Yeah they did but the only penetration improvement they had was at range due to having ballistic caps.
At close range the uncapped solid shot had better penetration by a country mile, due to a multitude of reasons. For example, 76 mm M62 at point blank in real life had around 125, 130 mm of penetration, while M79 surpassed 150 mm.
After all there’s a reason why in the post war years the US basically got rid of APHEBC and resorted to instead putting ballistic caps on their solid shot rounds.
Looking cool mate
Ammo doesn’t spall, armor does.
You’re talking shrapnel.
Technically if it hit ammo it would spall
The US fielded APCBCHE to deal with face hardened armor. After the APCBCHE was shown to be insufficient, APBC was developed to increase performance. The 76mm was T166, modified from the T128 that was fielded for the M41 Walker Bulldog. Never made it to production as the 90mm became the standard. 90mm was the T33 and eventually M318. 105mm had the T37. 120mm had the T116, eventually M358.
The ammo 100% does affect the amount of spall. Acting like armor is the only element that affects amount of spall is delusion.
Yeah, im aware APBC had better performance, but the ballistic cap used on the APHE shells made a difference, thats why the APHE shells were made. But then, they realized the HE filler was more of a detriment, like a lot of other nations.
Later AP rounds had the ballistic cap. The AP cap was better for thick vertical plates and face hardened armor, but those situations were less common on later tanks. AP was better than APC against sloped armor.
How about we give APHE a small chance of critical failure? Let’s say, 10%? The fuze detonates the shell prematurely, before it had time to fully penetrate the armour, cutting its nominal pen in half?
Seems like a fair trade to me and a reason to use solid shot sometimes over APHE.
Fuck off Alvis
Ammo doesn’t shrapnel.
You’re talking fragment.
That’s just some shitty game design, like random ricochets.
There must be logical reasons for things happening.
Like, APHE doesn’t fuze when it penetrates sloped (+45°) armor with less than a certain amount of residual penetration, simulating how the shell would only breach slope armor but break up or ricochet from the plate. Thus the damage would be only spalling and maybe some shell fragments.
This could also be implemented for AP rounds, with the side effect that APHE won’t function in those scenarios.
The amount of residual penetration can depend on the angle, with greater angles requiring more residual penetration performance.
So don’t shoot the Pz IVs glacis armor or the Centurions sloped hull roof, unless you are prepared for only taking out one of the crews, at best.
Well sucks then, because it’s AP that is the issue and not APHE. APCR is also woefully underpowered against angles or in postpen.
hey! thats not a nice word you nut!
Maybe because you have a 1 in 10 chance of having a good take. I’m glad you aren’t a developer in this game.
@CinnamonToePunch @AverageWehraboo
I get you think the WT community is all nothing but bad takes.
I get you hate both roadmaps and see all of their changes as bad takes [since they’re my takes too].
You’re out numbered by thousands of well-informed people.
Funny, because rarely do I see people agree with you on this forum.
Then you don’t really browse as much as you think.
The ~5 major disagreements you may have seen are countered with hundreds, if not thousands, of agreements with other knowledgeable people.
You post on almost all threads and you do nothing but disagree with the initial suggestion. You’re one of the most unfunny trolls I’ve ever seen.