Although this shell technically existed there is very little information available on the internet, either in the western or russian parts of it, and what I could find either refers to Warthunder or does not quote a reliable, historical source.
in particular the 1952 manual of “Ammunition for 122mm field, tank and self-propelled artillery” does not even mentions it, although the other two types BR-471 and BR-471B are present.
This is not simply an issue with nomenclature either, the shell was not later relabeled as BR-472, it clearly was never meant to be shot from the D-25T gun as can be seen from it’s design if we look at a WW2 and a post-war shell that we know where meant to be used in the same gun: the BR-421B and BR-412D:
Although this is not a definite proof yet, I’m starting to suspect that this shell was an experimental design that was never adopted into service. Therefore, I think that Gaijin should remove it from the game and either give the tanks that had it post-war APDS or HEATFS shells or move them down BR.
Claiming to search Russian sources meanwhile actually failing to do an easy 5 second search.
The link goes to Ukrainian blog which used data from russian site. The Ukrainian blog claims for BR471D to be accepted and used after war.
And either it was adopted or not, doesnt matter.
Many tanks in game use experimental weaponry or a completely experimental designs of their own (which are in big numbers in many TTs), with some nations like Japan outright having made up stuff like Ho-Ri which IIRC was literally made by neo-nazi or literally Japan aircraft like R2Y2 series, with nothing but the airframe existing, not even in a complete state.
IS series of tanks excluding the Object with 100mm cannon (thx you Gaijin for making it event only) or IS-1 are already bad heavy tanks, being purely a tank destroyers with huge reload times.
Personally, I think it should be taken off of the late-WW2 era stuff like the IS-2 (1944), IS-3, and maybe IS-6, as for all except the IS-2 (1944) it would balance out their heavy armor similar to the M4A3E2, where you get heavy armor but the gun is not as good as it can be. The IS-2 and IS-2 (1944) should be moved down accordingly, though.
But, if they ever decide to add the IS-2M and/or IS-3M, those should get BR-471D as well as for the IS-3M it should get 3BK10 HEATFS (from D-49 on SU-122-54, I believe D-49 and D-25T can use same ammo). Along with introducing the T-10 with BR-471D, 3BK10 HEATFS, and 3BM7 APDS (3BM11 but fired from D-25T instead of M-62).
R2Y2 was realish, as it was a proposal to take an R2Y airframe and put engines under the wings. I.E. R2Y2 V1 is the most realistic. V2 and V3 kind of went off the wall though, those aren’t real to the same extent as to my knowledge there was no proposal for those.
Crazy to see german bulldogs be with HEAT shells at just 0.3 higher than American ones and none to complain, and at same time threads like this where people dont even care to do minimal research.
So in other words im right.
Nothing but the gun existed.
And yet again im right, nothing but proposal and nothing being really made for it.
Nothing, im just mentioning it.
Thank you on this part already, bringing few options to either add/replace the shell with on post war modernised heavy tanks.
Yes, like I said this shell technically existed. No need to post that photo, I have seen it. In fact this is 1 of 2 photos of this shell that seem to exists at all.
Wow, an internet blog! Clearly a much more reputable source than the historical documents I’ve posted.
It’s also doesn’t prove squat.
There is only ONE mention of the BR-471D shell in the link you’ve posted.
It gives the source for this info the footnote no. 6
And guess what? There is grand total of 0 mentions of this shell there.
So, now I expect you to apologize for wasting my time and to find a better source to back your claim.
Edit: the source for this information is listed as: “Техника и вооружение. Вчера, сегодня, завтра…» №9, 2008”. An article in a russian journal about AFVs.
But this still doesn’t change what I said: these penetration values look plausible, but they still do not prove that this shell was adopted in service.
I am not gonna search for anything for a man who failed that hard to search to begin with.
And it pretty much answers for the question of if its a serial shell or not.
Good luck to you trying to search something post war out of Stalin’s USSR tho.
Especially funny that BR471 and BR471B/D are literally same shells, just with different cap and fuse, meaning even finding the fuse would prove the shell to exist.
Also I would read through the thing (skim read at least) because when I’ve looked at USN/USAF documents before they don’t register the text as text and essentially treat each page as an image, so ctrl + F doesn’t do anything
But anyway service adoption doesn’t really mean things in war thunder, what matters imo is time of introduction/development/existence. For example, despite using the same gun, a Leopard 2K should not get DM73, even though it is in theory capable of using it, because of the time difference. That’s why in my post I specified the late war heavies specifically and not all of them, as BR-471D was (to my understanding) a post-war development.
My guess is that the 122mm APCBC was supposed to be introduced for the T-10 but with the later more powerfull 122mm cannon, they changed the designation to BR-472, since that was the only AP round the more powerfull 122mm fired. So the shell was probably only called BR-471D for a short time and the stocks of old BR-471 and BR-471Bs were instead issued to the IS-2s, IS-3s and IS-4s that were kept in reserve.
The higher the velocity, the more you get out of APC shells. Being able to pierce thick armor plates like on turrets, while flat shells have very poor performance under such conditions.
So it makes sense that 100mm and 85mm high velocity guns would change to APC rounds, and that the 122mm APC was mainly developed for the high velocity 122mm M-62 cannon.
The photo of the shell posted is NOT the BR-472, look it has a single driving band while the BR-472 has double driving bands, like the Pzgr.39/42 and Pzgr. 39/43 and other shells designed to be fired from a high pressure/high velocity guns.
Like I said, probably it was intended for the T-10 with the D-25TS but after the T-10 received the more powerful cannon they changed the round to be fired from the new cannon, creating BR-472.
They probably didn’t bother producing the APC shell for the D-25T and thus the BR-471D only existed for a short period.
