Jump to content

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


43 minutes ago, Deadmmann said:

Sent it via Discord... found these in my Spielberger Books

Thats what I get when I pop it into my APCR calculator.

 

Range in m Estimated Velocity in m/s Angle against the vertical Penetration in mm
1000 1019 0 334.35
    10 326.91
    20 305.01
    30 269.98
    40 223.95
  Penetrator breaks 45 132.71
  suffering reduced penetration 50 117.80
    55 102.16
    60 86.05
    65 69.74
    70 53.53
    75 37.78

 

So 270mm at 30° but of course I don't have any information about the muzzle velocity (using 1180m/s) or the ballistic behavour so it's all just wild guesses.

However considering that German test plates of this thickness are relatively soft, 270mm instead of 290mm can be expected.

 

At 100m it would be:

Range in m Estimated Velocity in m/s Angle against the vertical Penetration in mm
100 1163 0 407.75
    10 398.67
    20 371.96
    30 329.25
    40 273.11
  Penetrator breaks 45 161.84
  suffering reduced penetration 50 143.66
    55 124.59
    60 104.94
    65 85.05
    70 65.28
    75 46.08

 

Due to the small core for the caliber, the round isn't much better than the T44 on the long 90mm.

Edited by KillaKiwi
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

I assume your successful in the JT?

If so, can you explain me your playstyle? Genuine question

I can try to explain it but I guess it comes down to personal experience not only with the JT but other slow vehicles with a fixed gun.

And Im not sure if you can count me as successful. I have a little more kills than deaths and little more victories than defeats in it. For a vehicle that is notoriously called overtiered, outdated, too slow, too weak of a gun, no modern ammo etc. I think thats working fine.

So I dont have it spaded yet, but here is what I do: first I look at the map and decide whether to even field it. Some maps and capture point situations just dont allow for it really. You dont want to end up in situations where an enemy ends up too close to you or surprises you. You need to keep a certain minimum distance to an enemy that has noticed you or stay undetected. Then also I think you can really bring this thing to the flanks, especially with some mobility upgrades. And I mean far flanks. Because that eliminates one flank enemies can come to you and then your enemies are faced with around 250mm frontal armor which is no slouch.

Btw, I do use 17 default APHE's (SL saving) and 3 HE's for special ocasions, like quickly disposing of FV4005's or shooting the floor under T95's.

Here are two links of recent games you can watch
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/435914299798965235

https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/435910219580031325

Not spectacular and maybe not exactly showing what I meant but I'll also give a short TL;DR what works for me:

- move on flanks

- hide and wait overlooking points of interest

- keep your distance

- move so enemies dont expect you and know where to expect enemies from (and turn towards that direction)

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
On 09/03/2019 at 17:26, Stahlvormund101 said:

I can try to explain it but I guess it comes down to personal experience not only with the JT but other slow vehicles with a fixed gun.

And Im not sure if you can count me as successful. I have a little more kills than deaths and little more victories than defeats in it. For a vehicle that is notoriously called overtiered, outdated, too slow, too weak of a gun, no modern ammo etc. I think thats working fine.

So I dont have it spaded yet, but here is what I do: first I look at the map and decide whether to even field it. Some maps and capture point situations just dont allow for it really. You dont want to end up in situations where an enemy ends up too close to you or surprises you. You need to keep a certain minimum distance to an enemy that has noticed you or stay undetected. Then also I think you can really bring this thing to the flanks, especially with some mobility upgrades. And I mean far flanks. Because that eliminates one flank enemies can come to you and then your enemies are faced with around 250mm frontal armor which is no slouch.

Btw, I do use 17 default APHE's (SL saving) and 3 HE's for special ocasions, like quickly disposing of FV4005's or shooting the floor under T95's.

