Samuel_Hyde

Didnt all british 6pdr anti tank guns capable of using APDS shell??

Historically the 6pdr gets APDS in 1944, Wouldnt this increases the viability of tanks such as Churchill which are not great vs uptier armor?

Not to mention that solid shots rarely do OHK unlike APHE on german, soviet or american tanks.

  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I never understood in War Thunder was the lack of ammunition types for the British Tank tree. The penetration amount is so much lower than what was reported in WW2. 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When looking this up a source mentioned the APDS round was introduced just in time for D-Day. So before June 1944. 

So I looked up the Churchill Mk III specifically, and found at least 2 images after this date;
 

large_000000.jpg

Mk III preparing for on attack on Hill 113 (first one on the left). Link

large_000000.jpg
Mk III at the start of Operation Epsom. Link

I think its perfectly reasonable to assume these carried the APDS round. Keep in mind the Churchill in-game should have its gun modeled correctly (to the longer barrel 6-pdr) as well.  

I've also read somewhere the Valentine IX was wondering around in battle some time after 1944. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Crusader MkIII (Late) with the applique armour and APDS would be a lovely light tank for the higher BR it would get. Pretty sure they had some issued, just never really saw combat by that point.

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/09/2019 at 17:04, TheFuzzieOne said:

A Crusader MkIII (Late) with the applique armour and APDS would be a lovely light tank for the higher BR it would get. Pretty sure they had some issued, just never really saw combat by that point.

5.0/6.0 crusader mk III with APDS would be great for british light tank

  • Like 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


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

5.0/6.0 crusader mk III with APDS would be great for british light tank

 

Might be a bit high, unless APDS is fixed to do its proper post-pen. As it is, it'd be more like a 3.7 to 4.3 range.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 I was under the impression that much of our ammo production was subcontracted to the States, increasingly later on in the war. Yet the game doesn't seem to include these common ammunition types... 6 pdr Ballistic capped HE for instance. Can't remember the designation.

 

 Meanwhile a lot of the supposed German super weapons were necessary on their part because they didn't have the raw materials to make ammo and armour as designed. Tungsten and molybdenum for instance... The former a necessary part in AP ammunition but even the small number of AP rifle rounds issued to German infantry were returned to be remanunfactured into other things due to shortages of tungsten... Beginning in later 1940 if memory serves.The idea that every German tank could load up entirely with rounds using Tungsten is fairly ridiculous. Pzgr 40 was more likely to carry mere iron later in the war, I'd be interested to see production figures for the tungsten carbide versus steel versus mere iron variants...

 

 Hence if you lack the necessary materials the only way aroundis to fit larger calibres... Though the game assumes these also came with the premium ammunition types.

 

 Same with armour.. If you lack the correct materials to make armour then the only option is to fit thicker armour of poorer quality. The Russians captured a Tiger 2 and stuck it on the range... Found it easily penetratable despite it's immense armour thicknes, simply as the armour it carried was crap. Due to  lack of molybdenum primarily if memory serves. And this on one of their premium wonder weapons for which scarce materials would be chanelled. 

 

 Different issues with Russian kit, they weren't exactly designed to last and the logistics were sometimes non existent. Despite their own excellent designs you wouldn't be getting more thn a few hundred miles out of them, which is why they rated the Valentine so highly. Late in the war the Russians invaded Manchuria and made advances probably unparalleled in armoured warfare. Whilst the propaganda never showed them, and only the T34s, it was the Valentines which lead the way.

 

 

On 06/09/2019 at 09:34, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

Might be a bit high, unless APDS is fixed to do its proper post-pen. As it is, it'd be more like a 3.7 to 4.3 range.

 

 Didn't the Crusaders have speed limiters on them, seem to recall they were capable of 55mph without them... And think it was standard practice to remove them...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did have APDS but iirc it was very inaccurate.


As a British main I wouldn't mind seeing it on the Churchill but that's about it, the Brits aren't really found wanting for penetration on many vehicles.  

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, preacherjonson said:

They did have APDS but iirc it was very inaccurate.

 

The US tried the APDS on the 17-pdr, and due to defective ammo had bad accuracy.

 

I've never seen accuracy issues for the 6-pdr mentioned.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/09/2019 at 01:18, NostromoTomo said:

One thing I never understood in War Thunder was the lack of ammunition types for the British Tank tree. The penetration amount is so much lower than what was reported in WW2. 

 

The 32pdr and 17pdr are probably over performing.

 

On 16/10/2019 at 16:54, TheFuzzieOne said:

 

The US tried the APDS on the 17-pdr, and due to defective ammo had bad accuracy.

 

I've never seen accuracy issues for the 6-pdr mentioned.

 

Earlier 17pdr APDS couldnt hit anything beyond 500m, it was issued to the Firefly in short numbers but wasnt used very often for good reason.

 

Presumably accuracy improved over time, APDS was expensive and rather complex to produce at the time.

 

6pdr APDS still had bad accuracy but much less so than the 17pdr, enough that it was used to some extent in Churchill Mark 3s,4s, 9s and 10s after 1944.

 

17pdr apds has an exaggerated 60o penetration in game. In real life the sloped penetration advantage of APDS was more akin to AP values. I believe in reality I believe the stats were as follows:

(Dont have the sauce)

 

6pdr APDS:

 

100m at 90o = 180mm

100m at 60o = 53mm

 

In War Thunder it would be like 155mm at 90 and 65mm at 60 or something.

 

17pdr APDS 

 

100m at 90o = 275mm (underperforming)

100m at 60o = 77mm (overperforming)

 

Pictured is a Jagdpanther knocked out by a 6pdr APDS shell that according to WT penetrated the trolliest part of it, though in actuality the weakest part that probably jammed the breech.

 

image.thumb.png.f573e1bef83385c217fc78ef

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. 6th Guards Tk Bde, 31st and 34th Tank Brigades all had Churchill III/IV after D-Day in NW Europe, which logically would have had APDS ammunition. The Italian theatre would have seen them in use until the end of the war, as well. The in-game Churchill III is missing out there.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/10/2019 at 13:40, *XreGenerations said:

arlier 17pdr APDS couldnt hit anything beyond 500m, it was issued to the Firefly in short numbers but wasnt used very often for good reason.


In "Firfely VS Tiger" by Ossprey it is mentioned that one of the reason was the muzzle brake which were later modified (its bore namely) to increase the accuracy.
Unfortunatelly I was never able to find when and to what effect.

Edited by Fliegel
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.