Jump to content

Give the Strv 122B PLSS slpprj m/95 already


Every nation, excluding Japan, has a round that fires over 500mm of pen' in their MBTs except Sweden (and Japan). Don't get me wrong, the armor on the STRV 122s is great. I'm not saying the tank is bad. But if the tank fires the round, then I see no reason why it's not been added. The only thing I've seen is that "it would be too powerful", yet, to my knowledge, Gaijin have nerfed DM53 and M829A1 - both of which should have higher pen' yet don't for balancing reasons - why is Sweden not apart of this party? Obviously DM33 isn't terrible, and DM53 was added way too early, but the damage is done and other nations have been given their rounds to put them onpar with DM53, except two. 

 

I won't deny giving the round to Sweden would make them pretty powerful... They probably already have the best armor across the board and the round would give them (assuming the values from the CV 90120) 625mm of pen, and only slightly behind the DM53, but Swedish players give up the luxury of CAS and helis which is a pretty major buzzkill for now.

 

 

Edited by Chadcut
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 5
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All swedish leopards should using that shell and only that apfsds shell. that goes for the strv 121, strv 122a and strv 122b pplss 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, strv122 said:

All swedish leopards should using that shell and only that apfsds shell. that goes for the strv 121, strv 122a and strv 122b pplss 


id love to see it but given the 2A5 still hasn’t got DM53 I think we’d be lucky to get it in the PLSS :(

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ammo balance spectrum has to be re-evaluated after the introduction of the T80 BVM. Either armor will need to get nerfed or stupid ammo capable of penning 750 mm + will need to be added

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Tantor57 said:

The ammo balance spectrum has to be re-evaluated after the introduction of the T80 BVM. Either armor will need to get nerfed or stupid ammo capable of penning 750 mm + will need to be added

So you mean M829A4 to the US only as they're the only ones with such a round, other than Germany in maybe 4 to 5 years? I think it'd be the easiest to simply give nations the rounds they actually used and were capable (and activate it, cause DM53 not L27 still haven't got it) of ignoring Kontakt-5 as a way to balance Russia.

Edited by Zeluar
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeluar said:

So you mean M829A4 to the US only as they're the only ones with such a round, other than Germany in maybe 4 to 5 years?

in 1-2 years stuffs like DM73 and SHARD APFSDS will also come. SHARD APFSDS performance can already be deducted as there is a very clear picyure of it on the wed already.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Tantor57 said:

in 1-2 years stuffs like DM73 and SHARD APFSDS will also come. SHARD APFSDS performance can already be deducted as there is a very clear picyure of it on the wed already.

DM73 is just a faster DM63, we went over it, SHARD is likely more on par with the future KE2020NEO and both are better than A4 [quite likely] (i.e both are around their maximum length of 989mm with reported length of 20NEO being 986mm) and i really doubt we're going to be getting the latter 2 anytime soon, mainly due to lack of info like muzzle velocity.

Edited by Zeluar
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zeluar said:

DM73 is just a faster DM63, we went over it, SHARD is likely more on par with the future KE2020NEO and both are better than A4 [quite likely] (i.e both are around their maximum length of 989mm with reported length of 20NEO being 986mm) and i really doubt we're going to be getting the latter 2 anytime soon, mainly due to lack of info like muzzle velocity.

another solution would be to make NATO ammunition interchangeable. DM53, M829's can be fired by all NATO tanks. leclerc can fire a DM 53 and and Leopard can fire M829A3. That being said, adding the T80BVM was kind of a dumb move because it openned a can of worms

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 14/06/2021 at 19:33, Zeluar said:

So you mean M829A4 to the US only as they're the only ones with such a round, other than Germany in maybe 4 to 5 years? I think it'd be the easiest to simply give nations the rounds they actually used and were capable (and activate it, cause DM53 not L27 still haven't got it) of ignoring Kontakt-5 as a way to balance Russia.

 

Well technically the DM53 isn't anywhere close to what it should be for multiple reasons: It's missing some (not much though) vertical pen which actually matters most when both rounds use the same slope modifier, but most pressingly it was designed to counter heavy ERA with a segmented tip that reduces pen a bit vs regular steel plating. Given that their main adversary during that time would have been heavily reliant on ERA armor it makes sense to sacrifice some "standard" penetration to enable it to bypass ERA.

 

That's why you often see the DM43 stated at higher pen values than the DM53. If the ingame DM53 were to ignore Kontakt-5 it would lolpen pretty much every soviet MBT on the hull.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I usually use the CV90120. The rounds are powerful enough to pen most targets and i just feel it being more consistent with the slpprj m/95. It also has top notch gunner-thermals and its not as expensive as the 122s.

