Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/20/2018 3:29:09 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
hi... the 3bm32 "vant" depleted uranium penetrator is inaccurately modeled as a penetrator inferior to the wolfram/tungsten 3bm42 mango penetrator which is rated at 500mm at 2km at 80% penetration standard of penetration in contrast to the vant rated at 560mmat 2km at 80% penetration standard

ingame the values are 540 at point blank for the mango and 520 for the vant... the vant should at least be 600mm at point blank and be a more rare shell in contrast to the mango despite being an earlier shell...
Post #: 1
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/20/2018 6:08:20 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
my source is vasily fofanov`s website... i cant post the link however due to the system preventing me to do so

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 2
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/20/2018 6:18:56 PM   
exsonic01

 

Posts: 1041
Joined: 7/26/2016
From: Somewhere deep in appalachian valley in PA
Status: offline
Well, as far as I know, devs don't trust fofanov and similar web sources for perforation estimation that much... This game used Odermatt equation and his publications for the estimation of penetrators. You can check from google regarding this work and his publication. I think Odermatt equation may slightly underestimate the power of DU penetrator. This game's M829, M829A1, and M900 have lower penetration value when compared to Janes data and other estimations like SB Pro.


< Message edited by exsonic01 -- 11/20/2018 6:20:07 PM >

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 3
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/20/2018 6:56:43 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
SB pro still indicates that the 3bm32 vant has higher penetration than the 3bm42 mango... which makes the current model ingame inaccurate... also there is a logical problem with the vant...

the data isnt enough to use the odermatt equation... the data on the vant is a bit too lacking to use the odermatt equation on as it only indicates penetrator length and diameter... 380x30mm... this means the odermatt equation cannot be used... one can assume values from similar APFSDS like the mango however this is a problem as sources indicate the projectile weights 4.85kg instead of 1.6kg according to the density of depleted uranium... meanwhile the larger 451x31mm tungsten round would be 2.09 kg but the projectile itself is 4.85 kg aswell... this indicates that the projectile has alot of mass not indicated by its penetrator length... this can influence the odermatt equation by a large margin logically speaking



otherwise i understand the use of the odermatt equation logically speaking... soviet and NATO penetration characteristics vary soo deeply that the penetration values taken at face value would be pointless... soviet penetration criteria alone are soo strict that soviet penetration values seem unnaturally low unless the odermatt equation is used

and yes im familiar with the odermatt equation

< Message edited by gbem -- 11/20/2018 7:13:35 PM >

(in reply to exsonic01)
Post #: 4
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/20/2018 10:59:27 PM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 558
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
As I mentioned on another thread, Vasiliy Fofanov's site is heavily outdated. I think it was not updated in more than a decade and should not be used as source. I based my estimations on what was rendered public in last 2-4 years.

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 5
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/21/2018 3:54:02 AM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
then again even SB pro indicates that the 3bm32 has more penetration than the 3bm42... i havent found a source that indicates the opposite in fact

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 6
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/21/2018 7:22:21 AM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
sources ive found... knoe odgw... dziennikzbrojny... fofanov... hell even steel beasts pro indicates the 3bm32 as the superior round....there is no evidence or indication that the mango was superior...

Id love to post links to all of these sources but the system wont let me post links on the matrix forums... however i urge you to reconsider the data presented

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 7
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/21/2018 8:44:47 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
new source... steven zaloga`s M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural: Operation Desert Storm 1991 cites the 3bm32 vant as having 560mm of penetration at 2km... exactly as vasily fofanovs 560mm at 2km data... he also states that and i quote "By way of comparison, the best soviet APFSDS around 1990 was the 3BVM-13 Vant" which states the vant is the best soviet round by 1990 implying its superiority to the 1986 3bm42 mango..

if you consider steven zaloga a trusted source then i can definitively say the vant is underperforming ingame

as of now i cannot provide a link... simply due to the forums not allowing me to post links... feel free to search it up yourself...

< Message edited by gbem -- 11/21/2018 10:02:04 PM >

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 8
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/22/2018 12:59:42 AM   
nikolas93TS


Posts: 558
Joined: 2/24/2017
Status: offline
The 3BM-42 projectile is generally similar to the 3BM-32 in external layout due to the use of a similar "bucket" type sabot, but it has a more complex construction using jacketed tungsten penetrators instead of a depleted uranium rod, and most importantly the projectile is significantly lengthier. Penetrator L/D ratio for 3BM-42 is 20:1 compared to only 13:1 on 3BM-32 (you will note Fofanov doesn't list it because it was not known when he made his estimate). Also, there are no reliable formulas for estimating the penetration characteristics of depleted uranium rounds, as we don't yet have accurate data points for them. All calculations for the penetration values of DU rounds I have seen until now are derived from Odermatt formula originally made for tungsten and steel perpetrators and simply modified by using a value multiplier (sometimes called "material modifier") which is no more than estimated constant. Therefore estimates tend to vary a lot.

The weakness of jacketed long rod penetrators is its reduced penetration power against homogeneous steel armour compared to a monobloc penetrator. However, it was hardly an issue as homogeneous steel armour was not used in tanks produced after the 1960s, and it never exceeded levels of 250-300mm RHAe which was not an issue for any modern APFSDS. By the mid-1980s the generation of NATO main battle tanks were using spaced NERA armour against which 3BM-42 was superior.

