if I follow your logic in the games (575, 573, 565, 557, 547, 537) then with results like those I obtained (so approximate ) we should have (718/716/ 708 /700/ 690/ 680),
Moreover , I did a calculation with the AI which takes into account all the known characteristics of the OFL 120 F1 and I obtained a more coherent result (in games it gives us for an angle 0° (651 / 649 / 641 /633/623 /613) for the penetration
just going to point this out mate, 120mm is the bore of the cannon, and sabot width, the projectile is about 1/6th of that, usually 20-30mm. You’ve made this theoretical round nearly 1.5m long, which just isnt feasible. 984 is the nato standard round length, not the actual length of the penetrator which you’d need to either source or measure from photo’s. 600 brinell hardness is also incredibly high (usually 200-300) and i see you’ve set that so you dont get an obscenely high penetration value.
I don’t have the right values, it’s just (everything to review!!) thanks again, however I have seen many times on the internet that the ofl 120 F1 can penetrate more than 600 so…
No MBT at top BR has flat armor from the front even 250mm thick let alone 500.
It’s why we use 60 degree citations. And the thing for that is plate thickness / cos 60.
Also @foxy48514
Willi Odermatt for APFSDS.
1- Wikipedia isn’t a source.
2- Wikipedia is using 60 degree angled pen.
310 / cos 60 is 620mm of penetration, over that of the wikipedia 600mm claim.