The obvious question being (not aimed at you btw). Why not just FIX what was already in the game then - rather than give a certain tech tree ANOTHER new toy that throws the game balance out of kilter.?
4 Likes
This directly states the length is GREATER than 630mm, you do know what “>” means?
The tip is a solid steel construction with a length “greater than 100 mm”, while the main penetrator has a length of “about 630 mm, preferably greater than about 650 mm, and more preferably greater than about 670 mm”.
This was even stated in the very same document.
M829A3 also has an in-flight weight of 7.2kg, so a 630x25mm projectile would be way too short to weigh that much, even with a 100mm steel tip, the tracer, and the fin assembly - it would be short by about a kilogram.
A 630x25mm rod is 5.75kg in weight, a steel tip from maraging steel is 380g, we’re at 6.1kg, fin assembly + tracer will amount for about 200g (likely less), so yeah, we’re way too short of the reported 7.2kg in-flight weight.
Even a 690x25mm projectile is 320g too light, unless we assume the steel tip is longer than 100mm.
i said added. it was probably in development much longer.
the puma model/image was leaked years before it came to the game
pretty sure the f35 f22 are either in the works or possible even done, does not mean it will come next patch
and has a said before they could just have given it 1 or 2 types of missiles and it would probably be fine but nope they had to give it the entire load of 3 different missiles
Of course, but I used estimates that are clearly known.
I’m confused about the length of a round with a 690mm penetrator and a 100-150mm tip (I’ve seen different estimates).
You agree, right, that we don’t have clear data on a 690mm penetrator?
These are good observations, I will try to calculate the weight carefully.
Translation - you guessed and made it up.
You ever wonder why people don’t take you too seriously on this forum?
He himself has used the 690 value before
1 Like
I agree, you don’t have clear data.
Lol, caught red-handed.
6 Likes
Come on guys - everyone knows SOVIET milimetres are totally different from Western milimetres.
Like dur!
It is logical that I can take different assessments.
But trust those from more authoritative documents.
Here I was discussing the possibility of simply lengthening the penetrator by 100-150 mm and achieving the same penetration.
The only way for even a 690x25 (actually 685x25mm) rod to fulfill the requirement we’re talking about here, is for the steel tip to be ~150mm’ish in length - but we then just come in circles, because that then means M829A3 has more than enough power to absolutely demolish any tank with K-5 after even 2km range.
Similar as to how DM53 does it at >2km as well, but again, they work differently - DM53 works the way PanzerFaust-3 does (and it’s frankly disgusting, because they both absolutely demolish K-5).
It seems to me that you’re not taking into account that the effectiveness of ERA penetration is determined not only by the tip effect, but also by its simple kinetic impact.
You’re separately adding a 1.1 multiplier and separately reducing the effectiveness of ERA. Thus, you’re doubly summing the effect of the tip (and a little more from the shell thickness, but that has less of an impact).
I hope I’ve made my point clear.
In my opinion, it’s more accurate to calculate it this way:
A 630x23 (<24) shell penetrates 557mm of steel, roughly 437mm more than the K-5 (I roughly subtracted 120mm).
A 630x25 shell with a 100mm tip penetrates 20-30% more after K-5 (depending on the distance).
437*1.2-1.3=524-568mm.
What’s wrong with this calculation?
1 Like
Because the tip also adds perforation… that’s whats wrong with it. By removing it, you’re ignoring 100 to 150mm of penetrative material.
And of course, by assuming the rod is that short.
But the 20-30% improved penetration after ERA already takes into account the additional penetration from the tip.
According to my calculations, the 630x25 projectile with a tip actually penetrates 20-30% more steel after ERA.
568/437=1.3
524/437=1.2
But according to yours, no.
According to the patents from ATK, such a design increases the penetration into RHS protected by an unkown type of heavy ERA by 20 to 30% compared to the same penetrator without solid steel tip. Against normal RHS not protected by any form of ERA however the penetration increased only by 5 to 10%, which is to be expected due to the steel tip also prodividing penetration.
So instead of having some mind-boggling penetration (for an APFSDS fired with the short L/44 barrel) against all types of armor, the penetration against RHS/composite armor might be as low as ~660 to 700 mm; enough to defeat the main armor of tanks like the T-80U, T-90 and Type 99.
