Unlike T50E1, Pzgr-TS actually has different characteristics compared to the normal AP rounds (that is, different weight, caliber, velocity, so on). It performs differently even tough it uses the same calculator as the 128 mm rounds.
T50E1 has identical characteristics to M82/T41, same weight, same caliber, same velocity, same explosive filler. The differences that T50 has are not covered by the calculator (it uses a different steel type, and has a different nose and cap compared to M82/T41). That would mean that if you want T50E1 to have different performance to M82/T41, then a completely separate calculator would need to be done just for T50E1, including slope modifiers just for this round.
If Pzgr-TS could have been added, which was proven to be completely fake, why couldn’t the same be done for the T50E1, which would nicely boost the T32’s gun?
Read my comment again. I’m not saying it “can’t be added”, I’m saying that unless Gaijin specifically makes a calculator and new slope modifiers just for T50E1, the performance will be identical to the T41 APCBC round, as the weight, velocity, caliber and explosive filler are all identical.
By comparison, Pzgr-TS has different performance because the basic characteristics of that round are different compared to the other 128 mm projectiles. It’s the same calculator as any other basic AP round, the same slope modifier table as any other capped AP.
Edit: This also has nothing to do with if the round is fake or not. Pzgr-TS isn’t “fake” either way, it’s a real round that existed, it simply shattered a lot during testing.
Well the Pzgr-TS’s performance in-game is completely made up, they can do the same with T50E1 by making it hardcoded to have better sloped pen than M82.
By the way, Pzgr-TS, in its current form, mounted on the Maus and E-100, is absolutely completely fake as that ammo existed only for the 105 mm StuH howitzer, and THERE it shattered constantly. The current implementation is completely fake and the ammo’s existence was proven false years ago, there was even a great Reddit thread on how fake it was.
T50 would have better performance across the board than M82. M82 had a large cap and may have not had good heat treat. T50 had a smaller cap and a larger penetrator.
M82 penetrated a 4” 260 BHN plate at 2030 fps. T50 penetrated a 5” 260 BHN plate at 2176 FPS. Demarring both to 2800 and 3200 fps would be 161mm and 194mm for the M82, and 182mm and 220mm for the T50. Using in game performance M82/T41 is 185mm and 224mm, which would put T50 at 208mm and 253mm.
The penetration performance of all AP projectiles in WarThunder is made up as they are all done with a formula, either inside the game (basic AP rounds, APCR and APDS) or outside the game and then coded into the game (APFSDS).
Then I’m certain you can provide proof of that, by actually showing those documents and that reddit thread.
Besides that, there’s German documentation for 128/88 mm projectile that specifies theoretical performance vs the actual achievable performance.
Documents
I found all of this on the old forums after some very quick searching.
A couple things from this document.
It begins by saying at the very top that a 12.8 mm Pzgr.TS is developed/fully developed (“Fertig entwickelt”). Additionally, there’s still a development of another 12.8 cm Pzgr.TS which is basically a simplified version.
There’s a penetration table that has the penetration of the normal Pzgr.43 and the Pzgr.TS round. According to the very bottom, the values in brackets are theoretical performance values that aren’t achieved because of the round’s low durability, and are therefore without practical significance.
So already this document says that 128 mm Pzgr.TS shattered.
The same document has a penetration table that includes multiple TS projectiles. Next to the penetration values of the 128 mm TS round, it says “Entw.kurz vor dem Abschlung” which means “Developed shortly after completion”, again, showing that the projectile had been developed.
Another thing to note is that only the 128 mm TS round shows values in brackets. There are multiple projectiles for the 10.5 cm leFH 18 howitzer, which is what is mounted on the StuH 42, yet none of them have bracketed values, which at least to me indicates that they reached their theoretical performance.
This reddit thread is 6 years old, it makes no use of the documentation I have shown (probably because the document in question was only discovered later), and some of the things it “disproves” are done with outright wrong assumptions.
He highlights a book passage saying:
Wa Pruef 1 awarded Krupp a contract to develop a Treibspiegel-Geschoss mit H-Kern for the 12.8 cm Pz.Jaeger K L/55 (Maus) on 2 July 1943. With a muzzle velocity of 1260 m/s it had a penetration ability of 245 mm at 1000 meters at 30 degrees. IF possible, the sub-caliber core was to be the 8.8 cm Pzgr.40."
And from that passage he concludes that the apparently APHE-DS round for the 12,8 cm cannon was APCR-DS, which simply isn’t a conclusion that can be reached from that passage. All it says is that there was a “hard-core” TS projectile being developed. As seen from the documentation I have provided, there was an actual APHE-DS round. His conclusion is reached due to lack of information, rather than actually having information that disproves some claim. It’s falacious logic.
