According to?
DM53s is a 5kg KE that’s fired at 1750m/s with dimensions being 685x22.4mm (density of 18.5g/cc).
Type 10 is a 4.2kg KE that’s fired at 1780m/s (this isn’t a whole lot faster btw), with dimensions of 620x24mm (diameter is largely irrelevant when it comes to the depth of penetration).
DM53 packs a whole lot more kinetic energy than Type 10.
So far you’ve thrown out claims that Type 10 must be better, but you haven’t backed up said claims with any evidence, as such, sources - now.
Where is your source for that what are the penetrators made out of
Your source said nothing about the type 10 round maybe read it before you post it :)
Характеристики APFSDS снарядов - Google Drive
Current Spreadsheet used by the Developers for the rounds, you can see informations about DM53 here, consider however the density is wrong, see @FurinaBestArchon report for that.
in the source, it states that the length of the type 10 is shorter than DM53, hence the reason it is limited For example, the length of the type 10 is 640 mm, while the length of the DM53 penetrator is longer, standing at 685 mm In the length, a 640 mm apfsds cant pen more than 645 mm and a 685 mm cant pen more than 690 mm, DM53 density per centimiter its 18.5 Grams making its density quite big
Mate, are you really this oblivious? The report I linked uses Rheinmetall’s public brochure where they explicitly state what DM53 is made out of.
On top of that, the snipet @UnHolySausage linked is for the Type 10 KEP, it is 4.2kg regardless of your belief.
And ranks like Leclercs, Abrams and earlier Leopard 2s don’t have armor like the B3 and T-90M for knife fights? That’s also unfair I guess.
Meh they all have the turret speed for it
I can just imagine tanks fighting with knives at the end of their barrels and the Chally 2 just goes, “RUNETH THY POCETS SCALLYWAG”
Here,
This table includes dimensions of most KE rounds in WT, including the Type 10 KEP.
So, lets see - a 627x24mm projectile - > here’s the stats for it:
And here are the stats for le corrected DM53:
So, may I now have the honour of seeing your sources that state Type 10 should be better than DM53?
That actually made me snicker congrats you are not complete dick but that was funny
literally just stop responding to that guy he wont understand that its an average reload rate taken for game balancing and reload is only for game balancing if they would want to change reload they would but its good as it is so stop complaining @VillainModeArc
Good point
@VillainModeArc not sure why you liked my post as it was to you to stop complaining as reload is for game balance thats why t72b3 has 7.1 reload rate
If you get outbrawled in the T-80U/BVM, B3 or T-90M by any tank that isn’t a 2A7V and Strv 122 it’s likely a skill issue.
Yeah we gotta teach those Italian mains a lesson to stop performing so well!
I said it was a good point
I even agreed with most of your statement except calling every russian main an ape if you like calling words on someone then i hope you like when people call you the same thing
No, the only improvement T-72B3 autoloader got is the ability to shoot 3BM60 and that caps out the max lenght of the rod that can fit the loading space from the bustle to the breach.
It’s fine where it is, 7.1 is not too bad although 6.5 is still prefer since it the reason why BVM is more popular then T-90M plus the mobility of it.
But the 72b3 can shot faster and it makes a difference to.
