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
3 Likes
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%
1 Like
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.
5 Likes
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.
3 Likes
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.
3 Likes
1 mm is still higher than what HO-155 30 mm HEF shells have (0.8 mm) and those still don’t fuse on plane skin.
If those rounds only fuse on direct component hits, so will the 45 mm APHE.
The only real difference I can see is that it will fuse on any armor, no matter how thin.
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:
Spoiler
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.
1 Like
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.
2 Likes
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
3 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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.
2 Likes
Oh, I mean the brittal steel with consecutive shots in near same spots.
Cough, cough, Sherman’s when facing German quad-mounts.
1 Like
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.
1 Like