Jump to content

German 12,8cm Treibspiegelgeschoss (128mm APDS with 88mm PzGr. 39 core)


Since theres a lot of discussion currently going on in the Panzerkampfwagen VIII Maus topic about the 128mm APDS, I decided to create a topic it to clear things up.

 

Here a few well known facts:

  1. Germany did experiement with discarding subcaliber rounds for various calibers.
  2. The initial intend was to improve the range of the heavy Flak guns (10.5/12.8/15cm) firing HE
  3. Later they experiemented with AP shells as well.
  4. The purpose of AP discarding sabot was to improve the armor penetration cabilities of high caliber artillery guns such as the 10,5 cm leFH (similiar gun as the StuH 42)

 

We also know that they experiemented with a 88mm PzGr. 39 being fired from a 12.8cm gun.

 

There exists various documents about this 88mm PzGr. TS but all agree that the the shell could only achive it's expected performance if the shell was of particular good quality.

Otherwise the shell shattered at these high velocties, resulting in greatly reduced penetration.

 

 

Two German document show the penetration for the round with 264mm at 1000m and 230mm at 2000m against 30°.

Spoiler

file.php?id=408712&mode=view

and

Spoiler

file.php?id=409426&mode=view

 

However these values contradict with the next source, which I regard as the most accurate representation of German penetration values:

Spoiler

n7MFWIQ.jpg

 

Here it shows that the at 1230m/s the penetration is actually around 260mm while around 230mm with around 1125m/s at which the shell would have traveled roughly 1km considering the ballistics of the shell.

 

So I belive that the two other German documents contain errors about the performance. Either the values for 1000m and 2000m are actually the values for 0m and 1000m, or the given velocity of 1230m/s is not correct for the values shown. It's quite possible that the penetration values were obtained with higher velocity but the velocity was later reduced to 1230m/s.

 

The values from the third source " German Steel Armour Piercing Projectiles and the Theory of Penetration, 1945, British Intelligence Objectives Sub Committee."

match with my estimation for the shell against 240 BHN armor.

 

The slope modifier for 30° is 1.23 so the shell penetrates around 320mm of ~205 BHN armor (70kg/mm²).

The value for 240 BHN can be estimated by multiplying the value with the square root of the quotient of the hardness difference.

Therefore the round would penetrate around 295mm at 0m against 240 BHN armor.

My own estimation results in 296mm which again shows that the performance of German APCBC shells can be accurately estimated using the De Marre forumula since De Marre is very accurate as long as the shell stays intact.

 

Estimating the performance at range using the ballistics of the 88mm PzGr. 39 results in:

0m       -> 296mm 0° | 240mm 30° | ~122

100m   -> 292mm 0° | 237mm 30° |  ?

500m   -> 275mm 0° | 223mm 30° |  ?

1000m -> 255mm 0° | 207mm 30° |  ?

1500m -> 234mm 0° | 192mm 30° |  ?

2000m -> 219mm 0° | 178mm 30° |  ~90mm 60°

 

Compared to estimated performance of the 128mm PzGr. 43. using the ballistic table:

0m       -> 267mm 0° | 217mm 30° | ~116mm 60°

100m   -> 264mm 0° | 214mm 30° | ?

500m   -> 251mm 0° | 204mm 30° | ?

1000m -> 235mm 0° | 191mm 30° | ?

1500m -> 221mm 0° | 180mm 30° | ?

2000m -> 207mm 0° | 168mm 30° |  ~88mm 60°

 

While it's possible to estimate the 0° and 30° performance for such a shell quite easily, the 60° performance remains a mystery.

The problem is that I don't have enough information about how shells perform at 60° against greatly over- and undermatching armor.

In theory the 88mm PzGr. TS should penetrate up to 150mm of armor but it's VERY likely that the shell simply shatters above 1000m/s and any increase in velociy will only result in moderate increase in penetration.

Otherwise every country would have used steel discarding sabot rounds instead of tungsten, if thick sloped armor could be defeated so easily by steel shells.

 

Therefore the only advantage of this round would be the higher velociy and slightly improved penetration against flat armor.

However since we know that mass produced rounds couldn't even withstand velocities above 1000m/s it's clear why no other nation ever bothered to use steel discarding sabot rounds.

 

 

Therefore I conclude that the 128mm APDS round, even if we consider that only high quality shells are used, are not sufficent effective to make a difference.

