Interestingly, a Panzer whatever the name was article from Switzerland published values for DM63 a few years back, citing perforation values at;
Both of those results were “achieved” against steel that was about ~230BHN in hardness.
I know what you are talking about, had it open a week ago. Ill try to find it again.
wink
Yea there was a table about the results too irrc, i was searching for that :D
I’m fairly certain Gaijin uses 265 BHN standards for penetration.
Otherwise, 3BM-46 would penetrate 547mm of RHAe @ 0m @ 0°, but in-game it only manages 532mm under those same criteria.
Quickly running M833 through the calculator also shows a 265 BHN.
Curiously, 3BM-60 seems to use a 280 BHN as the reference, I’m not sure why this isn’t standardized because this makes it lose nearly 10mm of penetration.
260 BHN is Gaijin’s standard;
That’s why I don’t understand why 3BM-60 is missing 20mm of LoS penetration @ 60°.
And at those standards, DM53 is ‘‘only’’ missing 12mm of LoS penetration @ 60°.
Missing?
Last I checked, Russia’s standard was ~235 BHN steel, and BM-60 achieved 300mm/LoS 60 @2km against it, in WT BM-60 does 310mm/LoS 60 @2km against 260 BHN steel.
So, there’s been quite a lot of theory crafting on discord recently as to why Leopard 2A7Vs upper plate armour does not work properly, and since I’m sure nobody wants to read a wall of text, I’ll just do a quick tl;dr, but first - I have to make it known that the add-on does not ricochet APFSDS on even Strv 122s, it’s the upper plate below that does.
Leopard 2A7Vs add-on is at the same angle as the upper plate (this means there is no change in distance between the add-on and the hull roof, it remains consistent throughout the entire armour - projectile interaction)
2A7Vs add-on is closer to the hull roof than 122s, better to visualise it:
Due to the lesser amount of space, as well as that space remaining constant, the game treats both the add-on & the upper hull as a single object, meaning A = B instead of A + B like on the Strv 122, this can be seen in these screenshots;
This also connects with another issue; the entire damage model for the upper hull is too small.
The neck protections piece as well as the add-on are both too small/too close, whereas on the 122s they are of proper size.
All in all we’ve arrived at a conclusion that it’s not a single issue that causes this, but multiple that added to each other, i.e; the inter-armour space being too small, the angle being slightly different, the game believing it’s only encountering a single armour plate (thus the hull roof cannot ricochet because the game believes it’s still dealing with the add-on), and an overall modelling error which was likely the original cause of this.
Also a pretty good look on the neck protector piece, and how large it is in comparison to what’s modelled on the 2A7V:
In WT, the protector piece is nowhere near this big.
Is there a report coming? I mean this is the job of the devs they are the ones who should be investigating and fixing this, not the community, but the only way to have a REALLY improved and more armored Leopard is this sadly…
Edit: It look like they inserted the armor modules including the neck protection (maybe that´s why looks smaller than the 122 neck protection) on to the hull of the 2A7V (maybe by rushed modeling). When on 122´s are ON the top of the hull
The devs wont do anything even if there is a report because the leo 2’s are doing “too well”.
Tho quite frankly, considering this is a PSO bug transfered to the 2A7V that no other leo’s but those 2 have, it almost seems targetted
In russia we call that “happy accidents” :P
I love when russian mains says that. When after a new patch everyone are playing to grind the new vehicles and of course it tends to a HUGE win rate changes. That´s why i do not consider important the Win Rates after a new patch until 3 or 4 months, but Gaijin yes
Big thanks to Russian main’s skill issue that get F hard in their overperform tank by unfinish underperforming tank damn do they have no shame at all?
I guess i’ll just stick with Sweden for a while until 2A7 get fix
DM53 dimensions are wrong (just like many others).
Length of core is 685mm, width is 21.5mm (not uniform, but averaged)
Weight of projectile is 5kg, of which there is some amount for the steel fins and incendiary unit in the tail and some of it is the short “sheath” around the tip.
Those dimensions would give ~250cm³ , which would make 17.5g/cc pretty much impossible.
Of course, all of this ignores that Odermatt himself clearly states that the calculator is NOT meant to be used for such complex shapes.
do they mention the weight of the incendiary unit?
and they still didn’t tell us what is their information
i’m done with wt, at least in the foreseeable future
What’s the point?