Here are two links of recent games you can watch
https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/435914299798965235

https://warthunder.com/en/tournament/replay/435910219580031325

Not spectacular and maybe not exactly showing what I meant but I'll also give a short TL;DR what works for me:

- move on flanks

- hide and wait overlooking points of interest

- keep your distance

- move so enemies dont expect you and know where to expect enemies from (and turn towards that direction)

 Noone ever said the tank is usseles but it certainly could benefit from some basic upgrades.Its real life scope (not the xxxx ingame version) would help you shoot with greater accuracy at distancees greater than 400 metters,the thicker ventilation shafts would reduce the amount of times planes,helis with mashineguns or just HE users just splashed you randomly,the rangefinder would allow for the better and much much faster understanding of the distance between you and a target and finaly the "apds" shell (pzgr-ts) would give you the option to frontaly penetrate tanks with 300mm of armor,or near that value,which is something needed cause you fight a lot of cold war tanks with much more than 250mm of armor.

 With or without these important features the tank actually had you do indeed have to play the way you say,with a few additions i would say.Always no matter what try to be somewhat angled,not too much not too little,dont fear the long shots when you get used to the shell and most importanly regularly check your back and top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...
On 12/02/2019 at 16:27, KillaKiwi said:

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.

 

I've changed my mind regarding the implementation and combat effectiveness of the 128mm Pzgr. TS round.

The main issue the 128mm gun has is that the ammunition it fires does not offer any significant advantage compared to a lighter shell like the 88mm fired from the KwK 43.

The 128mm Pzgr. 43 is very heavy, 28.3kg, but with the caps removed the actual penetrator only weighs around 23.9kg.

So the penetrator is actually lighter than the Soviet 122mm AP shell, while it also has a larger diamter, making the shell area around 10% larger.

At the same time the weight, including the propellant, is around +50kg compared to 88mm Pzgr. 39/43 shell with around 22kg.

 

From my estimation the 88mm Pzgr. 39 would penetrate around 226mm against 240 BHN armor hardness while the 128mm Pzgr. 43 ends up with 265mm in comparison.

Only around 40mm more penetration for having more than two times the kinetic energy.

A lot of energy is wasted by having such a large shell and heavy penetration caps.

 

Small caliber AP shells are much more energy efficent in terms of penetration power, can be fired at higher velocity and are easier to load.

The 128mm Pzgr. TS round offers all these advantages over firing a heavy 128mm APCBC and would therefore be prefered when it comes to anti-tank performance.

 

The 128mm cannons were only used relatively late in the war, in small numbers, and the 128mm Pzgr. 43 was a very basic improvement over the existing 128mm Pzgr. rounds used by the Navy and heavy FlaK batteries. The caliber 128mm was choosen because the tooling already existed but like mentioned earlier did the round offered only marginal better armor penetration for being much slower to reload and fired at lower velocity. A more efficent subcaliber round would therefore be ideal.

The subcaliber shell for the 10.5cm leFH 18 (StuH 42), firing a 75mm Pzgr. 39, improves the penetration of this field howitzer from ~85mm to +135mm with a increase of muzzle velocity from 475m/s to 765m/s, when compared to the old 10.5cm Pzgr. shell.

 

I can imagine that if the war had dragged on for a few months longer, the 128mm Pzgr. TS projectiles would have been introduced and most likely completely replaced the 128mm Pzgr. 43 as anti-tank ammunition for all 128mm L/55 cannons.

Edited by KillaKiwi
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
On 15/09/2019 at 16:01, KillaKiwi said:

 

I've changed my mind regarding the implementation and combat effectiveness of the 128mm Pzgr. TS round.

The main issue the 128mm gun has is that the ammunition it fires does not offer any significant advantage compared to a lighter shell like the 88mm fired from the KwK 43.

The 128mm Pzgr. 43 is very heavy, 28.3kg, but with the caps removed the actual penetrator only weighs around 23.9kg.

So the penetrator is actually lighter than the Soviet 122mm AP shell, while it also has a larger diamter, making the shell area around 10% larger.

At the same time the weight, including the propellant, is around +50kg compared to 88mm Pzgr. 39/43 shell with around 22kg.

 

From my estimation the 88mm Pzgr. 39 would penetrate around 226mm against 240 BHN armor hardness while the 128mm Pzgr. 43 ends up with 265mm in comparison.

Only around 40mm more penetration for having more than two times the kinetic energy.

A lot of energy is wasted by having such a large shell and heavy penetration caps.

