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

[RohmMohc 11,494]

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.

look further down in the bug report.. and the first picture: before 1.53 the IS-2 had 90mm there... now it has 130mm....

Edited November 28, 2015 by RohmMohc

[arczer25 5,202]

look further down in the bug report.. and the first picture: before 1.53 the IS-2 had 90mm there... now it has 130mm....

im talking about this

[attachment=173912:240-50-60_Osnovanie_kolpaka_(katannyj_nos).1439797983.jpg]

but after closer look entire sloped area should be 130mm without 115mm ones, but really don't understand russian..

[RohmMohc 11,494]

im talking about this

240-50-60_Osnovanie_kolpaka_(katannyj_nos).1439797983.jpg

but after closer look entire sloped area should be 130mm without 115mm ones, but really don't understand russian..

amusingly this is afaik the only source that gives this thick armour to those places... all other had 90mms there

[arczer25 5,202]

amusingly this is afaik the only source that gives this thick armour to those places... all other had 90mms there

90mm sources are mainly based on older 1943 variant (from with is also incorrect 120/60...) 100mm was closer to real, even war-gaming chosen 100mm for cheeks of new IS-2 (new models from about ~2014.04 are done in correct historic way, as stated when sources are available "armor isn't balance value anymore")

Edited November 28, 2015 by arczer25

[RohmMohc 11,494]

90mm sources are mainly based on older 1943 variant (from with is also incorrect 120/60...) 100mm was closer to real, even war-gaming chosen 100mm for cheeks of new IS-2 (new models from about ~2014.04 are done in correct historic way, as stated when sources are available "armor isn't balance value anymore")

then the one ingame is still overperforming... by 30mms... could we cut them away and slap 16mm of those onto the Maus turret and then transform it into RHA?

[arczer25 5,202]

then the one ingame is still overperforming... by 30mms... could we cut them away and slap 16mm of those onto the Maus turret and then transform it into RHA?

good idea. anyway im searching something about maus armor as it wasn't simple RHA, it similar to B class American armor on with based was STS armor "A quarter inch (6mm) of STS could stop a 0.5" (12.7mm) bullet" while it hat ballistic mod of 0.95x when B class hat 1.0x

Maus "Wotan" homogeneous armor hat quality value of 660 but other plates weren't specified

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/A/r/Armor.htm

homogenous cast armor got 0.9 ballistic mod, in this way it gives me 1.05x for B class using ballistic mods

Edited November 28, 2015 by arczer25

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

good idea. anyway im searching something about maus armor as it wasn't simple RHA, it similar to B class American armor on with based was STS armor "A quarter inch (6mm) of STS could stop a 0.5" (12.7mm) bullet" while it hat ballistic mod of 0.95x when B class hat 1.0x

Maus "Wotan" homogeneous armor hat quality value of 660 but other plates weren't specified

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/A/r/Armor.htm

homogenous cast armor got 0.9 ballistic mod, in this way it gives me 1.05x for B class using ballistic mods

here also an good read http://www.combinedfleet.com/okun_biz.htm

[Ruslan_DR 686]

WELL I GUESS THIS became a talk thread since we've finished with the APDS, really all it needs to be is cleaned up and submitted

[SMS_Elbing 7,052]

wow i didnt think their was a surviving example of it, i had read on the internet that apds round where in development but never entered service. but that was only for the 88mm never heard of one for the 128mm pak cannon 

either way great find and yes please gaijin

[arczer25 5,202]

wow i didnt think their was a surviving example of it, i had read on the internet that apds round where in development but never entered service. but that was only for the 88mm never heard of one for the 128mm pak cannon 

either way great find and yes please gaijin

that was experimental APDS with was tested, but didn't entered the service due to coming end of war, possibly it would do that with core improvements increasing penetration potential

Edited November 29, 2015 by arczer25

[Redneck1 1,882]

 

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

 

Funky if you consider that the introduction of the Guns that were able to fir that round crosses perfectly with the time the order was given to no longer waste Tungsten for shells and all remaining Tungsten cores where to be returned!

