So its the same why Coelian was good - because bugged mechanics?
Not bugged, just poor APHE modelling, that the community voted on and allows btw
2 Likes
Doubt that they voted to get the 30mm APHE penetrate the 200mm steel plates tho. I still believe its just a bugged mechanic by definition, as they managed to fix that with higher caliber ammunition and small caliber HE overpressure
Also also want to point out that new “explsion” mechanic was not on vote, they implemented it when most of the community voted against any changes :/
Thats typical gaijin for you
That is not true the one with Stingers is a one off.
There were 140 Gepard 1A2 alone in the Bundeswehr.
1 Like
Gepard 1A2 was a regular service vehicle in the BW from the NDV to 1A2 in 1996 until being retired in 2016. ( Gepard 1A2’s are now being used in ukraine)
The missile system was a proposed/offered attachment for Gepard (not limited to 1A2) by KMW, it was a “plug-and-fire” device and could be used without notable modifications as it was literally just fitted to the gun-housing, i.e. attaching it to both housings simultaniously is easily doable…
The 1A2 from KMW’s ad is also not the only gepard turret this attachment was fitted to;
Gepard 1A2 turret:
CA-1 turret:
Gepard, pre-1A2 turret: (see: V0 measuring coils)
1 Like
It’s giving the players the possibility. No one will load a tank entirely with smoke shells trying to fight against other tanks, yet many people do it for fun in the game.
1 Like
smoke shells don’t have double the penetration of the standard ones do they
Gepard 1A2 was normal service vehicle.
Hence it’s a balancing choice, not a technicality:
Technically it’s possible to load up on full APDS shells, just like you can fully load a tank with smoke shells.
In the game, overpressure mechanic only exists if there’s at least ~170g of TNT in the round. The 35mm DM13 only have around 30g.
You aren’t really killing them via overpressure (at least in most cases unless you cause the game to bug out), but rather just the ability to spam a ton of 30g TNT equivalent shells into the crew compartment via cupolas, etc…
It’s really not unreasonable for me to state that something that has never been tested, never been planned, never even be considered by operator nations shouldn’t come to the game.
We don’t know if it’s technically possible because it’s never been planned and never been tested on a real vehicle
the APFSDS of the Bradley does. And the APFSDS of any other machine do. But the only machines that lack full-ammorack load of APFSDS are USSR BMPs and the OTOMATIC. Hence the question: its a balance feature then?
May i suggestt that you imply that APDS shells are somehow bigger/have some differences with regular shells that made germans design separate ammorack, belts, different feed system for the cannon?
I may be not that smart but that sounds totally ridiculous. Especially when you can easilly have that compartment of 40 shots be filled with APHE. Making it look to me that no mechanical feature of APDS makes it impossible to load an entire rack with them.
The Bradley isn’t an SPAAG is it, once again this entire argument boils down to the fact that no dedicated SPAAG should receieve full belts of APDS, maybe partial ones like the Falcon, but there should still be a semblance of skill in terms of destroying tanks in SPAAGs, APDS makes that trivial when it’s not limited
They are the same size cartridge, however they are also different shells, the reason I state that no military/defense company has tested APDS only ammo racks is because it’s not the intended shell for use in SPAAGs, therefore we don’t know of any limitations (that they would find through testing) like decreased barrel life/heat building that could occur.
Plus it would be purely fictional, which I am opposed to, just get better with the API-T and be done with this debate
Gepard 1A2’s used full FAPDS belts in service. It was, aside from FCS-related aspects, the most significant upgrade for the vehicles.
FAPDS was literally designed around its’ use for AA purposes.
It is infact not “purely fictional”.
where did you get those photos?
Yeah but look at that penetration - the shot starts to disintegrate after going through 2mm of aluminium!!
I don’t have any info other than the graphic - but it sure looks to me like there is no “AP” in this round worth speaking off!!
Which makes perfect sense vs an aircraft - but it looks to me like in this case is is really NOT “armour piercing” at all - that is not the purpose.
The purpose is to deliver many fragments into an aircraft that has a thin skin, with a high velocity round - a sub-caliber round gives the high velocity, and the frangible allows it to deliver many fragments after penetrating a thin skin.
There IS a “proper” FAPDS round - see Medium calibre ammunition | Rheinmetall - but note that it is intended to defeat “hard and semi-hard targets” - not aircraft, and is not currently available for 35mm.
