Most ATGM’s (except the ones on CAS) are extremely underwhelming currently.
It’s still a ~12 inch (~305mm) missile body vs 7 inch(180mm), so that makes up the majority of the difference as penetration is dependent on the Charge’s Caliber, even using the new chart is still somewhere between 275~300mm in diameter so has a standoff ratio of about ~2.8CDs ~= 3 so would have only 3CD’s worth of penetration ( 825mm~900mm).
And would you look at that that practically lines up with the performance characteristics is in game.
The Chart i was using is;
Excerpt from *Fundamentals Of Shaped Charges*
As can be seen it also specifies the material being penetrated as BHA 320 armor plate
and itself is an excerpt from
Even the basic Hellfire (AGM-114B) on the other hand even assuming that the charge somehow made up the entire diameter of the missile would need 5.5CD of penetration, and Standoff of 3.5CD for optimal performance (as per the chart) which put it at most 630mm of 1.6m length (~40% of the way back from the nose which as seen below it is not) which obviously is not possible even using the Copper performance curve, let alone the fact that The Tandem variant only added 100mm of penetration.
The required Standoff assuming the same ratio of Charge to outer diameter of the Maverick (~90%) puts the diameter of the charge at (180*[275/305 = ~.901]) thus a projected charge diameter of 162mm and increases the required Penetration Ratio of ~6.2 well clear of what is possible according to either chart.
1 Like
AGM-65A warhead diameter is 10.4 inch
The 275mm value was recovered from pixel counting a cutaway, it’s close enough which is why I provided a range of values as there is some uncertainty, and I’ve never come across any definitive proof and said extrapolation is close enough, only being 4% off the true value, considering its a rushed scan of a reprint recovered from a University library.
The point was that if the Mavericks warhead was accurate, the hellfire was blatantly overperforming, considering that Figure I provided was responsible for the changes to NATO HEAT.
Which if they didn’t have sources for the Liner material in the first place, why were they assuming it was Aluminum instead of Copper, and where is the Pyrophoric effect that it should have? this could be simulated by uncapping the Overpressure hard limit of 20mm of RHA.
I know they didn’t have a source for it because there was a request for more detail in response to one of the bug reports that was made, explicitly requesting info on the liner, which I eventually found a suitable primary source (ADA278191) for.
Except mavericks with their over 50kg warhead that doesn’t even have overpressure…
yes, and they have longer ranges the missile is the same.
and? is there a bug report or not?
there is no bug report, because gaijin did it intentionally. [I struggle to see how the tow 2b nerf is bad : r/Warthunder (reddit.com)]
too effective probably one of the few things i agree with being nerfed at current map sizes/game modes
Well either make one or accept that your opinions will be unheard.
are you new to this game? gaijin doesn’t care about facts, only what they believe to be true. We’ve proven it already with the Abrams D.U Hull and how they refuse to put it in, even after we proved them wrong on everything they’ve said, they wont armor the abrams turret ring, they won’t allow nato tanks to fire the gun over the engine. etc.
You’re giving excuses to not make a bug report. Don’t complain if you aren’t making a bug report, you have the right to complain after they have ignored it.
Since you dont’t seem to understand what im typing let be be frank.
**WE’VE ALREADY MADE BUG REPORTS GAIJIN HAS LITERALLY IGNORED THEM. THEY CONTINUE TO IGNORE THEM NOT ONLY DO THEY IGNORE THEM, THEY DO THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE REPORT FOR EXAMPLE
Gaijin refuses to give the AH-64D IT ARMOR PIERCING D.U ROUNDS AND THE REST OF ITS ARMAMENT Community Bug Reporting System
THE M3A3 BRADLET MISSING ITS TWO SCOUTS THAT HELP THE TOW MISSILE RELOAD Community Bug Reporting System FOR SOME REASON THEY TOOK THEM OUT OF THE BRADLEY SAYING THEY WERE NOT APART OF THE CREW, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ITS BEEN 6 MONTHS NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED
ANOTHER REPORT I MADE ON THE B-29 MISSING ITS RADAR AND TURRET CCIP USING RADAR NO RESPONSE FROM GAIJIN**
Or you could read THE MULTITUDE OF BUG REPORTS.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder?s=TOW+2B&from-ts=1690866000&to-ts=1709272799
Was it that hard to say? Next time answer the question directly.
the part where i said " gaijin changed it " should have told you something…
Thats irrelevant. I don’t care wether they changed something or not, i care wether there is a current bug report made about it. It only matters to you.
this “document” is just vage marketing material, no real insight in the intricacies or properties of the warhead.
not why it was nerfed
Its good enough for the purpose of determining if the Tow-2b was designed to have tandem warheads to have anti ERA purposes. This doesn’t mean that in traditional use that it quite possibly resists era due to a combination of its design and usage as I stated here:
yes I believe so, I disagreed with him actually.