicles from Italian tech tree

- And seems like you have only 4 Swedish vehicles

 

So instead and saying that they are magically xxxxx to use or OP. What if you first even gain and try to play them? Instead of rambling here and asking more power creep for your beloved main nation?

Yes because Sweden doesn't top attack atgms and because Sweden doesn't have Leopard 2A6 with the same gun as 2A5 and because Sweden doesn't have 105mm APDS at Reserve rank

It's not possible to be mature with braindead people that deny everything when clearly they are in the wrong. A lot of people avoid the WT forums for this reason and just go to reddit. Wehraboos will always the most toxic players in WT.

On 27/09/2020 at 21:42, Becharita said:

Stop using the word  "braindead" please........

 

2.1.8. Profanity and insult via direct statement or implication (full or partial circumvention). This includes the use of swearing, medical-related reference (such as cancer, mental illness, etc.), offensive and abusive language, and other references of an insulting or profane nature.  Automatically filtered items are exempt from action.

This is the last time I use it, because I am done with this game and this "Mentally challenged" community.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

You should be a little more mature if you want to discuss stuff seriously. Where do you get that Gj is trying to silence you

 

Ain't it obvious?

The person can't seem to control what he writes, and insults everyone left and right.

 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Leplivo seriously man cool down a little. Many of the people you antagonized with during this discussion are soviet main and very much concerned about the handicap that exists at Rank VII (me included). What i would like you to understand is that:
 

1: Ammo selection is a balancing tool. If all MBTs at top rank got their best realistic rounds, T-72B3 would be on the losing side as M1A2 and Leo 2A5 (and all others as well) can get rounds that completely neutralize K5 and can defeat T-80U and T-72B3 comfortably at 2 km at any point of impact across the frontal arc. In addition western tanks have characteristics such as gun handling, sights, mobility that totally counter the design of soviet tanks. The fact that the current top rank western tanks have been nerfed via ammo selection is mainly to give USSR a chance via frontal overmatch (being able to resist frontally incoming rounds) even if these tanks have huge weakspots in the front.

2: The disadvantage that top rank soviet MBTs have in relation to western tanks is not that BM42 is a bad round (which is not). Rather it's about how these tanks can (or more specifically "can´t") handle themselves in all these CQC maps that plague top rank matches.

  • Like 2
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of us here , regardless of Soviet mains or not  , agree that T-72B3 doesn't really need 3BM59 or in other words doesn't need a round that is up there with the best rounds available in the game for balancing reasons  , this being said something like 3BM46 from 1991 would had made a bit more sense , with minor impact on the actual balance  if not impact at all .

 

Now where i can agree with @Leplivo is on the fact that for example nations like Sweden or USA have been given such top rounds in their inventory ,( albeit  not for their top MBTs )  so there should be no issue whatsoever to see 3BM59 implemented on a platform such as the Sprut-SDM1 in order to give to USSR a counterpart to CV90120 and likes .

 

13 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

@Leplivo
1: Ammo selection is a balancing tool. If all MBTs at top rank got their best realistic rounds, T-72B3 would be on the losing side as M1A2 and Leo 2A5 (and all others as well) can get rounds that completely neutralize K5 and can defeat T-80U and T-72B3 comfortably at 2 km at any point of impact across the frontal arc.

 

It is very true that ammo selection in WT is a balancing tool , but the rest of that sentence is much less true for various reasons : 

 

1) Main reason is that generally speaking in WT the best realistic round is considered to be the best available round when said tank entered service . For instance M1A2 entered service in 1992 and the best available round at that time was M829A2 which is no where near capable of achieving the performance you claim on your comment .

 

2) There is no such a round capable to completely neutralize K5 . Even M829A3 designed to defeat  K5 will suffer around  20% degradation to it's penetrating potential going through said ERA . This is further backed up by Below The Turret Ring article which specificaly mentions when talking about M829A3 :

 

Quote

According to the patents from ATK, such a design ( reffering to the steel tip of M829A3 )  increases the penetration into RHS protected by an unkown type of heavy ERA by 20 to 30% compared to the same penetrator without solid steel tip.

 

Knowing that K5 was initially rated for 40-50% degradation against KE penetrators preceding M829A3 ( read without said steel tip design)  , this falls well in line with the actual ratting given by UVZ for K5 against modern projectiles which happens to be 20% .  It would be too long to go through detailed calculations but simply put there are  places ( such as turret cheeks )  on the frontal arc where tanks like  T-72B3 and especially  T-90A would resist said round at 2km or even closer  .  So let's just say that if every top tier MBT received it's best available round it would be a point and click adventure for everyone .

