Ground vehicles 128mm APDS (treibspiegelgeschoss mit H-kern)

[Tantor57 10,318]

Muts be past into development and added. All tanks enjoy ammo upgrades but the Maus and it it's the only tank which lacks an ammo to reliably defeat other T V heavy tanks. This ammo got built and tested and there are pen values about it.

[GeckesPilotHUN 2,391]

Finally somebody made a suggestion about my hoped überammo  :lol:

 

Take my full support!! :salute:  

 +1000 gibgibgibgib

[Sir_Timmey 121]

What are we waiting? German T5 tanks need this! :good:

[Ruslan_DR 686]

What are we waiting? German T5 tanks need this! :good:

well, if we want the round, then we have to wait at least until the end of december for more suggestions to be passed. The ones that are passed seem to be passed depending on month submitted, since this is november, and the last accepted ones were from october, you can guess :P

In the meantime if anyone wants to help, more information on the round is always better. 

[Stronk_Memes 111]

.... actually now that you mention it yes, I do happen to know ONE person.... Didn't think to ask because he's not typically a ballistics teacher! But, it isn't impossible.

Well hey, go ahead and give it a try. (: There are surely formulas with which to calculate penetration. All he's gotta do is plug in numbers and math it out. (:

[Jansza 65]

I am against the powercreep in general, but the creep has gone so far that German T5 just plain needs this.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Well I emailed Odermatt, he says due to the nature of how long-rod penetrators work when compared to APDS, it's practically an entirely different equation. However, if we ever push further into the future this may prove useful at that time.

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

delet pls

Edited November 26, 2015 by JG27_Iluminas

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

here regarding the calculation and etc made in the other thread so that it is now here

[spoiler]

 

Well there is a thread discussing APDS ammo for the 128mm. It should have around 400mm of penetration.

 

 

350mm*

 

 

Even with 350/400mm penetration it still has a long reload

 

And as much as i would want that ammo I highly doubt it will be added 

 

IF it will be added OR the post about it gets passed to the devs i will include the waffenträger/sturer emil

 

But for now no sorry

 

 

would atleast have around  325mm at 1000m flat plate US Navy 50/50 pen rule

 

 

 

 

 

it would be interesting to get some info about 128mm APDS for test how it would preform.

i know that core is 88mm pzgr 43 with wooden sabot and velocity is about 200m/s higher than standard round with penetration of about 245mm at 30degree 1km. and possible 350mm at point blank. as the core is APCR slope performance like early APDS or standard APCR.

i already did tests for 120mm T53 APCR T62 with hat 381mm at 30degree 914m and 318mm at 1829m, shell penetrated everything except IS-4 and T-10 (except for lower plates) i can give video from test.

 

 

i didn't hat anything to do so i recorded that T62 APCR test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_nSclzJcPk&feature=youtu.be

shell characteristic are quite powerful 381mm at 30degree 914m that almost 495mm at 0 degree, but still barely penetrate 112mm at 60 degree, so round is great at 0-55degree angle, still shooting T-10, IS-4 turrets its 50/50 lottery.

but there is something strange round have set to produce 120fragments 15mm penetration and 10dmg each at 45 degree cone and with give 1200 total dmg, yet many of them (if not most) sometimes are absorbed by 1-2 modules... similar thing happened with 120mm m358 round with hat 200 fragments 25mm penetration and 12dmg at 60 degree cone giving about 2400 dmg, but on smaller scale

 

12.8cm APDS have worse basic penetration only 318mm at 0 degree 1km, but bigger core would possibly (im not in 100% sure) give better anti-slope performance but hard to tell as core is 88mm APCR

 

EDIT/ T62 is round name... for 120mm T53 gun with is way to 120mm m58 still round characteristic are for T53 gun i didn't changed them for M58 were possibly they would be higher

 

 

here is maus APDS test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ru1Zb23WO4&feature=youtu.be

not much great round, 88mm APCR core don't allow proper slope penetration power

 

 

where did you get a APDS for the Maus????

