Why are Tanks like the T-55A, tanks from the 60s, being allowed to use 1980s rounds? While NATO tanks like the M60A1(AOS) from the same Era, is stuck with early HEAT-FS and 1950s APDS? Despite the fact their are MUCH stronger APDS and APFSDS rounds they could be getting, its not a balance issue, because the British get a Basically identical tank mobility wise, with similar armor, with APFSDS at 8.3. The Olifant MK1.
This gets even worse with the Chieftains, Why are they stuck with a sub 300mm pen round, basically the first APDS round developed for the Cheiftains, While fighting Merkava’s and T-72s that are basically impossible to kill with L15A3?
Why not give them L15A5 atleast? Which would be around 370mm of Penetration?
As for the Nato L7 105s? Their are a Multitude of rounds you could give them to increase their effectiveness against other targets, The American’s especially need it.
4 Likes
That still is nowhere near as modern as the 3BM-25 round, a Round developed in the 1980s!
Bullshit on the more resilient to shatters, have you USED the Cheiftains? EVER?
1 Like
3BM25 is from 1978
I’ve been playing the Mk3 the past 2 days, the only rounds I’ve had vanish were on Leopard mantlets, no shatters.
6 Likes
If I’m not mistaken, 3BM25 was created for the purpose of having the same performance as 3BM8 APDS while using less tungsten. This can be seen in game, where both rounds have fairly similar performance.
3 Likes
That was 3BM-20, 3BM-25 was a improvement on the -20 round since the performance was so lackluster.
Ah yes, it was 3BM20, my bad.
Nevertheless, it remains that 3BM25 in game has similar penetration to 3BM8. Just because it was made later doesn’t mean its performance is anything special.
1 Like
Not really, only problem I’ve seen is less spall, which happened after I got used to M829 and later rounds. Went back to M1IP and M1 for a few games, I had a bit less spall than I was used to.
T-55A uses the worst APFSDS round at 8.3.
As you prove, L15A3 has higher pen: 296 - 322mm 0 - 60 degrees.
3BM25 is 330 - 254mm of penetration 0 - 60 degrees.
Olifant Mk1 fires a far better APFSDS round than both.
1 Like
Ive made a bug report about the chieftain’s APDS having the penetration it had at a KILOMETRE at 10m and it instantly got shut down.
1 Like
295?
Well, as you can see L15A3 has 277 - 302mm of penetration at 1km in War Thunder.
What’s the problem exactly?
From experience: 3BM25 is so bad that some times it doesn’t do much damage as a shell of its type could do or some absurd non-pen moments, but this one I must blame volumetric, it’s some crazy thing with APDS shells.
By time to time I rather using BR-412D or 3BK17M.
1 Like
having the punch it had at 1km point blank is the issue here, its one of the worst inaccuracies on any tanks capability in-game when there’s all the documentation declassified. its still an ok shell, but I have a better time using the 105mm on the centurion at 8.7 because of its impotent penetration in comparison. its very odd for the late ww2 designed tanks to somehow be punchier than the one from the late 60s.
the document also shows that the APFSDS on chieften mk10, khaled and the challenger 1 is off by a small margin too. its very odd for the 1955 tanks to somehow be punchier, there’s a reason why that canon has the longest tank on tank kill
Gaijin always does this ,surprising that people are not noticing
When USSR/RU tank is released it gets most up to date ammunition/armor improvements
Nato Tanks get most basic ammo and then maybe after three years get some upgrade
T 55 AM is worst example of this
4 Likes
Flat penetration is not the standard, under the same specifications of 60 degree converted to flat L15A3 in game penetrates 302mm at 1,000m.
???
2 Likes
It doesn’t have its 1km pen at 10 meters in War Thunder though… 1km it claims the following:
Leopard 2: 475.
Chieftain: 295.
M774: over 390.
And T-72/T-64 ~500mm.
Testing is normally done against 60 degree plates, and it doesn’t specify an angle.
We know M774 is correct.
In War Thunder M774 has 414mm of penetration. It is indeed above 390mm of penetration.
Spoiler
3BM42 does indeed have 500mm of penetration at 1km against a 60 degree plate, the standard test.
Spoiler
L15A3 has 302mm of penetration at 1km, more than the 295 cited.
Spoiler
L15A3 pens 324mm at 10 meters.
The equation is: armor plate / cos angle = LOS penetration.
Gaijin always gives NATO better ammo, yes. This is common knowledge.
2 Likes
Gaijin uses a standardized formula for determining pen.
5 Likes
Russia is almost always acquiring weapons with better performance than NATO. Let me give a simple example. Gaijin would rather reduce Abrams’ ammunition loading time than install M829A3. There was an issue about the incorrect fastest speed of KH38 that was rejected. Yes, issues that enhance NATO will be rejected, and issues that weaken NATO will be immediately installed. This already illustrates the nature of double standards and bias in the game
2 Likes
Ah yes, flat penetration is what matters and not sloped pen, there’s so much flat armour at 8.3.
3 Likes
M829A1, a round seen on M60 120S, has more performance than 3BM60, Soviet tech tree’s best round.
USA has access to M829A2, the best MBT round in War Thunder, for its M1A2 series of tanks.
So all you’ve done is prove USA has a better performing weapon than the Soviets.
KH38, which has the same capability of not dying to SPAA as F-16C and AV-8B, an identical weapon UNLESS some bugs are fixed and SPAA better than Pantsir is added.
So USA, Britain, France, Sweden, and Germany aren’t NATO countries…
Spoiler
Of course Japan vehicles got fixed in the positive direction as well.
LITENING II thermal bug was fixed. Leclerc turret traverse was slightly buffed.
All you’ve done is prove there is no Russian bias, and no double standards.
3 Likes
