3bm22 based off of many russian armor books says its maximum penetration at 10-100m was 440mm of hardened steel armor.

[DainBamage]

While this round was fielded in 1976. The tank that most people are angry about using it could not fire it until the 80s.

Americans by then used a 105mm round called the m833 which penetrated 490mm of hardened steel. Warthunder you disapoint me especially concerting the propaganda documents you pretend are legitimate.

These values are taken from Vasiliy Fofanov's Modern Russian Armor

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

that didn't answer my question at all, all you've done is tell me you are ASSUMING it's against different armour.

And you are assuming its against similar armor? No i am not assuming It is a fact during this time period what they used as targets were strictly hardened steel.

If it doesn't note hardened steel, you saying it was definitely against hardened steel is an assumption.

Not only that, but modern steel in game is stronger than WW2 steel and the penetration of RHA is the same on this table as it is in game (against rolled homogeneous armour, or armour steel, which is hardened)

You have still failed to provide your source for the M774, and I can't find it on the page (http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/) that you linked

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

If it doesn't note hardened steel, you saying it was definitely against hardened steel is an assumption.

Not only that, but modern steel in game is stronger than WW2 steel and the penetration of RHA is the same on this table as it is in game (against rolled homogeneous armour, or armour steel, which is hardened)

You have still failed to provide your source for the M774, and I can't find it on the page (http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/) that you linked

I never said it was on there you are quoting values from steel beasts lmao. Really modern steel is stronger than ww2 steel? Which would be why the penetration values measured on that weaker steel would be misconstrued on the stronger harder and heavier modern steel. Which the penetration values are based on? The point is that the penetration is flat out wrong either way. If it indeed is 440mm at 2000m then warthunder is wrong and if its 380mm then they are wrong again.

So what is your point that I am stating a tank target range fact listed on one of the websites that Warthunder linked themselves?

I am quoting numbers from the website YOU LINKED. THE ONE YOU PUT IN THE OP.

The penetration values are done in RHAe, the same as every penetration value for every gun. The modern steel modifier applies to armour of the vehicle, so the 440mm of RHAe penetration may not penetrate 440mm of modern armour in game, which is exactly as it should be.

If you could ACTUALLY LINK your sources instead of just saying "I got it from here" without any quotes, pictures or links to check, that would also be nice.

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

I am quoting numbers from the website YOU LINKED. THE ONE YOU PUT IN THE OP.

The penetration values are done in RHAe, the same as every penetration value for every gun. The modern steel modifier applies to armour of the vehicle, so the 440mm of RHAe penetration may not penetrate 440mm of modern armour in game, which is exactly as it should be.

If you could ACTUALLY LINK your sources instead of just saying "I got it from here" without any quotes, pictures or links to check, that would also be nice.

have been linking http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9828,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-iii-dane-amunicji-apfsds-t.

Tank Cannon 2A26 to 2A46M, Technical Description and Use, Part 3 Ammunition, Military Publishing , Moscow, 1988 2. 125 mm Shot 3VBM-13
Technical Description and Use, Military Publisher, Moscow, 1990
ST 250/4 / 005, firing board 125 mm tank cannon D-81, DDR, NVA, 1981
Shooting boards for the 125 mm cannon D-81 (2A46, 2A46M), NVA, 1987

Some textbooks which reference maximum 2000m Penetration of the 3bm22 at 380mm. While mentioning humorously it had a 30% chance to outright disintigrate probably a russian joke.

http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm while the m774 is nearly identical in penetration.

Except you've failed to read properly.

the M774 round has 360mm of penetration at 2km (http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9828,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-iii-dane-amunicji-apfsds-t)

and 380mm at 1km(http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm)

so at a kilometre less range, it has the same penetration (from the sources you are quoting)

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

Except you've failed to read properly.

the M774 round has 360mm of penetration at 2km (http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9828,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-iii-dane-amunicji-apfsds-t)

and 380mm at 1km(http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm)

so at a kilometre less range, it has the same penetration (from the sources you are quoting)

At 60 degrees ♥♥♥♥♥♥. Who hasnt read properly?

