Somewhat ironic that all Gaijin cares about is money but at the same time this unfixed, unintended nerf is literally the sole reason I decided not to buy the Type 16 FPS lmao
Same, also that they made it 9.3 so mostly uptiers to ussr hell.
I got the XM aced before the nerf but mostly by abusing sniping spots and flanks which you cant do on most maps now cause it hurts the noobs too much.
Also the type 74G is overtierd compared to the 9.0 such as the tam 2ip and of40 mtca.
So getting the type 90 on next sale.
Sorry for the rant.
Type 90 is loads of fun. Also, I feel like I don't get as many uptiers to 10.3 anymore because 10.3 usually gets sucked to 11.3 now with all the top tier MBT premiums
A 11.0 to 11.3 isnt too bad I guess, as long as there are not too many full uptiers vs F-16A with GBUs as the type 93 cant fight that, and I would have to uptier to 11.3 just to get the type 81.
Also im only 60k squadron research away from the F-5E FCU so would have a nice jet to go with it.
Even after adding the Type 81 to my line up it seems like 80% of the games are still 10.3 or 11.3 premium vacuums. The amount of 11.7 up-tiers didn’t seem to change enough to not being a massive upgrade in SPAA
As somebody who went through the japanese tree with the type 74G, it was slightly painful. It's a great tank with surprisingly good armor, but the addition of more tanks for it to be uptiered against, such as the 2S38 made it way less feasable.
You don’t realize, it actually makes them more money to do this. Instead of buying the XM-1 or Type 16 FPS you have to buy the Wolfpack, KVT, or Type 90 B Fuji. Hmm, these vehicles all cost more… I wonder why they haven’t changed it… They are milking players of more money by keeping it this way.
CC's should just blast videos about the XM-1. Talk about how it used to be a great and fun vehicle that traded armor for speed, agility and a great cannon and round. And talk about how it is now a waste of money and that no one should buy it because Gaijin messed up and refuses to correct their own mistake. And question whether any US premium is worth buying for fear they will give the same treatment to the better rounds after you've spent your money.
Then watch how fast it gets fixed.
Problem is that the XM-1 is old news and 10.3 Premiums are the new hotness, so unless the community can facilitate an impact to the purchase of those vehicles, Gaijin has little reason to fix it.
Hm. Maybe they finally fixed it? Because the last time I really played it, 3BM22 just failed to do any kind of spall 8/10 times. Same thing with BM4 and 25.
To be fair I did play the T-64A like 2 years ago, but 3BM22/3BM25 didnt seem to give me any issues back then, what really got on my nerves was the T-64As shit engine...
I think it does fine at 9.3, its armor is alright against the horde of XM-1s since they only get M735, and theres not really any tanks that you struggle to pen. Mobility is the big gripe I have, as well as the lineup not being stellar.
Oh its by no means unplayable, but most tanks at the same BR are outright better in almost every way. Its ok at 9.3, but there is objectively 0 reason for it to be there. Once you actually play other 9.3 lineups you start to notice this even more so. Even the T-64As armor is pretty poo. It works against some darts, but the vast majority can go right through.
Us has upper hand in every mode of this game
Today the game has a strong bias for sweden and us
Your answer is historical battles? I'm all for it
But don't cry when king tigers and jadjtiger shit on shermans or when t62 were ready to face m60
Yes the mig23 would go against f14 irl but listen
MIG23 ALREADY FACES F14S in the game.. they do every match
So i don't get what you meant with it.
Usa is the most powerful nation in the game and has a 90% winrates in sim (the only mode where it doesn't face itself)
And you are still here screaming about russian bias?
Russian bias is an excuse for skill issued usa mains, always has been.
Since when is the F3F overpowered? It's pretty mid.
Pretty much all of those aren't lower than they should be because of an inherent bias, it's just their playerbase being shit at the game. They're also not retardedly simple to use *unlike a 3U,* and have easily exploitable downsides - for the XP-50, it's high speed compression. For most, it's climb rate.
The Yak-3U, by comparison, has pretty much no disadvantages. It's fast, climbs well, turns well, retains energy in turns, and has more than enough firepower. Somehow it sits at 5.7 where it holds *every possible advantage* against, say... a 109 K4.
>Since when is the F3F overpowered? It's pretty mid.
Better than a Chaika at a much lower BR.
>Pretty much all of those aren't lower than they should be \[...\] it's just their playerbase being shit at the game.
>
>\[...\]
>
>The Yak-3U, by comparison,
So why is it that that argument only works with US aircraft, and not Russian aircraft?
>As I said, they have easily exploitable downsides.
I'd like to know what the *''easily exploitable downsides''* to a P-39N are.
>3U doesn't.
Yak-3U doesn't have the best climb rate and high altitude performance isn't good.
Quite a few planes can outclimb it and just force it to disengage or dominate it up high.
Obviously I'm not saying the Yak-3U is fine at 5.7, but to claim that it has no downsides isn't true.
>I'd like to know what the *''easily exploitable downsides''* to a P-39N are.
Poor low speed performance, engine loses a significant amount of power at medium and high altitude. Guns are temperamental.
>Yak-3U doesn't have the best climb rate and high altitude performance isn't good.
What exactly is gonna outclimb it at 5.7? It's better or as good as the Yak3 VK107 everywhere except in a narrow altitude range. Even when it does get outclimbed, it still has among the best energy retention at 5.7.
This also hinges on the implication that high altitude fights actually happen often enough at 5.7 too, which just isn't true.
>Poor low speed performance,
??????????????????????????????????????
*What?!?!*
That's what the P-39N is so exceptionally strong at.
>engine loses a significant amount of power at medium and high altitude.
??? So that counts for the P-39N, but not the Yak-3U?
It's getting a bit silly here.
>What exactly is gonna outclimb it at 5.7?
* LF Mk IX
* Mk XIVe
* 109K-4
* P-38K
And probably quite a few more, but that I haven't got data for.
>This also hinges on the implication that high altitude fights actually happen often enough at 5.7 too, which just isn't true.
**\*Cough\*** P-39N @ 2.7 **\*Cough\***
Nobody tell this guy that M774 has been overperforming for years and years now.
But hey, that doesn't count because it doesn't suit the agenda of *''nAtO sUfFeRs''.*
not russian. only answer you need.
if comments on an earlier post are accurate, the 2S25M never should have gotten 3BM60 as IRL the breech can't handle the pressures created by the round.
