At angles that would cause a ricochet the long-rod Sabot would simply shatter, deform, deteriorate in such a way that it has little to no chance of penetrating or damaging the tank in any way. In-game, rounds ricochet and carry the full mass and velocity that they had prior to hitting whatever it is they ricochet off of.
3 Likes
Yesn’t. I agree that APFSDS shattering is badly needed, but precession does degrade the penetration of APFSDS pretty heavily on a ricochet in my testing.
2 Likes
I sure do love the least useful image of a geometric catastrophe.
You should work on your thirds.
And we’re denying shit? You have a picture of the UFP.
When described which part of the plate is being questioned, you cede on the point that it is 2"
Did that image magically stop existing? Can you no longer look at it and go “huh, that’s 1.5”!"
You are a rude and unpleasant person.
2 Likes
I treat people how they deserve to be treated. When you see an image, falsely interpret it as a 2" plate, are told how and why it is not 2", then immediately ignore the image and ask for a source as to the thickness…
You might need to evaluate the thickness of your own skull.
Again with these useless videos, these simulations arent magic theyre also limited by what is actually known to the public and not to mention the arbitrarity of whatever data gets inputted in the first place. These are useless when testing anything approacing modern
2 Likes
This 100% i like these simulations but their worth outside of pure entertainment, pertaining modern vehicles is pretty much none. Its honestly hilarious how much they vary one from the other
2 Likes
It’s a very good thing Snail refuses to accept simulations as evidence for any changes, else people would’ve gotten the Leopard 2A5 (and likely many tanks with the same turret) nerfed to be frontally vulnerable to M829A2.
2 Likes
I agree when it comes to complex and unknown composite armour.
But this is just a simple steel plate, the simulation for something like that is valid.
There’s little to no set realism in them. If the info necessary to make a realistic simulation were available to do so, then there would be enough information to implement it properly anyway.
Basing it off of arbitrary simulations would be foolish.
4 Likes
i dont know why people keep using youtube simulations as some sort of proof.
2 Likes
It is not, they do not know the true composition of the tungsten or uranium alloys used in these projectiles which very up to 20% in density… nor do they know the composition of the alleged “simple steel plate” which may have higher or lower hardness than what was used.
That is all assuming the simulation accurately predicts the reaction between the two to begin with, which I find unlikely.
On top of all of the above, the NERA plates are designed to shift during perforation, at which point they can shatter and further reduce the efficacy of the long rod sabot. This isn’t modeled in the simulation at all… so I don’t think these simulations are remotely relevant.
4 Likes
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
There are no NERA plates present in the simulation, you must be confused and be thinking of a different video.
It almost like the don’t model NERA is some cases
I think you’re completely lost.
I didn’t post that video, I haven’t even seen it.
What does it have to do with me and why did you reply to me instead of the person that posted it? Why are you going on about NERA when I’ve never posted a simulation video that concerns NERA?
It doesn’t have anything to do with what you said, I included it as an additional point in my response. How does that negate anything else I said?
You posted the sim videos as well, no? Stop hyper focusing on one additional point that furthers the fact that those videos are worthless entertainment.
1 Like
First hand knowledge, baby.