The formula may be correct but the data can be wrong.
I don’t have a pic of it right now but i can definitely find one as F2 have been the main type of ammo for quite a long time.
I’m assuming OFL 120 F2 is a DU copy of F1, it might not even be. But that’s what data I used for it’s calculation.
But until you can prove it’s not then when gaijin adds OFL 120 F2, don’t expect it to be better than F1 in the game. They will use that 640mm LOS figure from Wikipedia
If you want OFL 120 F2 to be better than F1 when gaijin adds it, you need to find a diagram of OFL 120 F2 penetrator or the length of penetrator for me to calculate a more up to date value.
That’s what I thought you just swapped the penetrator from tungstene to DU.
Well it can prove difficult as it may be classified but it’s clearly different and better as it has replaced the F1
Although I’ve seen
“690mm @ 2000m” for OFL 120 F2 once before
In other words 345mm @ 2000m at 60 ° - 690 LOS
That translates to 613mm @ 0m at 0 °
OFL 120 F1 [1790m/s]
589mm @ 0m at 0 °
325mm @ 2000m at 60 ° - 650mm LOS
OFL 120 F2 (As DU Copy of F1) [1720m/s]
571mm @ 0m at 0 °
320mm @ 2000m at 60 ° - 640mm LOS
OFL 120 F2 (Based on 690 value) [1720m/s]
613mm @ 0m at 0 °
345mm @ 2000m at 60 ° - 690mm LOS
So with a quick research I found that the difference between the F1 and the F2 is that the projectile of the F2 weighs 12,28 kg against 11,3 kg
Yeah and DU copy of F1 would only have 250g weight difference
I think the F2 is different to F1 penetrator myself and I’m not talking about the material of the penetrator.
I’m more inclined to believe the “690” value rather than the “640” value found in Janes.
It also states 690 but doesn’t give the differences of the penetrators expect for the weight
1 Like
Well in that case
613mm @ 0m at 0 degrees for OFL 120 F2
Still it would only be a tiny penetration buff for Leclerc and won’t make a gameplay difference. Wether you have 480mm penetration or 613mm, it doesn’t matter against UFO Russian bias armour, you’re still pixel aiming at Russian weakspots.
Cuz they can 3rd person click on your badly implemented Leclerc armour and hit your nuclear fuel tanks but you need to aim for weakspots cuz magic armour and then their fuel tank eats the entire penetrator.
1 Like
I will take any buff to the Leclerc no matter how small
1 Like
If you have noticed the OFL 120 F1 doesn’t have 589mm @ 0m as I calculated, it has 576mm.
It’s cuz gaijin treats OFL 120 F1 as 585mm x 22mm penetrator when it’s 600mm x 22mm
I don’t really think Gaijin does any actual armor calculations for any ingame round performance at top tier they just wing it and adjust as they go.
When the Leclerc was released it was strong and had better features than the majority of top tier tanks. That ceased being the case several years ago and now with this update they have the gall to list the ahistorical performance of the Leclerc’s round in a dev blog shouting out their new copy paste of the Leclerc S2.
I just want to have a round that is at least on par with other NATO MBTs considering we don’t have the best mobility in the game anymore and we don’t have the best reload in the game anymore. Our armor also since the addition of newer and newer rounds (and being ahistorical as all hell) is now functionally useless. There’s almost no redeeming factors to the Leclerc at top tier other than its 6 second auto loader, and as noted it isn’t even the best one at 11.7
Give me a lolpen round and let me fire armor piercing baguettes
Spreadsheet by gaijin
As you can see OFL 120 F1 is treated as 585mm x 22mm
OFL 120 F2 was part of GIAT (now NEXTER) 1998’s catalogue (look at page 16) :
Production ran from 1996 to 2000 and 60 000 rounds were made. Production of DU rounds for many reasons, probably politcals, and also by the fact that the factory that used to make the rounds closed down in 2000.
Regarding penetration, GIAT claimed 640 mm @ 2000 m. Information about this is scarce and only found in old books, but this is the value that is found in most media.
Finally, if you need a reason why adding OFL 120 F2, i would say for the same reason DM53, 3BM60 and other shells were added : it’s there, there is info albeit rare about it, just add it fgs.
So you’re saying it’s worse than OFL 120 F1
OFL 120 F1
325mm @ 2000m at 60 ° - 650mm LOS
OFL 120 F2
320mm @ 2000m at 60 ° - 640mm LOS
South Korean K279 APFSDS
Is rated 700mm @ 2000m of penetration.
Or in other words…
350mm @ 2000m at 60 ° - 700mm LOS
Care to give me your sources for OFL 120 F1 ?
[Penetrator Weight is 4.0kg]
Ok so 120mm DM43 was never adopted by Germany.
The French adopted it as OFL 120 F1
Americans sell it as export round called KEW-A1
Shot from L/44 it has 1740m/s
Shot from L/52 it has 1790m/s
Diagram of OFL 120 F1 / DM43 / KEW-A1
The Tungsten Penetrator Length is 600mm
Willi Odermatt Equation
600mm x 22mm WHA penetrator
1790m/s at 0m
1690m/s at 2000m
Penetration
326mm @ 2000m at 60° - 652mm LOS
So you don’t have any manufacturer source and just post pics and a formula found on internet ?
Infact if you make OFL 120 F2 a DU copy of F1 at 1720m/s muzzle velocity.
You get
320mm @ 2000m at 60° - 640mm LOS
Also Willi Odermatt Formula is as good as it gets
I can show you how I get exact result for L23A1 APFSDS as British primary source results
Muzzle velocity is not 1720 m/s but rather 1740 m/s. As i said, you don’t have any manufacturer data, it’s just pure speculations.
Then it would be
322.5mm @ 2000m at 60 degrees (645 LOS)
Either way I don’t see the point of adding OFL 120 F2 when it’s weaker.
It’s better to fix OFL 120 F1 instead
Gaijin modelled it as 585mm x 22mm penetrator
With 575mm @ 0m penetration
It’s a 600mm x 22mm penetrator
Should have 589mm @ 0m penetration
1 Like