Since this round was never used in combat and most likely wouldn't have been used (unlike the 105mm PzGr. 39) due to mentioned problems, I'm against implementing this round into the game.

 

What could be a huge improvement to the performance of the 128mm guns, would be the use of a 128mm APBC round like it's used on the M103s 120mm gun.

Of course such round never existed but the main problem about the 128mm is the use of capped shell which reduces the slope armor penetration by around 15-18% since the cap doesn't help in defeating the armor.

Such shell could therefore penetrate around 125-130mm of armor at 60° instead of 112mm.

Alternatively the cap could be removed and the round fired at higher velocity. Increased velocity + better slope performance would be the result at the cost of reduced 0°-40° penetration.

 

We see that the use of steel discarding sabot rounds is not the answer. The US went with the 120mm APBC solid shot which penetrated sloped armor by the huge force of the shells weight and velocitiy while tungsten APDS rounds have vastly superior velocity and vertical penetration in comparison and are also easier to load due to the reduced weight of the shell.

 

 

 

Edited by KillaKiwi
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 6
  • Upvote 8
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very informative post and also nice to see all the info compiled here, since most information on the 128mm APCBC-DS is scattered around in the threads regarding the Maus. Although I would personally not mind to see this shell being added to War Thunder, since even if it could only penetrate around 296mm max, it would still improve the performance, which the Maus/Jagdtiger/E-100 in my honest opinion need I todays 7.7/8.0 meta with things like the IS-7 roaming around and I would definitely take the Pzgr. TS over a fantasy APBC for the KwK 44.

 

About the 60° performance, would it make sense to simply say, that the shell would shatter at angles greater than 59°, meaning the effective penetration is effectively 0mm, if the armor is say thicker than 50mm? Giving it a max pen of 50mm at 60°? (that was just an example of course)

From a balance standpoint that would increase the weight of the choice, the player has to make, in order to choose the right ammunition for the right enemy, either choosing the Pzgr. 43 for enemies with 60° sloped armor, or the Pzgr. TS for enemies with less angled armor, to get the most penetration per shot.

 

Either way, thank you for making this post! :salute:

  • Thanks 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue here being, the experimental APDS for the 12.8cm was used on a Field Artillery gun to begin with. There was plans to develop the round to be used on the KwK44 on the Maus. While the two german documents are presented, the continuing issue here being human errors

 

43 minutes ago, lVrizl said:

 

I've been reading on the axishistory forums and sorry, but it only specifies that it was an intended round for the Maus but never left development ((nor was it actually tested on the KwK44))

  Reveal hidden contents

The AP projectile body of the 12.8cm Pzgr.Ts. was indeed a plaín vanilla 8.8cm Pzgr39, sans cap, windscreen and driving bands cut.
Unlike the Pzgr39, it had a different cap (similar to 12.8cm and 10.5cm Pzgr.43 series and the 7.5cm Pzgr39). The thicker cap takes away some mm penetration compared to the 8.8cmPzgr39 but offers better high velocity impact attributes (remember, it was mandatory for the projectile to stay intact in german AP specifications). Problems encountered in frequent projectile break up during the first set of trials against plates thicker than 200mm RHA @ 30° have been already mentioned. Initially, WaPrüf, mentioned that the limit for 8.8cm Pzgr39 used there was at 200mm, and higher, theoretical penetration figures were without practical relevance (compare asterics in attachment below). During the 2nd trial at Hillersleben with better quality ammunition, and acc. to the account of Dr. Wagenknecht by Bochumer Verein, his 8.8cm Pzgr39 fired in sabot penetrated a high quality homogenious armor plate 305mm thick at a velocity of 1280m/s under 30° obliquity without suffering projectile break up (he claimed these 8.8cmPzgr39 to have been taken from ordinary mass production stock and converted).

There are no data for 100m or 500m but for 3000m and 4000m:
3000m: 176mm RHA @ 30°
4000m: 140mm RHA @ 30°

This projectile was intended for vehicles armed with 12.8cm L/55 KWK44 according to the sources and was always directly compared with the 12.8cm Pzgr 43 fired by 12.8cm L/55 KWK44. While no specifications are made explicitely mentioning JAGDTIGER or MAUS in the tabulations I have seen, it stands to reason that these two vehicles were the only vehicles armed with this 12.8cm L/55 gun and they were also the only ones to fire the 12.8cm Pzgr43 by the 12.8cm L/55.

