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.
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.
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”.
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).
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.
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.
I didn’t even notice the fuze sensitivity. Very conveniently that makes it fair bit better against aircraft than it would be with a usual APHE fuze sensitivity. Meanwhile we got nose fuzed air to air HE rounds going through wings without detonating.
It’s a huge pain when they don’t adjust something fairly obvious like that to realistic values, because if it’s a barely existing thing like this in question, then there is no data to use for bugreport and we’ll be stuck with broken values.
They will fuze on spars, fuel tanks and control cables, just not going through the skin.
The most sensitive base fuze I know, is an improved one for the German 20mm APHE with 3mm of steel. The older model had a sensitivity of 5mm and the same 5mm also applies to 30mm base fuzed APHE rounds.
The shells are nearly the same lenght, due to the NS-45 using the same cartridge lenght as the NS-37 and the NS-45 is practically a NS-37 with a 45mm barrel.
The ballistic cap extends a bit further over the shell, compared to the nose fuze of the HE round.
It looks almost like the NS-45 AP shell uses the same ballistic cap as the N-37 (NS-37) AP round, just that it tappers from the 45mm width to the nose in order to fit the cap.
