[NO BUG]2a42 30mm cannon damage is broken

[rahimystrio]

i tested it again chapparell and vulcan air defenses at 2.2km range. both HE and AP rounds seems to be not damaging them at all.

EDIT: i did 2nd test at same range against m113, aav and tpz fuchs. AP was damaging it and HE was not. in 3rd test, i tested at 900m and finally AP was damaging vulcan and chapparel . does chaparrel actually supposed to have better armor than other APCs?

ka50 30mm cannon damadge test.trk

ka50 30mm cannon damadge test2.trk

ka50 30mm cannon damadge test3.trk

Edited March 8, 2020 by rahimystrio

[Lt_RAzOr_957]

I had also a weird experience with AP on a T55 at About 1km distance and had no effects at al with ~40 rounds = 30 on TGT, half the shots i frired from the rear aspect of the tank where armor should be the weakest.

[Shadow KT]

Well, it is weird... The Ka-50 has the BMP-2 gun.

 

Don't know if the munition we have modeled is old or what, but it can't pen Warrior and Bradley M2A2...

 

It shouldn't either I believe, as it is said that those are armored up to 30mm rounds.... although I don't know... super suspicious...

 

At the same time 25mm on the Bradley/Lav and the 30MM on the Warrior can penetrate them....

 

Definitely either the armor models are not alright.... or the ammo is weak

[Dehuman]

Yeah definitely feels like it's a lot less effective than it used to be but wasn't sure I wasn't just imagining it.

Against AAV-7 and M113 you have to be dangerously close it seems.

[BIGNEWY]

In DCS unless the round can penetrate the amour it will not do damage, vehicle armour value and angle of armour also make a difference.

 

Armour piercing is best used for armoured vehicles.

[Fri13]

Use AP and for BTR/M113 kind targets, everything else as BMP-2 or AAV-7 you should be using already AT missiles/rockets. And forget MBT completely with cannon.

[85th_Maverick]

On 3/9/2020 at 3:47 PM, BIGNEWY said:

In DCS unless the round can penetrate the amour it will not do damage, vehicle armour value and angle of armour also make a difference.

 

Armour piercing is best used for armoured vehicles.

Ok, so..., the KA-50's 30mm can't do anything even to a Chapparal. Chapparal is strong, lol, but the A-10's gun which is also 30mm can give 100% kill damage against a T-90 in 1 second of burst. Cmon..., let's have some logic here. We all agree that the incidence angles between the AP bullet and the armor, the AP bullet's capability and speed (kinetics should count) and also the armor's strength, all matter for how much damage is finally produced, but cmon, it's daylight clear that the AP bullets of the KA-50 are almost useless as weak, almost as weak as HE, while for an A-10 they are as they should. What's your logic/explanation? Also the Su-25's bullets are weaker than those of the A-10 when attacking the same tank (ex: T-90) although more bullets from the Su-25 actually hit the tank (greater accuracy) as they are almost all shot inline while those of the A-10 are sprayed in a cone. Still the A-10's bullets are more powerful. Nonsense!

[Hobel]

vor 52 Minuten schrieb 85th_Maverick:

Ok, so..., the KA-50's 30mm can't do anything even to a Chapparal. Chapparal is strong, lol, but the A-10's gun which is also 30mm can give 100% kill damage against a T-90 in 1 second of burst. Cmon..., let's have some logic here. We all agree that the incidence angles between the AP bullet and the armor, the AP bullet's capability and speed (kinetics should count) and also the armor's strength, all matter for how much damage is finally produced, but cmon, it's daylight clear that the AP bullets of the KA-50 are almost useless as weak, almost as weak as HE, while for an A-10 they are as they should. What's your logic/explanation? Also the Su-25's bullets are weaker than those of the A-10 when attacking the same tank (ex: T-90) although more bullets from the Su-25 actually hit the tank (greater accuracy) as they are almost all shot inline while those of the A-10 are sprayed in a cone. Still the A-10's bullets are more powerful. Nonsense!

You can't just assume that all 30mm weapons have the same penetration performance.

 

But yes the cannon of the KA50/BMP-2 should be able to destroy vehicles like M113 or others frontal easily.

I think that such and other things in the future will be worked out more detailed

 

 

 

[85th_Maverick]

1 hour ago, Hobel said:

You can't just assume that all 30mm weapons have the same penetration performance.

 

But yes the cannon of the KA50/BMP-2 should be able to destroy vehicles like M113 or others frontal easily.

I think that such and other things in the future will be worked out more detailed

 

 

 

I already said about the factors that matter, you didn't read? And exactly as you say, the KA-50's AP bullets should be much better in the end for anything else other than tanks. All APCs should take damage to death even if sooner or later, but certainly should get damaged from this cannon. The same goes for the Su-25's AP bullets which again, do very little damage to tanks compared to an A-10, although a line of bullets actually hit the tank spot on, when only a low percentage of the bullets sprayed by the A-10 that hit the tank are enough to destroy it. I doubt that the devs had secret access to data regarding the real damage of the bullets of a Su-25 and A-10, so they've done the tweaking on their damage based on their imagination only, but even if the Su-25's bullets would be less damaging than those of an A-10, hey..., how much less? And even so if doing a bit less damage, the AP bullets of the SU-25 which hit a tank in greater amount (higher accuracy) should still kill a tank faster than the lower accuracy sprayed bullets of an A-10. You must take all factors into account when analyzing and understanding what's wrong!

Edited June 10, 2022 by 85th_Maverick

[Blackjack_UK]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The 30mm GAU-10 carries DU rounds and is a spectacularly high velocity weapon designed from the ground up to kill main battle tanks.

