I mean, you aren’t wrong in that aspect either, like the ITpsv being at 8.7
but but… you aren’t trying to nerf a british vehicle into the ground!!!
no… it isn’t a bullet, nor is a shell fired from a battleship a bullet. what is wrong with you.
You’re completely missing the point. He’s not saying that lighter rounds don’t travel further he’s saying that a heavier round traveling faster will retain better energy and penetrate more compared to a lighter round traveling slower. Lighter rounds do generally lose more impact energy over distance than heavier rounds. I.E. why 62 gr 5.56 outperforms 55 gr at distance in terms of penetration and energy.
The Rarden is a heavier projectile traveling 200 m/s faster, it is definitely going to penetrate significantly more. This also isn’t surprising considering the Rarden has around 60 mpa higher chamber pressure than even NATO 30x173 cannons.
No. That is not correct at all, the heavier projectile will lose speed more rapidly, especially with the increased downward force by gravity X weight.
A heavy projectile, may (key word) have been close penetration, but based on the velocity, mass, shell makeup, etc, they should definitely be preforming rather closely to one another.
As I said before. The total difference is not large enough for an 28 pen difference, perhaps somewhere between 12-16 pen difference.
2a72: 94-98
Rarden: 110
At 0-100 meters
Which, the weight being higher for the rarden (according to that photo previously posted) means it should actually drop off more rapidly for pen. (I can’t see the In game stats right now).
I never mentioned velocity. ENERGY AND PENETRATION. It’s actually funny you responded with that table because the author of that table and article concludes what I am saying that the 62 gr projectile provides more energy.
“ While the averages were better for the 55-grain rounds, it’s safe to say that anyone who needs stronger energies from their .223 cartridges will be better suited with a 62-grain product.”
He also points out the only reason the 55 gr averages were better was because of a drastic outlier for 62 gr lowering the average.
You’re correct that it is a minimal difference but the heavier projectile on average still retains its energy better (not velocity). Scale this up to 30mm and add a 200 m/s (656 fps) advantage to the heavier projectile and the result is a much larger penetration and energy gap between the heavier and lighter round.
hey guys why does M111 not pen the same as M900 they’re both 105 shells /s
1 Like
That should mean anything with M900 should be moved to 11.7 and M111 should be buffed and not increased in BR.
Comparing Winchester to Winchester, the 55 grain is the faster projectile.
-yes the 62 grain will deal more damage within 100 yards,
-outside of that, the 62 starts to steadily decrease with the 55 minimally decreasing.
Also, it is not confirmed the Fox’s actual barrel length, because, I can only assume, the flash hider (muzzle device is being counted in that factor for previous estimates).
And, if you look at both, the BTR definitely looks to have the longer barrel.
Velocity / energy are inter-changeable.
Who has tested the Rarden other than the Brit’s?
As I have not been able to locate a source, other than the Brit’s which says the Rarden barrel length / velocity.
I have found many examples of the BTR however, which all have the same answeres but one. All say (960m/s with a 2.416m barrel length.)
The other thing to consider, is powder type & charge, most (not all) Russian ammo holds a higher pressure charge than other ammo kinds.
from memory
Belgium, Ukraine, Latvia, Honduras, Jordan and Nigeria all have or had Scimitars armed with the Rarden.
Malawi and Nigeria still have Fox’s afaik too
most seem to say 2.44m for the barrel length 3m plus for overhall length.
Basically, there is some material suggesting it has 90rpm, and there are clips of it firing at definitely more than 80rpm. Problem is, none of that’s documented. So we land up back in the same place our beloved Chally 2 is in: pretty sure something is the case, but unable to prove it by Snail’s standards.
Please also explain why the RARDEN has such an excessive dropoff in penetration compared to the APDS on the 2A72 while we’re on the matter.
This is like Cluedo, you can suspect all you like, except it’s not worth a damn if you’ve not got the evidence and paper to back it.
Oh dear christ how many times do I have to say:
STATS. MEAN. NOTHING.
The variance in individual players performance by vehicle, by condition is so vast you basically shouldn’t bring it up at all. You could be a god tier player with a 9 K/D in every mode, a 80%, but you could be going negative in the Fox because you’re not used to the ballistics, or you can’t drive it and keep flipping or something.
In case you didn’t notice, the APDS also goes 200m/s faster out of a RARDEN. How that happens, you be my guest to explain it. But it is a fact, and one that influences what a RARDEN will pen, as opposed to what the 2A72 won’t pen.
Hold on,
That’s your source for a BRITISH round? A Russian Arms encyclopedia?
For my sake, before I absolutely lose the contents of my ass… what year was that published?
Man I wish, Olifant goes hard
If you’re any good in French, might be worth seeing if the Belgians have anything. Off the top of my head they used Scimitars, which also mount the Rarden. Current operators are the Latvians and Ukrainians on the Scimitar.
4 Likes
Yes they did, Im currently expecting a Belgian Scimitar to be added before a British one is
I will find a cricket bat and employ it in situations other than playing the well known game if that occurs.
2 Likes
From what I can find its 2.44m and 3m with the muzzle device
Velocity is a part of the kinetic energy equation KE= 1/2mv^2. They’re directly proportional but mass is important in the equation.
From what I can find its 353 MPa for almost all 30x165mm and 420 MPa for 30x170mm KCB, considering the difference between KCB and Rarden is the KCB is a steel case and Rarden is brass, we can assume the Rarden averages around the same chamber pressure for most rounds if not higher considering brass has higher pressure tolerances than steel. Albeit this is all I could find for any chamber pressure info for 30x170mm. Ammocan 30 mm Rarden Autocannon? - #8 by Tony.Williams - General Ammunition Discussion - International Ammunition Association Web Forum
Tbh thats probably a balancing factor. (Which ones are you referring to specifically, if I may ask?)
Any of them that have AP rounds that can pen more than like 50mm. Especially the ZSU 57, the Gepard and the Gepard clones like the one in the Swedish tree, the VEAK too.
The Gepard and its clones have a pure AP belt with 127mm of pen. Thats fucking stupid and completely counter-intuitive to its role as an anti air vehicle.
The cheiftain marksman also has the same belt since it uses the same twin oerlikon 35mm cannons. A 40-round apds belt for self defence is hardly game breaking. The platforms they are mounted on play a role because the cheiftain is worse than both the silly leopard 2 hull on the itpsv, and the gepard
The Chieftan’s belts are limited, and I would be fine with it not having them at all. Same with the Falcon.
No more ridiculous AP belts for SPAAs.
Literally all the Zsu can do, without AP ammo it would be literally useless. Hell- it wasnt even that good of an SPAA irl.
Gepard is fine- it has limited APDS ammo, still fufills its AA role, and can defend itself.
VEAK is similar, except they ripped proxy off of it and its now far less effective at AA work- do you want it to be useless?
These vehicles need AP rounds to be actually able to defend themselves and do at least some work on the ground, especially since planes do not always exist. There will always be tanks to shoot, but there will not always be planes. If you want SPAA balance, make them actually able to do their job as AA- not by ripping away what antitank capacity they have, but by giving them the tools (i.e. short-range lead marker, proxy on vehicles that could use it like the Veak/Lvkv 42), and giving them the means to defend themselves (i.e. APDS for Lvkv and Veak)
True, their spawn cost may need to be increased- but I am fine with that. I am tired of SPAA being the discarded ones, not up to the purpose they have to serve and so nerfed because of that.
1 Like
They are hardly ridiculous, and this statement…
…is completely false, as they did use those rounds.
1 Like