APDS now shattering on IS-3 track armor

Penned Tiger 2 UFP almost 2km away the other day, usually goes through and destroys the engine, very rare if real example at all. Take it from person who has 1.5k+ kills in Conq and naturally earned ace crew.

100mm at 60o is enough for APDS to pen UFP of tiger 2 whereas 100mm at 60o pen AP cannot, because APDS has much better 40-50o modifiers that you cannot see, because of this, the Conq can pen the upper hull of the tiger 2 over 2km away.

Shattering rarely if ever occurs on homogenous armor, it only impacts spacing or for some reason 2 plates sandwiched together (this is the real ahistorical issue, 1mm of air shouldnt cause a round to lose all its pen)

Also if APDS keeps shattering when it pens then why isnt that represented in the damage model, that sounds like extra damage to crew if you ask me, and its a very hard and sharp material going at supersonic speed.

I will still chose APDS over AP in most situations as solid shot has no real advantages over (gAy)PHE whereas APDS has distinct advantages in its historic bracket such as very good ricochet angles and velocity.

Regarding shattering of the gen 3 APDS it shouldnt be happening at all and Gaijin said that themselves. I dont play those vehicles much because they are overtiered, but I havent witnessed it personally.

Besides I have sekrit document of Chieftain APDS testing this specific shattery scenario and it showed the round capable of penetrating several spaced plates at a 65o angle.


Document shows that the round can penetrate at least 105mm of very air spaced armor at 60o at 1000 yards, so this round should not be shattering by any metric at all, unless Gaijin intend to make it so that other rounds like AP can shatter under circumstances more stressful than that (examples of AP shattering such as the Maus experimental round and american US M62 shot in ww2)

Also HESH able to penetrate 600mm of reinforced concrete but unable to blast through 15mm of RHA with the HE content…


Congrats! Especially for the aced crew.

As i said, they have changed it a few times. Sometimes it shattered on angled plates, and other times it did not. Now it is rarely going to shatter on single plates.


It depends for me. For 17pdr, i all day take the AP, and only use APDS when needed. AP is just more consistent, and deals more damage, while still can pen everything (mostly).
The only tank i sued APDS often was the Comet, where the AP just felt like i was shooting blanks.

And then, if there is APHE, then i take it no questions asked.
I recently spaded the Pvkv IV, and it has a ~80mm pen APHE and a ~160mm pen APDS.
I used the APDS like 5 times, against angled KV-1 tanks. It was just pain to deal with them, because the shell is just awful.
YOu can also see my stats in the Comet/Avenger/Challenger combo. They are all crap (except the Challenger, because it was at least a usable tank compared to the other 2 dogshit) compared to my other tank K/D at similar BR.
A huge part in it was the solidshot/APDS combo (as well as no armor or reverse gear and generally long reload).

It’s rare, but it still happens. While i did not see myself, but in a video somewhat recently i have seen even some longrod APFSDS shatter (DM63 i think, but i can be wrong on that).

It can do it in game too. While that APDS lacks flat pen, the angle pen is not bad. Just like the damage.
On the Mk10, sometimes i felt, that the APDS was just plain better than the dart, but i think it is just some personal confirmation bias on my side.

HESH is very weird. Especially on the very high calibre rounds (On the shitbarn and AVRE), yet works well on the 105mm. I just love 1hitting IS-3/4, Conqueror, M103, T29/30/34 by shooting their turret roofs.

I’m pretty sure that document pertains to the 120 mm L15 APDS, which is fully alloy and does not lose additional penetration against multiple plates of armor or air gaps.

All of these shots require to be extremely close range to the Tiger II, about 15 meters, otherwise, you won’t obtain the angle shown here.

That’s literally what this user implied in the last part before the edit

Those are especially powerful AP rounds, but as the other man said, you arent actually shooting it at the correct angle there, it should be exact to the impact angle as it would be at any real distance.

The T-10M definitely cant penetrate the UFP of the Tiger 2, The Maus also probably cant, the 278 and IS-7 might be able to however. Those extra 5 degrees make an enormous difference to AP, whereas with APDS not so much, thats one definite advantage that APDS has, and why the 84mm 20pdr APDS can penetrate the UFP even though an AP round with higher 60o pen cannot.

Low caliber low tier APDS shouldnt be especially powerful, but the high penetration actually gives you a chance of penetrating a KV-1 at all, Russian tanks at that BR have that huge breach weakspot that the APDS should be able to take out with ease. The APDS in that vehicle also has identical penetration to the mysteriously missing 57mm 6pdr APDS that should be in the game.

I have also noticed that 105mm HESH has a more consistent damage profile sometimes than HESH that is much more powerful than it… I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that it is a multi national round and so Gaijin will actually prioritize making it usable when it doesnt involve Britain.

The Avenger is a perfectly competent tank destroyer for 4.7. The Comet should be dropped back to 5.0 as I have always found it to be a non-competitive vehicle, and now especially when its APDS is effectively just APCR now.

