well it happened with the russian tanks they got an archive with armor tests for relikt and it got buffed
that factualy is wrong, that role still has the whole strv122 line
6 Likes
Even though I believe Russian tank armor is exaggerated in this game they still aren’t as broken as the Leo
wich arent exgerated but in fact lacking noticeable by the swedish trials and the upgrade recieved later in the form of a 2A7V
5 Likes
The thing is many from the German community said it will be OP add something different and now we are here and want that if u add it then make it as it is and not the broken mess like ingame
1 Like
it should’ve started with the 2A7+ or the 2A6EX
1 Like
they don’t need one, all tungsten rounds and all DU rounds in the game have the exact same density, as obtaining information on that per round is next to impossible. So they use a standardized form (similar to how strength of steel is not included in penetration calculator despite having a major effect irl). Not only that this is only a capability to make things of that density, not information on DM53’s specific density. Capability does not mean a country has done it (especially if that capability is expensive)
DM53-DM73 literaly all use the same penetrator, DM73 being the most modern in german use, it literaly means those rounds.
In the broschure it mentions production line, saying it is in production and in use
1 Like
Yes but also no. When the density is known, they use it. XYZ-70s APFSDS for example uses the 18.5g/cc density it had in real life, the rest is estimated using known (but also estimated) dimensions to fit the weight.
The Rheinmetall pdf name drops only a single specific density, that being 18.5g/cc, and Rheinmetall does not produce any other APFSDS currently apart from restoring old DM33 rounds with new propellant.
This pdf specifies stuff that is in production and in use, as such it is illogical to presume they’d use anything worse than the alloy they specified in there to produce APFSDS for MBTs.
3 Likes
Does it say it’s used in DM53/63/73? If it doesn’t then it’s not a useful report in any way.
then oh so great geniee, tell me for which round production does the line produce rounds with that density
Give me a single logical reason why it wouldn’t be.
You know what now i want nothing more than upper upper plate that with slop 80degree actually work like strv122 other i can make it work myself
That’s on you to prove if you want the report to go through, thems the breaks
Because we’ve gotten better at tungsten alloys since the 90s when DM53 was developed? You would need specific data on which alloy DM53 uses to bug report that, and even then, as said, tungsten and DU density is generalized in game, so it wouldn’t be implimented either way
actually it states rheinmetall uses tungsten alloy of sayd density. its up for anyone to prove rheinmetall to use anything BUT.
so maybe dm33 came from a different manufacturer, untill then, any tungsten product rheinmetall uses has to be sayd density.
Right, so you haven’t got a logical reason against it then (especially since you can create alloys with that density while still improving their properties…).
As stated previously, they only generalise when data is 100% unavailable, now we have primary data from RHN who states their Tungsten alloys are at least 18.5g/cc, that’s more than enough.
2 Likes
not even close… all the strv’s got better armor xD^
But yes the 2a7v should have better armor then the 122’s ^^
1 Like
Only on sides. From the front they are pretty much the same. But anyway, even if 122 better - 2a7v still the best
The STRV122 have way better frontal armor than the 2A7V tho.
1 Like