 

14 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

@Leplivo 2: The disadvantage that top rank soviet MBTs have in relation to western tanks is not that BM42 is a bad round (which is not). Rather it's about how these tanks can (or more specifically "can´t") handle themselves in all these CQC maps that plague top rank matches.

 

Now this is where i say amen  , CQC maps  are a plague  for all MBTs imo since those ruin any possible imersion and sense of realism !

 

Edited by Raldi92
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

1) Main reason is that generally speaking in WT the best realistic round is considered to be the best available round when said tank entered service . For instance M1A2

I don´t think that Gaijin follows that same rule. For example, Strv-122 never realistically fired DM33 as that round didn't even enter service with the Swedes. On the other hand if Gj following the logic supported by @Leplivo decided to give M829A3 to M1A1/A2 then it could perfectly do  as those tanks are perfectly able to fire it, that's what i was pointing at with my comment.

 

6 hours ago, Raldi92 said:

M829A2 which is no where near capable of achieving the performance you claim on your comment .

 

2) There is no such a round capable to completely neutralize K5 . Even M829A3 designed to defeat  K5 will suffer around  20% degradation to it's penetrating potential going through said ERA . This is further backed up by Below The Turret Ring article which specificaly mentions when talking about M829A3 :

 

 

Knowing that K5 was initially rated for 40-50% degradation against KE penetrators preceding M829A3 ( read without said steel tip design)  , this falls well in line with the actual ratting given by UVZ for K5 against modern projectiles which happens to be 20% .  It would be too long to go through detailed calculations but simply put there are  places ( such as turret cheeks )  on the frontal arc where tanks like  T-72B3 and especially  T-90A would resist said round at 2km or even closer  .  So let's just say that if every top tier MBT received it's best available round it would be a point and click adventure for everyone 

 

We've discussed about how K5 effectiveness should be represented ingame many times without agreeing, i don't see a point in discussing it again and derailing the issue on this thread. But my stance is that the stated "20 percent of penetration reduction" is the minimal effectiveness that K5 has against projectiles not designed specifically to defeat heavy ERA. APFSDS meant to counter K5 should largely be immune to its working and hence that "20 percent" should not apply to them. If we go by the numbers, this function explains how 2 different projectiles which have comparable ("comparable" =/= "equal") RHA penetration (such as M829A1 and M829A3, i leave M829A2 out of the picture because its performance against K5 is more "ambiguous") perform vastly different against a tank equipped with K5. 

 

 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

I don´t think that Gaijin follows that same rule. For example, Strv-122 never realistically fired DM33 as that round didn't even enter service with the Swedes. On the other hand if Gj following the logic supported by @Leplivo decided to give M829A3 to M1A1/A2 then it could perfectly do  as those tanks are perfectly able to fire it, that's what i was pointing at with my comment.

 

I don't see how Strv-122 contradicts my point , to my knowledge most tanks in WT ( except one or two exceptions here and there ) have in best case scenario ammo matching their DOI historical period  and if we look more specifically  top  MBTs  for each nation ( M1A2 , T-80U , T-72B3 , Leclerc , Challenger 2 2F , Type 90 etc ) as far as i am aware they all fire  outdated ammo compared to their DOI .  Of course that being said as you pointed out Gaijin could decide to go with rounds subsequent to DOI  ( already the case for some tank )  but my point was considering how the game is already structured it would be unlikely .

 

48 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

We've discussed about how K5 effectiveness should be represented ingame many times without agreeing, i don't see a point in discussing it again and derailing the issue on this thread. But my stance is that the stated "20 percent of penetration reduction" is the minimal effectiveness that K5 has against projectiles not designed specifically to defeat heavy ERA. APFSDS meant to counter K5 should largely be immune to its working and hence that "20 percent" should not apply to them. If we go by the numbers, this function explains how 2 different projectiles which have comparable ("comparable" =/= "equal") RHA penetration (such as M829A1 and M829A3, i leave M829A2 out of the picture because its performance against K5 is more "ambiguous") perform vastly different against a tank equipped with K5.

 

My comment was made just to point out that factually speaking claims from both UVZ ( Uralvagonzavod )  who make K5  and ATK ( Alliant Techsystems ) who own the patent for  M829A3  directly invalidate your theory . This is a fact and no subject to debate .

 

 

Edited by Raldi92
  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

I don't see how Strv-122 contradicts my point

Because it would be the same as if a T-80 ingame had Chinese 125-1 APFSDS. Ammo selection right now not only discards DOI (both for the tank and the ammo) but even if the ingame round was in service by X country at all.

