You’re truly a special breed.
The LoS angle is give or take ~67.1, APFSDS don’t drop much over distance anyhow. However shots like this are still impossible in War Thunder, especially because Gaijin doesn’t model anti-ERA (which was part of the simulation!).
Angle confirmed:
???
Check the 2nd simulation of the video, I used that since it was more clear of what was happening to the dart all the way through.
There are more minor simulations to add to War Thunder for sure, and it’d be the first ever game in the world to have those features too if they were added.
Mate, the camera PoV is from behind, AND above the armour plate in that shot. Always take the perfectly perpendicular one, otherwise you’re introducing a measuring error (hence why you got a much smaller angle than it actually was).
That shot was also 1 degree offset.
There were two, tho the perspective I looked at was from slightly below.
66 degrees, which sadly War Thunder still doesn’t model barely perforating rounds.
If it was offset, that’s 66 degrees (however perpendicular measurements are still the most accurate so we’re sticking with 67.1 here), where DM53 at 3km’s distance would still penetrate about ~700mm of RHAe… waaay above what the armour of T-90A can offer even with Kontakt-5 working as it should (against DM53 its resistance should be significantly lower due to anti-ERA).
Throw in the fact the armour in the simulation isn’t the overperforming one that we have in War Thunder - boom, explanation as to why DM53 could defeat that there, but cannot in the game.
I always felt like T-90A wasn’t really top tier material, so in my opinion they really should just nerf K-5 to the point it’s pennable by top tier rounds and lower the BR of tanks in question.
T-90A (without 3BM60) should be pretty nice at 10.3, just like Bhishma is currently.
Armor in War Thunder universally over-performs because of simulation issues, but War Thunder also runs on a Core i3 from 2012.
At some point Gaijin will improve simulations of things as they have with SACLOS missiles this year.
There’s a lot of work tho.
DCS took 5 years to make atmospheric density as accurate as War Thunder’s atmospheric density, this is not dissing on DCS, it’s just to show how slow development can be at times.
Most of it is due to Gaijin mis-using protection standards. Right now all Soviet & Russian tanks are modelled per NATO/Western standards of rating their armours for 0 degrees LoS, whereas they should be modelled as 68 degrees LoS (so instead of needing, fx; 530mm of penetration to defeat T-80U’s composite, you’d need about ~440mm after conversion from Russian to NATO style methodology).
The entire reason why Kontakt-5 exists, is because Soviet Russia/Union was at a dead-end with their armour development, and as soon as DM23/33 & M829 entered the stage, they had two choices;
They went with the first option. Heavy ERA is a thing because they were painfully aware their composite armour was not up to scratch against contemporary APFSDS.
Kontakt-5 is fine, if anything it’s slightly underperforming. Gaijin is however modelling the highly sloped Russian composite armours completely wrong, they’re taking X value and inputting it into NATO’s armour ratings so the X value becomes X*1.3 instead.
Oh, I always thought K-5 is to blame, not composite itself, good to know. Also, how would BVM’s UFP perform in that test, would it be pennable as well ?
Regardless, I feel like T-90A should get the Bhishma treatment for it’s own health, since Russia don’t have 10.7 lineup and only one 11.0 tank, so it should be nice seeing it go down to 10.3 without 3BM60.
We still don’t know how DM53 & Relikt really interact, but most likely better because it supposedly has 2 flyer plates instead of just 1… Bundestag also confirmed that dueling MBTs with Relikt is impossible at European Combat Distances a few years ago (think 1.5 - 2.5km’s) using DM53/63, which is why KE2020Neo has become a thing.
Seems strange to me we got this sabot casing thing added before we could even get AHEAD working.
eh technicaly sabot cases are easier with only 4 pieces compared to 162 that move circular
Still, if the reason they aren’t going to work is because of a technical limitation then why add them at all? Like, they obviously knew it wasn’t gonna work the way it was meant to so why not give it HE-VT until they figure it out?
age long discussion thats an imaginable round then
True, but the round doesn’t even work in game. They could have just given it the properties of a HE-VT round. Or just make it function like HE.
Anything at this point would be nice.
I dont think theyd need all 162. Say 40 pellets would probably do. And having a consistent circular pattern means less cpu intensive as theres less randomness that needs to be calculated. I think.
Good to know, thanks.
I would like to see how things would go if their composite was nerfed and anti-ERA tips got introduced. In my opinion, tanks like 80U and M1A1/IPM1 should be more than fine to share 11.0, while other tanks with buffed ammo could go to 12.0 alongside BVM, just to not seal club 11.0s too often.
Thank you for this information. I appreciate it.
Your assumptions are false, the Bofors 57mm L/70 Mark.1 had a AP-T round available and is still available even today because the gun is still being actively used by multiple nations Navy’s one of them being the U.S coast guard. If you really want to get info on the AP-T round and its history throughout the guns usage and development , I suggest visiting a library with plenty of books on Naval weapons or spending some time doing a better refined search online . You can also source this info pretty easily by calling some publicly available numbers for certain organizations and manufactures to verify if you feel like going the extra mile .
This info can be also easily confirmed by the brochure that is commonly found online which appears to already have been shared let lone multiple other sources. Sources I have already shared with the devs on multiple occasions, I am sure they still have a copy even though the old forums are not used anymore . FYI you can still access the old forums and look through some of the post and pictures .
A little bit of info regarding the Begleitpanzer 57mm brochure that is easily found online that a lot of people don’t know about.The brochure predates the actual built and tested vehicle so not all info on the brochure matches the fully built and tested Begleitpanzer 57 that was trialed & tested in Meppen. Even Thyssenkrup had what appears to be a outdated or earlier iteration of the brochure with a ton of missing info .
Regarding the apfsds round, it does exist just info on it is scarce due to the 57mm version of the Bofors l/70 not seeing really any adoption as a ground platform compared to its 40mm version. Info on it is more scarce then documentation on the vehicles itself. What info I have found is that both the 40mm and 57mm apfsds munitions were developed in parallel, issue with info on the 57mm sabot round is that the gun itself remained a Naval AD weapon while the 40mm saw wide adoption and testing as a ground based platform for vehicles .
There is a sabot round that can be found mentioned in certain documents pertaining to weapons/ammunition procurement for a certain Navy. A modern version of the sabot round exists, the problem being any data you could try finding is behind closed doors you cant exactly freely enter. The issue from my understanding is while info on the earlier 57mm apfsds that was originally developed for the Begleit and then Mark.1 57mm might be found somewhere ( still looking) ,the apfsds saw further development and is still available today for the Mark.3 57mm system which is probably the reason info on it is not publicly available.
Regarding the helicopter warning probe/device for the Begleit, I made a report at some point and it was suggested to me at the time to make suggestion post instead on the forums .
I am still actively researching info about the vehicle and the HWS device so I can make a suggestion post with more info, maybe the next time the devs be more willing to implement such a device since we now have IRST among other newly implement features in the game being added as time goes on .
Regarding the probe, its was what I would describe not 1 device but essentially a device with multiple different probes/sensors one being what clearly appears to be a IRST camera as well as a lasing device for calculating distance and firing solution.
Also if y’all got some time I posted a new bug report regarding the last major patch introducing a already previously fixed bug with the Begleitpanzer. For whatever reason the patch removed the vehicles ability to carry 4 different ammo types at the same time into battle, it limits it to 2 types in game .
Community Bug Reporting System
It seems to me they added the ability for us to change the amount of missiles we take for the ATGM launcher but in doing so removed the vehicles ability to bring all 4 ammo types at the same time.
