They do this. To calculate penetration, the projectile’s shape is mathematically reduced to a smooth cylinder.
I only know that in the game it’s 5kg, the report on the penetrator density has already been rejected due to the fact that the mass of a projectile with such a density exceeded 5kg
They don’t. I still have the APFSDS data table that Gaijin posted, all penetrator lengths matched actual lengths of known APFSDS (within 10 to 15mm, because I’m aware they were mostly using public info), the only changes were made to the diameter of the projectile to a “mean” or “average” value, rather than max or min value.
I only know that in the game it’s 5kg, the report on the penetrator density has already been rejected due to the fact that the mass of a projectile with such a density exceeded 5kg
Which doesn’t matter in this “argument”, the report was very surface level too, and Gaijin data is very often years out of date (such as them claiming “D-technology” only refers to the add-on armor).
If I were to remake the report today, with the data I currently posses, they would not be able to reject it on the basis of “not a bug” or “mass is already 5kg in game” (btw: i explained the reasoning for the density change in the report, but currently, i have information that DIRECTLY confirms the density because the gaijin data on DM53s penetrator is wrong, and the fact mass provided would be the tungsten penetrator itself, rather than the whole projectile), they could only reject it on the basis of it being classified data ;)
Recalculating to a flat cylinder will change most APFSDS by about the same amount, so that’s most likely the reason.
In any case, you’ll know for sure if public data on DM53 is ever released.
I’m simply saying that without increasing the penetrator’s mass, your recalculation will be impossible, as its weight exceeds the projectile’s in-game weight.
The answer will be the same as last time.
Except… that’s not what happened, but sure, believe in whatever you want to.
I’m simply saying that without increasing the penetrator’s mass, your recalculation will be impossible, as its weight exceeds the projectile’s in-game weight.
Lol that’s funny, so they’d reject it even when the source itself is stating that the PENETRATOR is over 5kg because their “in-game” statcard says the projectile must be 5kg? )))
Gaijin dev: we believe it’s a marketing lie
Gaijin dev and their data could never be wrong after all ))))
))))
Ah no wait, that’s cus you can reject it and so you would ))))
Their STATCARD is already wrong, because DM33s PROJECTILE WEIGHT isn’t 4.3kg, IT’S 4.6kg, the 4.3kg IS THE PENETRATOR WEIGHT.
Gaijin dev in shambles ))))))
I was talking about a situation where there would be no new information about the weight of the projectile.
Irrelevant, they would just have to adjust the weight up by an arbitrary amount (~0.3kg to be precise, cus it’s mostly the fins adding to the weight, the tip weighs next to nothing) to account for the new weight of the penetrator.
It’s either that, or openely admitting they are not willing to change something even when first-hand data proves them wrong ;)
I don’t know how the developers will handle this.
We’ll find out when/if we have sources.
))))
Have fun waiting ig.
This the big guns thread not the DM53 thread, isnt it? Why discussion of DM53 when it’s 120mm and not big gun?
Anyway to get back on topic, here is a big gun tank that we should never get.
This spicy cheese wedge will be literally impossible to kill 95% of the time. Good thing they never built one far as I know.
Probably won’t since it was only ever a full scale mockup
East created for a multitude of physics and economic reasons… It’s highly inefficient. If it was made in some capacity or had related parts in another project I could see it. But if it ends up busted it’ll just be the topic of bias next to the BMPT. If it’s garbage in game, then nothing changes for a long time as gaijin admits it’s all made up stats and nothing you can do to make them reestimate. They did this on th Abrams hull debacle. This wouldn’t be different. Or logically shouldn’t if you’re consistent.
I strongly disagree with this. And if you’d like I can explain why.
While externally not much changes. In that regard you are correct. Internally there is plenty of upgrades, not all of which pertain to Warthunder’s current gameplay, however that’s not to say that none of it does.
The sep v2 didn’t receive the one thing that would give it a significant edge over its predecessor and that being the m829a3 which entered full rate production by 2004. The sep v2 entered service in 2008. The A3 round has an anti era tip…
Would significantly help to improve side shot capabilities on relict armor which due to current era modeling, has some terrible rng. I’ve had flat side shots with m829a2 be completely absorbed my the era before.
It also might even help give some extra leeway for frontal shots around the edges of the era. As of right now if you even clip the era, it stops the entire round.