"a penetration channel achieved with a monolithic steel plate set at an angle of 60 degrees. "

I.E. LoS thickness, not nominal thickness.

STILL YOU

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

"a penetration channel achieved with a monolithic steel plate set at an angle of 60 degrees. "

I.E. LoS thickness, not nominal thickness.

STILL YOU

Um incorrect. So if we want to do the math LOS thickness 360mm @ 60degrees would be a 10-20% kinetic energy disapation without normalizing. Something warthunder actually models in game correctly. This is why shells dont penetrate fully at 60 degrees.

"And how much does it pierce?". The data given in both sources have been reduced to the total length of the penetration channel in the plate inclined at an angle of 60 degrees from the vertical and arranged chronologically according to the dates contained in both tables. "

This is just one of my sources want to examine others?

The other one is at 0 degrees.

along with the APFSDS shell penetrating at LoS due to normalisation, you're just grasping at straws at the moment.

You're wrong, we know you're wrong, get over it.

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

The other one is at 0 degrees.

along with the APFSDS shell penetrating at LoS due to normalisation, you're just grasping at straws at the moment.

You're wrong, we know you're wrong, get over it.

What other one lmao? This is taking in regards both tests. 0 degrees and 60 degrees correlating and comparing penetration and still finding the exact same results at a distance of 2000 metres 340-80 averaging 360. While the same test against the 3bm22 averaged 375-380 are you mentally ill?

http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm

THE
SOURCE
YOU
LINKED

Calling me mentally ill (not an argument BTW, just childishness) while not remembering anything you linked or being able to read it is a little stupid.

the 380mm of penetration is a ONE KILOMETRE, not TWO, ONE, and at 0 degrees (given the penetration of other shells that is listed on the document (incase you forgot, http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm)) (by the way, I'm using the data for the one about 5 entries above yours, the one that doesn't say it's the tungsten export only version, and the DU version (the one directly below the entry you used) is a little higher, granted.

The other one (http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9828,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-iii-dane-amunicji-apfsds-t) note that it penetrated 360mm LoS thickness at 2km, bearing in mind these shells have perfect penetration (as in, the go through LoS without losses, since they are older APFSDS shells the don't go through less than LoS)

The 3BM22 managed, from your source (http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/ (Vasiliy Fofanov's Modern Russian Armor)) a predicted penetration of 430mm at 2km, or a certified (I assume that's penetrated every time? It doesn't actually state other than "in terms of defeated plate") penetration of 380mm, along with a 60 degree penetration of 170mm (165 in game, so it's actually very close if not dead on, or a little underperforming)

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm

THE
SOURCE
YOU
LINKED

Calling me mentally ill (not an argument BTW, just childishness) while not remembering anything you linked or being able to read it is a little stupid.

the 380mm of penetration is a ONE KILOMETRE, not TWO, ONE, and at 0 degrees (given the penetration of other shells that is listed on the document (incase you forgot, http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm))

The other one (http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9828,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-iii-dane-amunicji-apfsds-t) note that it penetrated 360mm LoS thickness at 2km, bearing in mind these shells have perfect penetration (as in, the go through LoS without losses, since they are older APFSDS shells the don't go through less than LoS)

The 3BM22 managed, from your source (http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/ (Vasiliy Fofanov's Modern Russian Armor)) a predicted penetration of 430mm at 2km, or a certified (I assume that's penetrated every time? It doesn't actually state other than "in terms of defeated plate") penetration of 380mm, along with a 60 degree penetration of 170mm (165 in game, so it's actually very close if not dead on, or a little underperforming)

It literally says the 1km pen model was for export only non DU metal. Did you not read it?

The still lose energy at an angle, You contradict yourself in your next paragraph. Please try to remember what you say. IE 165 @ 60degrees. but that is not the point. The point is that the angles were correlated and cross referenced to provide more accurate penetration values. which are listed. 1km 370mm is the export non DU metal penetrator. aka the one not used by the US military.

The one post is the predicted penetration. meaning what they thought its potential would be at 2000m. Guess what it actually achieved. 380mm. Honestly It doesnt take an engineering degree to google those terms

Except that is the CERTIFIED PENETRATION

Just like the the Germans used 100% criteria not 50% that the British and Americans used, so I'm assuming certified penetration is the amount it will definitely penetrate no questions asked.