He provides a photo of a diagram for the 15 cm APHE-DS projectile, which has weight specifications. 9.85 kg and 0.059 kg filler. This matches the information found on that penetration table on the document I showed. It also matches the information for the 128 mm TS round showing that at very very least they used a very similar projectile.
Even then, if the Pzgr-TS shattered so much, it should have much lower performance than what is seen in-game, as the 90 mm T33 has nerfed 0° pen based on its shattering
Rounds get lowered flat penetration on account of them not having a cap (bar some exceptions for balancing reasons, like the APC shot for the 17 pounder, which also gets nerfed because otherwise it would have identical performance to the APCBC in WarThunder).
There is an existing diagram of the 12,8 cm Pzgr.TS, and in that diagram it doesn’t seem to have a cap. However this seems to have been a mistake.
From a logic standpoint, Germans knew that higher velocity rounds needed caps, that’s why caps existed in the first place. So there’s no reason to make a round that is meant specifically to go faster, yet doesn’t have a cap. But beyond that, the diagram has grooves on the round which indicate the mounting of a cap.
Diagram images
This is the diagram for 128 mm Pzgr.TS, and it doesn’t look like it has a cap. However, those “grooves” (red boxes) say otherwise.
Here’s the diagram for the 150 mm Pzgr.TS that is provided in that reddit post, and you can see the exact same “grooves” (again, highlighted with red boxes).
To me it’s pretty clear that the round had a cap, and that there was just an error when making the diagram. There’s no other reason for those grooves to exist other than being the point where the cap is mounted on the penetrator itself. Compared to the 150 mm TS round, the cap would’ve have a different shape, but it seems that the overall weight of the projectile stayed the same, given that the penetration table I posted previously states 9.85 kg for both rounds.
Edit: I also don’t think I need to point out that US WW2 APCBC rounds did actually shatter and malfunction quite a lot.
14.5 seconds aced. The IS-3’s 122mm takes 20 seconds aced, or less difference between it and the long 90mm than the long 90mm has with every other 90mm gun. The T32 also doesn’t get a slope-ignoring APHEBC shell. The BR-471B APHEBC gets a flat pen of 192mm at 500m and 178mm at 1000m, the T41 APBC gets 205mm and 187mm respectively, and with about 100g less of TNT equivalent for filler. Naturally since you never hit at a 0 degree angle in WT, the already minimal penetration differences are going to be even smaller.
Of course RazerVon/AlvisWisla should know that the IS-2 (1944) is a 6.7 vehicle and therefore two full BR brackets below the T32, so I’m not sure what their point is about the armor weaknesses since that sort of thing should be the absolute minimum of expectations, never mind the fact the UFP is almost completely impenetrable aside from the shot trap.
Even without taking into account BR-471B APHEBC, the 122 mm has BR-471D APCBC which has more penetration at all angles and distances compared to T41, no exceptions. At least compared to BR-412B, T41 has a pen advantage up to about 26, 27°.
BR-471B being good against slopes still cannot pen T32E1 at all from the front, and can only pen one of the 3 weakspots of T32 all of which are the hull, 2 are idler wheel positions.
T32 has more armor, an overall better gun, and it shows.
No I don’t use T32 cause playing 7.3 never interested me, and 6.3 doesn’t exist anymore so you’ll always be in 6.7 - 8.3 matches in 7.3 tanks.
I also find the T32 ugly.
I also don’t play IS-3 for the same reasons. Uninteresting.
IS-2s analogue BTW is T26E5. More armor, just as fast, way faster firing gun just with a bad APCBC round and a great APCR round. Yeah it’ll take 1 - 3 shots with T26E5 depending on one’s skill level in that engagement.
No arguments there. I’m far from the best player but its definitely an uphill slog with it. The armor is only effective against WW2 rounds which are fewer and fewer, the gun’s penetration isn’t the best and its reload is almost twice as long as an MBT’s. Its not nimble enough to be a medium and its armor or firepower isn’t reliable enough to be a heavy.
And unlike the IS-3 you don’t have all those round bits that can suck your round into a volumetric black hole, but instead a very nasty gap between the mantlet and turret ring that sucks rounds into your crew compartment.
There is a line or two in each nation that I cannot stand. The only exception is Israel.
Anyway, American 7.7 is by far the worst 7.7 I have played.
And that’s saying something since I’ve played 7.7 America, Germany, Russia, Britain, France, and Israel.
7.7 America is actually unbearable compared to the rest. The only exceptional vehicle is the M103. The M48 is fine so long as you aren’t using the APCR or Capped round.
