M728 Penetration?

[Gibsonm]

4 hours ago, Kev2go said:

anyways the below isnt  by any stretch  of imagination solid evaluation source document, but lets humor ourselves.

 

Absolutely, regardless of whether that's from Waste of Time or War Blunder, both are well known, as I understand it, for "adjusting" (nerf / buff I believe are the terms used) these values on a whim to achieve better play balance.

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by Gibsonm

[Kev2go]

3 hours ago, Gibsonm said:

 

Absolutely, regardless of whether that's from Waste of Time or War Blunder, both are well known, as I understand it, for "adjusting" (nerf / buff I believe are the terms used) these values on a whim to achieve better play balance.

 

 

.....  I would never dream of using that not as a lone source, but it just so happens those match those 2 earlier  ".com" sources i posted a few posts earlier. otherwise i wouldnt have posted that as a lone source.   if 3 sources are cross referenced and closely match, than thats something to take into consideration, even if they are not "primary sources" though 1 of them claimed to use"janes"

 

Its from the latter, "War blunderThe latter doesn't "adjust", for mere balance reasons,  at least not  hard armor or ammunition stats, based on research from primary sources. if anything its due to programming error, engine limitations, or incorrect sources, which could happen even for a company like ESIM. Nerfed or buffed is just a casual slang players throw around.

 

many times DCS products have ben "adjusted" or fixed from thier early releases over time. for the same reasons, especially some of the 3rd party designers with less experience.  But i guess you can call it names too, because its not made by esim?

 

now if you dont agree with sources  fine, but there is no need to throw nonconstructive bashing into the fray, which seems to be based on personal distaste.Sorry due to the entire lack of proper source documents, really this is the best i could come up with. But dejawolf himself threw .com sources anyways. Id rather come up with something than nothing at all.

 

 

If you want proper sources, here you go, but initially i refrained from sharing because it has no data on penetration, so in turn is not really relevant.

 

https://books.google.ca/books?id=tHk-AAAAYAAJ&pg=SA2-PA81&lpg=SA2-PA81&dq=m728+apds&source=bl&ots=-qezC3JE9_&sig=CH9zpdVhl2OwKTGjlMOboH19EIU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjqqu-C4qPOAhVCw4MKHVGYDrs4ChDoAQgxMAU#v=onepage&q=m728 apds&f=false

 

In any case i think Volcano said it best, there needs to be context for penetration values, Ie quality of steel etc, otherwise even a source like Janes could be called into question, which i could becasue the earliest Janes ammunition handbook I could find is from 1994, and since janes only keeps ammunition as long as its production or still in service, i have doubts a 1994 edition would have M728 105mm listed there, considering it went into service starting in 1974.

 

Il keep on the lookout for any additional source, but i guess since  it was stated Esim likes "rounding off' and taking in account a bit margin of error into average, then by thier standards i suppose it means M728 is "working as intended"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by Kev2go

[GSprocket]

3 sources with common data are not proof of accuracy, only that they may have taken the data from a common source (which could easily be an estimate given in one of the three, reused in the other 2).

In any case, as noted earlier the US penetration data from the M392E1 testing were from BNH 240/241 plate with a modest face hardening. The targets they were intended to be used against were Soviet tanks with BNH 270-280 cast and rolled armour, which is closer to what SB uses for the internal calculations of armour and penetration equivalencies.

[Kev2go]

1 hour ago, GSprocket said:

3 sources with common data are not proof of accuracy, only that they may have taken the data from a common source (which could easily be an estimate given in one of the three, reused in the other 2).

In any case, as noted earlier the US penetration data from the M392E1 testing were from BNH 240/241 plate with a modest face hardening. The targets they were intended to be used against were Soviet tanks with BNH 270-280 cast and rolled armour, which is closer to what SB uses for the internal calculations of armour and penetration equivalencies.

 

fair enough, although are different armor types taken into account  for western vs western tank scenarios? becasue  if not, then wouldnt that then mean those rounds would be not performing as they should against those tanks with Softer steel types.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Kev2go

[GSprocket]

Uh? RHA BNH  240 armour is converted to a RHA BNH 270 equivalent. (As are HHS/multilayer arrays etc)

Edited August 3, 2016 by GSprocket

[dejawolf]

14 hours ago, Kev2go said:

many times DCS products have ben "adjusted" or fixed from thier early releases over time. for the same reasons, especially some of the 3rd party designers with less experience.  But i guess you can call it names too, because its not made by esim?

 

now if you dont agree with sources  fine, but there is no need to throw nonconstructive bashing into the fray, which seems to be based on personal distaste.Sorry due to the entire lack of proper source documents, really this is the best i could come up with. But dejawolf himself threw .com sources anyways. Id rather come up with something than nothing at all.

 

sure, we HAVE been wrong in the past, and gone to great lengths to correct these values, to make sure they are correct now. 

and we WILL change the values. if you can find a source more credible than the one we already have (firing tables with penetration values for various ranges for example, with secret scribbled out all over it)