Help with 17 pounder documentation

I’ve recently come across these graphs when just doing random research.

Graphs

17 pounder AP

17 pounder APC

17 pounder APCBC

I decided to compare the graphs to the in game performance and this is what I’ve found.

By using the WarThunder wiki calculator we can check the velocity that a projectile needs to travel at to achieve a specific penetration. Using the in game flat penetration of the 17 pounder AP rounds we can effectively know what velocity they have at a specific distance. At 1 km, all the 17 pounder AP rounds have around 763 m/s (approx. 2500 ft/s) of velocity, meaning these rounds all have identical ballistics.

Shot Mk.8 APCBC has 155 mm of flat pen at 1 km.
image

Shot Mk.6 AP and Shot Mk.4 APC both have 139 mm of flat pen at 1 km.
image

This is weird in of itself as these rounds have completely different set ups, including the obviously un-aerodynamic APC round. And looking at the graphs we can clearly see the graphs state that the APCBC round has better velocity at distance than the other two rounds which share the same ballistics.

In fact, comparing the graphs to the in game projectile performance states the following:

  1. Shot Mk.8 APCBC is underperforming.
  2. Shot Mk.6 AP and Shot Mk.4 APC overperform.

At 1100 yards (1005 meters) the graph for both AP and APC shot states that the rounds have a velocity slightly higher than 2300 ft/s (I’ll say 2310 ft/s or 704 m/s). Meanwhile the graph for APCBC shot places the velocity higher than 2500 ft/s, slightly higher than the 2575 ft/s (785 m/s) given for the APCBC fired from the 77 mm gun, but close enough to where I can’t really say another value, so 2575 ft/s it is. This would mean that at 1 km the AP and APC shots should achieve 124 mm of flat pen (compared to the current 139 mm), while APCBC shot would achieve 161 mm (compared to the current 155 mm) using the calculator provided by the wiki.

Shot Mk.8 APCBC
image

Shot Mk.6 AP and Shot Mk.4 APC
image

This is where I need help. To make a bug report on this I would need to know the documents from which those graphs come from, as a cover of the document is necessary for bug reporting. I’ve tried but could not find these documents, only the specific graphs. Any help would be appreciated. Keep in mind this would also apply to the 77 mm gun, for obvious reasons.

An additional thing is that with these newer ballistics Gaijin could remove the 0.9x modifier from Shot Mk.4 APC (it currently has this modifier as if it were an uncapped AP round because otherwise it would perform identically to Shot Mk.8). It would achieve the same 190 mm of flat pen at point blank as Shot Mk.8, but with higher drag would lose it’s velocity faster over distance, meaning that at 1 km it would achieve 138 mm of pen.

image

5 Likes

So this is a buff or a nerf?

The formula they use bow was a heavy nerf to the 17pdr. Once apon a time it was pretty close to accurate and then the formula changed and we get this. Sadly it won’t change unless they change the formula they use.

the formula WT uses for gun penetration is complete trash. most guns (including 17pdr) are substantially weaker than they should. Some vehicles have their gun penetration at 1km at point blanc

2 Likes

Buff for APCBC, nerf for AP and APC unless they end up removing the 0.9× multiplier from APC, in which case it’s a buff in penetration under 1000 meters for APC.

The TL;DR is that the APCBC round loses too much speed over distance while the other two lose too little.

3 Likes

One of the most important things to remember with those British graphs and general British MVs is that they’re all at 1/4 worn velocity. 2900ft/s is the 1/4 worn one. A new gun is 3000ft/s.

17Pdr vs 90mm Gun comparison 2

That would give these guns a penetration at point blank of 200 mm and 180 mm for APCBC and AP/APC respectively. Though I can’t seem to find much other information on this besides what you’ve provided.

Has it ever been bug reported?

1 Like

But shouldn’t the three bullets be different?
For example, the APCBC and APC at close range should penetrate practically the same, and their penetration at certain degrees should also be similar, with the difference that the APC at distance would lose much more speed. On the other hand, the AP would not lose as much speed as the APC but it would not have the speed of the APCBC either. I also have a question, would it be possible for the AP to penetrate more on inclined surfaces than the APCBC? I say this because in the case of the American 90mm cannon it happened, the M82 APCBC pierced less inclined armor than the T33 APBC. On the other hand, it is also seen that at the end of WW2 the Americans put aside the APCBC in favor of the APBC, both in the M48, M41 and M103. That is why I have doubts about whether the greater penetration of the AP is something general, or is because the Americans gave the bullets a special tempering so that they break in a certain way, and thus favor penetration at greater degrees of inclination.

