He won’t use-3bm3/3bm4/3bm6…
because… БОЕКОМПЛЕКТ ТАНКОВ Т-62 и Т-64 115-мм танковых пушек У-5ТС и Д-68 (narod.ru)
I’m not sure if the translator is correct, so I’m confused.
After all, what ammunition does the 115mm T-64 use?
+1 for sure! It’s shocking we don’t have the T-64 already. Quite good addition for 9.0, though compression around that BR would make it an absolute menace.
Unlike the T-62, the T-64 has a loading mechanism…Shells with separate loading (projectile + propellant charge) are used…
Domestic tank guns. 115-mm smoothbore gun D-68 (2А21) (topwar.ru)
2А21 — Википедия (wikipedia.org)
The data of 3bm5 seems close to 3bm6, maybe same apfsds projectile?
- Shot 3UBM5 with a shell 3BM6(T-62)…
The body is made of 35KhZNM alloy weighing 3.009 kg. Armor-piercing tip 35KhGS, weight 0.167 kg…
2.The shot 3UBM4 with a shell 3BM4(T-62)…
The body is made of steel alloy 60KhNM a weight of 3.196 kg. Armor-piercing tip 35KhGSA, weight 0.187 kg.
- Shot 3UBM1 with a shell 3BM5(T-64)…
The body is made of steel alloy 35Kh3NM a weight of 3.176 kg. Ballistic tip made of 08KP alloy, weight 0.33 kg. Propellant charge 4Zh43.
The first representatives of this line of shells for 115 mm tank guns were U-5TS: 3BM4, 3BM28 Nadfil-1, 3BM21. They were of the unitary type and had good armor penetration indicators for their time and caliber: from 2000 m to 380 mm of homogeneous steel at an angle of 0 degrees. For another 115 mm tank gun, separate loading shots with a 3BM-5 shell and various types of propellant charges were D-68 used. Penetration was provided up to 400 mm from a distance of 2000 m at an angle of 0 degrees.
380mm at 2000 meters at 0º is the same as the 3BM22 of the 125mm T64A.
Which is excellent performance for the 115mm cannon.
But by this tab 3BM22 in game matches penetration from the image you have provided.
We estimate an 80% penetration probability (0.2 is the quantile of the armor penetration distribution function). This is called guaranteed (or regulatory) armor penetration.
The average armor penetration was introduced by ours in connection with exports. It is difficult to explain to a foreign customer that in fact your BP is more bourgeois, it is simply measured with a probability of 80%.
…and then the forum pages…
Spoiler
WT algorithmically calculates penetration of shells, that’s why many don’t match historical performance exactly. Do we have information on the geometry, composition, and velocity of 3BM5?
Honestly, this is not something that worries me.
Because this cannon cannot perform very differently from a T-62 and an Object 435.
I understand that his ammo is separated into two parts, but the development team will definitely resolve this.
I think it will have ammunition similar to the T-64A, and with a smaller reload.
The T-64A’s is 7.1 seconds, I think with the 115mm gun it should go down to at least 6.5 seconds.
- It uses different ammunition
- It’s reload rate is 6 seconds, I am pretty sure thats the value of average from the diagramm from the manuals.
9.0? it would make a great companion for Object 279.
I think he was referring to the performance of the ammunition.
After all, on one side we have a well-developed 115mm weapon, and on the other side we have a completely new 125mm.
“well developed” is a daring term when the two guns only differ by five something years.
There’s still quite a difference between the 115mm 3BM4 and the 125mm 3BM22.
By the age 125MM ammunition, as well as the gun was developed it’s hard to say that 115MM was developed good and enough - while sure it provided big advantage over 100 MM ammunition at the time, better rounds would be developed only in 1970s and later, with 3BM21, 3BM28 and 3BM36.
Yeah, should’ve been either the Object 430 (the beginning of the T-64’s lineage) or the 432 (the immediate predecessor) that went in the tree. The 435 being more a side branch in that lineage would’ve made more sense as a premium, event or squadron tank.
At any rate I’d love to see both the 430 and 432 get implemented.