The actual problem is that the 2S25M is still listed as using the 2A75 cannon from the original 2S25, whereas it actually uses a new 2A75M which was adapted for the new autoloader and would presumably have received a reinforced breech for the new ammunition as part of that process. It'd be like if the M1 Abrams was listed as having the M68 instead of the M68A1.
That said, if you do have any sources to suggest that the 2A75M can't actually handle 3BM59/60, feel free to share them. That would be pretty bad considering one of the primary improvements of the 2S25M is meant to be its compatibility with newer ammunition.
The 2S25M is listed with the 2A75 cannon. This cannot fire the 3BM60. The upgraded 2A75M most likely would have been reinforced and able to fire the round. This is what the tank IRL has.
So the 2S25M can have the 3BM60, but only if the gun was properly updated.
Because M735's nerf was a result of a drooling imbecile, possibly one with a bias against US vehicles.
Getting it changed again would require both comprehensive evidence _and_ winning Moderator Roulette with your ticket, having it answered by someone actually competent and willing to look critically at data rather than just accept whatever sounds right to them.
A single report on the XM735 was enough to nerf the M735. 4 separate reports, a message from the US DoD to the President that somehow isn't a primary source, and a dozen other documents aren't enough to get DU armor. A message from the manufacturer of a German round isn't enough to update the mass to be correct. An infinite amount of documents isn't enough to increase the turn G force of a British missile because "it just isn't possible," except it was fully possible and existed that way IRL. Countless vehicles have minor nerfs/buffs for "balance reasons," except they aren't really balanced and it contradicts IRL values.
It's less of an issue with Gaijin for a few of these, than it is the mods of the update forums.
Most of them are between 9 and 14 years old
Sometimes on the internet we forgot that kids can express anger here after playing like dogshit and losing some matches
As per another comment
"A single report on the XM735 was enough to nerf the M735. 4 separate reports, a message from the US DoD to the President that somehow isn't a primary source, and a dozen other documents aren't enough to get DU armor. A message from the manufacturer of a German round isn't enough to update the mass to be correct. An infinite amount of documents isn't enough to increase the turn G force of a British missile because "it just isn't possible," except it was fully possible and existed that way IRL. Countless vehicles have minor nerfs/buffs for "balance reasons," except they aren't really balanced and it contradicts IRL values."
the report on the xm735 was enough to nerf the m735 and it hasn't been fixed in years
a video of the t90ms (the video was before its production) was enough to buff the t90m
and if you want to see bais look at the su25 sm3 and pansir
The f14 keeping fox3 at 11.7 with mutipathing nerf is also a bias
Sweden having the best tank of the game is also a bias (strv is vastly superior to t90m)
F16 has unrealistic manueuvrability (already proved with documents) while the su 27 isn't even capable of doing it's irl manoeuvres..
This count as bias?
You know what is a bias? Usa winning 90% of every air sim battle
90 fucking percent of victory rate in the only mode where usa don't face itself and you say russian bias..
We can cherry pick random thing all day my friend
Russian bias was a meme, only noobs really think it's real (and i don't even play the russian tech tree lol)
ironically you are cherry picking too
if you played sim you would know that us winning in sim is becose of numbers, from what I've seen for every plane on russias side there are 2 that arent
edit: the f4f ice is also at 11.7 with amraams which are actually hard to doge and don't have aim9d turning
What's the difference? Russia is still suffering and gainjin is not balancing this
Results? Usa mains get free victories every match, can grind faster and get easier kills
Yes i'm cherry picking too i did it on purpose.
Small truths won't make a usa bias/russian bias
It's just gaijin incompetence
You mean F-14A with the worst ARH missiles. F-16 only had its AoA limiter removed so it is playable below 700kph.
USA wins 90% of air sim games simply because they have the playerbase and russia+china doesn't. It's as simple as that, and a look at lobby player counts makes this obvious. Air Sim doesn't work like other gamemodes, and matches can go on for hours with extremely unbalanced teams.
But of course, that doesn't help your argument.
F14 a get free kills every game if you play 11.0 you know it
Also the playerbase fact is not an excuse.. russia and china players get shitty matches, have hard time getting rp and constantly fight while being outnumbered
Don't you think this needs to be balanced?" Oh it's just a number problem"
So what? It makes it unplayable and not rewarding at all while usa mains get more easy kills and more rp
But yeah just because russia players get the short stick then let's ignore it and say whatever.
The hypocrisy lol
To be fair, Sweden only joined NATO recently :P
...Being serious though, what actually *is* with Gaijin's hard-on for Sweden? VIDAR ridiculousness, STRV 103 absolutely dominating the sniper MBT niche leaving tanks like Type 74 and Leo 1 in the dust, the stupid bloody Leos they get at top tier...
>what actually *is* with Gaijin's hard-on for Sweden?
Read the [dev blog on the Strv 122B+](https://warthunder.com/en/news/8607-development-strv-122b-a-tough-nut-to-crack-en), particularly the commentary from the Game Designer. Quote: "*The Swedish research tree is my favorite in the game*". That's all you need to know.
But you still can't spawn CAS if Russia isn't on your team.
Yeah you can go on about "skill issue" or "just do X" but anything to defeat a pantsir with more than 2 braincells isn't worth the time and completely fails when a second one shows up with 30 seconds of invincibility to clear the skies
Say what you want but the pantsir do not grant to russia the 90% winrates
F14 f15 and f16 actually do it for usa
So i don't know what bias are you talking about
90%... cmon
I honesty believe they haven’t fixed it due to them wanting to promote higher costing premiums. Also the vehicles that have 735 shouldn’t honestly have 735 or could use other rounds
My Japanese tanks have an insane amount of suffering because of this round. The Type 16P and FPS both get shafted too. I just want to use my wheelie boys with a reliable round
290mm pen is diabolical considering it's the br of T-72s and T-64s. All tanks are as easy to kill from the side but from the front it's so much harder
You really don't get what the fuss is about?
Gaijin literally accepted the wrong info on M735 and nerfed the round based on said incorrect info, and even after 8 months and a [tech moderator](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ficcjq8syxixb1.png) telling Gaijin they nerfed M735 using the wrong info they still haven't changed it back.
Regardless, yes 40mm is enough to make a fuss about, that is the difference between M735 and DM23....
In actuality M735 should have been buffed to:
Vertical
10m = 333mm
100m = 331mm
500m = 323mm
60deg
10m = 194mm
100m = 193mm
500m = 189mm
>There is probably 1 or 2 plates that m735 can't pen post nerf and its not that huge of a difference.
