To begin with, I never said it was in the game, I said:
Gaijin was planning to make it “anti-ERA”, but the Russian forum cried and that was thrown out the window, we have datamines from 2020 showing the code was in the game for it lol
Can you read?
Same question for you my argument was around people being quite unhappy about “New Power” and its because of 3BM42M not anti-ERA capabilites which was never implemented.
Try 2031.
You can do some math to make it easier.
It is a huge difference, as it removes uncertainty - we’re both talking about the same source, and said source agrees that M829A2 was a “brute force solution” already, meaning that the US Army only began M829A3s development for the purposes of turning a % of failure into an absence of failure.
Obviously, the second one will penetrate more simply due to its thickness and tip (the projectile is longer).
5 to 10% if no ERA is available.
The tip is what makes the difference if ERA is present.
Again, however, some assumptions were wrong on the UTTT’s part.
Your argument being… a goalpost. 3BM-42M had nothing to do with anti-ERA and why it wasn’t implemented.
3BM-42M back then was as good vs Leopard 2s as BM-60 is today too.
Stop makeing up stuff people were upset that was completley usless upgrade compared to DM53 and M829A1.
Has nothing to do with DM53’s anti-ERA and why it wasn’t added. Another day, another Whisloy goalpost classic.
It’s sad. However, there are also “open” brochures/books.
I’m skeptical of everything until I see confirmation of one opinion or another.
Could you, for example, calculate it?
Give some estimates based on the data?
but this is not so little, considering the overall growth of around 20%.
It’s strange that you only see one side of the coin.
I believe the assumptions about the T-90M’s -15 reverse speed and the BVM’s -25 reverse speed are incorrect.
I’m very skeptical that the Su-30SM2 is equipped with the N035 and Al-41 (at least in any production form).
But I’m also skeptical about many other things.
1 Like
Oh yeah next time try to see difference between T-72A and T-72B
3BM42M wasn’t a useless upgrade, back then it was the only long rod shell available to USSR (3BM42 has since been buffed to be a long rod but I don’t know when), it was much more consistent
what made it useless is only being available to the T-90A
Again, performance of BM-42M had nothing to do with the russian players whining about DM53’s anti-era, stop trying to make these two different issues connected, when they weren’t - you’re not appearing any smarter.
Rosji need Su-67 right now and MiG-69
Pleas gif T-14
Sure, any prerequisities?
Like the level of deterioration - are we using the % achieved during RU tests vs BM-22 (>40%), or during UKR tests vs DM33 (~20%)?
Different projectiles will resist the flyer plate differently, after all.
It existed literally in game files mate.
2 Likes
I honestly don’t understand what you mean.
I asked how much 829a3 was actually ignored and how you calculated it.
I don’t understand what 3BM22 and DM33 have to do with it (I’m hearing about such tests for the first time).
BM59 is nothing compared to secret Polish ammunition
1 Like
Not it was completley joke of an addition like +20 mm of pen ? Compared to DM53 and M829A1 it was miserable.
So what needed to appear smarter ? Use Agava-1 image from tankograd as example that has postscript “Please do not use as example it has been worsened several times” ?
Damn its like MiG-29 flying with R-73 when Apex Predators update was released.
Hot Tracks Dev Server specifically
it was not needed at all, the 2A6 already bodied top tier
You didn’t need DM53 levels of pen as 3BM42M was more than enough for all NATO MBTs (except the rare Strv 122).
1 Like
Because I can calculate (although it’s napkin math), the level of reduction K-5 will achieve versus M829A3 based on its performance versus other projectiles (but I asked you for what level of deterioration I should go for, as K-5 won’t affect a WHA/DU long-rod with a jacket/break-off tip the same way it affects a steel rod, after all).
Obviously we can just simplify it, and say that Kontakt-5 here would be 70% as good versus M829A3 as against say, M829A2, so 84mm instead of 120mm - so we go from the territory of “barely perforates” to “perforates 100% of the time at distances out to 2km’s” as the performance of the rod also increases due to increased length.
It’s strange that you only see one side of the coin.
Ah no, I’ve just seen the doc about it. So it’s more like I know what M829A3 does to K-5
:)
1 Like
Ah, so you’re coping, oki.
Okay, 30% is perfectly acceptable.
But the base penetration of the 829A3 is likely lower than that of the A2.
In the document you referenced, the core dimensions weren’t very large; the steel pin takes up a lot of space, plus the flight speed is very slow.
According to my calculations, the 829A3’s penetration will be no more than 610mm, so the result relative to the T-80U’s UFP will be roughly the same.
Even your calculations don’t guarantee reliable penetration, especially at range.