Dude, you’re negating the constructional angle (basically firing from an elevated position relative to the target), here from actual ingame testing:
Next time, at least have the vehicle in question before you try to state absolutes in people’s faces (especially of those who actually have said vehicles and can attest to their performance).
The way u write and berate others is condesending on most of ur posts in this forum.
Yes, indeed you posses the 2A5, I missed it completely (which also has a weaker shell than the 2A6 - that in actual testing conditions failed).
Now, i’m aiming FROM ABOVE (can be seen from the barrel height relative to my PoV - not that the first testing round was wrong, I was still aiming from above relative to the T-90A because the Leopard 2 is simply taller, at long ranges the height variation between the two makes zero difference, there you ignoring the consturctional slope just made the testing more skewed):
I still find it funny how, when others call you out for your behaviour, you default to saying they are doing the exact same thing to you (projecting much?) - the funniest thing is how all the people who hard disagree with you have their comments hidden (which included mine before).
@Necrons31467 I know you should still have the graph about the constructional angle testing, mind posting it to make it clear to Razer?
This is the scene you’re most likely to see in battles, especially in taller tanks like Leopard 2.
Which doesn’t matter, the point of DM53 is that it can defeat K-5 IRL from any angle and at very long distances, in WT it can only do so at very specific angles and in a lot of situations it’s going to fail (lovely how you aimed even lower just to make the constructional angle even more irrelevant, pfft).
Abrams has difficulties due to being the same height as T-90A.
Which it isn’t, Abrams is the same height as a Leopard 2A4, it’s taller than the T-90A.
However, UFP shots aren’t supposed to be your shots anyway, even if there was less armor on them.
Again, completely irrelevant, the argument is that DM53 can’t do what its supposed to, at ranges it was designed to be used. All you’re doing is just changing the goal-post.
On top of that, last I checked DM53 & others were developed based on T-72B with K5, not T-90.
Point out one difference between T-90A’s and T-72B 1989’s composites to me.
Rheinmetall literally states DM53 was made to overcome the most extreme shearing forces to defeat ERA(!).
You’re only proving to me that you haven’t done any kind of research in regards to German APFSDS in the slightest. In fact the 2020 bug report on DM53 also included other mechanisms of how it defeats ERA - so, please, who are you again?
You’re really funny.
It is well known marketing departments of manufacturers make technically accurate claims.
That’s why an algebraic equation is used to generate penetration numbers for APFSDS rounds in WT.
It’s fair & more accurate than trusting manufacturers & militaries.
@FurinaBestArchon
The algebraic equasion is applied to all APFSDS rounds in WT.
As for your claim for DM53…
So you think DM53 should penetrate 767mm at 2000 meters?
Cause I doubt that.
Also, why do you think people are incapable of making mistakes?
Seriously, your antagonism toward everyone here is annoying.
No one here is your enemy.
If you think DM53 is ERA defeating, we literally agree on that front.
Currently DM53 pens far more than 650mm of armor [sitting at 698 at 2000, and 754 at 10 meters 377x2]. Real-life tests are done against 60 degree targets.
And we don’t know the MPa plate WT uses as the base.
As a matter of policy, Gaijin take manufacturer claims at face value if they provide concrete numbers usable in game.
Well, they’ll accept the dimension data.
Hence why PUMA’s APFSDS round is the way it is, tho I can’t tell if the statcard is incorrect about its weight or not due to inability to find ammo types in the datamine documents yet.
Ammo types are stored under each gun
DM 53 has an in-game mass of 5, so the stat card is correct
I was speaking about PUMA’s, cause I want to stay on-topic now.
Hence why my off-topic posts are slowly disappearing [I’m deleting them].
:facepalm: idk why I thought DM53
.101 kilo for the PUMA’s APFSDS round
yeah in reality it is 0.16kg, which would result in more spalling / dmg
I have no idea how spall is calculated in game, but that’s probably worth a bug report anyway
I’m learning what perforation is today so I can better explain things to people.
For example, I learned that DM43 in WT perforates 664mm of armor.
I’m trying to figure out what DM53 can do, but finding a suitable target is hard.
reported a long time ago, the weight is part of balancing
“Penetration refers to the ballistic impact of a target which results in the projectile becoming embedded or ricocheting off the target. Perforation describes the projectile impacting the target and passing completely through it.”
Perforation, from what I’ve read is it gets through the armor, but the penetrator doesn’t have enough energy left over to do anything once inside.
In which case DM53 has ~770mm of perforation according to shooting Maus’ 205mm plate at 75 degrees.
That’s… who have told you that? Perforation can be with or without residual energy left (which is irrelevant because the spall had already been produced due to the failure of the armour which fragments and breaks apart, flying towards the crew).
If it doesn’t produce spall then it’s just the game simulating it wrongly.