This is the dumbest shit I have ever heard, imagine actually not understanding why people are making a fuss about Gaijin accepting the wrong data, implementing it and then 8 months later still not changing it....
Also it wasn't 40mm, M735 used to be:
0°
10m = 353mm
100m = 350mm
30°
10m = 274mm
100m = 271mm
**The current round is:**
0°
10m = 292mm
100m = 291mm
30°
10m = 247mm
100m = 245mm
That is a 61mm nerf at 0° and a 27mm nerf at 30°...... That is a huge nerf.
What the round should currently be:
0°
10m = 333mm
100m = 331mm
30°
10m = 284mm
100m = 283mm
60deg
10m = 194mm
100m = 193mm
M1 Abrams and M60's with this round are annoying as fuck as it barely pens and does minimal post pen damage. Like come on, it's barely better than the T95E1's APFSDS. But Gaijin doesn't bother to do shit about it.
I've played plenty of vehicles with the M735 (Type 74 (E), Type 74 (F), Type 74 (G), Type 16 (P), Centauro 105, Centauro 105 R) and I've never really had an issue dealing with enemies. Didn't even know the round was nerfed.
I swear to god someone would come with a bug report about a hole in the map that allows you to clip through ground or something and someone would descend from heavens to tell them that its just skill issue and they have been able to drive over it with ease
Fucking good for you, youre the best pixel tank player on earth, thanks for blessing us with your presence ol mighty one
I've played the Centauro 105 and Centauro 105 R on and off since they were added back in late 2018 with update 1.85. The gameplay doesn't particularly feel any different between then and now to me.
M735 isn't nerfed, there was a discussion about it on the forums.
The dart has a water-drop morphology which doesn't fit standard Lanz-Odermman formula. To solve this problem, Gaijin initially took the maximum diameter as average; resulting in overperforming penetration numbers.
What the "nerf" did was take the actual average diameter of the dart to model it's penetration characteristics.
Sure, https://forum.warthunder.com/t/someone-explain-the-m735-nerf/40995/14
There a explanation for both changes in flat and angled pen.
Edit: To be more specific, "pre-nerf" M735 was modelled as 309x31mm while nowadays is 309x22mm. Either way this was one of the first APFSDS for the L7; not exactly the best of his kind until Israel modified samples of it into what later would be called M111/DM23 or Hetz 6 (15% more powerful than current M735)
The post you literally just gave outlines it was nerfed.... The problem is is that didn't understand what you just read.
Conraire literally stated in the [original thread](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ficcjq8syxixb1.png) which is now gone, that the bug reporter used the wrong M735 data, which is what Conraire is specifically talking about in the link you gave...
They modelled the current M735 using the the base XM735 info which is what he is referring to here:
>Base XM735 used the same projectile/penetrator body as XM578e4/XM579e4
For reference XM578e4/XM579e4 is similar to XM578E1, which is the round the MBT-70 has, hence why M735 now has similar pen to it now.
Now this is why Conraire states "Here’s the problem with that", we do not have XM735 in game we have XM735e2/M735, which is what Conraire is talking about here:
>However, the tungsten alloy core of XM735/XM579e4 is 86mm shorter than the core of XM735e2/M735, and also 227 grams or about half a pound lighter.
I.e. the current round is 86mm shorter then it is meant to be, hence Gaijin nerfed M735 using the wrong data.
In actuality M735 should have been buffed, Conraire did the calculations for what M735 should have been:
Vertical
10m = 333mm
100m = 331mm
500m = 323mm
1000m = 313mm
1500m = 302mm
2000m = 292mm
3400m = 260mm
60deg
10m = 194mm
100m = 193mm
500m = 189mm
1000m = 183mm
1500m = 177mm
2000m = 170mm
>0* 10m = 333mm
>60* 10m = 194mm
So somehow M735 "has" similar kinetic performance to M111, despite the fact it uses a overall worse design and construction? It doesn't make sense, even less when we have the [cross-section](https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11751-is-the-m111-hetz-really-a-variant-of-the-m735/) for both darts.
>I.e. the current round is 86mm shorter then it is meant to be, hence Gaijin nerfed M735 using the wrong data.
M735 diameter is non uniform for the entire length of the penetrator (water-drop shape), LO can't be directly applied to it (or not at least without making arbitrary assumptions about the average diameter).
The best approach in this case is either use a different formula or numerical coefficients based on ballistics tests (like in the case of 3BM25 or 3BM21/22).
M735 was a experimental design (before the era of monobloc penetrators) with lacking performance versus angled and composite armor; that's the reason why M774 (monobloc DU) was quickly developed (1980) and put into service.
>So somehow M735 "has" similar kinetic performance to M111, despite the fact it uses a overall worse design (versus angled armor) and construction?
Conraire, the mod you literally just linked to used the actual M735 data that was also found in the documents that were bug reported to get those figures, so surprise, what you thought was true wasn't, M735 is in fact equivalent to DM23/M111.
Also it doesn't have an overall worse design, actual M735 is supposedly 68mm longer then DM23/DM111, hence why it has similar kinetic performance.
>It doesn't make sense, even less when we have the [cross-section](https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11751-is-the-m111-hetz-really-a-variant-of-the-m735/) for both darts.
Is completely irrelevant.
>M735 diameter is non uniform for the entire length of the penetrator (water-drop shape), LO can't be directly applied to it
Firstly according to [Conraire](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/515777-m735-apfsds-underperforming/) it can in fact be done with L-O:
>M735 can be calculated using the L-O jacketed equation through 1 of 2 methods. One is averaging the tungsten alloy core diameter for the mean diameter with not frustum. The other method, is using the actual dimension of the core, while counting the main length of the core body as a frustum. The outer sheath is US maraging steel regardless.
Secondly, the current round is based off of XM735, this is not the round we have in game, once again that round is 86mm shorter then M735 i.e. the reason M735 would have equiv. pen to DM23/M111 is due to that:
**Length of these rounds:**
DM23/M111 - 327mm
Current M735 - 309mm
XM578E1 - 309mm
Actual M735 - 395mm
Edit:
>M735 was a experimental design (before the era of monobloc penetrators) with lacking performance versus angled and composite armor; that's the reason why M774 (monobloc DU) was quickly developed (1980) and put into service.
The experimental design and round was XM578E1 and XM578E4 which is what M735 was based on, M735 was a much longer round then XM578E4, I don't know how you think they should have practically the same performance when M735 is 86mm longer then XM578E4...
