I didn’t, I added more trivia for you to consider next time you claim you know better.
But if there had been a 100-150mm uranium tip, it would have added more than 10% to conventional armor.
Would it? I’d expect the rod increasing in length by 100mm to roughly correspond to a ~10% increase in performance.
(610/690 - > 12%)
Math checks out, doesn’t it? ;)
This was made by BTTR.
The document literally says this. 10% is the maximum here.
At a distance of 1 km, it’s 5-7%.
And keep in mind that this is relative to a 630x23 projectile, not a 690x25 projectile.
What the increase will be relative to a 690x25 projectile is unknown.
This was made by BTTR.
And keep in mind that this is relative to a 630x23 projectile, not a 690x25 projectile.
According to who?
Can you tell me where is it stated in the origin source?
I’m talking to a wall that only wants to be in the right.
The document we’re both referring to provides data for comparing shells with 630mm of penetration, as far as I remember.
I sent the diagram above.
Again, I’m not saying this is the 829A3 penetrator; your argument about the shell’s weight is quite valid. However, a 5-10% increase in penetration from the tip is recorded relative to the shorter penetrator (630x23). I’ve already calculated that such a shell penetrates 557mm, so the tip provides 30-56mm against conventional armor.
Again, where is that stated.
We refer to one study that takes a 630mm penetrator projectile as an example and compares the <24mm version without a tip and the >24mm version with a tip.
The study doesn’t state the length is 630mm, it states it’s GREATER than 630mm, and that the diameter was increased to better resist effects of ERA.
I think I rest my case here, you barely understand the symbols those sources use, and only use what fits your narrative. Anything beyond this, I’m wasting time.
Then for what penetrator length is the graph given?
This only says that it is preferable to make the projectile this way, and not that this is exactly what was tested.
Lmao.
Can we report him en masse for being off-topic yet?
One of your company’s tech mods is being a insert colourful metaphor here.
Again.
ah yes, the rounds with the exact purpose to beat the era in question was not built with the data in mind etc.
Do you even listen to yourself lmao? realy you are better of staying in the russian forum echo chamber
Alright, thank you.
Made the reports now;
T-64A(1971) - Horizontal Drive Module doesnt disable aiming (h)
T-72A/AV/M1/M2 -Horizontal Drive module doesnt disable aiming(h)
Whats the point of this discussion. You can already pen k5 t80u frontally with dm53 and a2 and you only see k5 in downtiers
It wasn’t before, now it may be needed lol.
Funny that, you’ve seen the statistics and he knows you absolutely have it yet will challange it.
Also on the topic of T80UE1 VS the T84M
Here’s both of them, on their UFP at about the thickest areas, VS the BT4A1 round.
LMAOOL Russian bug report forward to devs within minutes meanwhile Italian mains gotta beg for years
Oh, what I’ve seen goes beyond just K-5, the US has tested the A3 versus both Relikt and Nozh, funnily.
Well I did ask a Technical Moderator whether I could report this beforehand and was told to send the reports to him afterwards.
What is reported would also in theory be a nerf to them (for T-64A moreso than T-72A because the latter is really hard to disable in this specific way lol)
Guy’s debate the topic not the user and if you can’t do that leave each other alone!
i have one question have the sense to play with other nations outside of Russia? in 10.7 br? or gaijin want to balanc it this year?
