Because it is not quite APCR, and we all know that APCR sucks in this game.
2 Likes
You haven’t explained why it isn’t. In real life it’s called “APCNR” for “Non-Rigid”, but the functionality is the exact same.
It’s a tungsten carbide core enveloped by a jacket made of a lighter material so as to decrease the overall weight of the projectile, increasing its velocity, and delivering the high density, small caliber tungsten carbide core into the plate of armor at said increased velocity.
5 Likes
Yes, i know. But again, the issue is, that in game APCR is absolutely trash. It is also “not APCR”, because after the squeeze bore shell leaves the barrel, it looks like a solidshot, those “sticking out fins” are going to be pressed to the “core”. So it is more aerodynamic, than APCR. It is like APDS.
But if you want to play with ta tank, that is
a, has no armor
b, slow
c, can’t do anything, because it uses a uesless ammo
Then this tank is going to be your favourite.
The other reason is taht, knowing Gaijin, they will go for the APCR anyway.
2 Likes
I don’t see the problem? Armor seems to be good and this tank can be balanced with the right br. If the gun is that bad then put it at 4.3 where the armor is great
2 Likes
Still does not fixes the problem of the shell.
Also, even at 4.3 that armor is not going to be good
1 Like
Not all APCR is of arrowhead design. Just as an example, here’s the armor piercing ammunition for the 90 mm M3 cannon, M304 APCR, M82 APCBC and T33 APBC, not in that order.
Spoiler
You can probably guess which is which, but the point is that the APCR here is not of arrowhead design.
Even some German APCR rounds, such as the ones on the Kwk42 and 43 (and even the Kwk40 from what I can tell), aren’t of arrowhead design and externally just look like normal AP rounds.
Spoiler
2 Likes
It still does not change the fact that it would be unplayable.
Good luck penetrating a T-34, or even a Sherman with APCR.
Even if it pens, the gamage is just awful.
At least advocate for APDS. That thing at least has less speed drop, and has better angle performance, so you will be able to pen angled armor…
1 Like
3 Likes
With that gun, it would be just a slower Panzer 4. It would be better that wth other gun, but again, just play a Panzer 4. it is faster, better armor, and the same gun.
Slower ? He is sure ?
It is faster and better armored than the PzIV.
And once again I will repeat!
We already have a 5.0 with 100mm of armor using this gun, and it performs well.
Imagine a Tiger I engine, carrying 10 tons less.
This is a VK3601
3 Likes
I am in a different discussion about the VK 3001, and i was mistaken, i though i was on that forum.
Yes, you are right.
However, i would like to oint out, that you are talking about a KV-1. That KV-1 is just better armored, than the Tiger 1.
Vith the VK’s armor, the problem is the very weak side, turret, and cupola armor. You can angle a Tiger, but you just can’t angle this VK in way to make the front effective, while the side being effective too.
80mm turret front, with a Panther style mantlet is just bad. It is flat, and the mantlet is effective 70-75mm, since it is probably cast armor, and not a black hole mess, like on the Tiger.
50mm cupola? Yes, soviet 45mm go brrrrrrrrrr.
1 Like
Maybe this works fine in 4.7 do you think?
i would say 4.3. It would be a good 4.3, and a usable 4.7
1 Like
+1 gib!!!
1 Like
I’m not holding my breath, but if the devs took the time to model APCNR correctly I’d be pleasantly surprised. It’d add some spice to the German tech tree instead of your typical ‘APCBC-HE go brrrr’
1 Like
Why dont you copy this over to the real suggestion part?
1 Like
i will do it, thanks mate
You may copy my post and mention me or link it to save some time. 7,5/5,5 cm Pak 41 KwK 41 or Waffe 0725
1 Like
I tried to post in the suggestions tab, but I couldn’t.
If you are a native English speaker, could you do this?
I mean i can do one, but not copy yours thats pagarism.
1 Like