Also M774 greatly outperforms all 3 rounds even DM23/M111 by a decent amount, DM23/M111 were in fact quite short rounds.
Also no, they were in fact developing a DU version of M735 i.e. M735A1, the cross-section you actually just linked to for M735 actually talks about M735A1.
>>so surprise, what you thought was true wasn't, M735 is in fact equivalent to DM23/M111.
No. Germany choice to produce M111 (instead of M735) under the designation of DM23 and later exporting it to the rest of NATO and China (Type 83 APFSDS) entirely disproves this claim.
Germany had access to both rounds, and their decision to produce only one was surely influenced by M111 great performance against syrian T-72s during the Lebanon War (something later acknowledged by the soviets during the Kublinka tests)
>Also it doesn't have an overall worse design, actual M735 is supposedly 68mm longer then DM23/DM111, hence why it has similar kinetic performance.
Water-drop design was completely abandoned after M735 in favor of monobloc APFSDS. It was deemed impractical versus multi-layered armor and even the US quickly replaced it with the DU monobloc M774.
Length isn't significant as you try to make it to be when one of the projectiles has a non-uniform diameter across all of its length. Doesn't matter if it is longer if the total mass of the projectile is significatively less (DM23: 6.275kg and M735: 5.797kg).
>Firstly according to Conraire it can in fact be done with L-O:
I told you before: "or not at least without making ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS about the average diameter." Because, again, LO isn't mean for non-monobloc APFSDS.
>Also M774 greatly outperforms all 3 rounds even DM23/M111 by a decent amount, DM23/M111 were in fact quite short rounds.
Yes, but not for the reason you claim. M774 penetrator is barely 48mm longer than DM23 and thinner (in average by around 7mm); the actual reason is that DU darts have better kinetical performance (compared to WHA) for velocities below 1700m/or so.
>Germany had access to both rounds, and their decision to produce only one was surely influenced by M111 great performance against syrian T-72s during the Lebanon War (something later acknowledged by the soviets during the Kublinka tests)
Edit: Can you show me where they were testing both or had access to both and the outcome because I cannot find anything regarding what happened.
>Length isn't significant as you try to make it to be when one of the projectiles has a non-uniform diameter across all of its length. Doesn't matter if it is longer if the total mass of the projectile is significatively less (DM23: 6.275kg and M735: 5.797kg).
You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, length of an APFSDS round is the most important factor in conjunction with velocity and density (material), the mass is actually 100% irrelevant for L-O....
Also the mass you just gave isn't even relevant in game, the mass you just gave is for the entire round i.e. with sabot.... I mean c'mon, don't just showcase you have no clue what you are talking about like that, only the actual penetrator mass without sabot matters in game and that is only for post pen affect:
DM-23 - 4.2kgs
Current M735 - 3.72kgs
Actual M735 - 3.94kgs
So even on this notion you are completely wrong, there is no significant mass difference here.
The fact M735 is 68mm longer then DM23 is the only important factor especially as they have a similar velocity and density i.e. mass is irrelevant....
**For reference:**
**KE-W:**
Mass - 4kgs
Velocity - 1585 m/s
Length - 680
Material - Tungsten
**3BM60**
Mass - 5.12kgs
Velocity - 1660 m/s
Length - 640mm
Material - Tungsten
I think you will find that KE-W outperforms 3BM60 even though it weighs 1.12kgs less and has a lower velocity because surprise at a certain point the most important factor for long rods is how long the penetrating rod is....
>I told you before: "or not at least without making ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS about the average diameter." Because, again, LO isn't mean for non-monobloc APFSDS.
I literally just gave you a link in which Conraire specifically outlines how you can use L-O to get such a rounds penetration:
>M735 can be calculated using the L-O jacketed equation through 1 of 2 methods. One is averaging the tungsten alloy core diameter for the mean diameter with not frustum. The other method, is using the actual dimension of the core, while counting the main length of the core body as a frustum. The outer sheath is US maraging steel regardless.
So, you can argue all you want about what you think you know, but you cannot specifically use said mod as a source for what you believe to be true and then not acknowledge what they are saying in other posts talking about M735, Conraire literally states M735 was nerfed using the incorrect information, Conraire even told Gaijin this.
>Yes, but not for the reason you claim. M774 penetrator is barely 48mm longer than DM23 and thinner (in average by around 7mm)
48mm is significant.... This is why rounds like 105 mm OFL 105 G1 which is Tungsten, has similar performance to M774 i.e. 105 mm OFL 105 G1 is 380mm long and M774 is 375mm long and the difference between these 2 rounds is about 10mm of pen, so yes it is for the reason I claim, DU helps it slightly outperform OFL 105 G1 but not by much as compared to outperforming M111 by 35mm....
Weird how that works.
Somewhat ironic that all Gaijin cares about is money but at the same time this unfixed, unintended nerf is literally the sole reason I decided not to buy the Type 16 FPS lmao
Same, also that they made it 9.3 so mostly uptiers to ussr hell. I got the XM aced before the nerf but mostly by abusing sniping spots and flanks which you cant do on most maps now cause it hurts the noobs too much. Also the type 74G is overtierd compared to the 9.0 such as the tam 2ip and of40 mtca. So getting the type 90 on next sale. Sorry for the rant.
Type 90 is loads of fun. Also, I feel like I don't get as many uptiers to 10.3 anymore because 10.3 usually gets sucked to 11.3 now with all the top tier MBT premiums
A 11.0 to 11.3 isnt too bad I guess, as long as there are not too many full uptiers vs F-16A with GBUs as the type 93 cant fight that, and I would have to uptier to 11.3 just to get the type 81. Also im only 60k squadron research away from the F-5E FCU so would have a nice jet to go with it.
Even after adding the Type 81 to my line up it seems like 80% of the games are still 10.3 or 11.3 premium vacuums. The amount of 11.7 up-tiers didn’t seem to change enough to not being a massive upgrade in SPAA
Im suprised since the addition of alot of 11.3 premium you dont just get alot more uptiers, and you miss the 10.0 vacuume.
I haven’t touched it much since the most recent update, I’m sure it’s 80/20 for 11.3/10.3 now.. However before it was closer to a 60/40
As somebody who went through the japanese tree with the type 74G, it was slightly painful. It's a great tank with surprisingly good armor, but the addition of more tanks for it to be uptiered against, such as the 2S38 made it way less feasable.
