They can but russia has to have 1 better.
Also your comparing the armour without considering the Armoured Fighting Doctrine of that tank/nation’s military.
some of the older ones do have it correct. I didn’t say only NATO suffers from the cannon dysfunction, tho USSR and China suffer to a much lesser extent. Negligible.
Ah yes, a penetrator that’s 546mm in length achieves 650mm of penetration @ 2000m, 0°.
That source can be thrown in the garbage bin.
2 Likes
Yeah, that likely is a very bad source.
Would be statements needed where those numbers are actualy from.
I could do the same tabel and just say DM 33 is supposed to penetrate 1200mm
Here we witness the selective modeling of the every magnificant russian devs.
Ever heard of kenetic energy and meterial desnity?
We aren’t shootin darts at hard slabs here.
No.
I’ve heard of material density though.
This statement alone makes it very evident you’ve not understood any of the basics on this topic.
Firstly, penetration is listed as a RHAe, I.E., rolled homogeneous armor equivalency, the same is true for armour values as listed in source material.
The composite armour of an M1 Abrams consists of various differing materials inside an armoured cavity, this obviously is not a simplistic solid steel structure, but the equivalent armour protection this armour provides is still quantified as a RHAe.
Secondly, a general rule of thumb is that APFSDS projectiles do not exceed their own length in penetration depth (at the vertical), according to that previous source, 3BM-46 magically manages to massively exceed it’s own length in penetration depth, even up to 3-4km+ ranges. This is why it can easily be dismissed as being nonsense.
Thirdly, monobloc APFSDS with a high L/D ratio also achieves greater LoS penetration at 60 degrees than it does at the vertical, again, that source claims the opposite. Another reason why that source can be dismissed as nonsense.
Your “rule of thumb” being a penetrator that cannot exceed itsself (the rod length) in penetration depth is mathematically disfuctional bro. for high-density penetrators…that rule applies roughly when the projectile and target have similar densities duhh
Go put through this in AI to get a better tailored explination if it’s so “evident”
Show me a primary source which shows that a monobloc APFSDS penetrator with a high L/D ratio achieves greater penetrator depth @ the vertical than it’s own penetrator length.
Is this how you came to be so ill-informed on the subject?
No, because I expect you to by any worse at it so you can better understand it.
not an issue on my part
In other words: You cannot provide me a single source which supports your position.
Figures.
If the you need to search up if an ant is an insect, I’d have major concerns for you
The thing about lazy analogies is that they work both ways: I could easily say that you’re having difficulties telling an ant is an insect because you refuse to understand what I’ve explained thus far.
Regardless, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re unable to provide anything that proves what you’re saying is true.
It’s fine if you were under a misassumption, I don’t understand why people are so afraid to learn new things or acknowledge when they made a mistake.
Anyways, every primary source I’ve got regarding the length of projectiles and their achieved penetration values fully coincides with what I’ve said.
L27 is a penetrator design that’s 605mm in length, it achieved around 680-700mm of penetration at 70 - 74.9 degrees of sloping in testing.
Meanwhile, that awful source linked above claims that 3BM-46 would be capable of exceeding it’s length in penetration by more than 100mm (at the vertical!).
Spoiler
Spoiler
Same story for M774, 3BM-46, 3BM-32, M829A1, M829A2, L26, etc. etc.
Well that’d be a first
Obviously those are just estimations based on math from Goce Delcev University and Military Academy Skopje, Macedonia.
What do you want classified Russian MOD documents?
I still have yet to see something that says 3BM69 and 70 actually exist outside of mockups.
Then they cant calculate.
Gajins penetration is based on a formular as well.
What weird data did they use to get to this unrealstic numbers
The same formular would yield way higher numbers for western rounds as well.
They are longer rounds, more dense and more energy.
At least for 3bm60 and co.
Vacuum is completly different. But not realy used yet if i remember right
On oh yeah, universities dont get access to classified material either
What ever dude, I use Russian sources and it’s “propaganda” I use part of a paper published by a NATO officer and it’s “unrealistic”. So think what ever the hell you want.
Because this game is designed to demonstrate the superiority of the USSR/Russian military over NATO countries. In this game, Western tanks will always be terrible and have worse performance. Bug reports related to Western tanks are ignored by Gaijin for years.
1 Like
So many bug reports have been filed regarding the Abrams’ gun mantlet and incorrect data on the Abrams’ turret ring armor. All are ignored.
3 Likes