 

"But the 122s have armour", here is the thing; i get onetapped exactly as much in the CV90120 as in my Strv 122s. Everybody knows where to pen the 122 and everybody has rounds that makes minced meat out of it. 

 

I understand that the 122 in theory and historically in this game has been OP and have had the strongest armour profile. All i can say is that i get onetapped by tanks from 9.0-9.3 all the time in it. From the front and from distance; once again, people know where to shot.

 

122s:

When it was added it was a bit too strong armorwhise. It had great visibility and a good cannon + round at the time.

 

It was so OP that they significantly nerfed the armour and made every hit into the breach a onetapped with extra spall-damage.

 

Then they added the Leopard 2a6 with its ridiculously good round compared to what everybody else had.. So they had to buff all other tanks ammunition except the 122.

 

Now they keep on reinforcing Russian tanks armour which makes them even harder to pen with the earlier DM rounds while they keep the 122 and other tanks artificial weak points..

 

Oh and on top of that; it has been insanely expensive ever since it was introduced.

 

 

I will probably stick with my CV90120 for now. Its just not worth it taking ot the 122 to pen a T80 but only take out his fuel tank to then get onetapped directly through the front to then get a 15 000 repair cost.. 

 

So yeah, the 122 imo might have been very very powerful but to those who still say it is.. i dont know what to say; its a good tank.. sure but the armour, rounds, manoeuvrability etc etc with that repaircost? hmm

  • Upvote 3
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that 122B should get slpprj m/95, at least. Western rounds need a general upgrade to fend off Russian armor. M829A3 should also be introduced.

 

On 13/06/2021 at 18:46, Chadcut said:

Gaijin have nerfed DM53 and M829A1

No, they didn't nerf them. The penetration values you see on the internet most likely to be 60° LOS pen, which matched very closely to in-game values.

The problem is the Russian armor is generally overperforming, they used flat pen value of apfsds to go against the LOS value of the 68° Russian front hull. There was already bug report, but dont know how of whether they will ever respond.

 

On 14/06/2021 at 13:50, Tantor57 said:

Leopard can fire M829A3.

No, it can't. M256 has higher chamber pressure limit than German Rh120, with the exception maybe the L55A1 which appeared recently. The point of L55A1 is to push to the pressure limit of Rh120, which US has done decades ago when they produced M256.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 19/06/2021 at 02:24, RaymondCChan said:

I agree that 122B should get slpprj m/95, at least. Western rounds need a general upgrade to fend off Russian armor. M829A3 should also be introduced.

 

No, they didn't nerf them. The penetration values you see on the internet most likely to be 60° LOS pen, which matched very closely to in-game values.

The problem is the Russian armor is generally overperforming, they used flat pen value of apfsds to go against the LOS value of the 68° Russian front hull. There was already bug report, but dont know how of whether they will ever respond.

 

No, it can't. M256 has higher chamber pressure limit than German Rh120, with the exception maybe the L55A1 which appeared recently. The point of L55A1 is to push to the pressure limit of Rh120, which US has done decades ago when they produced M256.

you know that the m256 is a rh120 but made in the us?

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, strv122 said:

you know that the m256 is a rh120 but made in the us?

It's not the same gun. US changed recoil mechanism to sustain more chamber pressure. M829A3 can be fired on a German Rh120, but it may cause recoil failure thus they never exchange their APFSDS.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, RaymondCChan said:

It's not the same gun. US changed recoil mechanism to sustain more chamber pressure. M829A3 can be fired on a German Rh120, but it may cause recoil failure thus they never exchange their APFSDS.

Actually US just changed the way the measure MPa, factually, Rh120 is capable of firing the A3 under the American measuring standard. In fact, at first the US even acknowledged the fact M256 was not able to fire A3 themselves, so what did they do, just create a new measuring standard;

unknown.png?width=770&height=77

 

The only differences between Rh120/M256 are the breeches, US one uses a spring-recoil mechanism whilst Germany uses/used hydraulic one, the change happened ONLY because US thought using the hydraulic system was too expensive and harder to maintain, nothing to do with pressure as later shown by Germany itself, the Rh 120 could easly shoot DM53 fired at 63 degrees celsius, with generated pressure of 754MPa (maximum possible for A3 is 760MPa when firing hot).

Edited by Zeluar
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Zeluar said:

Actually US just changed the way the measure MPa, factually, Rh120 is capable of firing the A3 under the American measuring standard. In fact, at first the US even acknowledged the fact M256 was not able to fire A3 themselves, so what did they do, just create a new measuring standard;

unknown.png?width=770&height=77

 

The only differences between Rh120/M256 are the breeches, US one uses a spring-recoil mechanism whilst Germany uses/used hydraulic one, the change happened ONLY because US thought using the hydraulic system was too expensive and harder to maintain, nothing to do with pressure as later shown by Germany itself, the Rh 120 could easly shoot DM53 fired at 63 degrees celsius, with generated pressure of 754MPa (maximum possible for A3 is 760MPa when firing hot).