 

Small caliber AP shells are much more energy efficent in terms of penetration power, can be fired at higher velocity and are easier to load.

The 128mm Pzgr. TS round offers all these advantages over firing a heavy 128mm APCBC and would therefore be prefered when it comes to anti-tank performance.

 

The 128mm cannons were only used relatively late in the war, in small numbers, and the 128mm Pzgr. 43 was a very basic improvement over the existing 128mm Pzgr. rounds used by the Navy and heavy FlaK batteries. The caliber 128mm was choosen because the tooling already existed but like mentioned earlier did the round offered only marginal better armor penetration for being much slower to reload and fired at lower velocity. A more efficent subcaliber round would therefore be ideal.

The subcaliber shell for the 10.5cm leFH 18 (StuH 42), firing a 75mm Pzgr. 39, improves the penetration of this field howitzer from ~85mm to +135mm with a increase of muzzle velocity from 475m/s to 765m/s, when compared to the old 10.5cm Pzgr. shell.

 

I can imagine that if the war had dragged on for a few months longer, the 128mm Pzgr. TS projectiles would have been introduced and most likely completely replaced the 128mm Pzgr. 43 as anti-tank ammunition for all 128mm L/55 cannons.

Which means that we should have it ingame.What is the penetration you propose for it at 1000 meters ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/11/2019 at 18:59, Destroyer500000 said:

Which means that we should have it ingame.What is the penetration you propose for it at 1000 meters ?

Well doesn't really matter. If implemented, it would use Gaijins penetration calculation and would end up with roughly:

314mm at 0m

271mm at 1000m

233mm at 2000m

Edited by KillaKiwi
  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/12/2019 at 19:25, KillaKiwi said:

Well doesn't really matter. If implemented, it would use Gaijins penetration calculation and would end up with roughly:

314mm at 0m

271mm at 1000m

233mm at 2000m

Doesnt sound that bad.Id take 315mm of pen instead of 263mm any day of the week.From your reply though its as if youre saying it could be stronger.What are the penetration numbers that you propose and the ones that you think stand closer to what it would really be ?

Edited by Destroyer500000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Destroyer500000 said:

Doesnt sound that bad.Id take 315mm of pen instead of 263mm any day of the week.From your reply though its as if youre saying it could be stronger.What are the penetration numbers that you propose and the ones that you think stand closer to what it would really be ?

299mm at 0m
255mm at 1000m

218mm at 2000m

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
On 05/12/2019 at 19:39, KillaKiwi said:

299mm at 0m
255mm at 1000m

218mm at 2000m

This would really help the maus fight t54s and many american tanks.The 314 at 0 would be better though but o well.

Edited by Destroyer500000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...
9 hours ago, ALIEN109 said:

With current META will that shell really change anything ?

Of course it will. There's a night and day difference between being able to penetrate the opponent and not.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Of course it will. There's a night and day difference between being able to penetrate the opponent and not.

I think no... It is still an APCBC with a bad % of ricochet and with a smaller caliber than the full AP. Probably i will continue to use the PzGr. 43. 

But it is a faster shell, maybe it will help from long distances

Edited by HERTZMAND
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, HERTZMAND said:

I think no... It is still an APCBC with a bad % of ricochet and with a smaller caliber than the full AP. Probably i will continue to use the PzGr. 43. 

But it is a faster shell, maybe it will help from long distances

It will penetrate more and the velocity will make it easier to hit targets at long range as well as fast moving targets.

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

It will penetrate more and the velocity will make it easier to hit targets at long range as well as fast moving targets.

Yeah, at long range it will be easier, as i said, but already with the Pzgr43 you can pen everything but not tanks like Is-4, m103 (hard), Is-7, exc.. even with this '''''apds'''''. The new shell will be usfull against the t-28 and the t-95 thanks the flat frontal armour.

10 minutes ago, Rainbowprincess said:

true. By far the best APCBC ingame (obj279) even bounces off stuff still. Yesterday I managed to bounce off an A1A1 turret twice ^^

Yeah and this shell it will be worse than the BR-482B because it has a less diameter 

medal medal 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...