 

 

the same way as APCR and APCBC for M103 codding way.

here are penetration figures

      ArmorPower0m:p2=351.0
      ArmorPower100m:p2=350.0
      ArmorPower250m:p2=345.0
      ArmorPower500m:p2=339.0
      ArmorPower750m:p2=330.0
      ArmorPower1000m:p2=322.0
      ArmorPower1250m:p2=306.0
      ArmorPower1500m:p2=293.0
      ArmorPower2000m:p2=271.0
      ArmorPower2500m:p2=242.0
      ArmorPower3000m:p2=200.0

that are estimated values based on available data and performance of 8.8cm pzgr 40/43 (improved penetration and decreased penetration loss due to better stability of APDS, as core was modification of 8.8cm pzgr 40)

 

 

i used available data for 322mm @ 30 degree at 1km done by JG27_Iluminas ( i always forget about that converting using German standards, at last not this time), stability and velocity changes for 88mm pzgr 40/43 core from APCR to APDS (APDS is more stable than APCR). with gives me 351mm at point blank (350mm was posted on that topic with is close), value of drop over distance was based on 88mm pzgr 40/43 with improved stability (i compared loss from 1km as we know that values for both shells) so smaller penetration drop over distance.

my data was mainly based on that topic: http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/275083-128mm-apds-treibspiegelgeschoss-mit-h-kern/ anyway, theoretically it could go higher but then velocity don't match as normal pzgr 40/43 have 1200m/s and APDS have 1260m/s so it bit impossible in that way to get 400mm of penetration for the same core. i know that slope modifiers can be bit underperforming (gaijin lazy, can't do two separate slope modifiers for early and late APDS)

 

fell free to post anything

 

 

m/s of the Pzgr 40/43 ingame is wrong irl it had 1130m/s looking at ww2 ballitics  3706f/s = 1129,6 m/s   (f is feet)

[spoiler][/spoiler]

 

 

thx for info now it makes more sens using only DeMarre i get 366.8mm

 

 

now 400mm is possible to archive still not T62 APCR level, but now it would be nice choice over corrected 128mm pzgr 43 (280-290mm at point blank as kwk 44 used heavy charge giving higher velocity) when needed

 

 

well try again ;)s

[spoiler]

 

for

APC 282mm pen 100 yards at 2886f/s = 880m/s use demarre and make that to 920m/s

APCBC 267mm pen 100yards at 2772f/s = 845m/s  and change that also to 920m/s

 

 

i get values of 300mm+ pen :salute:

 

[/spoiler]

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: btw this over 400mm pen comes from me  when i thought that those 1260m/s is what the shell has at 1km so that the MV should be higher at the Muzzle

 

 

sry it was long time ago when i looked at your bug-report https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/239151-id-0028815-wrong-penetraiton-values-of-the-kwkpak-44-128l55/

 

 

yep yep thats why i said when i "thought"

 

 

i really need to work less...

anyway value of 370-390mm is possible if accounting that APDS is more stable than APCR... (now i forgot that it give 7% or 1.7% of additional penetration...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[/spoiler]

[Ruslan_DR 686]

I just realised something, JG, we're IDIOTS.

 

This whole time we've been using PZGR 39! for the calculations! The document states  that if possible, the core was to be a sub-caliber Pzgr 40, which is APCR. Why is this important? Look at the name of the shell in that document, and the thread title. "H-kern" or "Hartkern" refers to a TUNGSTEN round, which means that the round we're calculating may actually be a re-shaped APCR shell, which was re-molded and added onto, and that's why this shell looks so oddly shaped. This would also explain it's penetration values and why we find it weird to calculate. Could we try and do it again, but with the idea it may be tungsten? The document states this, and looking at the round again it's not entirely impossible for this to be a disguised Pzgr 40.

[igeticsu 3,400]

I just realised something, JG, we're IDIOTS.

 

This whole time we've been using PZGR 39! for the calculations! The document states  that if possible, the core was to be a sub-caliber Pzgr 40, which is APCR. Why is this important? Look at the name of the shell in that document, and the thread title. "H-kern" or "Hartkern" refers to a TUNGSTEN round, which means that the round we're calculating may actually be a re-shaped APCR shell, which was re-molded and added onto, and that's why this shell looks so oddly shaped. This would also explain it's penetration values and why we find it weird to calculate. Could we try and do it again, but with the idea it may be tungsten? The document states this, and looking at the round again it's not entirely impossible for this to be a disguised Pzgr 40.

.....oops xD

[Redneck1 1,882]

AS much sense as that makes, you have to realise that it WOULD have had this ammo, and it's even real so it isn't a fantasy, just look at the photograph re-listed in the first post. The maus would have used this ammo had the war went on and on, so it was neither only in plan form, nor was it not intended to exist, we have the maus, but the tank itself was only cancelled because of a lack of resources. This means that there is really no reason it should not have been included.

 

Implying the Maus would have gone to production, the E100 would ever have worked...... Then we see increase in demand of steel plates, high pressure resistant Gun barrels which all two need, Tadaaaaaa Tungsten in their formula

Increase in high duty gears, which again need tadaaa Tungsten

 

To make those gears and other parts you need gear cutting and other tools... which again need tadaaa Tungsten

 

Then again we all know germany was having it´s teeth cut in, what if, would have ...... (if not we be living in a really sad world right now) we do not know.