So on the surface of it it looks like “anti-air” FAPDS has (or should have) very little penetration compared to “real” APDS
I applied him as the BMP-2s have that same mechanic - they are forbidden to bring an entire rack of top tier shells, they obliged to bring one belt of top tier shells and one worse shells
Because also “they dont bring entire rack irl” as i remember. Tho Bradley`s operators also highly unlikely to bring all rack of APFSDS, but they can do such ingame.
Talking about SPAAs, all them Falcons, R3, ZU-23-2, all operators of the BOFORS 40mm cannon, all the Flakpanzers are able to bring an entire rack of armor-penetrative ammunition that is top notch to their cannon. You can use an entire APCR rack on KugelBlitz and Zestorer, you can bring 3xAP-1xHEI on ZU-23, BOFORS, you can use mixed AP belt on Falcon. Even Wiesel and R3 have that belts tho they operate against heavilly armored machnery they can still use them to RUIN a day of a lightly armored techs.
Even the BTRs with 14.5 cannons can bring entire racks of mixed bels with AP shots.
EVen the ZU-37-2 has an entire AP belt (tho its AP not APDS, but it has 90mm of penetration agains 70 on Gepard)
So that brings the question on gepards. I would certainly bring an entire mixed rack, even if it was every 3rd APDS. Stil better than 40 shots in a separate rack which dictated straight by gamedev`s views.
We also have no documents that say Thai military uses the BTA-4 shots on Oplot massively, but we have that shot ingame on it. Same with many different cannons - they get the ammunition they CAN use (DM53 on Leo 2PL/2CAN) but they never did/intended to use by their military documents as of now.
Thats exactly what makes that game a circus riding hall - a spectrum of standarts of how each machine is treated.
that arent modelled ingame
Oh man, a lot to unpack here…
First of all, the penetrator breaking apart is intended, (hence why it is called “Frangible”) however the penetration compared to APDS not reduced by much, in fact, for the initially struck plate, it is virtually identical.
Here is a report on how FAPDS works and how the penetration of its’ fragments was calculated;
Adding the previous two pages from the Oerlikon Sub-Calibre Ammunition brochure here, so it can be referenced to more easily.
^This page of the “Oerlikon sub-calibre ammunitions” brochure focuses on FAPDS’ effect on aircraft (which feature airframes/platings of light alloy metals, such as avional) and how, despite of FAPDS being a sub-calibre AP round, it still has significant effects, even inside a lightly armoured target. (which APDS e.g. doesnt - its’ effect is much more localized)
It is also supposed to showcase how the frangible penetrator works, i.e. that it stays intact for the first few plates and then continuously breaks apart the further it goes - not how high the penetration against thick platings is.
Here you ignored that the first 2mm aluminium plate is inclined at 70°, which results in a L-O-S thickness of 5.85mm. It is also visible that the penetrator did not significantly break apart prior to ATLEAST the 300mm gap between the second and third plate.
I recall having a pentration-chart of 35mm PMD-055 saved somewhere, but I’ll have to check once I am home.
Thus, I will use 25mm APDS / FAPDS as example instead - as it should be sufficient to outline how your assumption (that FAPDS cannot have anywhere near identical penetrative performance compared to APDS) is not accurate;
Note: The following page is from the same Oerlikon brochure
Here the brochure lists a penetration of 25mm RHA at 1000m, 60° NATO for 25mm APDS-T (KBA)
Now let’s compare it to the penetration figures 25mm FAPDS-T (KBA)
And as we can see, despite of the round being FAPDS-T, the penetration is listed with an identical figure.
Note: RWM Schweiz (along with Rheinmetall Air Defence) was Oerlikon previously.
Checking Rheinmetalls website today is not going to help you much, since they no longer offer the KDA platform, as it has been replaced by the 35mm KDC and KDG cannons, which use AHEAD (KE-TF/ABM) for anti-air purposes and thus have no reason to use the outdated FAPDS shell/concept for it.
FAPDS for anti-air purposes was only(1) used on Gepard 1A2 in 1994-2016 and the concept not pursued after due to better alternatives (KE-TF), hence why the AA-purpose is no longer listed (PMD-055 itself is not listed either, nor is the KDA, so I honestly don’t know how that is an indication for anything…?).
(1) Correction: Also used on the polish “gepard” and might be used by other countries operating the Gepard 1A2 variant - though aside from poland, idk if any other nation actually uses FAPDS currently.
You can also consult this 1994 oerlikon brochure, which lists both the high penetrative capabilites aswell as the dual-purpose use against armoured aswell as airborne targets.
Additionally, there is a training-video on the NDV to Gepard 1A2, which also briefly talks about FAPDS (DM 33) and how it is to replace all currently serviced ammunition-types (Including APDS-T, DM 23)
(Timestamped)
1 Like