A related, but in details different 12.8cm Pzgr.Ts.Mbs. to be fired by 12.8cm PAK80 and 12.8cm K81 is also mentioned as "under development" by 1944 (as opposed to "fertig entwickelt / development completed" for the aforementioned -Ts). Due to manufacturing, the 12.8cm Pzgr.Ts. was also to receive further simplification development in sabot design in order to simplify conversion.

 

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=218088&start=30

 

Beginning of the thread here:

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=218088&start=15

 

Real meat of the issue begins here:

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&=218088&start=30

 

((It should also be noted that 8.8cm subcaliber, Pz.Gr 39 is also used for 15cm rounds used for testing))

  Reveal hidden contents

file.php?id=408709&mode=view

file.php?id=408710&mode=view

 

These are Field Artillery rounds

  Reveal hidden contents

image.png.6158e989cc3a81b59ed0ba6f8c1744

 

And makes a several critical errors in part by overlooking the above fact by making the assumption that this particular graph:

  Reveal hidden contents

file.php?id=410675&t=1

 

 

Is about it being the subcaliber for the 128mm APDS instead of the possibility this would also be for 150mm APDS. That, however, is overshadowed from the reality that the graph originates from this source:

"German Steel Armour Piercing Projectiles and the Theory of Penetration, 1945, British Intelligence Objectives Sub Committee. "

 

To which, said report gave out these statements alongside firing tables that directly contests with that assumption made. Pg. 111-15 of said source to be specific

  Reveal hidden contents

1.PNG.074619e705020e69b3b6af19b2376e08.P

2.PNG.fe11b778ef0005db14829dedafaed506.P

3.thumb.PNG.1709047d28f3dcfccbd7ec5a57c4

4.thumb.PNG.4b186f2b7c801d164948df07d8cf

5.thumb.PNG.cc72bbfb98bf2480b1fce4b97601

 

 

 

Meaning that aforementioned graph cannot be about specifically, these APDS rounds for the 12.8cm ((and that includes the 10.5cm and 15cm)) as these type of rounds proved ultimately unsuccessful.

 

The provided source supersedes previous documentation like the above picture from BAMA RH8-1326, which in of itself, was theoretical specifications on what and how the 128mm APDS could've performed.

 

Leaving this:

  Reveal hidden contents

discarding_sabot_types.jpg

 

Which is the summery of development for all -TS projectiles, which would include the development of the intended APDS for the Maus but never produced / left the drawing paper

  Reveal hidden contents

This is a tabulation dated 29th of sept. 1944, summerizing the development of all -Ts. projectiles and a comparison with normal full calibre projectiles.

 

Meaning this is not actual proof the 128mm APDS round had existed to be used on either the JagdTiger or Maus or E-100 leaving the experimental APDS being tested on, again I have to reiterate, Field Artillery cannons

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2019 at 16:27, KillaKiwi said:

Estimating the performance at range using the ballistics of the 88mm PzGr. 39 results in:

0m       -> 296mm 0° | 240mm 30° | (110-137mm 60°)

100m   -> 292mm 0° | 237mm 30° |  ?

500m   -> 275mm 0° | 223mm 30° |  ?

1000m -> 255mm 0° | 207mm 30° |  ?

1500m -> 234mm 0° | 192mm 30° |  ?

2000m -> 219mm 0° | 178mm 30° |  ~90mm 60°

 

While it's possible to estimate the 0° and 30° performance for such a shell quite easily, the 60° performance remains a mystery.

The problem is that I don't have enough information about how shells perform at 60° against greatly over- and undermatching armor.

In theory the 88mm PzGr. TS should penetrate up to 150mm of armor but it's VERY likely that the shell simply shatters above 1000m/s and any increase in velociy will only result in moderate increase in penetration.

Otherwise every country would have used steel discarding sabot rounds instead of tungsten, if thick sloped armor could be defeated so easily by steel shells.

 

I said that but according to the US penetration chart for the Soviet 100mm BR-412B, the round penetrates 150mm of cast armor at around 1130m/s.

Spoiler

100mm_APBC_penetration_US_test.png

Of course you you'll need a giant gun to be able to propell a projectile to that velocity. A gun bigger than the KwK L/68...