Penetration into spaced targets (3BM-32):
7-layer array at an angle of 60 degrees (630mm LOS) could be defeated at 3200 m.
7-layer array at an angle of 30 degrees (620mm LOS) could be defeated 3200 m.
3-layer spaced array at an angle of 65 degrees (1830mm LOS) could be defeated at 5000 m.

Penetration into spaced targets (3BM-42):
7-layer array at an angle of 60 degrees (630mm LOS) could be defeated at 3300 m.
7-layer array at an angle of 30 degrees (620mm LOS) could be defeated 3800 m.
3-layer spaced array at an angle of 65 degrees (1830mm LOS) could be defeated at 2700 m.

Mikhail Rastopshin give 250mm RHA at 60° for BM-32 at 2km and 210mm at 60° for BM-42 (230mm at 60° according to "Textbook of Means of Defeat and Ammunition" (Учебник Средства Поражения И Боеприпасы) published by Bauman Moscow State Technical University).

However, 3BM-32 is only rated as 400mm at 2km at 0° according to Mikhail Rastopshin (430mm RHA at 0° on advertising plaque), while 3BM-42 is listed as 520mm at 0° at 2km in the above mentioned textbook.

Hence 3BM-32 only holds a slight advantage over 3BM-42 on sloped homogeneous steel targets, which is irrelevant in game terms as 3BM-32 is already overmatching such targets by a far margin, while 3BM-42 is better against composite multilayer target arrays like those seen on Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams.

In principle, using RHAe as a measure to compare modern APFSDS penetration and armor protection is not a good method. The interaction between each armor type and penetrator type are unique, therefore trying to shoehorn the provided protection into one single value versus all different types of APFSDS ammo can be quite misleading. APFSDS ammunition isn't even tested against RHA anymore unless a customer demands it. However, for us gamers, it still remains the best solution we have at the moment.


(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 9
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/22/2018 8:40:20 PM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
searching up those data gave me tankograd... having read the data ive found something interesting...

the 3bm42 is a segmented penetrator fofanovs site only lists it as an "advanced penetrator"... no idea it was THAT advanced... this means that the 3bm42 is FAR more effective against NERA and ERA than both the 3bm42 and the m829... now youve convinced me the mango is superior to the vant... not only that... its more advanced design than any round that came out until the DM53 (NATO`s segmented penetrator)... ive always thought NATO came up with segmented penetrators to counteract russian NERA and ERA after the 1994 testings...


BUT

according to the website the M829 and the vant should be close in penetration at close ranges

""Vant" is approximately comparable to the American M829, which began production in 1984 and entered service in the same year as "Vant" (1985) to equip the freshly inducted M1A1 Abrams tank. M829 is only 30 m/s slower than Vant at 1670 m/s, but M829 loses less velocity over distance due to its small, subcaliber low-drag fins and had a longer 540mm-long monobloc DU penetrator capable of penetrating approximately 275mm RHA at 60 degrees at 2 km. In terms of penetration performance, "Vant" is closer to DM23 than the M829."

the vant... a heavier round (4.85kg vs 4.6kg) with 30m/s more velocity... it should be similar to m829 at close ranges and the source states this... however ingame the vant is considerably weaker at point blank 520 vs 550 and much weaker at 2km.... the vant and the m829 should be similar at close ranges with penetration only dropping off at 2km... 560-540 vs 550 while retaining the 40000 apdamagerange should be more realistic imo for the vant

the mango on the other hand is a segmented penetrator which means its significantly more effective against NERA and ERA alike... and should get a higher penetration that both rouds

data is still lacking on the vant to plug in odermatt calculator... ive done estimates using known data and it agrees with the statement here... data for the m829 was completed using an awesome image for the m829 at inetres

< Message edited by gbem -- 11/23/2018 7:21:28 AM >

(in reply to nikolas93TS)
Post #: 10
RE: the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled - 11/23/2018 7:32:22 AM   
gbem

 

Posts: 187
Joined: 11/19/2018
Status: offline
ive managed to plug and compare the 2 rounds using the odermatt calculator and data from both tankograd and inetres



here have a look
M829





3bm42




3bm42
Material Tungsten
Total length 534 mm
Diameter 31 mm
Frustum length 112 mm
Frustum diameter upper base 6 mm
Density 17600 kg/m^3
Impact velocity 1.715 km/s

The perforation length is 564.6 mm.

M829
Material DU
Total length 513 mm
Diameter 27 mm
Frustum length 105 mm
Frustum diameter upper base 6 mm
Density 17500 kg/m^3
Impact velocity 1.670 /s

The perforation length is 496.7 mm.



even when assuming 18mm (minimum core diameter rather than the full bore of the projectile) for the mango the result is
The perforation length is 508.5 mm.

when assuming 36mm for diameter the mango gets even stronger... (maximum bore diameter for the 3bm42)
The perforation length is 592.5 mm.

and this is not considering the improved performance of a segmented penetrator against NERA... the mango should be superior to the m829

as for the vant my stance remains the same...



judging by the numbers though contrasted against older rounds... id say the DM33 the vant and the mango need the buffs

< Message edited by gbem -- 11/27/2018 1:45:14 PM >

(in reply to gbem)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade >> the 3bm32 "vant" is inaccurately modelled Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.156