 

We do know Tungsten does not grow on trees!

We do know that by Mid 43 the Tungsten was removed from making shells and to be used for machining.

We do know that not every PzGr 40 was HK  the were:

 

PzGr 40 HK (HartKern): Subcaliber tungsten round of the APCR type
PzGr 40 W (Weicheisen): Subcaliber iron round of the APCR type
PzGr 40 St (Stahlkern): Subcaliber steel round of the APCR type

 

 

So what kind of PzGr would have been the donor for this round? HK is very doubtful!

 

And yeahh this varies your Pen values by a mile, so does it vary the flight path..... Nedless to say that every guns accuracy depends on the ammo used (dispersion and drop), so if that round should qualify to be put in game, i would like to have all those values available and not again be a product from math based on a sterile environment with best possible outcome!

 

Hey..not against it per se....just bemoaning that they completely ditched historical accuracy in vehicle stats all around. Another year and the game will be indistinguishable from WoT.

 

Is there any difference anymore between the two? I really gt the feeling that WOT is actually more historical accurate when it comes down to vehicle representation Armor schemes and penetration calculations. At least their work and effort put into research.

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

I just realised something, JG, we're IDIOTS.

 

This whole time we've been using PZGR 39! for the calculations! The document states  that if possible, the core was to be a sub-caliber Pzgr 40, which is APCR. Why is this important? Look at the name of the shell in that document, and the thread title. "H-kern" or "Hartkern" refers to a TUNGSTEN round, which means that the round we're calculating may actually be a re-shaped APCR shell, which was re-molded and added onto, and that's why this shell looks so oddly shaped. This would also explain it's penetration values and why we find it weird to calculate. Could we try and do it again, but with the idea it may be tungsten? The document states this, and looking at the round again it's not entirely impossible for this to be a disguised Pzgr 40.

Pzgr 40/43 was used for the calculation.............

Implying the Maus would have gone to production, the E100 would ever have worked...... Then we see increase in demand of steel plates, high pressure resistant Gun barrels which all two need, Tadaaaaaa Tungsten in their formula

Increase in high duty gears, which again need tadaaa Tungsten

 

To make those gears and other parts you need gear cutting and other tools... which again need tadaaa Tungsten

 

Then again we all know germany was having it´s teeth cut in, what if, would have ...... (if not we be living in a really sad world right now) we do not know.

 

We do know Tungsten does not grow on trees!

We do know that by Mid 43 the Tungsten was removed from making shells and to be used for machining.

We do know that not every PzGr 40 was HK  the were:

 

PzGr 40 HK (HartKern): Subcaliber tungsten round of the APCR type
PzGr 40 W (Weicheisen): Subcaliber iron round of the APCR type
PzGr 40 St (Stahlkern): Subcaliber steel round of the APCR type

 

 

So what kind of PzGr would have been the donor for this round? HK is very doubtful!

 

And yeahh this varies your Pen values by a mile, so does it vary the flight path..... Nedless to say that every guns accuracy depends on the ammo used (dispersion and drop), so if that round should qualify to be put in game, i would like to have all those values available and not again be a product from math based on a sterile environment with best possible outcome!

 

 

Is there any difference anymore between the two? I really gt the feeling that WOT is actually more historical accurate when it comes down to vehicle representation Armor schemes and penetration calculations. At least their work and effort put into research.

every Pzgr 40/43 for the 88mm was as far as i know made from Tungsten

[arczer25 5,202]

for now i got

using 7% APDS mod = 390mm

using 1.7% (i forgot with one is good) = 370mm

with 0.95x mod for possible DeMarre errors

7% = 370mm

1.7% = 351mm

 

i used conversion for 245mm @ 30 degree at 1km done by JG27_Iluminas with give 322mm @ 0 degree at 1km ( i always forget about that converting using German standards, at last not this time), stability and velocity changes for 88mm pzgr 40/43 core from APCR to APDS (APDS is more stable than APCR). with gives me 351mm at point blank (350mm was posted on that topic with is close), value of drop over distance was based on 88mm pzgr 40/43 with improved stability (i compared loss from 1km as we know that values for both shells at that distance) so smaller penetration drop over distance (at last for 1km).

video from test 1.7% with 0.95x mod (formally video was done by wrong calculation values (1200m/s for pzgr 40/43 and 5% 351mm) but using new i got the same values with correct 1.7% and 0.95x mod and 1130m/s for pzgr 40/43 so video is fine and correct, thx god)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ru1Zb23WO4

here are penetration figures

      ArmorPower0m:p2=351.0
      ArmorPower100m:p2=350.0
      ArmorPower250m:p2=345.0
      ArmorPower500m:p2=339.0
      ArmorPower750m:p2=330.0
      ArmorPower1000m:p2=322.0
      ArmorPower1250m:p2=306.0
      ArmorPower1500m:p2=293.0
      ArmorPower2000m:p2=271.0
      ArmorPower2500m:p2=242.0
      ArmorPower3000m:p2=200.0

Edited November 28, 2015 by arczer25

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Updated with given, or otherwise calculated specifications.

