Increase in length-to-diameter ratio, increase in muzzle velocity
Also the change from jacketed Tungsten to monobloc Tungsten. Part of the 3BM42’s weight is the steel jacket, the weight of the actual penetrators is less.
Russia gets yet another modern round while nato is stuck with stuff that’s 2decades older thanks for nothing gaijin
:D WHat an cryer.
This is about new “stock dart” on top tier. Nothing more, least atm.
Just for reference.
Soviet new stock dart :
USA new stock dart :
So sad to have such an old ammo as stock. love these players who sees only russian bias, nothing else :D :D
3 Likes
It’s armour penetration with deforming materials under very high velocity not high school physics bruhhh
Wont change the fact it’s two decades more advanced than what some nato countries have in game
For anyone who is confused about the original post, here’s how I can best explain it.
There is typically two things limiting armour penetration: speed, and size.
While speed directly factors into the formula to the square, it is not the go to for making a more efficient sabot anymore. This is directly due to the physical limitations of the propellant. Modern propellants struggle to move a projectile past ~1800m/s, which means the speed factor is largely capped by the limitations of solid propellants.
The other factor, size, is where most improvements come. There is a lot of things you can do to optimize the “size” of a round, like making it thinner, or making it longer. But at a certain point you reach a limit of what is practical. For 3BM42 (Mango), there was still room to grow, but the autoloader of the older models of soviet tanks could not support anything larger. This is why it was such a big deal for newer models to get 3BM60, as it was simply longer that Mango. (Thus providing extra room for improvement)
This also explains why 3BM42 and 3BM42-2 (Mango2) have such different performance. While the actual projectile of Mango2 is lighter, it is longer and thinner, which also lets it eek out just a little bit more velocity.
But as a rule of thumb, given the same KE, the longer and thinner projectile will have a higher “efficiency” than the shorter, stubby, projectile.
In case you want to a practical application of what I’m talking about, see this video:
(All the projectiles have the same KE, but how they are designed dramatically changes their effectiveness)
Oh sad, such an old ammo, cant do anything with it right?
But but but, russian bias.
Try switching that off. Who cares about how old that ammo is, all what is cared is about performance.
And what I see, USA really got treated right on new stock ammo on top tier, so did USSR.
Just take a look how sad top darts there are as stock on other nations. especially now.
And they got different penetrator, what plays biggest role on penning armor…
I’ve pointed 2 times links on mango 2 vs 3bm60 , and how that was designed.
Does “Longer and thinner” not insinuate that I am literally saying it is a different penetrator
Russia has received new anti-radiation missiles, whereas the US has the antiquated AGM-88C from 1993.
Is the 3bm42-2 better than the 3bm46 bro?
well actually no.
It still could use same penetrator alloy, just modified longer and thinner, when you place it like that.
It could be all same material just modified .
So no, IT DOES NOT. <3
You know NATO includes more nations than just usa right?
Lil bit on closer
Why do I get the feeling that you don’t speak english as your first language.
So let me be as clear as possible
If you modify the penetrator, even if by just making it longer (which I know is not what Mango2 is but stay with me) it is then considered a different penetrator.
So when I say the penetrator is longer and thinner, it means it is a different penetrator.
Thus, when you try to call me out trying to say that I’M not saying it’s different, you are incorrect. I was agreeing with you that Mango2 DOES use a different penetrator, which IS the primary reason for it better than normal Mango.
//Or maybe english is just wierd, and it’s the only language where describing something as having been changed does not mean something being different IDFK
No it is not my native.
But hear me out.
Penetrator is all about material, example is it tungusten or let say DU.
Now imagine , if we have APFSD , round what is having Tungusten tip, but it is modified making it that full dart longer and maybe shave 10mm off from diameter. It is still using same penetrator as it was using before modding it. Right?
Now, let say same round is having same treatment, but replacing also Tungusten with DU tip on same time. It is not just Longer and thinner, after that it also has different penetrator.
One of great examples are rifle rounds.
There’s plenty rounds what have been modified for different caliber even that they are just identical otherwise, just made by shaving diameter to fill in smaller caliber. Does they have same penetrator even that they dont have same penetration. I would say yes. Just modding some round does not mean it has different penetrator.
Changing the size or material of the penetrator means it is a new penetrator. Changing the tips however just makes it a new projectile overall.
Thinking of swapping the 60 on the bvm for this one, the slight trade off for shell velocity and .5 second reload seems worth it.
0.4s reload.
I get where you’re coming from.
It’s like saying “All teachers are academics, so all academics must be teachers.”
To put it in context of the conversation:
The phrase would instead go “All modifications are different, so all differences must be modifications.”
But my whole point is that you are mixing the two up. Modification and different are completely seperate, much like how teachers and academics are seperate.
But modification has an innate link different, much like teachers have an innate link to academics.
Modification is a specific term, while different is much more vague. Thus modification can be used in place of different, while different can’t always be used in place of modification (at least if the context doesn’t perfectly line up).
And for extra clarification:
English can be awkward at times, like for example a common phrase to reinforce that something is “dead” is to say it’s “Dead dead.” Which is like the stupidest way to acknowledge that but it just makes sense for us.