# Vickers VFM Mk.5

1 minute ago, [email protected] said:

Hmmm yeah good points and that's some good pen.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, [email protected] said:

Hmmm yeah good points and that's some good pen.

##### Share on other sites

So, it should have about 201mm of penetration at 60 degrees in game and around 360ish at 0 degrees.

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, omnipotank said:

So, it should have about 201mm of penetration at 60 degrees in game and around 360ish at 0 degrees.

Nah that 401mm is at 60 degrees.

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TerikG2014 said:

Nah that 401mm is at 60 degrees.

Are we sure? Even DM63 gets only 252mm at 60 degrees. Or is this before conversion to L64A4 would be akin to about 200ish in that same manner?

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

Are we sure? Even DM63 gets only 252mm at 60 degrees. Or is this before conversion to L64A4 would be akin to about 200ish in that same manner?

Let me do some more looking this is H6/62 were talking about I'll have a look at L64A4

##### Share on other sites

So I just ran the numbers for L64A4 and they came back higher than H6/62 despite the Russian sheet I used in part for my calculations stating the oppoiste

(pretty sure I haven't brain farted this time) I get the feeling that our person who has the information for H6/62 might have his lengths wrong as H6/62 should be longer the L64A4

Edited by TerikG2014

##### Share on other sites

The thickness is LOS thickness at that angle FYI ... so 400mm penetration at 60 with that calculator is 200mm of armor at 60 degrees. Calculating at 68 degrees is helpful when considering penetration of russian armor.

Edited by omnipotank

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, omnipotank said:

The thickness is LOS thickness at that angle FYI ... so 400mm penetration at 60 with that calculator is 200mm of armor at 60 degrees. Calculating at 68 degrees is helpful when considering penetration of russian armor.

Ah interesting didn't realise that thanks.

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TerikG2014 said:

Ah interesting didn't realise that thanks.

Also, Russia tests the rounds against higher hardness steel if I remember correctly. 300 Brinell hardness rather than 260.

##### Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, omnipotank said:

The thickness is LOS thickness at that angle FYI ... so 400mm penetration at 60 with that calculator is 200mm of armor at 60 degrees. Calculating at 68 degrees is helpful when considering penetration of russian armor.

So...that seems sort of DM23 level? Not great, not terrible. (Game wise).

Given the uncertainty on thermals this is sounding very 8.7.

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, TheFuzzieOne said:

So...that seems sort of DM23 level? Not great, not terrible. (Game wise).

Given the uncertainty on thermals this is sounding very 8.7.

So according to the calculation we have so far H6/62 is 200mm at 60° against a NATO Standard target and L64A4 is 225mm at 60° however I'm pretty sure this is wrong as H6/62 is meant to be a longer shell than L64A4

Edited by TerikG2014

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TerikG2014 said:

So according to the calculation we have so far H6/62 is 200mm at 60° against a NATO Standard target and L64A4 is 225mm at 60° however I'm pretty sure this is wrong as H6/26 is meant to be a longer shell than L64A4

The length of the penetrating rod for the L64a4 is longer than the H6/62 in your penetration calculations. Also, the density is different between the two. Is this done on purpose?

I would like to see the exact measurements of these two shells to calculate the perforation.

Edited by omnipotank

##### Share on other sites

The density should be 17500 minimum for the penetrator as that's what used for L23A1 and the like

##### Share on other sites
13 hours ago, [email protected] said:

The density should be 17500 minimum for the penetrator as that's what used for L23A1 and the like

Apparently I am a moron when tired.

Edited by Shirazz

##### Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Shirazz said:

So DM63 then.

You forgot 260 Brinell Hardness number:

So that would be 245.6mm penetration at 60 degrees

##### Share on other sites

That penetrator length your using for L64A4 is definitely wrong

##### Share on other sites

This is why I shouldnt be doing that at 4AM.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [email protected] said:

That penetrator length your using for L64A4 is definitely wrong

476 is the length given on the Russian document

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TerikG2014 said:

476 is the length given on the Russian document

Its probably projectile length without the case charge that they have listed. You would have to knock between 100-150mm off the total length because of the fins and the nose as the penetrator doesn't extend into either.

Edited by [email protected]

##### Share on other sites

The results you're finding certainly are variable haha, I'm hoping at least available ammunition is almost on par or better than the Tam 2C but I'm unsure if that's an unrealistic hope. I wouldn't want a vehicle fit for only 8.7 service I mean as that's basically next to the Rooikat anyway.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, TwitchyCarlos said:

The results you're finding certainly are variable haha, I'm hoping at least available ammunition is almost on par or better than the Tam 2C but I'm unsure if that's an unrealistic hope. I wouldn't want a vehicle fit for only 8.7 service I mean as that's basically next to the Rooikat anyway.

Hopefully, this vehicle will have better thermals, better mobility offroad, and a non-hullbreakable turret. This would make it one of the better tanks out there when it comes to light vehicles.

Edited by omnipotank

##### Share on other sites

Here is my guess at L64A4's length by scaling in autocad and using L23A1 as a reference for construction. It's certainly not exact but it's neither 373 or 476. This also jives much better with the 170mm at 60 at 2km penetration figure.

I expect the length is somewhere around or just over 400mm. Shell would probably lose around 25mm or so in 2km so the pen at 0m (at 60) is going to be close to 200mm or a 400mm LoS which means a length of around 400mm makes sense.

Edit: and we can make some crude comparisons with H6/62 which would also fall in line with the penetrations from that chart:

Spoiler

Edited by Baron_Tiberius
• 1

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Baron_Tiberius said:

Here is my guess at L64A4's length by scaling in autocad and using L23A1 as a reference for construction. It's certainly not exact but it's neither 373 or 476. This also jives much better with the 170mm at 60 at 2km penetration figure.

I expect the length is somewhere around or just over 400mm. Shell would probably lose around 25mm or so in 2km so the pen at 0m (at 60) is going to be close to 200mm or a 400mm LoS which means a length of around 400mm makes sense.

Edit: and we can make some crude comparisons with H6/62 which would also fall in line with the penetrations from that chart:

Hide contents

Nice work!

##### Share on other sites

So, VFM5 confirmed as 9.3(WIP). I was thinking it could be 8.7

Edited by FelipeBizaboo