I hope I’ve made the point clear.
It seems to me that you’re not taking into account that the effectiveness of ERA penetration is determined not only by the tip effect, but also by its simple kinetic impact.
The effectiveness is already substracted from the total sum of performance by way of lowering ERA’s performance, the tip does not magically disappear, it increases performance of the projectile, so we need to look at a rod without it (i.e say, 610mm of pen), and a rod with it (performance increased by 1.1 where the final result is ~675mm’ish of perforation at 10m).
Therefore, a rod without the tip will perforate (-120mm from ERA), 490mm of steel, a rod with the tip will perforate 591mm - > ~20% increase in performance over a projectile without the tip.
Justifying M829A3s existence.
This corroborates the 660mm - 700mm figure seen in the article that uses the ATK patent.
But according to yours, no.
lol.
What’s wrong with this calculation?
To be honest, what’s wrong is the fact T-series have their LoS protection coded as flat protection.
After all, 530mm LoS RHAe performance will be vastly less in 0 deg/LoS performance (roughly 440 to 450mm’ish).
A fix to this would corroborate M829A2’s “brute force approach”, in fact.
Once again.
The table showing the difference in penetration after ERA clearly shows that the technical comparison is between a projectile with and without a tip and increased thickness.
This means that this 20-30% difference already accounts for the increase in kinetic energy of the tip, not just the anti-ERA effect.
I did the calculations visually and got 20-30%.
Could you do your own calculations for a 630x25 projectile? So that it matches the document.
Which is pointless, the source states >630, meaning GREATER than 630mm. At no point should we even be considering calculating a projectile of such size, in fact it states the projectile should be >670mm, so the lowest we could use is a 671mm long DU projectile. For any level of comparison to make sense, it has to match the in-flight weight of 7.2kg, the only configuration that achieves it is a 690x25mm DU rod with a 150mm steel tip.
This means that this 20-30% difference already accounts for the increase in kinetic energy of the tip, not just the anti-ERA effect.
And the end-result from my calculation is that the steel-tipped projectile achieves a 20% post-ERA performance compared to a projectile without it.
The table showing the difference in penetration after ERA clearly shows that the technical comparison is between a projectile with and without a tip and increased thickness.
How is it any different from my calculation?
FUNNILY, the patent also states this:
The ammunition system of claim 20 wherein the first
portion of the body has a density Substantially the same as
a density of the Second portion of the body.
So we could all be wrong about the tip being steel, and instead it’s DU/WHA, if it is DU, we could just be extending the penetrator by the reported length of the tip.
If it is DU, then performance increases to 690mm’ish pen at 10m, vastly outmatching any K-5 clad T-series, and matching the 7.2kg in-flight weight.
And you know what? In fact the tip is WHA:
alloys, and tungsten-based composites and having a
first mass of between about 9% and 15% of the pen
etrator mass, and
a Second portion consisting essentially of material
Selected from the group consisting of uranium,
uranium-based alloys, and uranium-based composites
and having a Second mass forming Substantially the rest
of the penetrator mass and positioned aft of the first
portion of the body;
So what we’re looking here for, is a mixed >800mm projectile with DU and WHA, a thickness of AT LEAST 25mm, but somehow you don’t think it could defeat Kontakt-5?
;)
5 Likes
Nice one.
I predict he’ll do one of two things.
-
Slink off back to his forums until another time. Maybe a different Western tech that he can opine on - we’ve had SAMs, we’ve had British NERA, we’ve now had Darts - what will it be next week? Nuclear Reactors, Western AESA Radars, Stealth, maybe even the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything?I dunno.
-
Say that ‘because X Russian APFSDS cannot do this’ - Western round Y cannot. (Because they look the same.) Bonus points if he wheels out a dubious ‘source’ that is completely in Russian but which covers said Western tech.
Will I be right? Will I win an internet cookie?
Stay tuned for next week’s exciting episode of ‘When Ralin Strikes!’
1 Like
Because it makes money
Ooh wow new shiny vehicle now I have to grind it (some will pay to do so)
Its no different to IRIS-T launch where a ton of people flocked to grind it out.
1 Like