 

However the 88mm is much smaller and fired at even higher velocity which makes it unlikely that the shell would be able to defeat 60° armor with similiar efficiency as at lower velocity.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I believe that pzgr ts would be like adding an apcr round to the maus.It wont really change the tank but it will certainly affect its penetration capabilities.I am against a fantasy shell.But seeing how unbalanced and biased the game has become i wouldnt care if one was added.Its not in our hands either way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Destroyer500000 said:

 I believe that pzgr ts would be like adding an apcr round to the maus.It wont really change the tank but it will certainly affect its penetration capabilities.I am against a fantasy shell.But seeing how unbalanced and biased the game has become i wouldnt care if one was added.Its not in our hands either way.

Well considering that the long 88mm has APCR shells which it never fired in combat or the completely made up 105mm APCR, adding this round wouldn't be anymore unrealistic than the game already is.

  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KillaKiwi said:

Well considering that the long 88mm has APCR shells which it never fired in combat or the completely made up 105mm APCR, adding this round wouldn't be anymore unrealistic than the game already is.

Did you find anything for a 75mm shell in 105mm cartridge which potentially could be used for a StuH42 1944 (so without muzzle brake)?

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

Did you find anything for a 75mm shell in 105mm cartridge which potentially could be used for a StuH42 1944 (so without muzzle brake)?

Well it's shown there:

Spoiler

file.php?id=409426&mode=view

So it would have roughly the same pen as the StuG III  but with longer reload.

 

But that round was developed at the end of the war and having a 3.0 tank firing sabot that was never used in combat would be kinda odd.

  • Haha 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's even more interesting is the 150mm/88mm Pzgr.39 TS. I suppose "eingeführt" means they were issued to front units? The 105/75 was also "eingeführt", so is there enough info to implement them into WT?

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MrEdHardy said:

What's even more interesting is the 150mm/88mm Pzgr.39 TS. I suppose "eingeführt" means they were issued to front units? The 105/75 was also "eingeführt", so is there enough info to implement them into WT?

"Eingeführt" does mean it is introduced into the armed forces. State is 29th Septembre 1944, not too late.

 

23 minutes ago, KillaKiwi said:

But that round was developed at the end of the war and having a 3.0 tank firing sabot that was never used in combat would be kinda odd.

29th Septembre 1944 isn't too late I would think. Summer 1944 was the first time the Me262 flew combat action.

It wouldn't be for the current StuH 42 with muzzle brake, but should be issued to a new vehicle, StuH 42 1944 (or StuH 44?) without muzzle brake, which then could be BR 3.3.

Also, I'm not sure it is odd to have late-war or post-war vehicles or ammo being very low in BR; that's common practice already.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

"Eingeführt" does mean it is introduced into the armed forces. State is 29th Septembre 1944, not too late.

 

29th Septembre 1944 isn't too late I would think. Summer 1944 was the first time the Me262 flew combat action.

It wouldn't be for the current StuH 42 with muzzle brake, but should be issued to a new vehicle, StuH 42 1944 (or StuH 44?) without muzzle brake, which then could be BR 3.3.

Also, I'm not sure it is odd to have late-war or post-war vehicles or ammo being very low in BR; that's common practice already.

True but it would probably only be issued to artillery units since artillery is not that usefull for stoping tank advances.

There weren't many StuHs to begin with and in 1944 there were already Hetzers, Jagdpanzer IV and a lot of StuG IIIs around.

 

I think the only vehicle that should have any German APDS would be the Hummel, which is basically a Nashorn but with a 15cm artillery piece.

If the StuH 42 loses its muzzle break, the only ammo that would be effective were the APDS which you had to unlock first but only turn it into a worse StuG III G.

 

The Hummel would fit into the techtree somewhere around the Dicker Max and before the Nashorn.

However the Hummel isn't really needed since Germany already has more vehicles than it really needs.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, KillaKiwi said:

True but it would probably only be issued to artillery units since artillery is not that usefull for stoping tank advances.

There weren't many StuHs to begin with and in 1944 there were already Hetzers, Jagdpanzer IV and a lot of StuG IIIs around.

 

I think the only vehicle that should have any German APDS would be the Hummel, which is basically a Nashorn but with a 15cm artillery piece.