 

13 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

considering how the game is already structured it would be unlikely .

I agree. If all tanks had the best ammo they can realistically fire, the situation in the absolute gaming design masterpieces that are the CQB maps at top rank would just be unbearable and even more in favor of western teams since armor would be even more pointless than what it is at the moment.

 

15 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

My comment was made just to point out that factually speaking claims from both UVZ ( Uralvagonzavod )  who make K5  and ATK ( Alliant Techsystems ) who own the patent for  M829A3  directly invalidate your theory . This is a fact and no subject to debate.

I'm not aware of any sources pointing to that. Would you kindly share them, please?

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

Because it would be the same as if a T-80 ingame had Chinese 125-1 APFSDS. Ammo selection right now not only discards DOI (both for the tank and the ammo) but even if the ingame round was in service by X country at all.

 

Oh i see what you mean . Of course Gaijin choices sometimes defy any rule , that being said Strv-122 is the rare exception and not the rule .

 

48 minutes ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

I'm not aware of any sources pointing to that. Would you kindly share them, please?

 

Here you go https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/02/m829a3-apfsds-penetration-power-common.html  as mentioned in the article ATK patent claims this :

 

Quote

What impact does this have on the penetration estimates mentioned earlier? According to the patents from ATK, such a design increases the penetration into RHS protected by an unkown type of heavy ERA by 20 to 30% compared to the same penetrator without solid steel tip. Against normal RHS not protected by any form of ERA however the penetration increased only by 5 to 10%, which is to be expected due to the steel tip also prodividing penetration.

 

If the steel tip design was completely canceling  K5 effects then the improvement would be 100% compared to the same penetrator without the steel tip design .

 

PS : im actively looking for said ATK patent right now if need be but i don't think there is any reason to doubt below the turret ring repport .

Edited by Raldi92
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Raldi92 said:

If the steel tip design completely negated K5 effects then the improvement would be 100% compared to the same round without the steel tip design .

I think that i understand where you are misunderstanding the about BTTR article. The "100 percent" (as you put it) of the effectiveness of K2 represents an increase of no less than 20 percent over the base armor of a tank. Take for example the cheek armor of T-90A which is in the ballpark of 600-650mm vs KE, the addition of K5 could be represented as adding an extra 130mm (20 percent of 650mm, which is the exact phrasing that Nii Stali uses for advertising K5) for a total of ~780mm of combined effectiveness vs KE. A projectile of the physical and ballistic characteristics of M829A3 or DM53 have no feasible way to achieve that same penetration against RHA as those are limited to penetrating around 700mm at 2km. So, special anti-ERA adaptations that work by preventing, delaying or prematurely detonating K5 were developed as they would allow the penetrator to pass through without being affected by the optimum detonation time frame of the ERA. That's why in the ATK patent (which BTTR quotes) states that their design enhances penetration into armor supplemented with heavy ERA by "20-30 percent", making it "100 percent effective" (to use you own words) against T-72/80/90 with K5. So i conclude that the presented source in fact reinforces my stance. I could add extra stuff about NS and ATK on M829A4 and Relikt also reinforcing my point but like i said i don't want us further detailing this thread with our long standing disagreement on K5.

Edited by Alan_Tovarishch
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

I think that i understand where you are misunderstanding the about BTTR article. The "100 percent" (as you put it) of the effectiveness of K2 represents an increase of no less than 20 percent over the base armor of a tank. Take for example the cheek armor of T-90A which is in the ballpark of 600-650mm vs KE, the addition of K5 could be represented as adding an extra 130mm (20 percent of 650mm, which is the exact phrasing that Nii Stali uses for advertising K5) for a total of ~780mm of combined effectiveness vs KE. A projectile of the physical and ballistic characteristics of M829A3 or DM53 have no feasible way to achieve that same penetration against RHA as those are limited to penetrating around 700mm at 2km. So, special anti-ERA adaptations that work by preventing, delaying or prematurely detonating K5 were developed as they would allow the penetrator to pass through without being affected by the optimum detonation time frame of the ERA. That's why in the ATK patent (which BTTR quotes) states that their design enhances penetration into armor supplemented with heavy ERA by "20-30 percent", making it "100 percent effective" (to use you own words) against T-72/80/90 with K5. So i conclude that the presented source in fact reinforces my stance. I could add extra stuff about NS and ATK on M829A4 and Relikt also reinforcing my point but like i said i don't want us further detailing this thread with our long standing disagreement on K5.

