Currently, sabot petals detach and can deal damage to other things near the crosshair. These sabot petals deal damage to vehicles even if they aren’t being directly shot at, which can even destroy a lightly skinned vehicle even if the crosshair isn’t aimed at it. While sabot petals are a cool feature, they should be either purely visual and do no damage or have a fixed penetration of 0mm (again doing no damage). As is, the petals doing a extra damage to things, on top of the round already being fired, seems like a detriment rather than a feature.
I’m confused, why wouldn’t a metal object flying at high speeds towards a lightly armored target cause damage? I think it’s a pretty cool feature tbh
Yes! Not only technically and historically accurate, but also, gameplay wise.
Now, there won’t be as much BS regarding lightly armored vehicles taking literally zero damage from APFSDS!
Imagine how people will cry when Ahead actualy works, this seems to be the right step to actual working ahead as well
i sense a working AHEAD in the future.
i can feel it in my balls
Sabot petals can effect the accuracy of rounds so they are designed to peel off as fast as possible so what is historically or technically accurate about pieces of aluminum or other lightweight material doing this?
Like the petals doing damage are most prominent on autocannons and y’all are aware that autocannons use either a polymer or aluminum sabots so please explain how either of those are going to A: travel more than a hundred meters after it does a air break manuever to split cleanly from the dart to not affect accuracy or damage the fins or B: hurt anything more than a human it hits
They seem to travel way too far and way too close to the main rod (I saw players hitting planes with just the sabot).
The currect mechanic could remain only if the travel distance is significatly shortened and the dispersion is increased by quite a lot (like shotgun pellets in FPS videogames).
An old brochure the US army publicly published in the early 2000s specifically mentions how the M829A2 uses a composite sabot which
stabilizes the trajectory of the munition early in flight, was designed with graphite fiber-reinforced epoxy material that resulted in a 30 percent weight reduction in the sabot component. This weight reduction enabled an increased muzzle velocity of approximately 60 meters per second, significantly increasing the range and armor penetration capability of the projectile.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. High-Performance Structural Fibers for Advanced Polymer Matrix Composites. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11268.
The publically available datasheetfor the KE-W lists a composite sabot.
TM 43-0001-28, published under DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
says this about every single dart in the catalogue:
Upon leaving the gun, aerodynamic
forces cause the sabot to separate from the subprojectile allowing the subprojectile to continue to target while the sabot segments fall quickly
These are basically unattached airbreaks to fall off as quickly as possible.
aye i was thinking about that, “modeling sub-subcaliber from full caliber shells huh?”
It’s still a hunk of aluminum flying at 1500 m/s, that’s gonna do some damage no matter what.
never said it wouldnt
Hey turns out the US army has a (unrestricted distirbution statement A) image regarding infantry safety from the Bradley’s M919 nylon sabot which is useful since its the autocannons shotgunning things on dev server.
And on the Russian side of things the 3UBR8 APDS and 3UBR11 APFSDS also use some sort of plastic (probably nylon) sabot.
And as it turns out Russia also switched to composite sabots at some point which at the minimum includes the 3BM46.
Honestly yeah. I would have no problem with the mechanic if the dispersion was way increased and also if they just stopped existing after like 100m or so. Like yes they can still damage things but obviously the rate of damage they are doing right now is way too much. A flaked off piece of metal acting as a massive airbrake can not and should not penetrate as much armor or travel as far as the penetrator it is/was attached to
i do agree the range should be decreased quite a lot more than 200 its already too much
I think that’s the criticism. It shouldn’t (and doesn’t) travel at 1500 m/s very far. If the sabot is doing damage at 100m, that’s one thing. If it’s following the penetrator at 1000 m, then we have an issue.
PUMA and Dardo dart also uses a plastic sabot.
Probably have enough documents for a bug report to propose IFV sabot petals being visual only because if crew can tank several 7.62 rounds a unaerodynamic piece of plastic is at best leaving a bruise and isn’t going to penetrate structural steel let alone any armor.
At best the aluminum base should have the potential to damage things as much as a aluminum hockey puck can and they didn’t model those
NIce video here: 105mm APFSDS penetrating steel plate in slow motion - YouTube
One can well seen how the sabot petals separate from the rod just a few feet after leaving the barrel (0:09), start slowing down significantly (0:14) and the rod arriving at the target (here a very close test target) all alone, unaccompanied by the petals (0:20).
That those petals would actually be able travel downrange 1 km and on top of that even be able to damage anything - is really highly improbable…
Even if it’s not realistic, I think it’s a very good feature.
This will finally help with the “no armour best armour” bs. All those IFVs and light tanks will now have to fear a heavy battle tank gun as they should.