If the StuH 42 loses its muzzle break, the only ammo that would be effective were the APDS which you had to unlock first but only turn it into a worse StuG III G.

 

The Hummel would fit into the techtree somewhere around the Dicker Max and before the Nashorn.

However the Hummel isn't really needed since Germany already has more vehicles than it really needs.

Since I'm starting to get up the trees to the point where this stuff maters, I'm starting to pay attenion to ammo discussions.. I lost my Tiger I in a battle with clan mates after scoring a kill, hopped into a StuH and promptly frontally one-shot knocked out a Chieftain. Whatever that APCR round is, it seems to work plenty well.

Sadly, when something appeared on the world's various battlefields has about zero bearing on whether it appears in the game. I get why they have the meta they do and it's their sandbox, so I play nice. But it would be pretty cool to base wether a shell appears in the game or not on wether it made it into some sort of production somewhere. Had the British landed on the Baltic coast and taken Berlin in 1942, we'd be having debates about whether to include the Panther. Since it was 'paper' for the most part.

Yeah- the Germans have plenty of vehicles. But people dig the variety. There are plenty of things they can include for everyone ("T.O.G" anyone?- and the Americans made at leasgt as many weird specialized halftrck based vehicle as the Germans if you think about it.)

  • Like 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've came up with an overmatch formula and my estimation for the 60° penetration yields ~122mm for at 0m.

My new 12.8cm PzGr. 43 estimation yields now 116mm.

So the 88mm PzGr. TS wouldn't be much of an improvement. It has marginal higher penetration at all ranges.

 

Edit:

That being said, the 12.8cm PzGr. 43 would only be able to penetrate the front of the IS-3 from around 300m while the 88mm PzGr. TS could do so at around 1000m.

At least according to my estimation which could be totaly wrong.

Edited by KillaKiwi
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

I've came up with an overmatch formula and my estimation for the 60° penetration yields ~122mm for at 0m.

My new 12.8cm PzGr. 43 estimation yields now 116mm.

So the 88mm PzGr. TS wouldn't be much of an improvement. It has marginal higher penetration at all ranges.

 

Edit:

That being said, the 12.8cm PzGr. 43 would only be able to penetrate the front of the IS-3 from around 300m while the 88mm PzGr. TS could do so at around 1000m.

At least according to my estimation which could be totaly wrong.

I'd take perforating an IS-3 from 1000m over perforating it from 300m with weak-spot hunting any day! c:

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/02/2019 at 07:53, KillaKiwi said:

Well considering that the long 88mm has APCR shells which it never fired in combat or the completely made up 105mm APCR, adding this round wouldn't be anymore unrealistic than the game already is.

Context should be noted here:

 

88 APCR existed, there's grounds for it's inclusion such as firing tables and picture proof of said shells. A shell never fired in combat overlooks the connotation that the round exists in the first place.

 

Tiger 10.5cm, which I'm assuming you're mentioning about 105mm APCR, had the rules bent in it's inclusion as Germany had no top tier tanks in 2014 ((far before the idea of MBTs were a thing))

 

It ((and the Panther II)) was a necessity back then.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, KillaKiwi said:

I've came up with an overmatch formula and my estimation for the 60° penetration yields ~122mm for at 0m.

My new 12.8cm PzGr. 43 estimation yields now 116mm.

So the 88mm PzGr. TS wouldn't be much of an improvement. It has marginal higher penetration at all ranges.

 

Edit:

That being said, the 12.8cm PzGr. 43 would only be able to penetrate the front of the IS-3 from around 300m while the 88mm PzGr. TS could do so at around 1000m.

At least according to my estimation which could be totaly wrong.

Explain please

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I read the original forum this stuff was compiled on, and I clearly remember reading about how the 8.8cm penetrator had to be made blunter-tipped to withstand impact forces better. 

 

They also experimented with velocities ranging from 1000m/s to 1800m/s to figure out where to focus their efforts, the max velocity it could handle before shattering too much. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, MH4UAstragon said:

I read the original forum this stuff was compiled on, and I clearly remember reading about how the 8.8cm penetrator had to be made blunter-tipped to withstand impact forces better. 

 

They also experimented with velocities ranging from 1000m/s to 1800m/s to figure out where to focus their efforts, the max velocity it could handle before shattering too much. 

You wonldnt mind the maus at 7.7 with this shell would you?