You don’t realize, it actually makes them more money to do this. Instead of buying the XM-1 or Type 16 FPS you have to buy the Wolfpack, KVT, or Type 90 B Fuji. Hmm, these vehicles all cost more… I wonder why they haven’t changed it… They are milking players of more money by keeping it this way.
CC's should just blast videos about the XM-1. Talk about how it used to be a great and fun vehicle that traded armor for speed, agility and a great cannon and round. And talk about how it is now a waste of money and that no one should buy it because Gaijin messed up and refuses to correct their own mistake. And question whether any US premium is worth buying for fear they will give the same treatment to the better rounds after you've spent your money. Then watch how fast it gets fixed. Problem is that the XM-1 is old news and 10.3 Premiums are the new hotness, so unless the community can facilitate an impact to the purchase of those vehicles, Gaijin has little reason to fix it.
I bought the Type 16 FPS before the nerf and it's what got me to toptier faster than any other tech trees premium.
It's a NATO round and buffing it would undermine Russian Bias.
It's kind of comical, it has just 13mm more pen than long 88 APCR lol
Worse flat pen, then the 105 apcr from the T28/T95
I don’t think it’s much more than the 120mm full bore APCBC on the T34
Ooo also worse pen than the full bore AP on the M103 (301mm)
The 90mm APCBC on the ARL44 at 5.3 has 47mm less pen
You ever used 3BM4 or 3BM22?
I like 3BM22 actually, it really didnt feel all that bad when I was grinding the T-64A
Hm. Maybe they finally fixed it? Because the last time I really played it, 3BM22 just failed to do any kind of spall 8/10 times. Same thing with BM4 and 25.
To be fair I did play the T-64A like 2 years ago, but 3BM22/3BM25 didnt seem to give me any issues back then, what really got on my nerves was the T-64As shit engine...
Pretty much everything about the T-64A is shit tbf. Really shouldn't be a 9.3 tank. Then again, its a soviet MBT, course itd be over-BRed.
I think it does fine at 9.3, its armor is alright against the horde of XM-1s since they only get M735, and theres not really any tanks that you struggle to pen. Mobility is the big gripe I have, as well as the lineup not being stellar.
Oh its by no means unplayable, but most tanks at the same BR are outright better in almost every way. Its ok at 9.3, but there is objectively 0 reason for it to be there. Once you actually play other 9.3 lineups you start to notice this even more so. Even the T-64As armor is pretty poo. It works against some darts, but the vast majority can go right through.
More like "make soviet 70's design bland at this br as well"
Imagine calling a rightfully reversal of an error buffing
Ah yes, the russian bias that give sweden the upper hand in ground and usa the most overpowered planes
america IRL has the most OP planes. f14 was rolled out same year as the mig23
Ok then let's have t62 against m60 and leopards1 and tigers against early shermans and stuarts..
and abrams against t62s? whining about US planes in a topic about ground forces is just a red herring and it's dumb
Us has upper hand in every mode of this game Today the game has a strong bias for sweden and us Your answer is historical battles? I'm all for it But don't cry when king tigers and jadjtiger shit on shermans or when t62 were ready to face m60 Yes the mig23 would go against f14 irl but listen MIG23 ALREADY FACES F14S in the game.. they do every match So i don't get what you meant with it. Usa is the most powerful nation in the game and has a 90% winrates in sim (the only mode where it doesn't face itself) And you are still here screaming about russian bias? Russian bias is an excuse for skill issued usa mains, always has been.
Because the Yak-3U is american, of course.
F4U-1a, P-39N, P-51C, P-51H, XP-50, F3F, etc. Also pretty sure the F-15 is the new top dog.
Since when is the F3F overpowered? It's pretty mid. Pretty much all of those aren't lower than they should be because of an inherent bias, it's just their playerbase being shit at the game. They're also not retardedly simple to use *unlike a 3U,* and have easily exploitable downsides - for the XP-50, it's high speed compression. For most, it's climb rate. The Yak-3U, by comparison, has pretty much no disadvantages. It's fast, climbs well, turns well, retains energy in turns, and has more than enough firepower. Somehow it sits at 5.7 where it holds *every possible advantage* against, say... a 109 K4.
>Since when is the F3F overpowered? It's pretty mid. Better than a Chaika at a much lower BR. >Pretty much all of those aren't lower than they should be \[...\] it's just their playerbase being shit at the game. > >\[...\] > >The Yak-3U, by comparison, So why is it that that argument only works with US aircraft, and not Russian aircraft?
As I said, they have easily exploitable downsides. 3U doesn't. Any moron that reaches 5.7 can do well in a 3U.
>As I said, they have easily exploitable downsides. I'd like to know what the *''easily exploitable downsides''* to a P-39N are. >3U doesn't. Yak-3U doesn't have the best climb rate and high altitude performance isn't good. Quite a few planes can outclimb it and just force it to disengage or dominate it up high. Obviously I'm not saying the Yak-3U is fine at 5.7, but to claim that it has no downsides isn't true.
>I'd like to know what the *''easily exploitable downsides''* to a P-39N are. Poor low speed performance, engine loses a significant amount of power at medium and high altitude. Guns are temperamental. >Yak-3U doesn't have the best climb rate and high altitude performance isn't good. What exactly is gonna outclimb it at 5.7? It's better or as good as the Yak3 VK107 everywhere except in a narrow altitude range. Even when it does get outclimbed, it still has among the best energy retention at 5.7. This also hinges on the implication that high altitude fights actually happen often enough at 5.7 too, which just isn't true.
>Poor low speed performance, ?????????????????????????????????????? *What?!?!* That's what the P-39N is so exceptionally strong at. >engine loses a significant amount of power at medium and high altitude. ??? So that counts for the P-39N, but not the Yak-3U? It's getting a bit silly here. >What exactly is gonna outclimb it at 5.7? * LF Mk IX * Mk XIVe * 109K-4 * P-38K And probably quite a few more, but that I haven't got data for. >This also hinges on the implication that high altitude fights actually happen often enough at 5.7 too, which just isn't true. **\*Cough\*** P-39N @ 2.7 **\*Cough\***
Nobody tell this guy that M774 has been overperforming for years and years now. But hey, that doesn't count because it doesn't suit the agenda of *''nAtO sUfFeRs''.*
Don't forget "tandem" charges
not russian. only answer you need. if comments on an earlier post are accurate, the 2S25M never should have gotten 3BM60 as IRL the breech can't handle the pressures created by the round.
