No, but balance does. And right now APHE is very unbalanced.
And that is not a balance we should be content with. The fact that out of a large plethora of different shell types only one is really always the right choice, isn’t good balancing.
I mea, the overpressure of low caliber rounds is pretty unbalanced, i can give you that. But them APHEs of main cannons were never unbalanced, as balance was created around them.
two at the very least. And sometimes even three. APHE, APDS, HEAT are the choice for the BRs. SOme APHEs are even worse than HEs (e.g. T30 for example/M48), so its not ALWAYS the right choice.
Say, what will happen if the APHE realistic behaviour (e.g. “spall not sphere”) added? For which tanks would it make the difference to pick NOT aphe? T-34s would still use it as they have nothing, Shermans still will as SAP doesnt pen better, IS-2s still, Jubmos stil, germans still…
Ive yet to meet tank that would change from APHE. But that would create huge balance problems at low tier again. Tho maybe i know one. T20.
Tanks that get access to a solid AP shell that has decidedly more pen, for example. Also, it’s mostly not about the perspective of the tank shooting, but the tank being shot at. With realistically working APHE, a fight doesn’t always boil down to who clicks the mouse first, wins.
And again I posit: is that a balance we should be content with? To me the answer would be no.
Which are?
Most of the tanks that have APHE also have SAP ingame. Pershings, Shermans, 34s ect ect ect. They wont use SAP as they still pen worse.
Which is exactly why its just a “no i dont want to get oneshotted to the cupola” cry, not a real balance issue. At least thats what it looks like from the side.
I do believe yes. This at least made low tier playable, and not “why turret basket >~<!!!”-ish childish play of top tier.
And whats your source on that? lol
You know that Germans had HEAT rounds for their AT guns right? Which was the substitute for AP rounds.
And how does it even make sense that solid shot is going to substitute APHE?
There was a Pzgr. 40 (W) which was basically just a Pzgr.40 training round that was made from soft steel, that could be fired against light armored vehicles where a Pzgr. 39 was overkill.
Another example, the one most used when we could vote for realistic APHE: The 75 Jumbo vs Tiger 1.
As it is now, the Jumbo can abuse the way APHE works to negate the Tiger 1’s frontal 100mm plate by shooting the cupola and nuking the entire turret.
If APHE worked realistically, it would only kill the commander, at best.
But that wouldn’t mean that a Jumbo would be powerless against a Tiger 1, because the Jumbo gets access to APCR with 130mm pen, that will get through the front plate with ease. It is how I fight Tigers with the Jumbo for a while now, because I know where the ammo is stored in the Tiger 1.
Truth be told, it wasn’t 100% realistic either.
Bigger fragments should be able to ricochet to some extent.
Also the fact that fires in WT are insignificant events (“oh, it’s just fuel fire in the crew compartment, that’s fine” said no tanker ever) adds to the problem, as IRL there are plenty of things to smoke and burn inside, other than ammo and fuel.
The fact an overlapping mantlet can be penetrated without disabling vertical gun drive is pretty damn interesting too.
IMO APHE fix should be introduced together with improved penetration code and more realistic spall/fire/component damage.
1 Like
True, APHE is doing more damage then it should, and AP less then it should. Which makes the difference even more stark.
3 Likes
Also on some impacts APHE should not fuse, vs heavily angled armor and vs angled plates at close to maximum penetration capabilities of the shell.
I have no problem with it being reliable. But f.e. 75mm Panther shell vs T-34 hull front with some angling should most likely result in destruction of the fuse, in such scenario, the shell might even not enter the hull and make a hole via sheer kinetic energy (with a cone of spall similar to HESH).
1 Like
USSR tech books lol. And yes, the 40W exactly.
PzGr 40 there is exactly the PzGr39 but with solid steel core. Was made as still penetrated 34s but was much cheper to produce. Soviets never found it being made of “soft steal”, it only had the APHE filler compartment replaced with solid core. And the production dates the USSR finds are late 42-eary 43, which supports the narrative
Just shows how one sided your argumentation is.
One side can never show the hole truth.
That’s like judging someone by just listening to either victim or criminal.
Even the holy bible isn’t to take literal and so you can’t take everything written by Russians as absolute truths, when there’s also another side of the story.
Retelling something written isn’t a fact.
It’s just that. Something that once someone said or wrote.
Only when you can confirm something it becomes a fact.
