Does the f1 have an anti era tip?
Because it looks like it is just a ballistic cap to me
Not to mention that it did poorly against duplet.
Yes, under the LKE I project that Rheinmetall led, DM43/OFL F1 was required to defeat Kontakt-5. The Germans, however, ended up dropping it in favor of the LKE II project, which had produced DM53, a much more potent projectile.
The ballistic tip is on top of the actual penetrator, and the defeat mechanism here is that the thinner tip, in theory, will limit the spread of force/energy over the ERA’s surface, thus fooling it into “thinking” it’s being struck by a 20- to 25-mm projectile.
Not to mention that it did poorly against duplet.
Duplet is also far more powerful than Kontakt-5 and much thicker, it has the power of a Gamma Ray Burst in its charge with how much energy & esplosives its storing;
This is from Cime Bocuze whom manufactured the penetrators for French APFSDS:
This would only be applicable if we’d have data on alloys they used to create that comparison. A more “alloyed” Tungsten matrix will perform worse against RHA (obviously, it’s less dense, weighs less, and carries less energy at both muzzle and on impact); a less alloyed Tungsten matrix (think WSM 4-1 of DM53) will perform much closer to DU as it has a similar enough density and thus weighs much more, but also travels at velocities high enough to trigger WHA’s very own adiabatic shearing, which in the end allows it to close the gap.
I’m also not sure of the accuracy of their graph, because Odermatt has one as well:
Where DU reaches its optimum velocity faster but begins to “drop” off after that, whereas Tungsten just continues the climb until it reaches 2 km/s velocity.
The difference between F2 (per Janes) and F1 (per WT) would be less than 20mm in the formers favor and mostly facilitated by the fact F1 is a bit faster (50 m/s to be precise, which for APFSDS is actually a huge difference).
Note: Odermatt has made use of the more accurate perforation measuring method, i.e., how much APFSDS made out of X material can realistically defeat; Bocuze has instead used the penetration method, which denotes that APFSDS has to completely erode in the process (KE rods are far more likely to run out of energy first than to be fully eroded by whatever they’re impacting).
5 Likes
French tungsten for rounds with an initial velocity of approximate >1600m/s has a density of 17.5g/cm^3 (OFL 120 F1) and tensile strength comparable to DU. OFL 120 F2 is supposed to penetrate more: OFL 120 F1 is stated to defeat the T-90S at 2500m and DU extends this range. At least one source states OFL 120 F2 has 15-20% more penetration than F1.
2 Likes
Okay, and how do you expect it to perforate 20% more when F1 is already at the physical limit of what can be done with a 600mm long rod? Even under the most “optimistic” (rather, unrealistic and even imaginary) circumstances, that’s simply impossible (in fact, perforating 20% more than the F1 would make it comparable to the latest estimates on M829A3, a projectile with a penetrating part that’s 1.4 times longer than F2s; it would actually put it slightly above the DM53, which goes without saying is once again, not feasible considering its much longer than F2, is faster, heavier, and has a very advanced alloy for its time, with a density that’s comparable to DU’s).
It [F2] either has to be much faster (it isn’t as far as we’re concerned, and besides, DU beyond 1700 m/s will only see very negligible gains or even lose some performance due to its tendency to shatter) or it has to be much longer (which is unlikely given it’s supposed to be only 0.3 or 0.4 kg heavier—the best you can get from that is a 630 mm long penetrator, which, needless to say, cannot physically achieve the performance claimed by X source).
By the way, it’s not that L-O “cannot account for DU magic” and whatever, it has accurately calculated both M829A1s & A2s perforation with an error margin smaller than 3% (i.e., within Odermatt’s predictions):
It’s moreso the fact there is no actual data on how long F2 is, maybeee the 15 - 20% claim could then indeed be truthful (but I still can’t stress this enough; based on what is currently known about OFL F2, that is unlikely, and until new data is uncovered and brought to light, I’d suggest treating it as nothing more than a wildcard that may come in use in the future).
1 Like
The source for the 20% increase pre-dates when OFL 120 F2 actually entered production so I wouldn’t attach a lot of weight to the claim. Regardless, my original point was that F2 should have better performance than F1 as the graph from Cime Bocuze (who manufactures the rounds) above proves. I won’t try to quantify the increase, but it should be better. In War Thunder it isn’t better - this is my gripe.
