Uh, no…
Shell shatter would trigger on angles of 80º and greater, and the Russian constructional slope angle is 68º…
The tank shell shatter would help the most would be the Abrams, which is certainly the one that needs it the most, if I may add.
3 Likes
That already happens my guy, the only difference is that is if you go hull down in the likes of a chally or M1 the round bounces off your UFP and goes inside your tank, the Leopards, T series tanks and STRV already dont have to worry about this existing because the STRV has no turret, the Leopards can only be penned on a bounce into the gun mantlet, and the T series tanks cant physically have the round impact their turret from the UFP.
Kontact imparts yaw on a small part of the round, it does not shatter the round, it is not at all similar to deflecting on an armor plate. This is why rounds with break away tips, DM63 and M829A3 can outright ignore Kontact.
3 Likes
Kontakt-5 and Relikt are heavy type ERA and in fact do have the ability to shatter APFSDS rounds effectively, or at minimum increase the darts AOA when making contact with the armor. In this case, it isn’t yaw, it’s pitch.
K5 and Relkit impart yaw on the round tip to cause the tip to strike the backing plate at a higher than average angle it does not shatter the round. And yes said ERA can impart pitch as well, it depends on which direction the round is approaching the tank to, side ERA would impart yaw and front ERA would impart pitch based upon the point of impact.
A K5 style reaction to ERA
A round deflecting off of armor
As you can see ERA breaks up the tip of the round and causes it to wobble, yet most of the round remains intact, meanwhile the deflection the entire round curves as it strikes the plate, causing the entire round to become physically compromised.
3 Likes
On a slight hill, without shell shatter, these virtually unpennable 620-750mm KE hulls already reach 900mm KE levels, which is even more unpennable. Shell shatter changes nothing here.
And shell shatter does not have any influence on 68º ERA plates…
I mean, it’s not like people go around shooting at the UFP of Russian tanks to kill them anyway.
3 Likes
I’m partially against APFSDS shattering being implemented because 100% Gaijin would screw it up, I mean volumetric eats perfectly good shots occasionally already do you want even more RNG when you shoot?
I remember one occasion where I shot a TKX (P) dead on the side with 3BM60 and it got eaten.
At one point it did shatter APDS-FS but Gaijin reverted it soon after. (it was extremely buggy iirc)
Good post, great explanation, easy to follow along!
2 Likes
Would not be RNG, it would just be “is angle of impact above the critical angle of the round” if yes, shatter after bounce, instead of just loosing a bit of penetration like it does now.
The funny bit about this is that this got added for a short while on accident and the M1’s turret ring shot trap suddenly became vastly harder to hit along with the Leclerc surviving rounds to it’s UFP and the Chally 2.
It was however quickly reverted in like 2 days.
5 Likes
The turret ring fix ALONE would be fantastic. As is, nearly any tank in game can kill Abrams frontally without TOO much difficulty.
2 Likes
I might be wrong, but I think HVAP/APCR also shatters.
Thanks for the comment! Also I always thought it was because the win rate for the abrams tanks went to insane levels and gaijin nerfed it because of that.
1 Like
true i think
1 Like
Part of the problem with modelling long rod shattering, is that you would also have to model long rods that don’t shatter. For example, 120mm+ rounds later than Mango (DM43/53, 3BM60, M829A*) are long enough, and hit with so much kinetic force, that the 38mm plate still fails.
I mean, you could say that you don’t need to model rounds not shattering, but then you couldn’t really call it a ‘more realistic’ change.
Tbh, rather than modelling something like this, I would rather they just fix the turret ring and model, so that the Abrams weren’t so neck-y.
3 Likes
The fact 57mm APFSDS can go through the turret ring is bad enough, but currently 30mm can to… its so stupid…
Even Obj279’s 130Mm Shell can go right through the turret ring which is physically impossible.
I dont know how developers looks at Abrams and says: “Yeah these tanks are fine and accurate”
6 Likes
Mr. President, an actually well written and sourced Abrams post has hit the forums.
1 Like
Mr. President a second well written and sourced abrams post will hit the forum as soon as I find documents on abrams tanks having spall liners. I am fairly certain they were built into the armor as opposed to separate modules behind the armor.
1 Like
It isn’t physically impossible. Even if you come from a fully realistic standpoint, you will realize that parts of larger projectiles often squeeze into gaps smaller than the diametre of the projectile. This is common with MG mounts of WW2 vehicles, for example. You aren’t dealing with jamming a square peg into a round hole, but rather this at such high speeds where metal will deform and break apart.
In addition to this, consider that compared to other modern tanks, Abrams turret ring is massive.
1 Like
So, when they declassify the armour array? That might be some years. Also, what leads you to believe that?
I believe he is referring to a layer of the armor, one close to the inside (if not the final layer) that is supposed to absorb fragmentation/spall/shrapnel etc.
I have only seen reference to this once on the forums. If true, maybe it causes confusion since its not a wholly separate layer, like a sheet of kevlar on the inside, which you see more often.