only the main length or inculding the other part which can also do puncture?
edit: if only need main part, how we can get the tungsten carbide core’s penetration capability, or how we can know the tungsten carbide core’s penetration capability? you know that it may be the only round using post-composited rod
The part you mentioned in your report is already included in the calculation.
The total length is longer, but only the length of the effective penetrator is counted when calculating penetration.
In the example, the total length is 433 mm, but only the length of the effective penetrator, 285 mm is counted
1 Like
so you means the tungsten carbide core part is been count with the main part as a normal penetrator?
1 Like
Ok, thank you for the explanation. Using the secondary source data the 125-II should be able to pen ~770mm at 0m based off the formula used. But I still am confused on the DTW-125 datasheet. We know the DTC10-125 datasheet is a leak. But I am asking about the DTW-125 datasheet, I can link you where I grabbed the image from (another forum discussing MBT ammunition) or I could DM it. A primary source is always preferred for bug reports, so this datasheet would help if allowed.
I don’t know why you think it doesn’t count, going to the website of the person who created the L/O formula and check it out.
Spoiler
If the material is legally available and you have used the L/O formula appropriately, it is acceptable
i do, but the finding show that the independent tungsten carbide core part has a better penetration than normal ones, so isnt that means we need to count it independently
The finding : 后置组合杆体侵彻机理研究 (you can download the finding PDF yourself)
1 Like
How do you know if it is legally available? The image was originally posted on Weibo and then the forum re-uploaded a copy of the image. Translating the datasheet in the image, there are no classified/restricted markings on it; the document itself just covers the basics of the ammunition and the handling instructions. There is an inspection stamp in red saying: 已松本检查 682 which translates into saying it was inspected by persons surname. To me, I do not see anything that would make me believe it was restricted.
so you means there’s a naming issue about it right?
Correct, Gaijin got a bit confused and the one in game is the 125-II (DTW-125). The 125-III (DTC10-125) is the latest Chinese shell that only can be used by the modified cannons used in the 99A, WZ, and VT-4. The 125-II on the otherhand can be used in the 96’s (all), 99’s (all), MBT-2000, T-72’s, etc. The issue with the 125-III is they changed the propellant to have a higher pressure and a bit longer penetrator, so only the new cannons can fire them.
EDIT: there is actually a problem with penetration calculations for in game shells; I will have a new thread about it and bug report.
I misunderstood you to be referring to the length in that part.
Still, this report is not a bug - the paper mentions that it is a test for a new penetrator, and the drawing in DTC10-125 does not mention the additional penetrator mentioned in the paper.
DTC10-125 is the “均质杆体” mentioned in the paper
no, its not, if you checked the issue i reported carefully, you will find that the tail part of DTC10-125 has a tungsten carbide core part that make it turn to post-composited rod
You’ve mistaken screw and space for a tracer to tungsten carbide core, I checked the drawing
Spoiler
@David_Bowie dang you were fast to fix my bug report lmao
its at here
and the another picture’s explanatory note just placed at the tail end, cause there’s no place to add it
I’m warning you, do not upload that image.
Also, those parts are the same material. I’ve already checked the structure
you cant see this part at outside, cause the tungsten carbide core is inside
its been enveloped in shell
and i can find that whole pictrue in video in Bilibili which is been seen more than 20k times and also find another pictrue of it in Bilibili and been seen about 60k times
1 Like
If it was a different material, there should be a structure in the cross section showing it. Also other sources don’t even mention that technology was used in the DTC10-125. That paper is only for experimental.
Currently, your report only has one paper, and one cross-section that does not prove the papers clame. and even cross-section is unavailable source.
This is not a sufficient.
That’s a different website, please follow the forum rules.
ok, i see, im gonna check if i can get some data about it with legal channels and wont lead to leakage of information
can i just report two more papers to reflecting its authenticity?
https://pubs.cstam.org.cn/data/article/bzycj/preview/pdf/1001-1455(2011)02-0127-08.pdf
《Numerical simulation of penetration of long rod and segmented rod》
http://bzxb.cqut.edu.cn/pdfjs/web/viewer.html?file=%2Fdownload.aspx%3Ftype%3Dpaper%26id%3D9315
《Research on the Impact on Penetration Ability of segmented long rod structure》
1 Like