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.
610*1.1 increase from the steel tip - 30% of ERA’s potency - > ~670’ish pen versus ~600’ish mm of armor.
For WT, this is as simplified as it goes, as in the game ERA has a fixed level of protection, and it doesn’t ‘degrade’ KEP in any way.
For reference, ~650mm for DM53 versus K-5 with only 40% of its “base protection” + T-80U would’ve resulted in 650mm pen versus 580’ish mm of armor.
1 Like
this is already taking into account the tip…
But the T-80U has 630mm of armor…
I don’t mind, but you try to calculate for yourself how long the penetrator should be to produce such results at 1555 m/s
And how did you calculate this?
Because this is M829A3 without the tip.
@Ralin since you’re here anyway, I wanted to ask whether you know a reason for the outer horizontal-drive part on T-64A(1971) to do nothing?
I did some testing and it turns out that destroying this part doesnt disable the horizontal-drive, the ring and manual crank do however.
On T-72A, which has a similar composition, it’s essentially the other way around, where the ring + outer drive disable the horizontal-drive, but the manual crank doesnt.
Is this intentional or can I bug-report it given that on other MBTs the manual drives are not separated from the motorized drives - and having the manual one be what affects the drive-mechanism over the motorized one seems rather odd (in case of T-64A).
I used LO. Penetrator dimensions are mentioned in that document.
I don’t know why people get mad at those who try to calculate this.
I tried it and don’t understand what penetrator size I need to set to achieve high penetration.
I think it’s worth reporting this.
Do so and send it to me.
Obviously, damage to any part should block targeting.
That’s without the tip then.
How do you arrive at 610mm pen WITH the tip?
Where did you get such a long penetrator?