No, as far as I can tell, only one document shows the lighter weight. Others show the same weight for the large and small filler M82.
Weird, isn’t it? TNT has density of 1,65g/cm^3. I would immagine Compound D is similar. So to stuff inside the shell extra 0,11lb of filler you would need to expand the cavity by about 30cm^3. Taking away this much steel and replacing it with explosive would lower the mass by about 187g (check my math here pls) or 0,412lb, reducing the shell’s weight from 24.11lb to 23.7lb.
The 23.29 lb weight there is for the multiple version of the M71 HE round.
There is one M82 round that says 23.40 lb, but that is for an M82 with no filler or fuse.
Sry
If it’s the same penetrator yeah that makes sense.
While doing some research on shells for some naval stuff elsewhere, I learned that Explosive D could only be added via hydraulic press since its melting temperature was too high for casting to be safe. The USN swapped over to a “denser packing” at some point during its shell production which got rid of a lot of issues they had with it, and I’m wondering if that isn’t the case here: the US Army just figured out a way to literally shove more in.
2 Likes
But its supposed to be the other way around: the amount of explosive filler decreased in the later version.
I still find it odd that explosive filler somehow increases a shells penetration compared to solid shot. Gaijins calculator works in mysterious ways.
Filler doesn’t help penetration. It reduces it quite a bit. The biggest issue with Gaijin’s formula is using cap weight, instead of penetrator weight.
1 Like
I know that, im just sayings it’s weird how in every single case if a shell has filler, it’ll somehow have greater penetration than solid shot.
Just further signs that Gaijin needs to revamp their calculator, preferably what you recommended.
Because, for example, British M61 with no explosive filler also has the weight of the fuse (on top of the filler) removed.
That extra weight less leads it to just perform worse. I’m pretty sure that in real life the cavity was filled in some way.
It still would be nice to know why Gaijin needs to treat the 90mm armed tanks differently than basically most other tanks in game.
1 Like
Do we as players not deserve an explanation for why the M26 doesn’t need the large filler and super charged M82 but the IS-2 1944 needs the BR-471, BR-471B and BR-471D? What justification is there for blatant double standards?
3 Likes
Hell, dont most soviet tanks have a variety of APHE shells to shoot with?
1 Like
If Gaijin doesn’t want to be accused of bias, maybe they shouldn’t be biased.
1 Like
It’s been about a month and we still don’t have an answer why the IS-2 44 and IS-6 need 3 APHE rounds but the M26 and other 90mm’s don’t need 2 APHE rounds.
3 Likes
With the issue of ammunition, I am not sure what gaijin thinks, there are tanks that do not carry the bullets that they historically used, then due to balancing they put bullets that they did not use in other tanks (like the IS-2 1944), and the Penetration changes, such as the Italian 90mm ammunition, which now the model 43 pierces less than the stock ammunition.
Still waiting for an answer as to why the ground devs have different standards for different trees. Why do the ground devs feel like Soviet tanks need 3 APHE rounds but the US 90mm doesn’t need its large and small filler M82?
3 Likes