2000 m/s!!??? what
The years? IE “the 2000s”, 2001-2009. Several prototype rounds got developed apparently with “consistent claims” of 1 from the Germans getting a greenlight but never bought because well, the FRES programme looked like it was going to be “actually going ahead” and not 20-30-40-50 more years.
Above are great examples of:
Angled armor, and volumetric hell.
Would you like any more evidence?
I took a photo of the T-55/54 but they sadly didn’t upload. They’re flat open exposed sides.
It’s because the round is heavier and the Rarden has a shorter barrel
We’ve been over this, RARDEN barrel is longer, even if its minuscule difference.
Is it the barrel? Because no one has concluded concrete evidence, and looking at images of the two, and comparing them, the 2a72 definitely looks longer.
Pretty sure the barrel muzzle is considered in the Rarden, which doesn’t make a lot of sense, because it’s not pushing the burning gases around the round nearly as much a longer barrel.
So you can say we’ve been over it as much as you like, but we never got a true answer
I mean its a flash hider isnt it? Are such things normally counted when you have statistics of a weapons barrel length? Not really afaik.
I would say it is better to err on the side of caution and go with the common theme that it doesnt count the flash hider. Especially given that it is removable.
I would 100% put the onus on whoever claims it includes the flash hider as needing to cite the source, not those saying it doesnt.
edit: also does it actually matter? Like, it doesnt change the velocity/energy on documents?
1 Like
The documentation in the above comment lists the RARDEN barrel at 96in.
Everything I’ve found for the 2a72 lists its length as “2.416mm” and I reckon that actually means “2,416mm” and Russians just use ‘.’ instead of ‘,’ when doing thousands. This supposition is bolstered by the same documentation listing the barrel life as “6.000” rounds.
If you take 2,416mm and convert it to inches you get 95in.
Thus the RARDEN is longer.
EDIT:
Looking at the same website’s listing for the RARDEN, the difference in penetration comes from an increase in muzzle velocity moreso than the difference in barrel length.
1 Like
Velocity = mass X propellant burn speed X barrel length
SO YES BARREL LENGTH DOES IN FACT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
Look at the two barrels, the rarden most definitely looks shorter making me believe some documents are clearly not right.
1 inch of barrel length on a barrel that long doesn’t make much of a difference compared to a more significant change in velocity and projectile mass.
1 Like
The RARDEN’s barrel sits deeper within the breech than the 2a72’s does. If you go from where the breech narrows down and mates with the barrel, out to the pin that holds the flash hider on, you see they are about the same length.
3 Likes
Yes 1 inch barrel difference is still a difference.
Also, usually they measure the barrel from where the Breech ends, and the chamber begins until the end of the rifling.
Seeing as the 2a72 barrel is not set into the breech and has no muzzle device, I don’t see how it can be shorter than the Rarden.
Although, I don’t have an xray diagram of that cannon. Especially since the back of the breech block is pretty close to the back of the turret from what I remember off the top of my head.
Off topic, but I was playing the Aubl 74 HVG earlier, and my god I wanted to play the Fox so bad, that 6.6 sec reload vs whatever the fox has was not fun. I really should ace it. I got a level 48 expert crew in it right now. (I ended up getting it from the last batch of those silver crates)
The Fox is fun.
And 1 inch might be a difference but its not a significant difference at that length. 1 inch matters when we’re talking about pistols because the barrels are so short that 1 inch represents a significant change, but when we’re comparing a 95in barrel and a 96in barrel its a far less significant difference.
Additionally the measure of the barrel that’s most relevant is where the rifling begins and ends. In the case of the RARDEN the rifling begins deeper in what War Thunder considers the breech than with with the 2a72 because of a difference in configuration style.
