Yes. Indeed it is.
Things like US solid shot was not the same as the UK solid shot. Even among shells of the same nation and caliber, stuff like the heat treatment can significantly change the way it behaves under certain conditions (see 90mm M77 vs T33E7).
The QF will likely have to be set manually for almost every shell in the game.
I suggest you re-check your sources because those fuze weights seem very unrealistic.
My notes says that the Bd. Z. 5103 for small cavity 7.5cm pzgr.39 has a mass of 107g.
The Bd.Z. 5127 for small filler 88mm APHE weights 333g.
Yeah probably some typo :3
A bit of a tangent, but, have you ever wondered, why the soviets introduced the sharp nosed 85mm BR-365K shell? From the FT it looks to be a direct downgrade when compared to the earlier, blunt nosed shell.
I have been thinking about it and have developed a theory that might explain it.
If we compare the 85mm BR-365 and the 76mm BR-350(A?) with large cavity, we can see that their designs are pretty similar.
In the 1943 trial the soviet 76mm gun failed to perforate the Tigers side armour, it didn’t even come close, with maximum depth of dents left at about half of total armour thickness. Which is why they introduced a new design BR-350B which was robust enough to do potentially it (if angle and range are small enough).
So, I wonder if the 85mm BR-365 had the same problem with defeating thick armour? At the time of it’s introduction in 1939 there were no tanks with 100mm+ thick armour, so maybe it wasn’t designed to deal with it and was made of steel poor in alloying elements and with no complex differential hardening treatment, in order to improve the production numbers. It would’ve worked just fine when fired at 800m/s against targets with 50-60mm of armour anyway.
'>inb4 tankies come and say I’m a wheraboo who’s looking for every possible excuse to denigrate the GLORIOUS SOVIET TECH!
Apparently BR-350A looks like this:
In other words I think that round there probably isn’t BR-350A.
Well, generally they had first sharp tipped and replaced that with blunt shells, from what I know.
The 85mm was an AA gun so I would find it odd, if it didn’t have a regular AP shell to begin with.
But I think the general idea was that blunt nosed shells aren’t worse than sharp nosed shells against FHA. And for facing the Tiger, which was like the first German tank that didn’t use FHA, maybe they thought they start producing those sharp nosed shells to increase the range.
Maybe they excpected more Tigers or just more German shells not using FHA, so they produced it in tandem with the blunt nose shell.
The sharp nosed shell would certainly make it easier or even possible to pen the mantlet of a Tiger and maybe increase the range it could penetrate the armor from the front.
Maybe at close range the blunt shell would actually shatter at high velocity impact.
How would you implement a quality factor in the DeMarre equation?
Close enough. You will never be able to get a perfect match, as every lot of the same ammunition and same armour plate will differ slightly and get you different results. If you estimate is within ±5% from average value from historic sources, consider it a success.
Yeah, if we could estimate penetrator weights only, the formula would be more accurate.
Here’s the M62.
I haven’t found an easy way to do it yet. What I showed you was not even the alpha version, it was a “proof of concept” where I mostly manually adjusted the coefficients of a parabola until it became flat where it crosses the y-axis and tangent to the curve of the penetration.
I hope one day to be able to simply adjust this one variable I called “quality factor” and have the computer do the hard work for me.
Do you have any estimates for the penetrator weight of the M82?
As a matter of fact I do. :)
The 90mm M82 to under represented. It comes out to 158mm at 853 m/s. The M82 has a lower caliber density and a larger filler charge to weight ratio than the M62.
This is why a deliberate curbing of the performance of uncapped AP is needed. Otherwise we would get situations in the game where the top shell that you unlock will be worse in 90% of cases to your stock one:
| Distance (m): | 2600fps 0° 2-pr. APCBC | 2800fps 0° 2-pr. AP ideal | 2800fps 0° 2-pr. AP nerfed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | 81 | 93 | 70 |
| 100 | 79 | 87 | 69 |
| 500 | 69 | 67 | 63 |
| 1000 | 57 | 47 | 47 |
| 1500 | 47 | 33 | 33 |
Edit: real life data:
That’s often the case already with APCR coming after APHE.
But (ideally) it shouldn’t be.
I agree, and I also agree that we should use historical data for penetration but Gaijin doesn’t want to do that anymore, so this is the next best thing.
so this is the next best thing.
See, this is were I disagree with you: I believe that a penetration calculator is not the “next best thing”, but the best thing, period.
Using raw historical data is a bad idea, because every test was performed under slightly different circumstances and the results never perfectly match with one another.
I’ve seen what happens, people just push to adopt the source that gives the best values for their favourite nation as the word of God and displays hostility whenever this notion is challenged.
A well calibrated mathematical model that works on the same laws of physics for everyone is the only objective arbiter of truth that can exist in such situation.
Of course, it needs to closely match the values that historical documents show, otherwise whatever positive qualities it might have, it will work poorly (see Gaijin’s implementation).
I meant the next best thing is refining the calculator. The issue is how far do we take the refinement and how far is Gaijin willing to go.