That is pretty much the issue in game, they aren’t different in their ballistics. In game Gaijin has given them all the same drag coefficient.

The graphs say that the APC and AP rounds should have the same ballistics though. I can only guess that the cap design doesn’t create a lot of drag, which seems to be the case when looking at real life pictures of the rounds, it is pretty sharp headed even without the ballistic cap.

This topic isn’t about that, it’s purely about ballistics. And I haven’t looked into that enough to really give an answer.

1 Like

as far as I know from rumors and stuff, current Jacob’s formula was suitable for older naval cannons, and is obviously entirely wrong for more modern tank shells. Thought the most modern APFSDS shells are usually based on real info (e.g. I checked a few parts of russian APFSDS munitions and compared them to irl tables, they match in war thunder mostly).
They just need to finally start basing them off real sources, even if its difficult if sources feature different distances and angles… With their budget, it isn’t.
At least right now they instantly change info on HEAT/HEAT-FS shells if you have a proper source.

This topic is not about the penetration formula, but correcting the ballistics of the 17 pounder AP projectiles.

The only reason I use the formula here is to obtain the in game velocities of the rounds at distance, and checking the penetration that the rounds would have in game if their ballistics were corrected.

In short, this topic is about giving the 17 pounder AP rounds the correct velocity loss, not changing the formula that Gaijin uses.

ah, sorry for misunderstanding at first. Well perhaps we should just wait for anyone who could identify these documents, then. Though maybe if nobody shows up, you should try making a report without it. Sometimes, when I report French stuff, I just use directly photo of what I need to report, without any cover, obviously I also put the name of featured archive part, but they likely do not care about it…
Time will show, for now just bumping the topic may help so more people will see it

APC rounds aren’t actually less aerodynamic than regular pointed AP.
At high velocity the rather flat front will create a high pressure area, which will act the same as the pointed nose of an uncapped shell.

So AP and APC should have similar ballistics, with only the APCBC being better due to the wind shield.

1 Like

You are more than likely correct. The AP and APC rounds have identical ballistics according to the graphs (if I read them right).

2 Likes

I like how the US 76mm is so accurate that it can snipe a gun barrel from 1000m 😂😂

3 Likes

What Nicholas Moran showed there was the mean dispersion, rather than the maximum reached. So the dispersion “circle” is inherently smaller, for both the 17 pounder and US 76 mm.

It’s basically what you can expect to happen, but not what can happen. To quote an article he wrote about the M4A3 “Firefly” that the US tested:

So, the average at all ranges was calculated to be 7.38mil/7.58mil overall, and means of .189mil and .205mil. The testing complete, they then dug into the records to find the test results of 90mm and 76mm guns.

Mean dispersions for deflection and elevation were .115mil/.142mil for the 90mm and .112 and .110 for the 76mm respectively.

If I’m not mistaken, the “overall” value here is the maximum dispersion they obtained in testing.

Edit: I should mention, the first milliradian value is horizontal dispersion, and the second one is vertical, at least if I’m remembering right.

3 Likes

I think I’m just going to write the bug reports on the ballistics of these rounds and see how it goes.

According to panzer-war.com, these graphs are from the British Ordnance Board (I’ve tried searching but no luck).

image

So I guess when I make the bug reports I’ll just use these names. If they ask me for a cover page, I’ll just have to say I don’t have one.

Edit: done.

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/Dj5frhJcMlOz
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/RG6nudD74SfM

If these bug reports pass, I can then probably do a bug report for Shot Mk.4 specifically on how it receives the 0.9x pen multiplier when it is a capped round.

1 Like

To quickly speak on this.

I imagine this document has rounded speeds. The muzzle velocity of M82 has never been 2700 fps, rather that was the muzzle velocity of M77, with early propellant M82 being 2670 fps.

Likewise, for the 17 pounder someone has commented this on my APCBC ballistics bug report.

It seems plausible that they rounded 2950 to 3000 fps, similarly to how M82 got rounded from 2670 to 2700 fps.

It doesn’t say 2700ft/s for the M82 it says it in general.