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.
Here’s a NS-45 HE compared to N-37 HE and AP:
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.
Does the 45MM AP same as the BT7/5’s 45mm APHE? I wonder if why the BT5’s aphe penetration is much higher than NS-45, even though the NS-45 barrel is longer than 20-k
It’s a different shell and only weighs around 1.1kg instead of 1.43kg.
But so far no actually data was gathered in this thread, only the existens of prototype AP and APCR shells for the cannon.
I know someone who owns a bofors 40mm and have held the shells/casings before. They have FAR more propellant and energy than this 45, it’s not even comparable, the casing is nearly 2x longer. They are two completely different designs.
@KillaKiwi
That sheet on machine translation says it was an experimental round. I also am amazed they just dropped it with no dispersion, rapid accurate fire, perfect fuse etc and have not seen all the level 100s sweating with 2 Yak-9K spawns on German/US teams. I love how it’s implemented and given best possible stats. But German 20mm which was historically used in AA and AT roles and really had tungsten used in small amounts, has unrealistic nerfed pen and can’t pen a lot of things now side on if it’s angled armour.
There are things that are too low BR or released a bit OP but this thing is just ridiculous. I’ve been playing more SPAA/CAP recently just to piss in their cornflakes lol
You realize every autocannon in game is nerfed to oblivion, right?
If we had properly added autocannons, most auto cannon vehicles would be so busted, and kill almost anything.
It’s also rather odd how they went with a copypaste filler. When we were gathering data to add an APHE round for another aircraft cannon, we were told that just mentions of the APHE round would not be enough. At that point we had multiple sources about it, including cutaway picture and shell weight. Fortunately someone managed to calculate the filler weight from the cutaway and later we found a source where it was listed. The calculation had been off by an insignificant amount. After that the APHE was added, but it was wrecked for months with totally messed up belts and fuze settings.
Anyway so far for NS-45 we have a single mention of NS-45 APHE, another source which calls it AP-T, no shell weight, no filler weight and nothing about fuze. Either there is still data they have dug themselves or they have lowered the bar a lot.
If just simple mentions of a round would be enough, then obscure stuff like Ho-401 APHE would be possible.
Yes most are nerfed into oblivion via angle pen, I get it, but at least can Germany get back it’s historic flat pen values? Right now German SPAA are mostly sitting ducks because even side on you can’t pen most tanks now. You can’t side pen any of the heavier soviet TDs, many T-34 turrets/sides etc etc, they were the biggest beneficiaries of this nerf. So now instead of helping my team, I have to hide and only engage very thin/flat/easily penned stuff if there are no air targets, to the point it’s not really worth the risk.
I had a BTR-152 bouncing my 20mm hvap (Rh202) at 450m, side on. Bounced so much that they turned the turret around and killed me before I could kill them with nice aimed bursts, because it was just non-pen the whole time on the upper part where the gun crew are. I think they took it a bit too far to be honest, to the point it’s completely asinine.
Meanwhile I can get in my Br2 bofors and side pen stuff at Br7…
And I’d simply say, if all autocannons are nerfed to heck including dispersion of air based autocannons, then why isn’t this one? Every single other one is.
Yeah you make great points there. The ‘historic’ consistency and use of it as an excuse, when it has been diluted to mean absolutely nothing, is extremely frustrating. You basically get gaslit if your suggestion or feedback doesn’t match what they want.
And I also remember seeing some very strict and stringent requirements for adding stuff to Axis/Allied vehicles in recent history too, so this one with just one source conflicting (let alone experimental) is frustrating to say the least. Of all the things to do it to, the one that will get the most bias accusations is wild.
I have seen cases in past where western WT (us) saw minimal info, but they had the detailed RU stuff (probably on RU forum) where they sourced it from. Then you have the fabrication of data stuff in past and it all gets a bit murky. They require proof from us, why can’t we see theirs?
An idea is to go on the Russian forum (Assuming it’s not here?) and ask them.
Oh, I mean the brittal steel with consecutive shots in near same spots.
Cough, cough, Sherman’s when facing German quad-mounts.
Thats a mechanic I’d love to see. It would even the Zis5/hull down Hetzer playing field a little more too xD
Shermans get shredded of course most of the time, until they angle 15° xD. Panthers are also ridiculously easy and Valentines/slab side thinner British stuff etc. Japan and Italian stuff is often paper too. But most Soviet, if you are stupid enough to try, get effed and go back to the respawn page lol.
That said, I hit one of the overlapping plate bugs on a cast M4 the other week, angle penned it at 450m in a 1/4 profile shot. I was as amazed in chat as them and we both remarked about it.
I love that pic. There is an M3 somewhere at Bovington restored driving around looking like that xD It’s so ridiculous looking but I love it. Must be easy to climb up too with the extra grip lol.
When 5 cm Flak 41 L/67 then?
Don’t forget the german 37mm Flak guns don’t get solid shot or HVAP, despite every other nation, especially russia with the ‘new’ M53/59, getting it on most if not all SPAAs
The amount of pearl clutching over the aphe has been fun to read, ngl.
Well, on the “Zerstörer 45” they gave it a full HVAP belt, which they previoulsy removed on the Kugelblitz.
On the M53/59, HVAP is just the primary AP round. Just like the modern 20mm Oerlikon and Rh 202 AP round is HVAP.
The Zerstörer 45 case is kinda the same as with the T-34 driver hatch weakspot.
At one point they decided that full HVAP was too powerfull (still had 100mm pen at that point), and that the T-34 driver hatch should be weaker compared to the rest of the hull.
But years later they simply forgot.
So Zerstörer 45 now has a full HVAP belt and T-34 driver hatches are back being the strongest part of the hull armor.
They also made changes so that Soviet 14.5mm and German 15mm APCR rounds have more or less their historical performance, since the new APCR calculator made them practically useless compared to AP rounds.
So Gaijin can make changes that bring some historical accuracy but they can also just make things up the way they want it, presumedly for balance reasons.
Glad that you are entertained.
But your sarcastic comment is not going to stop us from discussing the historical origin or the implications it has on the game.
Wasn’t sarcastic. This is a fun read, people still refusing to accept the evidence.
The “evidence” is rather thin.
Toghether with the question, whether this change was necessary or reasonable, and the fact that many more vehicles could have ammunition that they either should have or potentially, makes this somewhat controversial.
There’s certainly no denying that a 45mm APHE round would be reasonable from a historical point, particular for attacking boats and small ships.
It’s just that this probably never happend outside of tests and that the this round has a huge impact on the game for how easy it is destroying ground targets.
A much more reasonable change would have been a ground target belt that contained 50% HE rounds, but instead Gajin implemented a full APHE belt.
If APCR existed, then this would be the historical correct round for targeting tanks, but in no way would a 45mm aircraft cannon be loaded with just AP rounds for attacking ground targets.
This would still be a huge boost in the ability to destroy ground targets but not in such a way how Gaijin implemented it with a full APHE belt.
Literally no one is going to use the APCR belt, because the APHE is just so much better in destroying tanks, even if the belt merely contained 50% APHE.
Adding this shell wouldn’t be such a problem, if this didn’t boost the CAS potential of planes with the NS-45 by such a ridiculous amount.
One of the inherent issues seems to be lack of recoil that would affect the plane.
The lack of recoil probably comes from the implementation of the recoil affecting the entire airframe, while it should affect the center of gravity, shaking the plane off target after every shot.
That’s pretty much how HVAP/APCR goes. When was the last time you used HVAP/APCR instead of APHE in a tank?
