Very common for British fuzes.
Not in general.
It was american ammunition which the fuses were removed from. Not british fuses.
But the american did use theirs, while the british didnt bother going in that direction anymore with their other guns.
It beeing removed from american ammo because british fuzes were bad (and such didnt find use in general) doesnt mean american fuzes are bad.
The tests led to the stated conclusion that shot held no particular advantages over shell, but that the base-detonated fuses of US AP rounds had a tendency to detonate the rounds prematurely. A memorandum was sent from ETO to Ordnance, under Eisenhower’s signature, calling for an immediate remedy to the fusing, or if that wasn’t possible calling for all further AP ammunition to ETO to be provided un-fused with an inert filler.
1 Like
Well, then perhaps US fuzes were also not of the greatest. But thats also WoT your linking too and even if they basis on something, the conclusion of 1 nation alone shouldnt be taken as granted, as seen that pretty much every other main nation still went with He filler.
But take several factors into account. The British soon abandoned the APHE projectiles and those received from the Americans removed the filling. The Germans generally used little HE charge in their APHE so that what is the core of the bullet would not fragment as much. The Soviets were technologically behind on the issue of bullets. And finally, the Americans, as soon as they were able to make bullets with good heat treatment, left aside the APHE to use only APBC (in fact they even discarded the APC).
Well, they also went with even higher velocitys while befor that they generally also had great amount of fillers which also weakened the shell.
But in summary that aside, there is no reason nor a real way fuze failer should or could be implemented.
Apds/apcr shattering is when the core shatters at too high angle and when it allready penetrated a plate, that is even written in the German Aircraft ammo manual for H-Pzgr, to only shoot at naked armor as well as with as lowest angle as possible to increase penetration and resuce the chance of shattering.
That it is as bad as it is in game is just that Gaijin is simply bad at making it correct and uses bad RMG.
There absolutely is a way for fuse failure to be modeled.
High angles of impact will lead to fuse failures. Anything that would fragment the shell badly (IE: thick angled armor) will cause the APHE fuse to fail. It’s not that hard to really implement. You might shoot through an angled T-34’s upper plate with a 57mm APHE round, but the plate fragmented the round badly enough to destroy the fuse and render the filler inert.
This also can influence gameplay decisions, as APHE users will have to decide between shooting thicker, less angled armor to prevent fuse failure or thinner more angled armor to guarantee penetration.
1 Like
No thank you, there really isnt a basis behind it. And there shouldnt be more RNG than there allready is.
And there would be so much more to be taken into considderation, that its not viable. Like how the fuze works, place of fuze and such.
Gaijin shouldn’t have added APDS/APCR shatter to the game in the first place. I don’t think a single soul actually asked for that mechanic.
4 Likes
Having my 120mm APDS with enough kinetic energy to rip a black hole in space (slight exaggeration i’ll admit lol) shatter on a Tiger II UFP or some such is very… very depressing… There’s a reason it’s a whole BR above the Tiger II.
And that’s just scratching the surface.
1 Like
It’s just in the nature of APHE fuzes to be extremely unrealiable because of the forces on the fuze during slope armor penetration.
Bottom fuzes work by inertia driving a firing pin into a detonator.
When a shell strikes armor at 30° and more it gets deflected before it normalizes back into the other direction. These uneven forces cause the firing pin to get stuck instead of getting dislodged, preventing the fuze from working.
So at best you have a range of armor thickness and slope where the fuze will work reliable.
2 Likes
I do and I appreciate it, appart from the fact that it doesn’t really make sense to have tungsten-carbide ammunition shatter but tanks can repair their engine or breech in 30s 😂
WT is just a big mess of oversimplification that result in a lot of dumb and unrealistic things happening.
This “two guys keeping a tank running and repairing it like fresh from the work-shop” is one of that.
2 Likes
That’s the problem, it’s too confusing to put realistic mechanics in a game for certain things and more arcade mechanics than those of WOT in others.
2 Likes
Ah just on a sidenote, while i dont want fuze reliability, i dont have a double standart here, i do also think that shattering how it is in game, is also not good. And should if not also be removed. Or beeing refined to be more accurat, that it doesnt allready shatter if it hits a 4mm Construction steel stuff in front of a armor plate.
5 Likes
The overwhelming majority of base fuses function on the same basic mechanism, and this can be further simplified into a generic base fuse.
Gaijin has also set a precedent with generic APHE fuse mechanics when they (quite some time ago) set all APHE ammo to detonate after penetrating at least 20mm of armor and 0.5m into enemy vehicle interior.
Before that, it was very possible for APHE ammo to penetrate through very thin armor and not activate the fuse. It was also not exactly viable to shoot cupolas, as many shells would exit the cupola before exploding. Gaijin changed all APHE to a generic fuse type to “fix” this.
Fuse failure for APHE is not only possible to model, it’s one of the things I’d expect to be modeled if the devs want high accuracy to reality.
2 Likes
France after obtaining the long 75mm from the Panther then went on to remove HE-filler for future vehicles, like the AMX-13.
Then there is also the french 90mm cannons that can use the M82 APHE from the americans (like it does in game currently), with the historically accurate shell selection also uses the solid shot variant, in this case the T33
So thats German and American APHE shells being disregarded for solid shot. Thats not to say APHE cant work. Its just clear some dont think its worth the bother.
2 Likes
This isn’t true. Different APHE rounds have different fuse sensitivities and fuse delays.
20 mm MG 151 APHE has 3 mm sensitivity and 0.3 mm delay.
Italian 20 mm Breda Mod.35 APHE (called AP-I) has 9 mm sensitivity and 1.2 meter delay.
Even rounds fired from the same cannon can have different sensitivies and delays. For example, Russian 76 mm BR-350A (MD-5 fuze) has 14 mm sensitivity and 1.2 meter delay, but BR-350B (MD-8 fuze) has 14 mm sensitivity and 0.9 meter delay.
And larger APHE rounds end up having 19 mm sensitivity.
APHE rounds not fusing on very thin armor is still very much a thing. For example, Russian 152 mm APHE going straight through the M18, in one side and out the other.
Additionally, most cupola shots have nothing to do with the APHE fuse. What actually happens is that most cupolas are weak enough to be penetrated, but then strong enough to stop the round when it tries to go out the other side, which means the APHE gets stopped and explodes inside.
This is why cupolas like the SU-85M do not work reliably. These cupolas fuse the APHE, but are too thin to stop most rounds from leaving out the other side, and not big enough for the fuse delay to trigger inside, so the APHE ends up exploding outside. And again, not all APHE fuses are the same, as I mentioned previously.
SU-85M cupola vs 76 mm M62
Air fuzes were not affected by the ground fuze changes.
All ground APHE were standardized in some update, with only a few not following the rules.
If they are different, then it’s not working as intended.
the Italian 20 mm I mentioned is a ground auto cannon.