I said the XM has the faster turret traverse, which is really the only positive vs the fox. (Before you say stabilizer, the fox is incredibly stable for what it is.)
Change you keybinds?
Uh yes. Mass X velocity X gravity X wind speed X atmospheric conditions…
The fox does higher damage, which I’ve mentioned before.
And as a result, with its heavy shell projectile, will lose more velocity quicker, meaning it’s losing more pen quicker. That is physics and common sense. What more do you need?
Which makes sense why the drop off is higher with APDS vs the BTR, but, no body shoots at 500+ meters with auto cannons ever. It’s usually blaze in, encircle and enemy who has terrible turret traverse compared to it, and fire until it’s dead.
I entirely disagree, if you have obstacles, shoot them with the 30mm, don’t do 56 mph over a hill and you’ll be fine. I never had problems with any of this.
The density is insane. Why are you complaining about the Fox that has the second best turret traverse when the XM800 has BETTER turret traverse. Shouldn’t you be complaining about the XM800 having the fastest turret traverse compared to tanks around it? Instead for some unknown reason your deliberately choosing to ignore XM and cry about the Fox’s turret traverse?
It doesn’t matter how stable it is. XM800 has stabilizer, Fox doesn’t. You can’t ignore reality.
Other people have agreed with what I said, Wheeled vehicles are easy to spin out, and tracked vehicles inherently are more controllable. Stop ignoring reality.
What more are you not understanding? The heavier a projectile weights, the more spall its going to produce?? That’s how damage/spalling is determined in Warthunder.
Good thing Warthunder doesn’t model Windspeed and atmospheric conditions.
You’re ignoring basic ballistics. The heavier weight keeps its penetration at range especially in the case of the Rardens higher BC and higher initial MV.
I implore you to read the articles I linked because saying all heavier projectiles lose velocity and penetration at range more than lighter ones is wrong.
The only time this doesn’t happen is if the form factor is much worse. In short it should keep penetration better at range than the lighter projectiles used by other 30mms.
Perfect example if you read the article a 210 gr 30 06 maintains more velocity at 1000 yds and has a higher percentage of retained velocity than 185 gr, 175 gr, and 190 gr.
Its also easier to impair lighter rounds while in air then it is heavier ones. See 5.56 vs 7.62.
5.56 will generally start to tumble quicker then 7.62. (Of course this is a more extreme example as 5.56 and 7.62 are two vastly different calibers and more).
For the most part yes. Form factor has a huge role in aerodynamics at longer ranges and lighter rounds can still outperform heavier rounds if their factor is substantially lower.
But in the case of the Rarden the form factor Is most likely the same or insignificantly different from other 30mms. Meaning it’s going to outperform all of them due to a better BC and MV especially at range.
Mass influences the inertia of an object in motion, with higher mass requiring more force to change motion.
Try pushing a rubber ball and a steel ball across a table at the same time with a straight edge, you’ll see the difference. The steel ball goes slower because the force between the two is identical, and the mass dictates that you must input more force to overcome the inertia of the steel ball, to accelerate it to the same top speed as the rubber ball. For physics, it doesn’t matter if this equation is reversed and you’re trying to slow the rubber and steel balls down with a jet of compressed air. Rubber will stop first because it has less inertia.
For L21A1, this is even more weighted in its favor as it is also faster than 3UBR8 to begin with. Not only is the lighter projectile given lower force to begin with, it requires less force to be “decelerated” by the constant force of aerodynamic drag.
Gravity will accelerate both things towards the ground at a constant rate, independent of mass. Steel and rubber balls dropped from the same height will hit the ground at same time. In fact, gravity doesn’t even care about horizontal velocity at all, you can literally fire a round of whatever projectile and it will fall to the ground in the same amount of time as an identical projectile dropped from the same height as the muzzle of the gun.
Air density will increase across different conditions, but you aren’t comparing L21A1 at sea level and standard temperatures against 3UBR8 at 3500 meters and colder temps. Both rounds in the same conditions will encounter the same air resistance (drag) as each other.
For all intents and purposes, L21A1 Rarden is firing a heavier projectile, at higher chamber pressure, out of a longer barrel and faster then 2A72.
2A72 is the second lightest projectile, being fired at the lowest velocity, and at 350 Mpa while all being the smallest round (length wise).
Mk.44 is firing the lightest projectile, at the highest velocity out of the shortest barrel, at equal or higher chamber pressure then 2A72, while being the biggest round (Length wise).
F = M * V, and the RARDEN has both much higher velocity and more mass. Because of that, it is better in both ways then the BTR, and is thus more likely to retain penetration at longer ranges- because only its velocity will decrease, not its mass. Mass does not directly influence velocity- and it likely has a similar air resistance to the BTR’s gun.
Please, do your homework next time you try to quote physics.
I’m 100% in agreement really this shows the odd disparity that the Rarden is missing a lot of penetration at range. There is no way that the 2A72 should be penning more at range it’s shorter and slower. It’s actually hilarious that it outperforms both the Rarden and Mk44 at 2000m while being ballistically the worst round of them.