That truly seems like a lot of hoops to jump through rather than just bring the CATTB as an event vehicle. As for br, obviously 12.7. It’s a unique vehicle that would actually add value to the American tree.
What has the last few event vehicles been for US? A flying pancake that while unique, has performance that is less than desirable and excels at nothing, an EFV which is placed at a br that does not compliment it and once again has a performance that is less than desirable, and the f106 that has absolutely terrible missiles that (big surprise) leave it with a less than desirable performance.
Meanwhile Russia has received a t72 with yet another aps system and 3bm60 at 11.0, has the 292 which has the best performing apfsds in the game at 10.7, and the mig 25 with the fastest speed in game and decent air to air missiles.
It seems like Russia continually gets event vehicles that are actually decent when compared to the event vehicles America receives.
Of course you do, having never played any Rank VIII Russian MBT’s.
War Thunder’s meta = Mobility + First hit cripple/kill.
That’s why the M1A1 is picked over the T-80BVM in tournaments, it’s why the M1A1 suits the meta better and it’s why good players do much better with the M1A1 than they do in the T-80BVM.
No offense intended, but I’ve had this conversation a million times before, and in Every. Single. Case. the person that disagreed fell under one or both of the following:
1) Never played the T-90M/T-80BVM.
2) Poor stats/limited game knowledge.
So then what does? Besides what I already mentioned of course.
Dates are irrelevant, the game does not revolve around dates of introduction as a mean of balance/justifying additions, and that’s for the better.
M829A3 would not be balanced, and that’s why it’s not being introduced.
The M1’s already have the 2nd best firepower in the entire game, and M829A3 is designed to primarily defeat Kontakt-5 armoured opponents, the tanks equipped with Kontakt-5 are already struggling in 12.7 matchmaking and thus don’t need to face a tank that’s already significantly superior now also roflpenning their UFP.
There’s also no guarantee the SEP v3 would be implemented with M829A3, and if it were, I’d expect similar ammo upgrades for other nations.
Event vehicles are never the most capable vehicle in their tech trees.
The Object 292 is fine and it’s performance is nothing special.
T-72B3 Arena is milk toast and it’s strange you’d consider this a ‘good’ vehicle for Russian given that the vast majority of the community sees it as a waste of a Russian event vehicle.
Phase 1, maybe. Phase 2, definitely no. As we go higher and higher in the BR’s, there should be less event vehicles, given the lack of opportunity for filled out line ups. I assume you didn’t know there were 2 phases to CATTB to begin with, so why in the world would you want CATTB to be an event vehicle? As far as I’m aware, it is quite literally the best thing the US can get, there is 0 reason for it to be an event vehicle.
Even Phase I seems to be a stretch as an event vehicle.
Let’s say the turret armour on the front is only roughly equal to that of an M1A2, because we don’t know if the CATTB utilized DU in it’s armour solutions.
We’re still left with an Abrams that has:
And while I haven’t found concrete weight values for the CATTB, I don’t recall it being anywhere near as heavy as a M1A2 SEP v3 would be.
In a different thread I posted a little bit of info regarding CATTB. It included weight, dimensions, armor thickness and effectiveness, spall liner locations and more. All this is for Phase 2 though.
I’m still a little uncertain of what exactly Phase 1 was though. I’ve read that it was the standard CATTB turret on M1 hull, but a declassified document I read (can’t remember which one) highlighted all the modifications needed to be done to the M1 hull to fit the CATTB turret. Not sure if Phase 2 had its own, newly created hull and that’s what it makes it Phase 2, and Phase 1 was the modified M1 hull. I meant to do more research on it but I hate making phone calls so I stopped.
Ukrainian BMT-72-140 aka elongated T-72A “BMT-72” with Bustle Autoloader ( 140mm gun Never Installed )
In Development: BMT-72-140 | Armored Warfare - Official Website
I wouldn’t mind adding it to the list as long as we have enough information on it.
From the short run time info I could read both from Russian Speaking Forums and AW Game Article. It would simply use the same Bustle Turret design as found on the ( BMT-72-120 ) or the T-84-120 Yatagan / Object 478H1 / KERN2-120.
If I can make a conspiracy take, My bet about the Chinese 140mm program is it’s perhaps linked to the Ukrainian 140mm project which from how I understand it ( correct me if I’m wrong ) were assisted by the French. However I can’t prove this.