And the AP on the comet is awful yes, its APDS was decent enough a while back which made it a trolly hull down sniper, nowadays it cannot do that and its not a vehicle I ever felt comfortable flanking with either.

(one hit the merging point of the upper and lower plate, but i don’t include that pi, since it is a weak spot. These 2 depict a frontal pen)

I am asking it to be just useful.

Shooting those areas just ask for shattering. I go always to the upper hull or the flat part of the turret.

It very well might be just confirmation bias. I used that HESH somewhat regularly, and was effective, but the few times i used the Conq’s HESH it was shit. I’d need a larger sample size for that.

I will let Moriarty describe it:

It can not be used as a TD for the simple reason of having no reverse gear. You peak, and by the time you get half way back to the cover, the 3rd world war already started.
It also has what, 50mm turret armor? I was genuenly scared to peak against SPAAs, because they shread it.
Also, that turret roof with the holes in it. If a HE shell, or smaller calibre APHE (or even MG bullets) hit ot from bellow, they will bounce into the turret.
I was literally killed by a Chi-Ri’s 37mm, and an M6/T1E1’s 37mm SAP just by that (both 1hitted all 3 crew).
I was also MG’d by a Panther.
The turret traverse is also awful, and the side can be penned by .50 cal. It is also not even mobile, and can’t turn the hull if it is on a smallest incline (i mean it can, but will turn like a pregnant whale in a pool of superglue - this is true for the Comet/Challenger too).

They could put it to 4.0 and it would still be dogshit.

You are still at close range though, I doubt it would be able to at 500m

I also disagree that the comet would be shit at 4.0, instead it would be overpowered

Regarding the AP if you have your doubts, you can look at the 30o penetration for AP and APDS and it should tell you what I am referring to, the AP round should be losing a higher % of penetration at that angle as well

In the original there was nothing referring to distance.

Ahm, how?
It would be an overall less mobile Panzer 4 with less armor, a useless gun, and a turret that at that BR could actually bounce something (but would wtill prefer any Sherman over it just because they have APHE).
Iven at 4.0 in hulldown, there are 2.7 tanks that can just LOLpen the turret even at distance, and at 4.0, it would face tons of Panzer 4s, that are just better.
I’ve had countless examples with the Comet, where i shot a tank in the ammo rack 3 times for it to explode (things, like the 75mm Shermans full side on at point blank right into the ammo on the side).
The gun not just feels weak for the ~30mm less pen compared to the others, but many times even the 2pdr does just more damage.

Just to make a point here about APHE:
Look at my stats with the Churchill NA (aka “Not Awful”) 75 vs Churchill 7. I was struggling to get a decent amount of kills with the Ch 7 in a full downtier, while i was shredding Tigers with the NA, just because a single stat was different with their stats.
(and also despite the NA having less armor, tho not like the Ch 7 has any xd).

The gun is bad but its not as bad as you are describing, how is a Churchill NA playable to you with a turret far inferior to the Comet, and a gun that does more damage but is far less versatile? A Comet at 4.0 would be a slaughter. I usually despise Gaijins harsh BRs for Britain but I can only see a comet as low as 4.7.

Im also not aware of many if any 2.7s that can “lolpen” (which implies not having to aim) at a turret that is a minimum of 100mm but more importantly half of the structure is layered with another 100mm aswell as a bunch of sloped and jagged edges everywhere. Even with a Panzer 4 F2 (I believe that these Panzer 4s are undertiered personally because germany players are noobs) the best most reliable shot would be the very edges of the turret as the center can run you into a 200mm black hole.

When the APDS had good pen the Comet was a very strong hull down sniper, able to penetrate sloped armor well, bounce shots to the turret and also great optics to boot. It still has some advantages in its state that would make it an evil vehicle at 4.0, I mean, how is the American 75 going to pen your turret reliably, or the Soviet unless they all aim for the cupola.

Just by the fact that it has APHE. Again, compare my stats in the NA 75 and the Ch 7. I played both in the same 4.7 lineup.

Again, how?

Marders, SU-57s, ZiS-30, LVTA with the 57mm, swedish HEAT slingers.
If we go up a bit, then M4A3 105 with HE just overpressure, and pens it with HEAT, StuH overpressures and pens it with HEAT, soviet 76mm LOLpens the turret roof, SU-122 overpressure and pen.

If we go a bit up, to ~4.0 and over, there are basically every Panzer 4, StuGs, M10s (and every tank with US 76mm), SU-85s, Dicker Max, Emil, Flakbus, Hetzer, Jgpz 4, Protopanther, JaG-10, KV-85, Chi-To/Ri, Na-To, Italian Bredas, and Fireflies, M4A4 SA50, Pvkv TDs, Delete Tom.
And these are just those that come into my mind.
And the rest can still pen the cupola.

The Chinese M4A1 is much stronger in a hulldown (and in general), because of several factors:
Can reverse faster than the speed at which a continent moves
Has APHE, so 1 shot is enough most of the times
Has a stabilizer, effectively guaranteeing the first shot
Has a .50 cal, so many times you don’T even have to expose yourself.
Smaller target in hulldown.
Angled front makes it effective, while the Comet is just a box, that you can’t angle.
Much faster reload.
Ammo stored in the floor, instead of everywhere.
Nearly double the turret rotation speed.
Can turn on an incline.