I will just say that for OFL 120 G1, L-O underestimates the performance by 10% according to primary sources. So whilst there’s probably no better estimator that exists, I won’t be taking L-O as gospel anytime soon.
5 Likes
It pre-dating F2s entrance into service should’ve been a dead giveaway that it’s nothing more than an overly optimistic estimate, but yes, I personally concur that it should perform better than F1 under certain conditions.
However, in accordance with Lanz - Odermatt’s chart, we can see that WHA & DU rods usually converge in performance at around 1700m/s velocity (and I personally value their findings more seeing as they performed a lot more concise testings with a lot more data points for different materials & even target material hardness), thus the performance difference is unlikely to be huge, it could actually be in F1s favour at closer ranges simply due to its excessive velocity (as L-O chart stipulates).
F2 on the other hand has better chances of chances of performing better at longer ranges as DU’s adiabatic shearing occurs even below 1700m/s, whereas tungsten requires the velocity to be above that focal point, some of my L-O estimates indicate that;
-
OFL F2 at a range of 2km’s (same dimensions as F1) will perforate about ~538mm of RHA at a neutral angle to the vertical, F1 on the other hand, due to being made out of less dense material, will lose velocity faster, achieving only ~534mm (or 537mm if we use WTs velocity loss which we also can)
-
At a range of roughly ~3 km’s, F2s performance will still be above ~525mm, whreas F1 begins to struggle to even break the ~510mm mark.
Keep in mind that this is against targets with zero tilt, where differences between APFSDS are at their smallest, if we were to increase the obliquity to 68 degrees, the difference grows (obviously).
However, this is all under the assumption that both of these projectiles are exactly the same size wise, but as I’ve already stated, F2 is roughly 0.5kg heavier, you cannot attain such a difference from simply changing the material to DU, so I’m assuming F2 might be somewhat longer (not by much much, but more than enough to make it the clear winner).
(By increasing the length by just ~35mm, F2 begins to perform roughly 10% better at ranges beyond 1km, and by about 3 - 5% below that)
1 Like
While the Leclerc may not have an internal spall liner, would you say its possible (similar to other western composites) that a spall catching liner is a part of the composite array, thereby reducing spalling?
I’m inclined to agree with the Cime Bocuze chart as that specifically relates to French alloys. Obviously, it isn’t the most clear, but it generally shows a convergence around 2000m/s.
As for OFL 120 F2, it could have different penetrator dimensions but there’s no clear evidence of this. From what I remember, the OFL 120 F2 penetrator weighs 4.3kg. A 0.3kg difference can be justified by the switch from tungsten to DU.
1 Like
The composite arrays are bound together using kevlar. This could marginally mitigate overall spall; however, there are no spall liners at the end of the day.
4 Likes
To each their own.
As for OFL 120 F2, it could have different penetrator dimensions but there’s no clear evidence of this. From what I remember, the OFL 120 F2 penetrator weighs 4.3kg. A 0.3kg difference can be justified by the switch from tungsten to DU.
You sure of this? Most sources that I have seen indicate a weight of at least ~4.5kg
Simply switching the material from WHA to DU increases the weight from 3.99kg to ‘just’ 4.24kg, a far cry from the cited weight.
1 Like
Weren’t you the guy that was saying whatever the manufacturer said should be trusted on the German thread?
Do the French not get that luxury
What?
Looking back at my sources, it is indeed 4.5kg. Ah well, we’ll surely know the exact penetrator dimensions in 50 years.
2 Likes
Love hate relationship with the 50 years of secrecy, great irl but noooot so much for war thunder :/
I’ll have my sources on Magic 2 launcher rails being backwards compatible with sidewinders in 48 years haha
1 Like
Tfw when the AMX 30s armour is still classified even though everyone knows it’s just RHA:
12 Likes
3 Likes
you probably need to raise a new report for 700mm CE protection of BRENUS ERA claim.
1 Like
Eh, it all falls under the category of BRENUS underperforming. Perhaps when the devs actually get off their asses and look at the issue, I shall make a separate report if it becomes necessary.
3 Likes
17 Likes
it depends like from 600 - 650 mm on 2.5 km but gaijin still dont give a sh*t. they likely to do buff to other nations axcept france. They can notice how loader managing round on abrams for 5 s, but they a’nt notice the fact that heres no actual video how they do it while moving.