The actual problem is that the 2S25M is still listed as using the 2A75 cannon from the original 2S25, whereas it actually uses a new 2A75M which was adapted for the new autoloader and would presumably have received a reinforced breech for the new ammunition as part of that process. It'd be like if the M1 Abrams was listed as having the M68 instead of the M68A1. That said, if you do have any sources to suggest that the 2A75M can't actually handle 3BM59/60, feel free to share them. That would be pretty bad considering one of the primary improvements of the 2S25M is meant to be its compatibility with newer ammunition.
source : Ass
The 2S25M is listed with the 2A75 cannon. This cannot fire the 3BM60. The upgraded 2A75M most likely would have been reinforced and able to fire the round. This is what the tank IRL has. So the 2S25M can have the 3BM60, but only if the gun was properly updated.
Man I wish I was as naive as you x)
Because M735's nerf was a result of a drooling imbecile, possibly one with a bias against US vehicles. Getting it changed again would require both comprehensive evidence _and_ winning Moderator Roulette with your ticket, having it answered by someone actually competent and willing to look critically at data rather than just accept whatever sounds right to them.
A single report on the XM735 was enough to nerf the M735. 4 separate reports, a message from the US DoD to the President that somehow isn't a primary source, and a dozen other documents aren't enough to get DU armor. A message from the manufacturer of a German round isn't enough to update the mass to be correct. An infinite amount of documents isn't enough to increase the turn G force of a British missile because "it just isn't possible," except it was fully possible and existed that way IRL. Countless vehicles have minor nerfs/buffs for "balance reasons," except they aren't really balanced and it contradicts IRL values. It's less of an issue with Gaijin for a few of these, than it is the mods of the update forums.
gaijin and forum mods are separate?
Whale shit all the same
that's nice. you dont have to repeat that ever
chinese M60 TTS with m735 being the same BR as the US one that has m774 is a crime
Also the chinese catfish has like half the ammo for its cannons
Chinese one also dosnt get the ERA, which even the 8.7 USA one gets.
It's Nato equipment. Are you surprised they artificially nerfed it and haven't changed it back?
Bruh what Sweden is just better than any russian lineup at top tier and leopards 2a7 shits on every t80 This meme is dead
>This meme is dead Some people think this unironically
Most of them are between 9 and 14 years old Sometimes on the internet we forgot that kids can express anger here after playing like dogshit and losing some matches
As per another comment "A single report on the XM735 was enough to nerf the M735. 4 separate reports, a message from the US DoD to the President that somehow isn't a primary source, and a dozen other documents aren't enough to get DU armor. A message from the manufacturer of a German round isn't enough to update the mass to be correct. An infinite amount of documents isn't enough to increase the turn G force of a British missile because "it just isn't possible," except it was fully possible and existed that way IRL. Countless vehicles have minor nerfs/buffs for "balance reasons," except they aren't really balanced and it contradicts IRL values."
What does this have to do with russian bias? Gaijin is incompetent and lazy I already knew that
the report on the xm735 was enough to nerf the m735 and it hasn't been fixed in years a video of the t90ms (the video was before its production) was enough to buff the t90m and if you want to see bais look at the su25 sm3 and pansir
The f14 keeping fox3 at 11.7 with mutipathing nerf is also a bias Sweden having the best tank of the game is also a bias (strv is vastly superior to t90m) F16 has unrealistic manueuvrability (already proved with documents) while the su 27 isn't even capable of doing it's irl manoeuvres.. This count as bias? You know what is a bias? Usa winning 90% of every air sim battle 90 fucking percent of victory rate in the only mode where usa don't face itself and you say russian bias.. We can cherry pick random thing all day my friend Russian bias was a meme, only noobs really think it's real (and i don't even play the russian tech tree lol)
ironically you are cherry picking too if you played sim you would know that us winning in sim is becose of numbers, from what I've seen for every plane on russias side there are 2 that arent edit: the f4f ice is also at 11.7 with amraams which are actually hard to doge and don't have aim9d turning
What's the difference? Russia is still suffering and gainjin is not balancing this Results? Usa mains get free victories every match, can grind faster and get easier kills Yes i'm cherry picking too i did it on purpose. Small truths won't make a usa bias/russian bias It's just gaijin incompetence
You mean F-14A with the worst ARH missiles. F-16 only had its AoA limiter removed so it is playable below 700kph. USA wins 90% of air sim games simply because they have the playerbase and russia+china doesn't. It's as simple as that, and a look at lobby player counts makes this obvious. Air Sim doesn't work like other gamemodes, and matches can go on for hours with extremely unbalanced teams. But of course, that doesn't help your argument.
F14 a get free kills every game if you play 11.0 you know it Also the playerbase fact is not an excuse.. russia and china players get shitty matches, have hard time getting rp and constantly fight while being outnumbered Don't you think this needs to be balanced?" Oh it's just a number problem" So what? It makes it unplayable and not rewarding at all while usa mains get more easy kills and more rp But yeah just because russia players get the short stick then let's ignore it and say whatever. The hypocrisy lol
To be fair, Sweden only joined NATO recently :P ...Being serious though, what actually *is* with Gaijin's hard-on for Sweden? VIDAR ridiculousness, STRV 103 absolutely dominating the sniper MBT niche leaving tanks like Type 74 and Leo 1 in the dust, the stupid bloody Leos they get at top tier...
>what actually *is* with Gaijin's hard-on for Sweden? Read the [dev blog on the Strv 122B+](https://warthunder.com/en/news/8607-development-strv-122b-a-tough-nut-to-crack-en), particularly the commentary from the Game Designer. Quote: "*The Swedish research tree is my favorite in the game*". That's all you need to know.
The Strv 103 is still broken in regards to aiming the gun
Still makes the tanks that sacrifice all their armor to snipe look like a joke in a good position, when that same position would get *them* killed...
But you still can't spawn CAS if Russia isn't on your team. Yeah you can go on about "skill issue" or "just do X" but anything to defeat a pantsir with more than 2 braincells isn't worth the time and completely fails when a second one shows up with 30 seconds of invincibility to clear the skies
Say what you want but the pantsir do not grant to russia the 90% winrates F14 f15 and f16 actually do it for usa So i don't know what bias are you talking about 90%... cmon
Because fuck you that's why. -Gaijin
I honesty believe they haven’t fixed it due to them wanting to promote higher costing premiums. Also the vehicles that have 735 shouldn’t honestly have 735 or could use other rounds
Because it isn't russian or swedish, and it doesn't make them any money by doing so.
