@Smin1080p_WT is there any reason why Gaijin won’t address the open double standard in this issue? They are now considering giving British tanks APHE rounds for their 75mm guns. This bias can’t be allowed to continue.
And yes, I will continue to bring this up until Gaijin does the right thing and adds the alternative M82 rounds to the US 90mm tanks.
Im not sure which bias you are referring too here. American 75mm guns have had APHE rounds for a long time. Most British tanks with 75mms on the other hand have no APHE at all.
This consideration for British tanks has nothing to do with the American 90mms at all.
I’m not sure what the confusion is. Why is Gaijin able to add additional rounds to British tanks that they used but is unable to do the same for US tanks? There is no logical reason to Gaijin not adding the various M82 rounds to US 90mm tanks instead of just changing the M82 to a different version. Add them all.
I never said the British 75mm has any correlation to the US 90mm. I’m using it as yet another example of Gaijin doing something for one tree they refuse to do for the US tree.
All nations have shells added to them and changed. This change is no different to others.
The two cases are entirely unrelated. The consideration to add APHE shells to some British tanks is entirely different, as their 75mm guns have no APHE variant at all. What you are suggesting is to add a second variant of an existing shell that 90mm armed tanks already possess a variant of. The two cases are not the same.
There are multiple configurations of the M82. Why are we not given access to all of them? When the M26 was moved up to 6.7 in realistic, the velocity of the M82 was increased instead of adding the super charged M82 as an additional round. Why was that done?
There are lots of examples of shells with multiple possible configurations. We do not have every variant of every shell possible in game. Suggestions are always welcome for more.
If a tank is moved up in BR, that is generally because its efficiency is already too high for its previous BR. The purpose of increasing it is to primarily stabilize its BR to be nominal. Adding new shells with potentially even better characteristics is not always done when a vehicle goes up in BR. As I explained to you previously, a BR increase is not a set rule that a new shell will also be added: Don’t just change M82 velocity, add the large filler M82 as well - #202
No, I’m asking specifically why the M82 velocity was changed. Why would it be game breaking for any US short 90mm tank to have two M82 configurations?
I think they could easily add both M82 models, as there’s an example in another tank, namely the Tiger 1’s 88mm ammunition. It has two APCBC rounds: the PzGr 39, which penetrates slightly more and has a lower explosive charge, and the PzGr, which carries more explosive at the cost of less penetration. In short, the Tiger 1 already has what’s being requested for the American 90mm gun.
I just find it hilarious that Gaijin’s official position is that not a single tank with the US 90mm would be balanced having multiple M82 configurations but the dozens of vehicles in other trees get multiple APHE configurations with zero issue. Man, that M82 must be one heck of a round.
Early M82 is a sidegrade round that would not affect BR. The current M82 already has a very respectable filler content as is, so US 90 mm vehicles are already being balanced under the assumption that they are consistently one-shotting opponents.
Early M82 is losing around 20 mm of penetration and a bit of velocity just to make an already consistent round more consistent. So in practice, it’s not going to be that redefining to Pershing gameplay.
As others have already pointed out, we also already have similar APHE shell dichotomies at play on the German 88 mm L/56, as well as on the Soviet 76 mm, 85 mm, and 122 mm guns. These have not caused a huge upheaval, so I don’t see why M82 (early) would be an issue.
Did you seriously just accuse Gaijin of being bias TOWARDS Britian?
No, the early round it’s simply redundant, 90mm M3 cannon has 4 approved M82 rounds, 2 contain the same 0.44lb of Exp. D explosive filler (the shell in game IS missing ~62.4g of filler), but one uses faster burning FNH propellent to increase its velocity, the other 2 have no explosive filler, one with the higher velocity charge and one with the slower.
Same with Soviet 76mm, which have two APCB shells that only differ in explosive content.
It’s also funny that they have the fuze name added to the shells name, even though it no longer makes any difference.
But supposedly in reality those two bullets did not have completely different tips, the initial one being quite strange?
Potentially.
No, I did not.
This has been reported, posted and suggested multiple times.
They have quite different designs
Apparently, there were several models of BR-350:
The BR-350A (БР-350A): Pre-war ammunition.
The BR-350 (БР-350): Sharper point than the BR-350B and with a larger internal cavity.
Two BR-350B (БР-350B): The difference being the internal cavity.
The Б3Р-350: Same as the BR-350 but with explosive mixed with an incendiary compound.
The BR-350SP (БР-350SP): Same as the BR-350B but without an internal cavity.
APHEI for igniting fuel tanks and engines better, while it would be unnecessary it would be very funny to have too
“The armor-piercing projectile of this caliber, as currently designed, contains tracer but no high-explosive filler whereas the practice projectile contains an inert filler of sand.”
Do you have that table of ammunition for 90mm guns?