That’s why stories from soldiers are so incredible unreliable and even war time documents can easily contain errors that are impossible to verify nowadays.
3 Likes
Well, as i can see you also despice what USSR said, making the truth only what Brits said.
I know what brits said, and judging by others i seek why they may have said that. Thats why i believe they were either wrong or justified their actions as they could - all other nations stuck to APHEs, while brits were only to CHOOSE to use SAP shots. USSR was forced to use Solid AP early war, chose to use APHE later. Germans CHOSE to use APHE early, were forced to pich Solid AP later. And US stuck to produce both, preferred Solid AP to M103 but APHE to M26. Which is strange?
And i dont leave the idea i can be wrong, but i also dont leave the idea you can.
Supports your narrative.
You just showed that the ammo existed. That doesn’t make it into:
Oh the Germans had a Pzgr. 39 shortage and that’s why their AT guns only fired solid shot.
Or where in that document is that written?
Both HEAT and Pzgr. 40 (W) were to substitute Pzgr. 39 because Germany couldn’t afford to only produce it, with how much AT ammo they needed.
So when the target didn‘t require a Pzgr. 39, HEAT or Pzgr. 40 (W) should be used instead.
That doesn’t mean they only fire solid shot.
The reality is that soldiers are generally going to fire the BEST ammo, whenever possible.
Because when they are facing a tank that could kill them, they don’t really think about being conservative.
So soldiers really liked to fire Pzgr. 40s, even when it wasn’t necessary, and they also really liked using Pzgr. 39s over low velocity HEAT shells.
The Pzgr. 40 (W) is basically to trick crews into using a low cost shell, since it was called Pzgr. 40 and also featured the same high velocity, making hitting a target much more likely.
4 Likes
As far as I understand, the Soviets had both types of bullets because the Full AP bullets didn’t fragment as easily upon impact. They also made bullets with less filler, like the 85mm BR-365K, which had less filler and a sharper point than the BR-365.
On the other hand, I believe the Germans used APHE bullets until the end of the war, although I don’t know if they produced some Full AP bullets in the final stages due to material shortages and cost reduction.
The British simply focused on Full AP bullets because the difference between them and APHE bullets was minimal, while Full AP bullets were cheaper and structurally stronger. Even though the Americans continued to use APHE rounds, they focused more on full AP rounds without caps, as they found them to be much better against sloped armor. That’s why the M103 had APBC rounds, the M41 had APBC rounds, and the M46, M47, and M48, despite having APHE rounds, also had APBC (and APCR) rounds, since, starting with the T33, they proved superior to the M82.
The key point is that, clearly, over the years, APHE ammunition gradually disappeared, while full AP rounds remained in service for a longer period.
1 Like
Do you know roughly how that ammunition performs? It must be interesting, since being made of steel it would have better penetration at 60°, as is the case with the 3BM3 and 3BM4 115mm rounds, one of which is made of tungsten and the other of steel.
Of course they weren’t! I never said that lol. I said that when the bell rang, they were forced to move using solid AP shots! Production start at 1943 says for itself. Of course they still produced APHEs 39. But in lower amounts, mostly going to tank crews, not field crews.
Which brings the question of why the US modelled APHE shots for their new M3, and shy USSR which also had huge problems with materials and production rates, kept APHEs instead of fully producing solid APs?
I mean unlike Germany, that had their production work throughout war, USSR was forced to move and restore the production, so they had all the opportunities to switch to solid AP only.
Its said where i read, that with 500m 30° the 40W penetrated 80mm armor plate.
1 Like
Shell shattering annoys me as it’s an extra punishment for using an already weak round. OPHE fuses can’t fail yet APDS shells can shatter…really?
Plus in some instances it isn’t even realistic when it shatters. I’ve had the side of Tiger turrets shatter APDS where you’re then one-hit killed by his return fire almost no matter where he hits you due to the broken nature of APHE.
As Casper said. APHE isn’t “working as intended/best case scenario” as it cannot perform as it does in game as it breaks physics. The only way War Thunder’s overblown damage could be reality is if the penetrating shell magically stopped inside of the tank and became a fragmentation grenade.
It isn’t balanced. AP only tanks already have to put multiple shots into a tank to kill them, if this was the same for APHE (as it should be) then if anything it’s more balanced.
Try going front on against a Panther in a Sherman Firefly (Common in Sim) and see what you have to do to kill one. If AP has to play this way then so should APHE.
You got that right mate…sadly.
4 Likes