Right. There are several blueprints of German aircraft rounds that were probably never used operationally.
Maybe it existed but caused problems that wouldn’t allow it to be used, etc, or like you said was planned at one point but never realised.
There is also no data so it’s practically useless.
Also no date. Maybe the Tu-1 could have used it but not the Yak-9K or TIS MA.
This is from the document on state tests of the NS-45 and Sh-45 guns from december 1943. According to the results of firing, the APCR penetrated a 40mm plate at an angle of 20 degrees at a distance of 600 m in 100% of cases, APHE in 66.6%.
AP-T (APHE-T) on the right
I don’t think you understand how massive 45mm is…
It’s 2.5 mm wider on each side, and I don’t know how much longer of a round, but the early BOFORS L/70 round had a total mass of .9kg.
HE filler equivalently can be more depending on the type of explosive filler as well.
I absolutely agree with you!
What a plane with fantastic performance. The turn time and rate of climb are better than the light Japanese with machine guns. Yak9k with a tank gun, automatic loader and ammunition. Ahaha seriously!?? At the same time, the gun fires 45mm shells like an AK47 assault rifle. I believe I believe that this was invented in the 40s. In my opinion, they are very sucking up to the USSR
AP-T doesn’t make it into APHE though.
There’s also this:
So an APCR round was tested for the NS-37 but it was never introduced.
Same story here. Just because it was tested, doesn’t mean it lead to anything, other then some data about its performance.
They might have considered that the performance of the 45mm AP-T wasn’t good enough or it wasn’t worth producing it, since it would be specficially produced just for a single weapon that wasn’t even used in large numbers.
The 45mm HEI-T was already in production as Naval ammunition and 37mm ammunition was identical to the the AA guns, so no big change required.
Since the NS-45 never lead to much other then some experiements, it’s pretty likely that neither AP-T nor APCR was ever used in combat.
So what? The projectiles were not in single quantities and were tested. So they can be introduced into the game.
You have made a lot of unfounded assumptions, but you cannot prove them with anything.
My main problem with the gun is its acuracy, there is no way in hell a 45mm in a small fighter would be that acurate. Especially considering how inaccurate the 57mm on the mosquito is and how quickly it overheats… Nerf the spread dependent on the plane and i think it would be in a far better spot as it would then make the small magazines actually a hindrance.
Well, can you?
What you provided doesn’t prove anything other than that the rounds were tested.
I guess the same can be said about US 75mm APCR, but by that logic we can also have German 20mm Mineshell X with 25g explosive filler. Or how about 30mm APHE that was actually used in combat?
It’s just incredible biased to add these APHE rounds to the game, when they were never used in that way.
This wasn’t a balance decision like US 75mm APCR and it’s just going to make Ground Battle CAS more annoying.
A Yak-9K or TIS MA isn’t a Hs 129 that gets 13 shots and flies like a boat.
Not to mention the audacity to give them a 1mm fuze sensitivity, so they never overpenetrate any armor.
And because Mods and Devs are inherently biased they will just pull the “proof it wasn’t like that” card, when their source was “I made it the F up”.
What else do I have to prove? Look at the topic title “NS-45 45mm APHE - Where did it come from?”. I think you got the answer to your question.
This has nothing to do with the rounds used by the gun and can be filed as a separate bug report.
Unless I’m mistaken. Neither document says it’s an APHE shell.
Guess what? I don’t speak Russian.
What’s written there that would imply it’s APHE?
I would like to see where it says its even about the NS-45. Also cant speak Russian but I can still read numbers, and “45” does not appear once in that document
NS-45 is the name under which the cannon was accepted into service. In the test report, the cannons is called “cannon designed by OKB-15” (Shpitalny, Sh-45) and “cannon designed by OKB-16” (Nudelman-Suranov, NS-45).
Here is the table header from the report
Off-topic but if I’m not mistaken, Part I shows the entry and exit hole size in the wing of a Bf 109 and Ju-87 in square meter, comparing the two 45mm cannons (for whatever reason) and the NS-37.
The 45mm is much more destructive but in WT it doesn’t matter because even a B-29 loses it’s wing from a single 37mm HE round.
Part 2 shows the armor piercing performance against the previously mentioned 40mm armor sloped at 20° from 600m.
If I’m not mistaken the 37mm AP-T round is given the same 66.6% chance as the 45mm AP-T.
Or it’s actually 0%. Not sure.
0%
The only thing I’ve gathered from the changes to the NS-45 is reinforcement to my belief on how absolute dogs*** the APCR formulas are.
The old AP-T round for the NS-45 had more flat pen at point blank than the current APCR. Literally the thing that APCR is meant to do the best out of all these rounds and it somehow performs worse.
That’s an unnusual style AP round for Soviets for the time. There was a naval AP quite like that, but I think it was few years later. Likely they shaped it pointy sharp like the HE shell to achieve as similar ballistics as possible. Americans did that with their 20mm rounds after the war.
Any idea why the sheet calls it APHE and the picture text just AP-T? Could it be possible they switched HE filler to just Tracer, since even the ground 45mm APHE fit so little? This one is from the start smaller round and the pointy shape drops internal volume even further. So far it seems obvious they copypasted ground APHE filler without thinking it.
I read Sh-45 and NS-45 rounds were slightly different. If I got things right, the round on the left is for Sh-45.
Also what’s with the pixelation around all the text in the data sheet? I remember hearing something about it years ago, but can’t remember what caused it and can’t think if I’ve ever seen it that bad.