also i would really like to know the how and why the shells are so different for exemple :
the scharnhorst having a 283 mm shell that weight 330 kg and have a velocity of 890 m/s with an explosives cavity of 2.2% it have a minimum of 579 mm of pen
the dunkerque having a 330 mm gun so 50 mm more ! with a weight of 560 kg so 230 kg more and a velocity of 870 m/s so -20 m/s have a cavity of 3.6 % and only have a minimum of 540 mm of pen ??
Where is the logic behind that ? only because it’s considerate as a SAP it’s nerf the shell that much ? or is it a story of propelant ?
i know the german where very good about balistic but being capable to be more efficient than a shell going almost the same speed but being almost twice heavier and 50 mm bigger for only a “type of shell” seems pretty weird to me especialy when the difference is only a cavity being 1.4% bigger
so either the germans are overperforming and i doubt about that OR the french shell are underperforming and not just a little …
also for a me a real SAP round would be like the japanese ones where the HE filler is almost 10 % OR the french SAP round that we have for the Aigle for exemple having a 6% HE filler or the Colbert having a 6.5% one or the Emile Bertin with his 5.9% all of them kinda make sens but an HE filler of only 3.6 % being SAP seems a bit weird
Well that doesn’t sound good for French navy.
These guns don’t perform that well already.
They should rather change 330mm to APCBC for now. And after few years or so when br’s will be more decompressed and we have Yamato’s fighting Iowa’s , and Richelieu’s at the top tier… that’s when they should think to change 300mm-340mm to SAP or not.
Because right now 6.7 is basically 7.0, so you’re still fighting top tier ships most of the time. Nerfing already underpeforming navy is not a good idea.
Rather change 330mm to APCBC. It’s not like this shell will be meta breaking. It just gonna give France a better chance at the top tier. Just for balance reasons.
If 330mm would be changed to APCBC , it still wouldn’t have very good pennetration . Around 600mm at 1000m 0°. But that’s workable at least.
The shell is fast and heavy, so that’s not crazy to think it would have this kind of pen. And it still would be worse than Alaska lghter and much slower shells, or Kronshtadt slightly faster but much lighter shells, hence the small AP cap on 330 guns.
So it still would perform worse than proper AP shells of smaller calibre.
None of the above, but rather the small AP caps are the culprits. Compared to with other nations’ “true” AP caps where they are 10-15% of the complete shell weight, but here it’s only about 3-4%.
i know that im annoying but can we see where the dev get the blueprints of the shell ? and can we see it ?because if we can see that in fact we are all wrong then there are no need to speak more right ?
also if it’s just a story of hardened shell cap then wouldnt it just be an APBC ? and not a APCBC it would still be an upgrade.
The body without the AP cap and ballistic cap is 530 kg. The ballistic cap is around ~10kg, the K device was also 9-10 kg. That leaves roughly 20-22 kg for the AP cap.
The hardened AP cap looks like it’s still on in the first image. Referencing the sketch from “French Battleships 1922-1956” by John Jordan, the shape of the projectile only has the ballistic cap removed.
according to the drawing of the shell you sended and from what the dev take their exemple i think there have a been a miscommunication and they took the balistic cap for the AP cap.
we can see the little buldge of the AP cap on both of the drawing
so i really think the dev made a mistake into reading those blueprints @Magiaconatus
yes totaly and we can see that the AP cap have the same shape than what you sended above you…
i really think there have been some confusion and you guys took the balistic cap for the hardened shell cap … any thought on this @Magiaconatus ?
and @_Betty i think i know why the devs want the shell to be SAP now
I can see where the cap is on the 340 mm shell, but I’m not sure how that proves that the hardened cap was removed in the previous image of the 330 mm shell?
All other sketches seem to confirm that the shape of the 330 mm shell sketch is indeed without the ballistic cap but still retaining the hardened shell cap and I can’t find any other sources that would suggest otherwise.
To be fair, I made the same mistake during my initial analysis of those sketches XD
I hope they will take the rest of the points already made here into serious consideration, now that the weight of the hardened cap is uncertain, given that there is no sketch at this point that can give us the mass of the shell with the hardened cap removed.
thanks now im sorry to bother with that again but those are really with what the dev made the 330 mm shell a SAP one ? if yes im sorry but they 100% made a mistake and this need to be passed to them . the cap they remove on that blueprint is the balistic cap not the AP CAP like shown on this picture
drawing of an Armour-piercing capped ballistic-capped high-explosive tracer shell (APCBC-HE-T). Inspired by and largely based on the swedish naval shell '28 cm pgr m/36 kp. 1. ballistic cap, 2. cap, 3. shell body, 4. explosive charge, 5. driving band, 6. base fuze, 7. tracer capsule
idk if you can personaly do something but if yes i will probably talk in the name of the others but we would really appreciate that