 

We've done it!

[igeticsu 3,400]

YAY! :D Now add it! -.-

[TheJoker1432 1,974]

well gaijin what do you say?

[RohmMohc 11,494]

well gaijin what do you say?

"need more data" (really) meanwhile IS-2 130mm Cheeks: one source enough... maus turret... never enough sources.. and missing armour around engine and the cooling...

[arczer25 5,202]

"need more data" (really) meanwhile IS-2 130mm Cheeks: one source enough... maus turret... never enough sources.. and missing armour around engine and the cooling...

i only know that that cheeks should have 100mm, totally no info about 130mm..., also why lower sides are cast armor? they totally look like rolled. also upper front plate (that angled at 60 degree) varied from 90mm to 120mm between IS-2-44 models they chosen strongest one... (some of them hat 100mm some 120mm and lightweight hat 90mm

Edited November 28, 2015 by arczer25

[RohmMohc 11,494]

i'm talking about the Mods front glacis cheeks, they were 90mm and then one guy in the russian forum had a pre production blue print where it was said 130mm... this isngle source was enough to upgrade the armour....

 

 

also why lower sides are cast armor

maybe same reason why the Maus turret front is cast instead of RHA?

Edited November 28, 2015 by RohmMohc

[arczer25 5,202]

i'm talking about the Mods front glacis cheeks, they were 90mm and then one guy in the russian forum had a pre production blue print where it was said 130mm... this isngle source was enough to upgrade the armour....

 

maybe same reason why the Maus turret front is cast instead of RHA?

nothing more to say

[RohmMohc 11,494]

i wished i could dig out that bug report but since i don't remember what it was in russian letters... and i cant type em... i cant search it right now....

 

wait found it

https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/156908-oshibka-v-bronirovanii-korpusa-is-2/

 

because of this single source the IS-2 Mod now has 130mm side cheeks on the front armour...meanwhile x gazillion sources for different other stuff:not of important tovarish))))))))))))

Edited November 28, 2015 by RohmMohc

[arczer25 5,202]

i wished i could dig out that bug report but since i don't remember what it was in russian letters... and i cant type em... i cant search it right now....

 

wait found it

https://forum.warthunder.ru/index.php?/topic/156908-oshibka-v-bronirovanii-korpusa-is-2/

 

because of this single source the IS-2 Mod now has 130mm side cheeks on the front armour...meanwhile x gazillion sources for different other stuff:not of important tovarish))))))))))))

meanwhile IS-2-44 have still 120mm/60 plate when any IS-2-44 didn't hat it it was nor 100mm/60 Cast or 90mm/60 rolled or 120mm/30 cast (early) of course no one cares about that, but when cheeks with are usually found in area of 100mm, someone found 1 document about cast variation of cheek instant change...

i don't much understand what is on that picture but there is 100mm and 130mm not 115mm and 130mm like in game also it don't point directly at the cheek but more machine gun area were cast variation is much more likely.

Edited November 28, 2015 by arczer25

[RohmMohc 11,494]

meanwhile IS-2-44 have still 120mm/60 plate when any IS-2-44 didn't hat it it was nor 100mm/60 Cast or 90mm/60 rolled or 120mm/30 cast (early) of course no one cares about that, but when cheeks with are usually found in area of 100mm, someone found 1 document about cast variation of cheek instant change...

I didnt KNOW about the frontplate thing before... but thats the same crap as the Maus turret... we bring dozen sources: who cares... some russian guy brings one source that buffs the IS-2 Mod 44: implemented

[arczer25 5,202]

I didnt KNOW about the frontplate thing before... but thats the same crap as the Maus turret... we bring dozen sources: who cares... some russian guy brings one source that buffs the IS-2 Mod 44: implemented

i don't much understand what is on that picture but there is 100mm and 130mm not 115mm and 130mm like in game also it don't point directly at the cheek but more machine gun area were other cast variation is much more likely.

Edited November 28, 2015 by arczer25