Yes, I’m aware that M735 is Tungsten IRL, but I’m merely pointing out that Gaijin has it modelled as what I presume to be DU given the density they attributed to it.
Perhaps M735 had a density of 18500 with Tungsten, but that seems odd to me given the time period?
hmm… interesting. If that really the case. then Gaijin would need to change its name to not confuse people.
But with what Jεcka show. I’ll wait for more information on M735 vs M735A1 difference. (like estimate or calculation)
As it seem there still ain’t much on M735A1 side.
For what i’ve found. Steven Zaloga in his old book on the M1 wrote that the Israeli tank battalion credited with knocking out T-72s in Lebanon in 1982 using round with comparable performance to the M735A1. Likely M111 Hetz
M111 stat currently in-game
The density is stated in another document
However, that source isn’t necessarily 100% correct. The XM578/579 Projectile, used Kennametal W-2 Tungsten alloy. Which is a 97.2% W, with Ni, Fe, Cu, Co mix.
Teledyne Firth Sterling, X11 Tungsten alloy, is a Class 4 alloy of approximately the same density as W-2, but with a different alloy composition and improved mechanical properties.
Think this is from another document
I’ve also found the original document source for this image.
As far as M735A1, the core would have the same density as regular M735, as the processing of the green salts for the DU blanks was still being perfected at the time. Going by my L-O Jacketed Calcs, if both rounds were performing properly, M735A1 would be about 3mm worse at 10m, and 6mm better at 2000m vertical…
Have we passed the one year anniversary mark of this shell still not being fixed?
It will never be fixed because in doing so Gaijin would have to admit they were wrong and made a mistake.
It will never get fixed because then the Ivanboos will start crying again when it was a middlin’ round to even start with.
Never unless someone have documents
m1 abrams having this as a stock round is pain
velocity is the biggest factor most likely
the thing is there are documents, gaijn is just ignoring them
iirc the m735 should have 350mm 0 degree at 10-100m irl
the xm578e4 achieve around ~330mm
m774 is kinda correct(its just minor improvement over m735)
m833 should be close to dm33
Because they stopped caring about anything being realistic when they started adding modern vehicles. They really need to go back to their old ways that were honorable and respectable. This game does not deserve the title realistic anymore.
I forget the specifics of M735, all I know is it increased angled pen by 2mm when they changed its flat pen.
Also M833 is close to 105mm DM33, they’re within 2mm of each other at 2000 meters against a 60 degree angled plate.
@GNDM_Panzer
Yet NATO hardware is more powerful than everything in the Soviet tech tree.
So still nothing in regard of reverting this Nerf from almost 2 years ?
It wouldn’t be a reversion if fixed. As neither the current or original penetration stats in game are historically correct for the production XM735E2 AKA M735 round.
Other than that, no news yet…
You can revert things because they messed up game balance, as the nerf did. You can accept things aren’t correct. Gaijin does this constantly but when something is wrong and SHOULD be fixed its “uh oh! we don’t have LITERALLY ALL THE DATA THAT EXISTS so whoopsie! we can’t fix it!”
Its been 2 years the nerf affected vehicles using the round pretty significantly to the point on some of them gaijin just straight up replaced M735 with a new round so that the vehicles were not terrible
Why is it so hard to just revert it to its original stats?
I get the original stats are not correct either but gaijin had admitted it was a mistake to begin with
They can always fix it using correct information later
xm885(m774 performance)
xm578e1(i suspect its wrong because of the existences of T320)
upcoming m829(it should be equal to dm33 120, this thing is not worse than 3bm42 bruh, actually its 10mm better, hmm. Perhaps not way worse than 3bm46)
m833(should be around dm23 120 level performance)
The issue is the round did not change in any negative manner for 60 degree pen, and coincidentally, most tanks M735 faces are T-55s, M60s, and other angled plates.
@MrBombastic8
M833 is 426 at 2000, and 120 DM23 is 434 at a 60 degree NATO testing angle.
M829 is 524 out of L/44, DM33 is 508mm & 528mm depending on barrel length.
Divide those numbers by 2 to get the statcard values of plate thickness.
Multiplying [x cos 60] also will get you the same statcard values.
im not talking angle pen, im talking flat