2 Likes
I don’t understand how we’re not past this yet. Most documents show the Rarden being slightly longer than the 2A72. On top of this we also know the Rarden operates at a higher chamber pressure than any other 30mm in game almost 10,000 PSI higher than Russian 30x165. Even if the Rarden were the same length or slightly shorter than the 2A72 the higher pressure gives it a distinctive advantage in performance.
Truly I understand the 2A72 is most likely underperforming and using copy paste 2A42 stats, but similar looking barrel length is not reason enough to claim the 2A72 should be similar to the Rarden.
10 Likes
Did you even look at the source I posted, which goes into the monobloc barrel, names the length, and mentions the flash hider is a different, removable, IE optional, piece of kit?
Why do you think that a detatching flash hider would count?
also, your own source image you used further down shows “US and British measure”, shows they do not measure flash hiders/muzzle brakes?
Looking shorter and being shorter are not the same thing lol. The old story of the M4 being “huge” compared to other mainline medium tanks for example.
so when are we finding out what they’ve done to the apds? maybe a nerf to appease people whining… sigh
Er, not soon. Apparently they’re so off the cuff with this they haven’t prepared any figures for public consumption.
1 Like
mhmh seems very ‘professional’ this doesn’t sound artificial at all
3 Likes
Ngl I’m just looking at all aspects. Not barrel length in particular.
But I can agree with this at least:
My whole point is though, why is there such a stark difference? And they may be a dev question. But I feel like they’re already looking into it.
I mean, type of propellant? Quantity of? Chamber Pressure? I’m as confused as you are, but I’m confused for different reasons. The weight doesn’t explain the excessive drop off in penetration at distance. That’d explain dropoff, but seeing as it’s a Sabot it’d be not unreasonable to assume the difference in air resistance is negligible (unless the Sabot sizes are vastly different, in which case I do apologise), and weight, while it does many things, cannot directly slow a round down. It’ll cause drop on a round, and to compensate you might fire a round at higher elevation, which would give a larger surface area for air resistance to act on, but that wouldn’t explain a massive dropoff like so, especially considering the RARDEN round starts 200m/s faster. I would speculate that RARDEN shouldn’t have less pen at 1200m+ than the 3UBR8, but seeing as I can’t confirm that myself…
We’ve asked them (repeatedly) for their new figures regarding RARDEN performance, and as far as I’m aware they’ve actually answered on steam with “yeah we haven’t got them yet, we just know they’re getting changed” - which to us does seem very off. Given there’s Lanz Odermatt and Demarre calculators (generally their go-to when it comes to APDS behaviour) available on the internet, you’d expect them to have some sort of figures.
I also wouldn’t trust them to get it right based off past experience.
Remember, this is the company that insisted that the armour on the TES was Armor Shield R in an entire Dev Blog(when it was ASPRO-HMT), then insisted Armor Shield had STANAG 4569 Level 5 protection (when Armor Shield is supposed to have Level 6) and then insisted it did have Level 5 Protection when it didn’t even have Level 4, and to “meet” Level 5 the round could either: pass through 3 blocks of ASPRO-HMT, or pass through a block of ASPRO-HMT, then a “aluminium backing plate” (which is actually Steel from what open sources we have) and would only be stopped by the CR2s side armour.
Which is a very long winded way of saying Gaijin Devs seem to be less competent than it’s forum users when it comes to anything British.
If you wonder why Brits get rubbed up the wrong way when they announce a change, that entire episode with the CR2 TES (and assorted others) is why we have, in some cases, an almost pathological hostility towards Gaijin when it comes to some undetermined change to Brit vehicles.
Because we’ve experienced their past changes and even when there’s no evidence in support of their position they make a change that’s blatantly wrong to our knowledge, don’t justify/reason it, and then leave any of our reports on it in the junk bin for years on end. Hell, it took them 8 months to fix the problems with the Chally 1 Ammunition exploding (and not the HESH rounds that are modelled under the turret or any of the charges, I mean the inert Sabots on the forward Cheek rack were exploding, with literally nothing else getting fragged).
2 Likes