2pdr 40mm Underperforming at range

Warning: this is long


I have noticed that the 2pdr AP and APCBC shells seem to suffer a rather suspect penetration drop off over range that contradicts both Gaijoobs current penetration calculator AND actual penetration documents that I have sourced further down below.


I've come up with a bit of a theory as to why these shells are underperforming at range and it has to do with a """buff"" (rebalance) (nerf) the 2pdr was given a few updates back, and its related to the soppy APHV shell. Ill get to that after.


Alright so ima take the stock AP shell as a base for this:




Solid AP, no cap. Notice how the shell starts with 71mm of pen at 10m and rapidly drops in penetration, able to penetrate only 19mm at 2000m.


Lets compare this to an inferior round from another nation with the exact same muzzle velocity:


(US 37mm M5 Cannon)




As you can see, the 2pdr shell, despite starting off with more penetration inexplicably loses more penetration over range.


You might say: ohh well it weighs slightly more, perhaps the weight is too much for the muzzle velocity or something?!


That small weight disparity isnt enough to reduce the penetration over range, and again I have documents that suggests it retains much more penetration over range. It could also be said that lighter rounds lose penetration over range faster too.


Now the reason I think it is as bad as it is is because of the recent 2pdr shells update. Im not sure which update it was but its AP and APCBC shell was nerfed from the pen-pocalypse 96mm of pen to what it is now in exchange for the new Lyddite APHE round and a faux APHV shell that does retain better pen at longer ranges than other shells, but also uses magic to drain the ranged pen of all the other 2pdr shells to make it less useless.


In reality the APCBC shell out penetrated it at longer ranges, despite the lower muzzle velocity, yet in game its artificially weak to make the APHV shell look like more of a buff to general versatility when its just more confusion and Britain shafting.






You can see the APHV shell maintains 40mm at 2000m which is actually pretty good. More than the later US 37mm M51 APCBC that starts off with more pen AND is capped.


40mm should be the flat penetration for APCBC at 2000m, not APHV, for that it should be more like 28mm at that range.








I will update with more sources that I can find. I am confident that all penetration tables support my finding.


You can see that the 2pdr AP shell has 24mm at 30o at 2000m which in game would translate to 27mm or 28mm flat at 2000m, not 19mm.

Even more so with the APCBC shell with 35mm at 30o at 2000m which would translate to about 40mm or 41mm flat at 2000m, not 24mm.


This bottom source compiles multiple tables with relatively consistent results, each sourced directly. It shows that the 2pdr AP and APCBC shells should retain much more penetration over range, and shows similar or slightly better performance to the American 37mm M51 APCBC shells.


The 2pdr being good at range really does matter, as it can be seen on the Matilda Mk 2 and Churchill Mk 1 that unfairly fights later tanks with its 1936 40mm popgun, and the APHV shell doesnt have enough flat pen to cut it.



Im new to this Forum so please forgive and if anyone knows how you could perhaps submit a bug report to get the 2pdr buffed.


Edit: new table from same site: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73:2-pounder-anti-tank-gun&catid=40:anti-tank&Itemid=58




Edited by *XreGenerations
  • Upvote 2

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.