New Cold War 2020 mod release! (RC 0.4)

PlasmaKrab · #1 September 28th, 2007, 09:02 AM

Why do we keep going on about this already?

I agree that transitioning to 152mm can be an option for future tank design, time will tell. I agree that the Russian isn't 40 years behind in APFSDS performance, maybe 10 or 15 though, and that rebuilding older tanks with a bustle autoloader is no mean task.
I still consider that full-length rounds allow for heavier rounds with decent L/D ratio. AFAIK the British don't field anything with penetration ratios on the level of an M829E3 or DM-53. Now if you tell me they do, I'm ready to take the evidence into account.

I was just trying to point out that it would be on the whole easier, shorter and cheaper to develop new 125mm ammo for the current tanks and upgrades thereof, than developing a brand new 152mm-gun tank, as things stand these days in the real world. Both options are not mutually exclusive and wouldn't serve exactly the same purpose, but I guess the Russian military would have to make a choice. That was just to support the "maybe not 152mm for real right now" argument.

Now as far as regards the Cold War 2020 mod, I have selected the 135mm in full agreement with myself, for various reasons ranging from compatibility with transitional tank designs to easier to model physics through ammo loadout.

Marcello · #2 September 28th, 2007, 01:55 PM

"and that rebuilding older tanks with a bustle autoloader is no mean task."

You still have to cut the turret though. The autoloader modification on the T-90 or the T-72BM upgrade is rather less dramatic. And even if the newest APFSDS cannot be carried in non refitted tanks, HE, HEAT and propelling charges are still compatible, which would not be the case with a new monobloc ammo. The british are going to drop their main gun for NATO standard 120mm,so there is no reason to develop a M829A3 lookalike, but that is more for standardization and rifled vs smoothbore issues than any limitation of the separate charge. I have never found the separate charge to be described as a substantial limiting factor for APFSDS performance.