Idk, the ballistic table says the Pzgr. 40 should only be used till 600m, the Pzgr. 40/1 only to 800m.
So the difference is infact not outstanding.
Yeah, but with many caveats:
- First, only for angles between 0 and 30°.
- It would require the use of tungsten carbide, a rare strategic material.
- Firing hypervelocity shells like these heavily accelerates the wear of the gun.
- The 75mm gun would have a much better HE shell. Like, by a lot. The difference between 75mm and 88mm or even 105mm is much lower (percentage-wise) than between 50mm and 75mm HE.
Thanks for a better quality scan.
1 Like
If we compare the estimates for M93 HVAP with the chart we find in “Terminal Ballistics Vol.III” ,we will see this:
The two curves are surprisingly close, especially considering the fact that ballistic limits in ADA301343 were compiled using Army Limit.
1 Like
HVAP was nerfed for simple reason …Kugel & 341
I keep getting surprised by how many issues in this game are originating from the unnatural design of the battlespace.
If the vehicles were not forced to fight at point blanc ranges due to cap circles located in small towns, the SPAA vehicles with fast firing small caliber guns would be not be competitive with medium/heavy tanks, with or without subcaliber shells.
2 Likes
Thing is that they have massive maps that could be used by MBT’s ,modern and old and WWII heavies.
Maps that could with very little work be put in game …i’m talking about Air Maps …if you ever get time load custom air battle ,use reserve plane and land on any air map outside of airfield …you will see what i’m talking about very quickly.
These maps were in game way back in 2012
2 Likes
The Flakpanzer 341 never even had the H-Pzgr in game, it would be nice if it would finally get it tho.
2 Likes
They were going to add it ,i think it was noodle that provided documents and instead they nerfed it then buffed .50 call to star trek levels
Thought it would be interesting to take a look at a very exotic sub-caliber shell: 37mm APCNR and compare it’s performance with and w/o the LittleJohn adapter mounted on the barrel:
Even if Gaijin were to introduce it without implementing the mechanics of mounting on and taking off the barrel attachment during battle, it would still be good enough to allow M5 light to take out the menace of low tiers, the dreaded StuH 42 from the front at 300-600m.
1 Like
I’m still waiting for them to fix the APCR penetration of the Marder’s 20mm cannon and etc. I’ve already suffered a world with the Marder thanks to the almost useless cannon and the Milan ATGM, which is by far the worst missile in the game. And now, curiously, I’m playing with the Ratel 20 haha, it’s a real vehicle sufficiency.
1 Like
But would it be able to reach 3600fps without the adopter? 🤔
I always imagined the adopter rasing the pressure to accelerate the projectile.
But I guess 37mm APCR also can reach that speed, so probably not necessary.
1 Like
Yesterday I failed to penetrate a Wiesel from 100m using the 20mm “APCR”.
The performance is like the worst of both worlds.
On one hand the shell didn’t have great vertical penetration, like in-game, but in-game it also has bad slope armor penetration, which was countered in RL by having like almost a blunt nose with a spike in the middle, that would counteract the deflection from the armor.
You could probably pen more targets, if it was regular AP.
Edit: I think I was confusing the 20mm APCR penetrator design with the 20mm APDS.
3 Likes
Good point.
…
The 37mm M5 gun was shortened by 130mm relative to the M6 gun and had about 100fps less m.v. with its full caliber shell. I assume the LJ adapter is considerably longer than that, and therefore the loss of muzzle energy with it taken off would be even greater.
On the other hand it had vents built into it, so at the point where projectile reaches it the pressure of the gasses would drop rapidly. Curious that the german squeeze bore guns didn’t possess this feature.
So, my answer is: I don’t know how much its m.v. would drop. Unless someone will find a technical report of this shell being fired w/o adapter in a setting where its muzzle velocity is carefully measured, there is no way to know, besides a general statement that it would probably be less than nominal m.v., but by how much is unknown.
2 Likes
Not sure. Apparently it was much less. In-game it’s 883m/s vs. 870m/s. So just around 40fps.
I also saw some documents confirming this, even though it always seemed strange to me.
But I guess sometimes it’s just about the barrel twist rate and accuracy.
Good news, I found this useful fragment of physics lore I had lying around:
we can use it to estimate the m.v. of the 37mm subcaliber shell without the LJ adapter:
Spoiler
Almost right on money! It seems that the adapter doesn’t add much, if any extra velocity to the shell that is not already achieved just through it’s smaller mass.
1 Like
It’s wonderful to see how you can’t kill a BMP completely from the side by shooting at point-blank range. Or how it can’t break cannons or tracks, unless you spend more than 100 bullets per module.
It really is a shame what gaijin does with certain weapons, and precisely the Marder A1 and the Ratel 20 have both of the two worst weapons in the game.
By the way, how is it possible that the Marder A3 does not have the Milan 2, when in reality it used it, so they could raise the Br of that Marder a little more.
I got my hands on a scan of a soviet technical report describing the work performed between Jan to March 1942 on the development of subcaliber shells for their 45mm tank/anti-tank guns.
To avoid boring you with the technical details, I’ll just translate the ballistic tests performed against manufactured armour plates. They were carried out from a 65m distance using adjusted propellant load to get desired striking velocity:
Projectile: design No.2. Tungsten carbide core of ogival shape. Weight (kg): 0,800.
Armor plate: 50mm, face-hardened.
Obliquity: 30°.
Striking Velocity(m/s): 797 and 801.
Equivalent distance(m): approx. 450m.
Result: “Armor pe[unintelligible]. Hole, 25-40; 20-[unintelligible]. Core [unintelligible]. In the plywood behind the plate hole 80x100mm. [unintelligible] impact struck [unintelligible]”
Armor plate: 60mm, not face-hardened.
Obliquity: 30°.
Striking Velocity(m/s): 832,6 and 839,3.
Equivalent distance(m): approx. 380m.
Result: “Armor perforated. Hole diameter 25-35; 20-35mm. Core fractured into fragments. In the plywood hole 50x80mm from the first shot and 80x80mm from the second one.”
Armor plate: 60mm, face-hardened.
Obliquity: 30°.
Striking Velocity(m/s): 932,4 and 902,4.
Equivalent distance(m): approx. 250m.
Result: “Armor perforated. Hole diameter 20-50; 20-18mm. Core fractured into fragments.”
Armor plate: 100mm, not face-hardened.
Obliquity: 0°.
Striking Velocity(m/s): full propellant load 0,374kg.
Distance(m): 65m
Result: “Armor perforated. Hole caliber sized.”
We can compare these results with the rated armor penetration of this gun from the official soviet source:
1 Like
So, its simply worse compared to 5 cm Pzgr.40?
