When was this paper made? because I dont think that the t64 was ever exported anywhere to begin with, before the 90s or used in active combat, and seen that they have the hp/ton ratio off it is safe to asume that those values are just guess work
very late 1970s to 1981. i dont know much about soviet tank usage but I would assume a tank or gun was acquired from somewhere to base this off of otherwise it wouldn’t appear in documents without it being made obvious that its an assumption
Yeah they use a different RHA that is sligthly stronger.
Without penetration angle, that table is worthless.
L15A3 for example penetrates 151mm at 1000m / 60° ingame. Thats 302mm LoS, MORE than the 295mm stated in the document.
Everyone here should remember that penetration tests are often done against angled targets, and that modern projectiles have what amounts to positive normalization.
the longrods.ch site that everyone uses for the calculator actually has an explanation for this
There is a transition region between semi-infinite penetration and perforation, in which the target is not perforated but the projectile, as it nears the back face of the target, meets reduced resistance and is capable of penetrating a greater distance than it would in a semi-infinite target. This effect is variously named the back or rear surface, plate, or face effect and is also present when perforation occurs.
They literally had no idea of T64 until 1985, when it appeared in an exercise. T64 was never captured by NATO or any western country, but I think they made the assumption with T72 and/or T80 in Sweden.
Yeah, I have TM-9-1300-203 and its described as monobloc tungsten carbide, which seems like a particularly strange mix-up.
It is strange, maybe it is one of those test rounds with composite material? Maybe it just used the wrong source.
that is why i used the term “easy trigonometry” to show that the numbers were not entirely accurate, it does however give an approximation of the penetration capabilities of the round at 0º .
It was mostly to show that the numbers wont be any where close to 7-800 mm of pen at 0º.
oh yes, i’m aware, i’ve seen graphs comparing the DM53 to the newer DM63 as the main purpose of the upgrade was consistency in exit velocity to increase accuracy. I’ll see if i can find them again and post here.
Edit:
here it is, not super sure abut the source though.
yeah its right the source is an ancient page from rheinmetall that was eliminated for unknown reasons, i think you can still access the archive through the wayback machine, also there is a bug report for the incorrect performance of DM53 that could be useful to compare penetration values
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/1aylCMFDKVtI
In-game L27 achieves 717mm of penetration according to the same criteria used in source documents.