The 2a42 cannon the the Ka-50 is an adaptation of a general purpose weapon already in service. A totally different animal.

Compare a 105mm MBT cannon with a 105mm field gun. One is far better for anti-armour than the other, even though they have the same calibre.

[Cheetah7798]

I will add that I've done my own testing on this topic, both with the 2A42 of the Ka-50 and the Gsh-30-2 of the Mi-24P. Both struggle to penetrate targets which, to my understanding, shouldn't stop much more than small arms fire.

For the results see the forum post link below:

My main concern is with vehicles like the Stryker, which, to quote Wikipedia:
"...is constructed from high-hardness steel which offers a basic level of protection against 14.5 mm rounds on the frontal arc, and all-around protection against 7.62 mm ball ammunition."

Yet, at 500m, with a cannon that fires rounds at greater velocity than the 2A42 of the Ka-50, took over 30 rounds of ammunition to destroy. Also keep in mind that the Stryker is less protected in the frontal arc compared to the BMP-2, yet on average survived 50% more shots.

Also, while not reflected in the tests at 500m, I have noticed that hitting M113s at between 1.5 and 2km with the cannon often leaves them undamaged.

[Volk.]

Huh. That Gsh thread went...sideways & then some.

The 30mm especially HE should make for a very bad day inside a tank. Think I read the 2A42 (on BMPs) would use the HE/HEI rounds vs. tanks, as it couldn't penetrate most angles with those steel AP rounds, but the high ex would strip away the eRA, wreck sensors etc. That said it did score mobility/firepower kills from I think 1km (can't quite recall the number. Check out Sovietarmourblog/Tangograd). In general wouldn't expect the AP rounds to do much vs. tanks - from the rear sure, but not effectively. Not sure about the pressure/sound waves on the crew, might be negligible - I don't know.

 

But that's digressing. vs. IFVs only rated for 7.62/12.7mm from level angles when you're firing slightly higher up, I'd expect the 30mm rounds to aerate it nicely. Given what its hi-ex does to reinforced concrete, I'd thank that too would (at least on direct hits) make it a bad day.

 

I haven't toyed much with M113/Bradleys. But the Strykers I found to be just shy of an MBT in armour in DCS when last I tested maybe 2020. Impervious to 30mm from the front basically. The one exception was the turreted version, you could get super damage vs. the turret, even from the front, and kill it that way. I don't know much about the Strykers protection, where the plates are, angles, layers, etc., but that's what I last found in DCS.

And yes, the rounds are different between the Warthog, Hind/Su-25T and Shark. PGU-14 rounds are fired at a high velocity (and fire rate), and have a high quality DU round. Very high penetration for a 30mm. The 2A42 AP rounds only use a steel core (some 3rd party manufacturers make Tungsten ones that have a lot better stated performance), and less velocty. Unlike the other two here, it of course has articulation so more rounds should land on target unless the pilot flew the perfect angle, and all the rounds used would be AP instead of a likely combat mix, though not quite at the same rate of fire. The Hind's Gsh rounds have slightly worse stats, in also it has less velocity, and the Su-25's version of the cannon even less velocity. Yeah it woulda been used vs. IFVs.

All the above rounds are about same length, though the Gau-8 rounds pack a bit more propellant/payload. I have a vid on all the details I could find on the differences of these cannons: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjdQx_590XQ&feature=youtu.be>. Not much on specifics of penetration vs. e.g. western IFV/APCs though.

 

 

[85th_Maverick]

On 8/2/2022 at 11:59 AM, Blackjack_UK said:

You're comparing apples and oranges.

The 30mm GAU-10 carries DU rounds and is a spectacularly high velocity weapon designed from the ground up to kill main battle tanks.

The 2a42 cannon the the Ka-50 is an adaptation of a general purpose weapon already in service. A totally different animal.

Compare a 105mm MBT cannon with a 105mm field gun. One is far better for anti-armour than the other, even though they have the same calibre.

Who's comparing apples and oranges? Did you read correctly? Both being 30mm AP and doing about 5 times different damage? Maybe not 5, but a couple of times anyway. You probably compare the 30mm HE of the 2A42 with the 30mm AP of the GAU-8...!

Edited December 25, 2022 by 85th_Maverick

[Blackjack_UK]

On 12/25/2022 at 4:05 PM, 85th_Maverick said:

Who's comparing apples and oranges? Did you read correctly? Both being 30mm AP and doing about 5 times different damage? Maybe not 5, but a couple of times anyway. You probably compare the 30mm HE of the 2A42 with the 30mm AP of the GAU-8...!

 

No, I'm comparing a dedicated anti-armour weapon with very specifically designed anti-armour munitions to a general purpose weapon where the only similarity is the calibre.

Look at some facts - inconvenient I know but there we go:

GAU-8 muzzle velocity: 1010m/sec. DU round mass: 400g (0.4kg). Kinetic energy (1/2mv squared): 41,000J.  Rate of fire: 3900r/min (65 rounds/sec). Effective power transferred: 2.7MW

2A42 muzzle velocity: 900m/sec. AP round mass (DU not available on this platform): 300g. Kinetic energy: 18,200J. Rate of fire: 800r/min (13 r/sec). Effective power transferred: 0.24MW

The GAU-8 has a fixed rate of fire. I've used the higher rate for the 2A42, and am also assuming the same accuracy. I know there are other factors and it's not a true power conversion but there's a simple and unavoidable fact.

The GAU-8 puts over 2.5 million joules of energy onto the target every second. The 2A42 puts just under a quarter million joules. 

Now do you understand?

Edited December 29, 2022 by Blackjack_UK
Screwed the maths