thats a damage model error. older and lazier done models are wonky AF.
2a72: 30x165mm (chamber pressure equivalent to nato 30x173mm)
Rarden 30x180mm
Therefore one of two things is happening.
- The 2a72 is underperforming in penetration.
- The Rarden is over preforming in penetration.
The cases are a 7mm difference.
Yes the fox is heavier, thus will pen more immediately, but drop off overtime quicker.
But the difference shouldnt be whatever it is in game.
What is it 110mm vs 82mm?
Really it should be closer to 110mm vs 94-98mm
Then why is R3 t106 at BR 8.0 when it should be at BR 7.7 as for Fox? This tells you that the balance does not exist.
7mm of powder space is a lot more than you may think. we are also talking about late soviet quality weaponry versus a late 60s developed British gun when we were making the best artillery in the world at the time.
the Shipunov also has a far lower muzzle velocity, it cant hold a candle to the RARDEN single shell penetration
Edit: the 2A72 gun is probably pretty close to realistic give or take a centimetre or so, Soviet quality was very poor
7mm Is big in width sure. Length, especially on a cannon? Not so much.
We are talking about small calibre canons here 7mm extra length on a shell casing for a 30mm is like an extra 28mm of case length on a 120mm
I agreed the Rarden is more powerful no?
It just shouldn’t be gapping the 2a72 by that much.
Especially since Russian gunpowder is known to be a bigger charge.
lmfao what? mate where the hell did you get that idea from? Its all basically the same. The only thing to really affect “power” is how small a powder granule is so it burns faster
Actually… hold on. I miss read this. The Russian 30x165mm is equivalent to a nato 30x173mm.
The Rarden is a 30x170mm. Therefore… the 2a72 actually has the longer case.
A lot of ammo that Russia makes has more power behind it. Like .308 for example.
A nato .308 vs a Russian made .308
bro you feeling ok? how are you getting to this conclusion? smaller mm length in name is not bigger
the closest russian calibre is the 7.62x39mm which is a good bit weaker than a .308 which is 7.62x51mm
its got something like 40% the case capacity for smokeless powder.
source: 7.62x39 vs 308 – Rifle Rounds That Defined a Generation.
I need to ask this after this discussion. Are you Russian? because I’ve only seen this kind of defence of a countries weaker stuff from vatniks.
1 Like
7.62x54R is the closest to .308
And no I’m not. I just like ballistics
Isn’t that a .30-06 counterpart though tbh?
It’s between 7.62x 51 nato, and .30-06
7.62x51 is more powerful than .308
Being on the higher end towards .30-06.
It’s a fatter shell, but the .30-06 is longer.
I thought .308 was loaded slightly hotter?
Noooo
If you put 7.62x51 in a .308, it’s possible the pressure will blow apart the receiver.
NATO Mgs use 7.62x51 nato.
Also, one time I bought a belt labeled “.308” it turned out to be 7.62x51mm.
I was lucky it didn’t damage my rifles, but it sealed my chamber and was a pain in the a** to get out.
Brought it right back to the gun store that moment.
.308 is the lower pressure round.
Like .223 is to .556
Really? Could’ve sworn I saw something saying 7.62 NATO rates for chamber pressure of 60k PSI, and .308 being 62k PSI
I googled just now so I didn’t mix it up
thats a fairer comparison which i didnt think about but .308 has it beat on muzzle velocity according to SDI but the R bullet is a slightly larger diameter so loses out after 600 yards. Soviet bullet worse at range than NATO one
To be fair 7.62x54r is wayyy older than .308, there were aerodynamic advancement so powder load could very well be hotter on Soviet stuff
1 Like