Blunt nosed armor piercing rounds, such as Russian APHEBC.
Yes, I get that. What exactly is unclear about them?
I guess how would their shattering performance be like?
Their nose portion already shatters against normal RHA, which is why their historical performance aganst RHA is about the same as that of a normal sharp nosed AP, of same caliber and mass, aganst face-hardened armour.
Because of this, I believe that they should be unaffected by this mechanic.
In the tiniest possibility that this shatter mechanic would be actually implemented into the game, I hope that Gaijin will simultaneously nerf the performance of soviet blunt nosed shells to realistic levels, so this change would not make a lot of mid tier soviet vehicles overperform even more, when compared to those of other nations that rely on uncapped AP.
I’m not opposed to more accurate implemented of armor and shattering, as long as the negative effects of face hardened armor are implemented as well.
In the oversimplified mechanics gaijin has chosen, AP would outperform APC and that’s ok.
Something interesting: if you were asked to order the following guns in order of how much 0° armour they can theoretically penetrate with AP round, how would you do it?
- Soviet 152mm gun on the SU-152
- Soviet 122mm gun on the JS-2/3/4 etc.
- Soviet 100mm gun on SU-100
Answer: (DeMarre (K=1800) estimate):
Spoiler
- 152mm: 215mm/0°
- 122mm: 245mm/0°
- 100mm: 265mm/0°
Curious, right? People usually think that the 152mm is the most powerful one of the three. Although the difference in penetration of sloped armour is smaller between these three, I doubt the change is so large as to put the 152mm gun above the other two at 55-60° obliquity.
1 Like
Would you mind calculating the 10 cm Pzgr.?
In game its like 1mm weaker than Documentation, which is interesting that they come so close.
Uncapped AP one? What’s the velocity? 475 m/s, right?
Edit: For this low velocity shell the NPL formula works best.
If it can remain intact (which is likely for 0° impact, not sure about 30° and more) it can penetrate up to ~90mm/0° and ~75mm/30° at point blanc range.
1 Like
480 m/s
I know, these values are meant to be taken only as relative to each other, to determine the order of increasing anti-armour performance of these 3 guns, not as an accurate evaluation of their performances.
Idk, the blunt shells would still retain their good slope armor penetration and when that is not not an option they still have APC to go through thick 0-30° armor.
The IS-1 is effective just as long as the gun is able to destroy tanks from the front, which generally is only the case in a down tier.
The IS-2 gun is more capable and will one shot like pretty much all the time but you have to deal with the long reload.
You are right that, if you put them at the same BR where the IS-1 is effective, the IS-2 doesn’t really add anything over the IS-1 in terms of effectivness but at the same time the IS-2 can fight stronger vehicles the IS-1 can’t.
It’s kinda how they prefere the M4A3 over the M26 in Korea, since the M26 was simply not necessary.
But it’s not like the IS-1 is going to be effective all the time. In uptiers the 85mm combined with the lack of mobility just doesn’t cut it, so it makes sense that the IS-2 is an overall more capable vehicle with higher BR.
2 Likes
Excellent analysis, my dear Watson. :)
1 Like
😂😂
It checks out:
Look at how historical German penetration data is much lower at close range, where this shell cannot penetrate at 30° in condition fit to burst, but against thinner armour it begins to closely match the British findings.
Do you happen to know the velocity at 200 meters? I made a slope modifier chart in conjunction with my calculator changes.
Its 663m/s.
I haven’t found historical FT for this gun, but I’m confident in this estimate.
Yes, I took the values of the german G(d) limit shown in the graph I posted from this very source.
The German data for 5cm shells is odd. The capped shell should have only 3.4% higher ballistic limit if we only take into account its lower mass (sans the cap). 460m/s - > 476 m/s.
It’s hard to believe that the added small cap (6% of total mass) increases this bl to 510m/s, a 7% increase. The data on US testing with M51 APC with and without cap shows a much smaller increase of about 2% at all t/d ratios. But this is at 0°, maybe at 30° the AP cap is more detrimental.
Using my suggested changes and the standard slope modifiers, at 663 m/s it would penetrate about 35mm of armor at 30 degrees.
1 Like