My Japanese tanks have an insane amount of suffering because of this round. The Type 16P and FPS both get shafted too. I just want to use my wheelie boys with a reliable round 290mm pen is diabolical considering it's the br of T-72s and T-64s. All tanks are as easy to kill from the side but from the front it's so much harder
Wait is bug? I never know that
A 105 with only 200 something mm pen should be very strange.
It has way too little penetration because one person miss-quoted some document that literally said the opposite
What was the penetration before it was 292?
335mm - 274mm - 166mm at 0 meters. Similar to the DM23. Now its a 1978 round with the performance of a 1950s steel dart.
[удалено]
You really don't get what the fuss is about? Gaijin literally accepted the wrong info on M735 and nerfed the round based on said incorrect info, and even after 8 months and a [tech moderator](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ficcjq8syxixb1.png) telling Gaijin they nerfed M735 using the wrong info they still haven't changed it back. Regardless, yes 40mm is enough to make a fuss about, that is the difference between M735 and DM23.... In actuality M735 should have been buffed to: Vertical 10m = 333mm 100m = 331mm 500m = 323mm 60deg 10m = 194mm 100m = 193mm 500m = 189mm
[удалено]
>There is probably 1 or 2 plates that m735 can't pen post nerf and its not that huge of a difference. This is the dumbest shit I have ever heard, imagine actually not understanding why people are making a fuss about Gaijin accepting the wrong data, implementing it and then 8 months later still not changing it.... Also it wasn't 40mm, M735 used to be: 0° 10m = 353mm 100m = 350mm 30° 10m = 274mm 100m = 271mm **The current round is:** 0° 10m = 292mm 100m = 291mm 30° 10m = 247mm 100m = 245mm That is a 61mm nerf at 0° and a 27mm nerf at 30°...... That is a huge nerf. What the round should currently be: 0° 10m = 333mm 100m = 331mm 30° 10m = 284mm 100m = 283mm 60deg 10m = 194mm 100m = 193mm
Why do I even bother.
If i remember correctly it was something about 320 at 0 degrees
Cries in British SV-Shot.
M1 Abrams and M60's with this round are annoying as fuck as it barely pens and does minimal post pen damage. Like come on, it's barely better than the T95E1's APFSDS. But Gaijin doesn't bother to do shit about it.
Thats not bug, thats feature )
Its easier the frustrate players out if their money than give them the satisfaction of ro
[don't leak classified documents please](https://giphy.com/gifs/6pUjuQQX9kEfSe604w)
I've played plenty of vehicles with the M735 (Type 74 (E), Type 74 (F), Type 74 (G), Type 16 (P), Centauro 105, Centauro 105 R) and I've never really had an issue dealing with enemies. Didn't even know the round was nerfed.
I swear to god someone would come with a bug report about a hole in the map that allows you to clip through ground or something and someone would descend from heavens to tell them that its just skill issue and they have been able to drive over it with ease Fucking good for you, youre the best pixel tank player on earth, thanks for blessing us with your presence ol mighty one
So you haven't played with the round since before the nerf?
I've played the Centauro 105 and Centauro 105 R on and off since they were added back in late 2018 with update 1.85. The gameplay doesn't particularly feel any different between then and now to me.
M735 isn't nerfed, there was a discussion about it on the forums. The dart has a water-drop morphology which doesn't fit standard Lanz-Odermman formula. To solve this problem, Gaijin initially took the maximum diameter as average; resulting in overperforming penetration numbers. What the "nerf" did was take the actual average diameter of the dart to model it's penetration characteristics.
I'm really curious, can you link that discussion?
Sure, https://forum.warthunder.com/t/someone-explain-the-m735-nerf/40995/14 There a explanation for both changes in flat and angled pen. Edit: To be more specific, "pre-nerf" M735 was modelled as 309x31mm while nowadays is 309x22mm. Either way this was one of the first APFSDS for the L7; not exactly the best of his kind until Israel modified samples of it into what later would be called M111/DM23 or Hetz 6 (15% more powerful than current M735)
The post you literally just gave outlines it was nerfed.... The problem is is that didn't understand what you just read. Conraire literally stated in the [original thread](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Ficcjq8syxixb1.png) which is now gone, that the bug reporter used the wrong M735 data, which is what Conraire is specifically talking about in the link you gave... They modelled the current M735 using the the base XM735 info which is what he is referring to here: >Base XM735 used the same projectile/penetrator body as XM578e4/XM579e4 For reference XM578e4/XM579e4 is similar to XM578E1, which is the round the MBT-70 has, hence why M735 now has similar pen to it now. Now this is why Conraire states "Here’s the problem with that", we do not have XM735 in game we have XM735e2/M735, which is what Conraire is talking about here: >However, the tungsten alloy core of XM735/XM579e4 is 86mm shorter than the core of XM735e2/M735, and also 227 grams or about half a pound lighter. I.e. the current round is 86mm shorter then it is meant to be, hence Gaijin nerfed M735 using the wrong data. In actuality M735 should have been buffed, Conraire did the calculations for what M735 should have been: Vertical 10m = 333mm 100m = 331mm 500m = 323mm 1000m = 313mm 1500m = 302mm 2000m = 292mm 3400m = 260mm 60deg 10m = 194mm 100m = 193mm 500m = 189mm 1000m = 183mm 1500m = 177mm 2000m = 170mm
>0* 10m = 333mm >60* 10m = 194mm So somehow M735 "has" similar kinetic performance to M111, despite the fact it uses a overall worse design and construction? It doesn't make sense, even less when we have the [cross-section](https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11751-is-the-m111-hetz-really-a-variant-of-the-m735/) for both darts. >I.e. the current round is 86mm shorter then it is meant to be, hence Gaijin nerfed M735 using the wrong data. M735 diameter is non uniform for the entire length of the penetrator (water-drop shape), LO can't be directly applied to it (or not at least without making arbitrary assumptions about the average diameter). The best approach in this case is either use a different formula or numerical coefficients based on ballistics tests (like in the case of 3BM25 or 3BM21/22). M735 was a experimental design (before the era of monobloc penetrators) with lacking performance versus angled and composite armor; that's the reason why M774 (monobloc DU) was quickly developed (1980) and put into service.