Bang your heads against each other trying to elaborate what it exactly means or go to the SH forums and ask the author (SH_MM).
An interesting point between the lines of the article is that thing that are helpful egainst stress induced by ERA will probably help against NERA aka composite armor, too. An from there it's not far fetched to get the idea that a dart with hypothetical 1000mm eRHA penetration or perforation might be worse against composite armor than a dart wich has only 700mm RHA pen. Maypbe...probably 90's and especially 21th century RHA  values no matter if pen or perf are probably more and more less relevant for their actual performance against complex targets.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alan_Tovarishch said:

I think that i understand where you are misunderstanding the about BTTR article. The "100 percent" (as you put it) of the effectiveness of K2 represents an increase of no less than 20 percent over the base armor of a tank. Take for example the cheek armor of T-90A which is in the ballpark of 600-650mm vs KE, the addition of K5 could be represented as adding an extra 130mm (20 percent of 650mm, which is the exact phrasing that Nii Stali uses for advertising K5) for a total of ~780mm of combined effectiveness vs KE. A projectile of the physical and ballistic characteristics of M829A3 or DM53 have no feasible way to achieve that same penetration against RHA as those are limited to penetrating around 700mm at 2km. So, special anti-ERA adaptations that work by preventing, delaying or prematurely detonating K5 were developed as they would allow the penetrator to pass through without being affected by the optimum detonation time frame of the ERA. That's why in the ATK patent (which BTTR quotes) states that their design enhances penetration into armor supplemented with heavy ERA by "20-30 percent", making it "100 percent effective" (to use you own words) against T-72/80/90 with K5. So i conclude that the presented source in fact reinforces my stance. I could add extra stuff about NS and ATK on M829A4 and Relikt also reinforcing my point but like i said i don't want us further detailing this thread with our long standing disagreement on K5.

 

I am afraid that you are deeply confused and this shows by the ''explanation'' your tried to pull considering how you have complicated things for no good reason .  ATK patent claim is simple and clear , 20-30% increased penetration for a long rod DU penetrator equipped with  the steel tip design ( ST)  compared to the same penetrator without  the steel tip design ( wST )  when going through heavy ERA  . Now for the sake of our mathematical illustration let's take  these 3 following parameters as given  :

 

-Our DU without the steel tip design (wST) can pen 600mm of armor .

-Our base armor target can offer 400mm of protection .

-Our K5 ERA offers an increase of 20% over the base armor ( against rounds not desinged to defeat it ) .

This is a fallacy to which i will return later but for the sake ot this illustration lets pretend it's true .

 

So let's proceed by calculating what the penetration of the DU rod would be against the base armor equiped with K5 :

 

Quote

DU rod ( wST ) vs base armor + K5 =  600 - ( 400 * 1,2 ) = 120mm residual pen .

 

Now let's imagine that your theory was right and therefore when equipped with the steel tip  ( ST ) design our DU rod could completely bypass our K5 without being affected . Therefore the penetration would be :

 

Quote

DU rod ( ST ) vs base armor + K5 = 600 - ( 400 ) = 200mm residual pen

 

So we get 120mm residual pen for out bare DU rod and 200mm residual pen for the same rod when equipped with the steel tip design which according to your theory nulifies K5 effects . Now i don't know how good you are at math but incase math isn't your strong that means ( 200 - 120 ) / 120 =  66,6 % increased penetration thanks to the steel tip design. 

 

Needless to say this is not what the ATK patent claims , so in risk of repeating myself factually speaking ATK patent clearly proves that even M829A3 still suffers degradation going through K5 !

 

 

Now to make things even worst for your theory ( not that there is any real need )  , as it has been already pointed to you by several members on these forums  NII Stali claims on K5 addon protection have been evolving during the years to cope with the evolution of the KE projectiles . There is material that proves NII stali has claimed as high as 57% addon armor against  contemporary rounds that had  not  desig features to defeat it ( read without segmented steel tip etc ) as it can be read here :

 

Spoiler

image.thumb.png.8dff28877665d1dc3d7e2582bf831521 (1).png

 

If 34% to 57% was to be taken as the performance figure of K5 against the bare DU rod without the steel tip in our example and if we still assumed that your theory was correct then the difference in the penetration pourcentage increase would be even bigger compared to the one claimed by the ATK patent !

 

 

Edited by Raldi92
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, A3nur said:

Bang your heads against each other trying to elaborate what it exactly means or go to the SH forums and ask the author (SH_MM).

 

Im not banging my head against anything or anyone , ATK claim is simple and maths don't lie so ...............

 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...