Jump to content

Should this have been a kill to the T-72B1?


Recommended Posts

In a stochastic model of terminal ballistic effects there's always a small but non-zero possibility that the target may be very, very lucky. If this happened with regularity, I'd be concerned. I also agree that such a freak incident would probably never happen in real life, insofar it's a mathematical artifact.

I cannot really comment on single incidents. I don't demand a quantitative statistical analysis with confidence intervals from you either. But I think that if you created a test with two or three dozen T-72s at a similar range and orientation, and shot them with a tank with unlimited ammunition supply, you would probably not observe this again for at least five to ten test runs. At which point the question must be asked, how much development effort does this problem justify. The amount of work to fix this without changing anything else in the related code is going to cost at least two team days, possibly more, and what else could we do in those three days (IOW, what are the (hidden) opportunity costs of fixing this)?

 

Long story short: If you observe it a second time, please let me know, and let me know how many tries it took to reproduce this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

In a stochastic model of terminal ballistic effects there's always a small but non-zero possibility that the target may be very, very lucky. If this happened with regularity, I'd be concerned. I also agree that such a freak incident would probably never happen in real life, insofar it's a mathematical artifact.

I cannot really comment on single incidents. I don't demand a quantitative statistical analysis with confidence intervals from you either. But I think that if you created a test with two or three dozen T-72s at a similar range and orientation, and shot them with a tank with unlimited ammunition supply, you would probably not observe this again for at least five to ten test runs. At which point the question must be asked, how much development effort does this problem justify. The amount of work to fix this without changing anything else in the related code is going to cost at least two team days, possibly more, and what else could we do in those three days (IOW, what are the (hidden) opportunity costs of fixing this)?

 

Long story short: If you observe it a second time, please let me know, and let me know how many tries it took to reproduce this.

ok will do, Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Assassin 7 said:

Ok seems to be an issues with DM63A1 itself. With the M1a2 using M829A3 and the Leopard 2A5 DK using DM53, I am able to hit the same location destroying the T-72 or given it damage.

899311958_Leopard2A5DK.aar 2.42 MB · 1 download M1A2.aar 2.68 MB · 1 download

I would have thought the DM63A1 is newer and better than the DM53, which would provide better results, no?  Perhaps the R&D section was bribed for a lousy product? :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is, in that area there are many drastically different angles depending on being just inches off in dispersion or aim point, in AZ or EL. Aim too high and you fire along the hull roof at extreme angle, aim a little low and you get the thick frontal hull armor, so its a matter of hitting it 'just right', but odds are you are going to get different results.  If you aim slightly higher, or slightly lower, you won't be firing along the length of the hull roof, and will likely get reliable results. Unless there is some kind of obscure difference in the ammo data, then taking the penetration value in mind -  I don't see how different KE rounds is going to make a difference.

 

That said, the optimum aim point for T-72s is below that, in the center of the "V" splashguard. 

 

 

Image1.jpg.c96f86d13e78a96a7511a1ce4cb2e4ba.jpg

 

(in this image the outer hull armor is missing, only the inner walls are shown)

 

Long story short, if you hit at the green arrow's angle of attack, then you will be hitting at extreme angle along the hull roof, and you will get unreliable results no matter what KE ammo you use. If you aim just above or below that then you will get reliable kills or disable the vehicle. So, best to not aim there and hit along the length of the hull roof (which would be very thick given how things work). This is true for all vehicles and ammo, and extreme angles (like hitting down the length of the M1's turret roof, causing no damage).

 

Ironically, the closer you are to the enemy tank, then if you aim there, then the more unreliable results you will get (as its more likely that you will hit exactly where you are aiming), while the further away you are, you will hit it less often, if at all, because the further away, then the rounds begin to drop into the target at an angle from above, and then you also have dispersion.

 

Hopefully that helps make some sense of it.

 

EDIT #1: Note that the DM63 has less dispersion than say, the M829A3, so another possibility is that you are hitting what you are are aiming at more often with it (that spot in the image).

 

EDIT #2: I should add that when I tested it, its not easy to hit that area, at all. It took like 20-30 rounds to hit exactly at the angle to cause the round to get "absorbed" by the extreme angle, with an "OK" (no damage) result, and this happened also with an M829A3, so its not specific to any round. This is important to state - that its not likely to occur, and it happens with anything, on any vehicle, at horizontal impact angles (this is known).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, RedWardancer said:

I would have thought the DM63A1 is newer and better than the DM53, which would provide better results, no?  Perhaps the R&D section was bribed for a lousy product? :P 

Nope, you just have a lousy understanding what the DM63A1 is...

Edited by Grenny
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure that could have been phrased nicer, and more informative.

DM63 is basically identical to DM53 as far as the flying projectile is concerned. The innovation is in the temperature-insensitive propellant. This gives the DM63 a near-uniform muzzle velocity over a wide temperature range. DM53 would have lower muzzle velocities with cold ammunition, and get dangerously close to the safe chamber pressure limits in (very) hot weather.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, as far as the original report here goes, we're now thinking of ways how to deal with near-parallel impact cases that tend to produce unreasonable results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

well, that was HEAT actually(there are tell-tale marks on  driver's hatch cover) , and in real world it behaves very differently from KE penetrators.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

well, that was HEAT actually(there are tell-tale marks on  driver's hatch cover) , and in real world it behaves very differently from KE penetrators.

No its a M829A1 impact, due to the impact point at the turret and the route traveled. the round actually bent and travel at an upward angle near the turret

Edited by Assassin 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

well, that was HEAT actually(there are tell-tale marks on  driver's hatch cover) , and in real world it behaves very differently from KE penetrators.

The Impact point does not show the typical "starshape" of an APDSFS round hit, but that might be due to hitting the vision block.

Also there are no spall marks around the impact area that would indicate an HEAT round impact...

So a KE energy round seems to be more likly

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Jartsev said:

scorchmark.png

Thats the inside of the drivers hatch, (Or Does the T-72 have a rotating hatch?) I'd say that the marks are spalling from the KE after going trough vision block and parts of the UFP

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...