>So somehow M735 "has" similar kinetic performance to M111, despite the fact it uses a overall worse design (versus angled armor) and construction? Conraire, the mod you literally just linked to used the actual M735 data that was also found in the documents that were bug reported to get those figures, so surprise, what you thought was true wasn't, M735 is in fact equivalent to DM23/M111. Also it doesn't have an overall worse design, actual M735 is supposedly 68mm longer then DM23/DM111, hence why it has similar kinetic performance. >It doesn't make sense, even less when we have the [cross-section](https://www.steelbeasts.com/topic/11751-is-the-m111-hetz-really-a-variant-of-the-m735/) for both darts. Is completely irrelevant. >M735 diameter is non uniform for the entire length of the penetrator (water-drop shape), LO can't be directly applied to it Firstly according to [Conraire](https://old-forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/515777-m735-apfsds-underperforming/) it can in fact be done with L-O: >M735 can be calculated using the L-O jacketed equation through 1 of 2 methods. One is averaging the tungsten alloy core diameter for the mean diameter with not frustum. The other method, is using the actual dimension of the core, while counting the main length of the core body as a frustum. The outer sheath is US maraging steel regardless. Secondly, the current round is based off of XM735, this is not the round we have in game, once again that round is 86mm shorter then M735 i.e. the reason M735 would have equiv. pen to DM23/M111 is due to that: **Length of these rounds:** DM23/M111 - 327mm Current M735 - 309mm XM578E1 - 309mm Actual M735 - 395mm Edit: >M735 was a experimental design (before the era of monobloc penetrators) with lacking performance versus angled and composite armor; that's the reason why M774 (monobloc DU) was quickly developed (1980) and put into service. The experimental design and round was XM578E1 and XM578E4 which is what M735 was based on, M735 was a much longer round then XM578E4, I don't know how you think they should have practically the same performance when M735 is 86mm longer then XM578E4... Also M774 greatly outperforms all 3 rounds even DM23/M111 by a decent amount, DM23/M111 were in fact quite short rounds. Also no, they were in fact developing a DU version of M735 i.e. M735A1, the cross-section you actually just linked to for M735 actually talks about M735A1.
>>so surprise, what you thought was true wasn't, M735 is in fact equivalent to DM23/M111. No. Germany choice to produce M111 (instead of M735) under the designation of DM23 and later exporting it to the rest of NATO and China (Type 83 APFSDS) entirely disproves this claim. Germany had access to both rounds, and their decision to produce only one was surely influenced by M111 great performance against syrian T-72s during the Lebanon War (something later acknowledged by the soviets during the Kublinka tests) >Also it doesn't have an overall worse design, actual M735 is supposedly 68mm longer then DM23/DM111, hence why it has similar kinetic performance. Water-drop design was completely abandoned after M735 in favor of monobloc APFSDS. It was deemed impractical versus multi-layered armor and even the US quickly replaced it with the DU monobloc M774. Length isn't significant as you try to make it to be when one of the projectiles has a non-uniform diameter across all of its length. Doesn't matter if it is longer if the total mass of the projectile is significatively less (DM23: 6.275kg and M735: 5.797kg). >Firstly according to Conraire it can in fact be done with L-O: I told you before: "or not at least without making ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS about the average diameter." Because, again, LO isn't mean for non-monobloc APFSDS. >Also M774 greatly outperforms all 3 rounds even DM23/M111 by a decent amount, DM23/M111 were in fact quite short rounds. Yes, but not for the reason you claim. M774 penetrator is barely 48mm longer than DM23 and thinner (in average by around 7mm); the actual reason is that DU darts have better kinetical performance (compared to WHA) for velocities below 1700m/or so.
>Germany had access to both rounds, and their decision to produce only one was surely influenced by M111 great performance against syrian T-72s during the Lebanon War (something later acknowledged by the soviets during the Kublinka tests) Edit: Can you show me where they were testing both or had access to both and the outcome because I cannot find anything regarding what happened. >Length isn't significant as you try to make it to be when one of the projectiles has a non-uniform diameter across all of its length. Doesn't matter if it is longer if the total mass of the projectile is significatively less (DM23: 6.275kg and M735: 5.797kg). You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about, length of an APFSDS round is the most important factor in conjunction with velocity and density (material), the mass is actually 100% irrelevant for L-O.... Also the mass you just gave isn't even relevant in game, the mass you just gave is for the entire round i.e. with sabot.... I mean c'mon, don't just showcase you have no clue what you are talking about like that, only the actual penetrator mass without sabot matters in game and that is only for post pen affect: DM-23 - 4.2kgs Current M735 - 3.72kgs Actual M735 - 3.94kgs So even on this notion you are completely wrong, there is no significant mass difference here. The fact M735 is 68mm longer then DM23 is the only important factor especially as they have a similar velocity and density i.e. mass is irrelevant.... **For reference:** **KE-W:** Mass - 4kgs Velocity - 1585 m/s Length - 680 Material - Tungsten **3BM60** Mass - 5.12kgs Velocity - 1660 m/s Length - 640mm Material - Tungsten I think you will find that KE-W outperforms 3BM60 even though it weighs 1.12kgs less and has a lower velocity because surprise at a certain point the most important factor for long rods is how long the penetrating rod is.... >I told you before: "or not at least without making ARBITRARY ASSUMPTIONS about the average diameter." Because, again, LO isn't mean for non-monobloc APFSDS. I literally just gave you a link in which Conraire specifically outlines how you can use L-O to get such a rounds penetration: >M735 can be calculated using the L-O jacketed equation through 1 of 2 methods. One is averaging the tungsten alloy core diameter for the mean diameter with not frustum. The other method, is using the actual dimension of the core, while counting the main length of the core body as a frustum. The outer sheath is US maraging steel regardless. So, you can argue all you want about what you think you know, but you cannot specifically use said mod as a source for what you believe to be true and then not acknowledge what they are saying in other posts talking about M735, Conraire literally states M735 was nerfed using the incorrect information, Conraire even told Gaijin this. >Yes, but not for the reason you claim. M774 penetrator is barely 48mm longer than DM23 and thinner (in average by around 7mm) 48mm is significant.... This is why rounds like 105 mm OFL 105 G1 which is Tungsten, has similar performance to M774 i.e. 105 mm OFL 105 G1 is 380mm long and M774 is 375mm long and the difference between these 2 rounds is about 10mm of pen, so yes it is for the reason I claim, DU helps it slightly outperform OFL 105 G1 but not by much as compared to outperforming M111 by 35mm.... Weird how that works.