 

The claim that US and German APFSDS are generally not exchangable due to chamber pressure and recoil mechanism came from Glenn Girona on quora https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-fit-a-Rheinmetall-120mm-L55-into-the-turret-of-the-M1A2-Abrams-if-the-120mm-L44-120mm-M256-becomes-obsolete, who was an Army veteran and tested M1 series around 2000s. You can choose whether to believe him or not. But based on the foreign market records, M256 is always fitted with US made KEW series, like M60 AMBT, and Rh120 with German or Israeli APFSDS, at least I haven't seen a counter example.

 

And DM53 is safe to fire from Rh120 L55 at high temperature, but not Rh120 L44. That's why they developed DM63, which has a much better temperature performance. See this thread:

 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, RaymondCChan said:

 

The claim that US and German APFSDS are generally not exchangable due to chamber pressure and recoil mechanism came from Glenn Girona on quora https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-fit-a-Rheinmetall-120mm-L55-into-the-turret-of-the-M1A2-Abrams-if-the-120mm-L44-120mm-M256-becomes-obsolete, who was an Army veteran and tested M1 series around 2000s. You can choose whether to believe him or not. But based on the foreign market records, M256 is always fitted with US made KEW series, like M60 AMBT, and Rh120 with German or Israeli APFSDS, at least I haven't seen a counter example.

That is on the end of the day a Quora comment of a former M1 tanker, lets be honest, he knows as little or even less than us when it comes to technical details. He hasn't posted any proof to his words and better yet, he claims Tungsten (DM53) performed worse than DU (M829A2) when it's the other way around, US found out the hard way that DM53 was flat-out superior to their A2-KEP (in penetration/anti-ERA).

 

"Kontakt 5 was found to provide enough disruption of the Tungsten APFSDS round that penetration wasn’t always guaranteed";

But it was, US when testing their KEW-A2 series (M829A2 made out of tungsten) against DM53 found and even commented on how DM53 was superior to both their WHA and DU variants in penetration and anti-ERA, no to mention its actually more advanced than A2, uses a more sophisticated anti-ERA mechanism (now that we know it) and has much higher chances of succedding against Kontakt-5 than M829A2 likely had.

 

 

Best thing is he claims L/55 would suffer after firing M829A2 but... the official data shows A2s MPa rating is ACTUALLY LOWER THAN DM63s. Nah, he's not reliable, he's no idea what he is talking about.

 

Quote

 

And DM53 is safe to fire from Rh120 L55 at high temperature, but not Rh120 L44. That's why they developed DM63, which has a much better temperature performance. See this thread:

 

 

Here's DM53 being shot-out of the L/44 at over ~70C (or velocity of over ~1890m/s and MPa of some ~784 after conversion, gun was still fine after that.

 

Edited by Zeluar
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 21/06/2021 at 03:21, Zeluar said:

That is on the end of the day a Quora comment of a former M1 tanker, lets be honest, he knows as little or even less than us when it comes to technical details. He hasn't posted any proof to his words and better yet, he claims Tungsten (DM53) performed worse than DU (M829A2) when it's the other way around, US found out the hard way that DM53 was flat-out superior to their A2-KEP (in penetration/anti-ERA).

About that tank guy, he's the one who was able to see the manuals of M256 and Rh120 about firing NATO APFSDS rounds, if it says no, there should be a reason. And he's not a regular tank gunner, he participated in several testings about M1 and some foreign tanks like T80/90. Though I guess he has some typos like refer Kontakt-5 to Kontakt-3, which I doubt its existence.

 

First thing, the tube itself is not the limit. US tested M256 tube to be able to sustain at least 110 ksi (7584 bar):

 

 

The difference is the recoil system. US spent some time to change Rh120 from hydralic to spring and it was complete in 1985. As he stated, the spring recoil enables you to fire higher pressure rounds than the German hydralic recoil because it's less likely to failure.

 

He probably got something wrong about the German side of things, but that comment about M829A2 should most likely be about M829A3, which is superior than DM53.

 

But he also acknowledged that the L55 can reduce the chamber pressure, as was confirmed by the twitter guy M1A2 SPEv3.

 

 

 

On 21/06/2021 at 03:21, Zeluar said:

Here's DM53 being shot-out of the L/44 at over ~70C (or velocity of over ~1890m/s and MPa of some ~784 after conversion, gun was still fine after that.

 

Though I can tell it's probably a DM53, the gun is mounted on a testing bed. It's probably about testing the tube strength, as I stated, is sufficient.