Just like the Chinese M4A1. As i said it is even stronger in hulldown.
Or a T-34 1942/43 if you hide the neck. There are 4 small corners that you can pen, but for the rest you need ~130mm pen to go through the double layers.

Your perspectives are very strange I have to say, you are frequently comparing apples and oranges and unfairly stacking odds in your examples.

The Comet can hypothetically be lolpenned in the turret by things like the Marder, a dicker max, an emil, a hetzer, but most of these are very specific tank destroyers that they themselves are in every way except armament terrible OR something that most vehicles will struggle against. The comets bad because dicker max!!! But the dicker max sucks and can pen anything. A comet can take out those examples easier than the reverse. Tank destroyers arent a good argument against a Medium tank, even a hull down one. And against all of these vehicles the APDS will be able to penetrate frontally. I mean a Hetzer for example cant even go hull down at all. And still almost all of these will have to hit the right spots on the turret aswell because they cannot exceed 200mm of penetration if they dont.

A chinese M4A1 cant penetrate a comet hulldown unless it gets off a very good shot. T-34s are never hull down, never seen a T-34 player go hull down on purpose and the breach is always a massive target on those mid war russian tanks. It will also fail to penetrate a comet turret 4/5 times.

If a hull down tank was genuinely inpenetrable from the front then it is overpowered, as it stands against most of the vehicles you list there it has a better chance at taking out hull down targets than vice versa, especially goofy ahh tank destroyers that literally cannot go hull down so are always completely exposed.

Like the late t-34s dont seem incredible for the BR either, ok turret armor, but the hull armor also sucks at that BR and they are handicapped when it comes to uptiers more than the comet which can snipe in uptiers quite easily even with the nerfed APDS.

1 Like

Hitting with APDS was the problem, as the round was terribly inaccurate (the 6pdr APDS tended to hit about 2 feet higher than the aiming point, for example) and figures showing this poor accuracy for 17 pdr APDS can be found in Mark Hayward’s Sherman Firefly, Barbarossa Books, Tiptree, Essex c.


https://www.bbc.co.uk › stories

WW2 People’s War - Armour Piercing Discarding

Comets APDS was accurate enough to hit targets at the ranges in this game

It also doesnt matter because it was experimental ammunition during the second world war that saw brief improvement after the war before moving on to new ammunition

If the accuracy penalty is something that should be added for historical purposes at the same time Swedens pathetic 1949 APDS at 1.0 should be removed aswell

Shocked I say!

Gaijin can’t really apply an accuracy penalty to the 17 pounder APDS either way, at least not how the game is currently coded.

Cannons have set inaccuracy values, not the rounds they fire. All rounds fired from one specific cannon will have identical maximum dispersion.

In short, you can’t make the APDS inaccurate without making the normal AP rounds inaccurate, and the same for making the AP rounds accurate without making the APDS accurate.

1 Like

Wow, that explains why the accuracy of the 17Pdr seemed a bit bad to me compared to any other tank.

The 17 pounder currently has accuracy that more or less matches what is expected from the normal AP rounds.

The APDS was much worse in real life. Tests show it had a 57% chance to hit a Panther sized target from the front at 400 yards.

1 Like

Yes, it was supposedly because of the metal on the outside of the APDS, which stayed in the barrel and deflected the following projectiles.
In the game, the precision of the 17pdr has always seemed strange to me. I have hit the tigers without problems next to the driver’s sights with the M4 76w and the T-34-85, shooting and hitting exactly where I aimed, instead with the 17pdr Yes, I saw that there are shots in which it deviates to one side, causing the bullet not to go where it should and ricochet off the armor.

Issue is that some of these 17pdr figures were tested using a Firefly which may not be the best means to test the gun. Im not sure exactly what the issue was regarding the accuracy but for some strange reason the Comets 77mm gun which is very similar to it but unfortunately less powerful, was noticeably more accurate and more on par with your average tank gun in terms of accuracy. I was thinking that maybe the ammunition fired was too powerful but I think the comet fires the same ammo and propellant unless im wrong. Maybe some issue with the breach. I dont know how tank guns work, just spitballing.

Someone should if he hasnt answered already ask the chieftain why this is the case, as he has done some content regarding the accuracy of the 17pdr weapon and deemed it probably good enough for the engagement ranges of WW2. That is reflected in the game at least where it is accurate enough that you wont literally miss a target you were aiming at.

It should be noted that Russian guns during this period were not regarded as particularly accurate either, it wouldnt surprise me considering the frequency of overweight, oversized shells and comparatively short barrels to sling them, as well as notorious manufacturing doctrine.

I also read something similar, that the tests were using a Sherman Firefly, and that the sight did not have the references for the APDS, so the shots would be by eye.

What he shoots is the same bullet, but the casing is different and carries less propellant, which is why it did not have the same bullet speed.

1 Like