You need to re-read my comment for the M774 thing, I was never using the tungsten version.

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

Except that is the CERTIFIED PENETRATION

Just like the the Germans used 100% criteria not 50% that the British and Americans used, so I'm assuming certified penetration is the amount it will definitely penetrate no questions asked.

You need to re-read my comment for the M774 thing, I was never using the tungsten version.

That m774 is from Jane's Ammunition handbook which uses Export versions my friend. I wrote part of it. the DU ammo is the only one you can base it off of. Or any of my other sources rather than the online ones.

440mm @ 2km was estimated. 380 was certified. Which is what i intially stated. Have a good night.

so basically, this topic had no reason to exist because your initial statement was flat out wrong and you were upset the Abrams wasn't objectively the best tank.

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

so basically, this topic had no reason to exist because your initial statement was flat out wrong and you were upset the Abrams wasn't objectively the best tank.

My intial statement was that it penetrates 440mm at 10-100m Dont be butthurt. That is in the sources.

The source you gave (at least originally) only listed 430mm as predicted penetration at 2km

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Im only disconcerted it doesnt have ammunition designed for it rather than the m60 patton. Or that it has ammunition which has weirdly diminishing kinetic properties in game. Which is what i have been arguing. That gaijin has not stated why they do this claiming historical accuracy rather than providing us with "balanced" tanks. Or giving us the details and documents for which they base these values off of.

They have done this for balance, the Abrams doesn't have the M833 shell because it would be even more broken than it is. At least one of the documents you refferenced has the same values as those in game too.

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

The source you gave (at least originally) only listed 430mm as predicted penetration at 2km



They have done this for balance, the Abrams doesn't have the M833 shell because it would be even more broken than it is. At least one of the documents you refferenced has the same values as those in game too.

No and No i didnt.

http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9828,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-iii-dane-amunicji-apfsds-t

The source you linked giving 360mm LoS penetration at 2km, same as in game values.

That, and it absolutely is true that the reason it doesn't have the M833 shell is because it would be ridiculously overpowered

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9828,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-iii-dane-amunicji-apfsds-t

The source you linked giving 360mm LoS penetration at 2km, same as in game values.

That, and it absolutely is true that the reason it doesn't have the M833 shell is because it would be ridiculously overpowered

Right and janes, steel beast and my other sources cite it at 440mm of RHA penetration at 100 metres. dont quote 1 half of the source

Steel beasts and janes are one source, since steel beasts uses janes.

Add to that the differences in armour, and clearly Steel beasts isn't a reliable source (at least for Gaijin)

The American rounds suffer from still being classified, where Russian rounds do not

[Kay]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

Steel beasts and janes are one source, since steel beasts uses janes.

Add to that the differences in armour, and clearly Steel beasts isn't a reliable source (at least for Gaijin)

The American rounds suffer from still being classified, where Russian rounds do not

So why are you quoting them and not my textbooks which say the same thing?

Right and the USSR has CIA pages directly calling out official documents over estimiating performance in regards to actual perormance.

I never refferenced either of them. You did.

The things I referrenced were:
http://echo501.tripod.com/Military/105ammo.htm
http://dziennikzbrojny.pl/artykuly/art,5,19,9828,wojska-ladowe,czolgi,pokonac-pancerz-czesc-iii-dane-amunicji-apfsds-t
http://fofanov.armor.kiev.ua/

Which one of those is steel beasts? None? Then I have no idea where you keep getting this "You're referrencing steel beasts" from, you've accused me of it twice yet I haven't ever done it.

[DainBamage]

^lol

[Vriz]

Originally posted by Solaire, Lord of Sunlight:

Originally posted by Zindai:

they likely moved it

It would show up in my posts if it was not deleted. And the winrates of the t64b outclass the abrams within past few weeks. Even with the armor nerf. This game also focuses on balancing not realism historically.

Where do you see where the T-64b outclasses the Abrams WR in the first place? Obviously not on thunderskill since it hasn't been a month yet