Edited by RaymondCChan
typo
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one cool thing is that the strv 122 is prepared for the l55 barrel, all you have to do is to swap them.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, RaymondCChan said:

About that tank guy, he's the one who was able to see the manuals of M256 and Rh120 about firing NATO APFSDS rounds, if it says no, there should be a reason. And he's not a regular tank gunner, he participated in several testings about M1 and some foreign tanks like T80/90. Though I guess he has some typos like refer Kontakt-5 to Kontakt-3, which I doubt its existence.

Those manuals are publicly available (and there are even several of them). 

 

54 minutes ago, RaymondCChan said:

First thing, the tube itself is not the limit. US tested M256 tube to be able to sustain at least 110 ksi (7584 bar):

 

image.thumb.png.a47a41fe521c6c654293c01f

The difference is the recoil system. US spent some time to change Rh120 from hydralic to spring and it was complete in 1985. As he stated, the spring recoil enables you to fire higher pressure rounds than the German hydralic recoil because it's less likely to failure.

It's not about the chances of failure but the maximum possible MPa rating, for the L/44 it was +/- 720MPa with L/55 pushing that rating to +/- 760MPa and the newest L55/A1 pushing that limit higher (as US stated themselves, the Rh L55/A1 is capable of firing the M829A4 when older L/55 isn't).

You're basically confirming what I posted earlier too, US tested the gun and projectile, found at first it shouldn't be able to fire the sabot, redefined the theory and thus the gun was after that capable of firing it, as far as we know, Germany had not went to such extreems but we do know DM53 was an extremely wild card capable of pulling 760MPa+ on a hot day, even exceeding L/55s theoretical limit but as Germany to this day claims, L55 can safely fire DM53 at any given temperature (albeit L/44 is prohibited from doing so, because, the theoretical limit was ~720MPa but for L/55 it isn't a problem).

 

Another thing, L/55 as far as evidence says, had its design improved from the older L/44 apart from only making the barrel longer, the breach was also slightly changed (or maybe majorly?) design allowing it to exceed L/44s theoretical limit (and thus be capable of handling DM53 on hot days).

 

54 minutes ago, RaymondCChan said:

But he also acknowledged that the L55 can reduce the chamber pressure, as was confirmed by the twitter guy M1A2 SPEv3.

How does that work even. As far as i am aware, the longer guns lets the pressure build up for longer therefore a higher velocity is achieved, if anything, the existence of the RHn L/55 contradicts your statement

 

54 minutes ago, RaymondCChan said:

Though I can tell it's probably a DM53, the gun is mounted on a testing bed. It's probably about testing the tube strength, as I stated, is sufficient.

It's an L/44, and no, as far as we know, the tube strength SHOULD BE sufficient.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too be honest, the armor on strv isent that good anymore the gun mantle can be penetrated by anything, the lower hull can be penned and the drivers hatch (and the area around it), turret ring as well can be penned by most high tier tanks.

+ its armor falls off

 

Without better ammo the tanks are 10,3/10,7.

The big issue is if they do that what do with the CV90120? Give it even better ammo? something i doubt the snail really wants to do.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree why not? both of them can have it. If before Russian got the round before they use in service I might say no it not ready for Strv122 to have Slpprj M/95 but since they got now + T-80BVM I think it ready for them to get Slpprj M/95 but not only Sweden but every other nation need new round too (for example Leopard 2A5 DM53 M1A1 M829A1) it not too fight Russians only but anything they might come in the future and it not gonna make Strv122 doomsday device on track like most people think it gonna be and with that repair cost I'm sure any Strv122 owner are expect more than just armor (that didn't work like it should be)

On 28/06/2021 at 21:16, Sille322 said:

The big issue is if they do that what do with the CV90120? Give it even better ammo? something i doubt the snail really wants to do.

It a light tank it work differently while STRV122 with M/95 can be frontline CV90120 can use speed go in the good firing position and catch enemy off guard so don't need to do anything with CV90120 it have difference duty on battle

Edited by ARK_BOI
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 01/07/2021 at 12:05, ARK_BOI said:

I agree why not? both of them can have it. If before Russian got the round before they use in service I might say no it not ready for Strv122 to have Slpprj M/95 but since they got now + T-80BVM I think it ready for them to get Slpprj M/95 but not only Sweden but every other nation need new round too (for example Leopard 2A5 DM53 M1A1 M829A1) it not too fight Russians only but anything they might come in the future and it not gonna make Strv122 doomsday device on track like most people think it gonna be and with that repair cost I'm sure any Strv122 owner are expect more than just armor (that didn't work like it should be)

It a light tank it work differently while STRV122 with M/95 can be frontline CV90120 can use speed go in the good firing position and catch enemy off guard so don't need to do anything with CV90120 it have difference duty on battle

In Warthunder most light tanks are slower than the "normal" tanks.......

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it funny?


Highest repairs of ALL MBTs, worst dart.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...