APCR is included in the changes.
1 Like
But just considering core weight wouldn’t give accurate figures for some APCR rounds.
Sure, but Gaijin isn’t going to that level of detail with its formula. They don’t even use the correct core diameter and weights for some rounds.
1 Like
What do you mean? They are doing it right now. They use the total weight and the core weight with way too much emphasis on the projectile weight, which results in heavy cores underperforming.
Best example is the M41A1 which has an APDS and APCR with the same core, yet the APCR gets 220mm pen while the APDS gets 300mm pen, since APDS doesn’t use this shell mass + shell core system.
You’re right, my mistake.
1 Like
So, I tried adapting the formula using the core weight and 17% of the carrier weight and it works ok for US APCR. I’ll have to check other rounds when I get a chance. I do remember Peasant and Conraire discussing how much of the carrier was applied during penetration but I don’t remember specifi values. I’ll see if I can dig it up.
1 Like
Now I remember why I left out shell mass. Using core weight and 17% of the carrier weight, the BR-365P went from 168mm at muzzle velocity to 244mm at muzzle velocity. I could never find a good compromise to account for it. It would either overestimate Soviet APCR or underestimate US and German APCR.
2 Likes
Well, it’s based on design, so no universal formula is going to fit every APCR round.
What’s important is the mass behind the core. US rounds generally have little to no mass behind the core, thus we can just look at the cores for armor penetration.
That’s my point. No universal formula will work, but ignoring shell mass was closer than trying to apply it.