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
blue = balistic cap
red = AP cap
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.
maybe it’s just because they mistaked into the reading of the blueprint so everything is not lost
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.
yeah that can happen .personaly i have a degree in machining so i know how to properly read those kind of blueprints
Okay so that’s interesting. There’s still some hope looks like. Good catch 👍
I want Magiaconatus to comment on this now.
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
We know. There is no confusion here.
also according to my math if we trust this blueprint and take the diameter of 261.5 mm and the lenght of 218 mm then we can calculate very roughtly the weight of the AP CAP if it was in regular steel (it surely was heavier than regular steel thanks to surface hardened ) the weight of the AP CAP can reach 93.618 kg so basicly 16.73% of the total shell . very far from the 3-4% said by the devs
BUT im honest and this calculation have been made by imaginating that the AP CAP was fully cylindrical since it’s almost not the case let’s remove 1/3 of his weight and we get around 62 KG for a total % of around 11.1%
so even with that the devs say there are no probleme ?
then how can you estimate the weight of the AP CAP without fully retiring it from the shell ? i mean i routhgly estimated it by calculating the full weight of the matter but i dont see another way
You could try doing integrals, and finding the volume of the cap.
Jordan’s book has the cross-section with the AP cap.
nevermind im not very good at translating ;)
we can make it simple because we can calculate the volume of the cynlidre in 3D then divide it by 3 to make it like a cone (we we loose some part here but it will be very close ) so basicly
we take 11 708.19 cm3 / 3 = 3902.73 cm 3
then we take the mass of the steel per cm3 = 7,86g .
so now we take 3902.73 x 7.86g =30 675.46 g = 30.68 kg
30.68kg out of 560 kg = 5.48% of the weight …
so we can say that the weight of the cap is 5.48% of the shell IF it’s only in steel but it probably have a surface hardened .
so in conclusion it’s sure that the shell wouldnt be higher than 6 or 7% of the total shell …
welp guys guess we where wrong and gaijin was half right the history book dont lie it’s really a shell that was both AP and SAP .
im still standing with the idea of buffing the 330 mm shell like it should be because it’s not a SAP but it’s not an AP neither so i guess we should just take the inbetwen and put a 590 mm of pen
I modelled the shell cap as close as I could according to the diagram from John Jordan with the dimensions from the German sketches and used the mesh volume measurement tool.
Approximate volume of the shell cap is 6657.81 cm³.
Let’s assume the density of regular steel is 7.85g/cm³.
We multiply volume of the shell cap by density to get the mass.
6657.81 * 7.85 = 52,263 g or 52.26 kg
We divide the mass of the AP cap by the mass of the shell to get the percentage weight of the shell cap relative to the shell.
52.26 / 570 = 9.17%
By comparison, Richelieu’s APC Model 1936 round had the hardened cap take up to 9.5% of the shell weight.
damn that a way better job than i did XD .i could only used the blueprint and make it very roughtly .
but it’s still showing the same point again and again it’s neither a SAP round but it’s not a FULL AP neither … we are kinda stuck here if the devs dont really want to listen to the players and we cant proove that it’s not a SAP because there are no docs clearly saying it
Welcome to trying to get things fixed for France.