Or even the JT at 7.0? Or 7.3?

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Gavin_Mactavish said:

You wonldnt mind the maus at 7.7 with this shell would you?

Or even the JT at 7.0? Or 7.3?

Gun is still irrelevant if the tank cannot survive intact able to fire back. Enough with “overwhelming armament” memes ruining the BR of things.

 

If a tank is centered around armor, it should be tiered primarily around armor and adjusted slightly based on armament.

 

This would mean Maus/E-100 7.0 and Jagdtiger 6.3. And those BRs are specifically if the T29, T34, T32, Caernarvon, Vickers MBT, and Centurion Mk10 were 7.3-7.7. Give the last gasp of heavy armor a break from the nasty early postwar stuff in a downtier at the least. 

Edited by MH4UAstragon
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, MH4UAstragon said:

This would mean Maus/E-100 7.0 and Jagdtiger 6.3.

I can't speak for the Maus (yet) and E-100 (probably never due to the ridiculous wall to get it), but the Jagdtiger I am playing GF RB seems pretty damn fine where it is.
An anachronism in tank design compared to what it faces but not bad.

But anyways, this is a topic about something different and if it could get such a shell, it would mean one more argument for it to stay where it is.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, MH4UAstragon said:

This would mean Maus/E-100 7.0 and Jagdtiger 6.3.

If a single penetration would actually take out a tank.

Even though a lot of vehicles can pen the turret of the Maus theres something not to forget:

  1. The Maus has to point its gun at you. Thats not something you want.
  2. Killing one or two crew doesn't mean **** because after the gunner is replaced you get instantly deleted by a 12.8cm shell.
  3. Most Soviet tanks below 7.7 can hardly even pen the turret of the Maus.

Both tanks would be better if the ammo was working correctly, giving them more sloped armor penetration and a faster reload for the gun can also be expected to be realistic.

Currently both vehicles don't really have enough firepower for their level of armor protection that would make them effective to be viable but reducing their BR would make them too effective against lower BR vehicles.

 

It's the same Story with the 75mm Jumbo. If the APCR would actually knock out tanks it could easily be 5.7 and fight Tigers and Panthers no problem. But the combination of APCR not penetrating the hull of a lot of vehicles and doing very little postpen damage means that the Jumbos firepower is not ideal compared to its armor protection.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KillaKiwi said:

If a single penetration would actually take out a tank.

Even though a lot of vehicles can pen the turret of the Maus theres something not to forget:

  1. The Maus has to point its gun at you. Thats not something you want.
  2. Killing one or two crew doesn't mean **** because after the gunner is replaced you get instantly deleted by a 12.8cm shell.
  3. Most Soviet tanks below 7.7 can hardly even pen the turret of the Maus.

Both tanks would be better if the ammo was working correctly, giving them more sloped armor penetration and a faster reload for the gun can also be expected to be realistic.

Currently both vehicles don't really have enough firepower for their level of armor protection that would make them effective to be viable but reducing their BR would make them too effective against lower BR vehicles.

 

It's the same Story with the 75mm Jumbo. If the APCR would actually knock out tanks it could easily be 5.7 and fight Tigers and Panthers no problem. But the combination of APCR not penetrating the hull of a lot of vehicles and doing very little postpen damage means that the Jumbos firepower is not ideal compared to its armor protection.

Except the Maus/JT have exceptionally long repair times for even the smallest things like a single thrown track. That alone makes the “survivability” aspect mostly irrelevant. The moment my breech is killed and there are no teammates with eyes on my assailant, I just J out since I’m dead anyway.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I don’t understand why we can’t manually rangefind using binoculars. Given how all tanks not equipped with the rangefinder module just use crew skills to do so, that would be a boon for the tank. Because with such a painful reload I ALWAYS rangefind before each shot with that gun, good JT zoom or not.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

APCR existed for the 12.8 cm KWK just sayin... (3 KG CORE)tested and it didnt came into service cuz of Tungsten resources where low... 

45mm Diametre 190mm long

 

290 at 60° @1000m

Edited by Deadmmann
  • Like 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Deadmmann said:

APCR existed for the 12.8 cm KWK just sayin... (3 KG CORE)tested and it didnt came into service cuz of Tungsten resources where low... 

45mm Diametre 190mm long

 

290 at 60° @1000m

Source? :)

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...