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

i found something  really nice (sadly not for the 128mm APDS) an Protokoll of Ammo test

 

here an example

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

what do we see there test of the Pzgr 39 (TS) 150/88

look at the penetration (german criteria so its meant 30° from the vertical) at 100m 120mm penetration would translate to 158mm penetration at 100m 0°plate US50/50 criteria

and that from this weapon platform

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

this also proofs that they where testing/using those rounds

 

 

Edit: the Protokoll is even talking about fin stabilized HE rounds for 50mm-210mm

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

Edited November 29, 2015 by JG27_Iluminas

[RohmMohc 11,494]

i found something  really nice (sadly not for the 128mm APDS) an Protokoll of Ammo test

 

here an example

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

what do we see there test of the Pzgr 39 (TS) 150/88

look at the penetration (german criteria so its meant 30° from the vertical) at 100m 120mm penetration would translate to 158mm penetration at 100m 0°plate US50/50 criteria

and that from this weapon platform

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

this also proofs that they where testing/using those rounds

 

 

Edit: the Protokoll is even talking about fin stabilized HE rounds for 50mm-210mm

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

wasn't there also a APFSDS for the 37mm gun, atleast in planning?

[igeticsu 3,400]

This makes me wonder why we dont have the APCR shell for the 12.8cm gun in the first place?

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

wasn't there also a APFSDS for the 37mm gun, atleast in planning?

yes but nothing about that round in there

http://www.file-upload.net/download-11081220/wapruefstabteil21942.pdf.html

This makes me wonder why we dont have the APCR shell for the 12.8cm gun in the first place?

to much tungsten for 1 round

[RohmMohc 11,494]

yes but nothing about that round in there

http://www.file-upload.net/download-11081220/wapruefstabteil21942.pdf.html

darn

[Redneck1 1,882]

i found something  really nice (sadly not for the 128mm APDS) an Protokoll of Ammo test

 

here an example

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

what do we see there test of the Pzgr 39 (TS) 150/88

look at the penetration (german criteria so its meant 30° from the vertical) at 100m 120mm penetration would translate to 158mm penetration at 100m 0°plate US50/50 criteria

and that from this weapon platform

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

this also proofs that they where testing/using those rounds

 

 

Edit: the Protokoll is even talking about fin stabilized HE rounds for 50mm-210mm

[spoiler]

[/spoiler]

 

And? Those papers tell us?

 

First one is a devloppement Criteria, they want it to pen those values at given angles....... Not that such was achieved,

Design demand =/= Obtained result from actual testing

 

Second one says, that 10 shots were made with one of the guns in question, the tests are not promising to date and more need to be made to solve the issues.

 

 

 

What does however attract my attention, is hte Date those papers were made, which is before the introduction of the Tiger and Panther tanks which are either being finalized or still in finalization, and the F2/ G Panzer 4 are slowly being deployed.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

darn

 

Welp, guess what the Panzer 38T is getting now :V

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

@arczer25

 

do u know/have an formula  mh hard to translate to english i try it like this

 

 

150mm/L28   = 550m/s

150mm/L39   =  ????

same gun its just longer is there an formular to calculate the MV on the longer one? (hope its not as easy as the rule of three)

[arczer25 5,202]

@arczer25

 

do u know/have an formula  mh hard to translate to english i try it like this

 

 

150mm/L28   = 550m/s

150mm/L39   =  ????

same gun its just longer is there an formular to calculate the MV on the longer one? (hope its not as easy as the rule of three)

i didn't know any formula as this is usually more gun specific. but comparing to 5cm kwk 38 and 5cm kwk 39 (they use the same cartage) i get 0,01216 per 1 caliber length (xxx/Lxxx) with give me 623m/s for L39 but that can be incorrect.

WG give AP and HE shell 757m/s and HEAT 606m/s but that can be also incorrect.

here i founded some formula but i don't know that it apply to this gun http://arc.id.au/CannonBallistics.html

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

i didn't know any formula as this is usually more gun specific. but comparing to 5cm kwk 38 and 5cm kwk 39 (they use the same cartage) i get 0,01216 per 1 caliber length (xxx/Lxxx) with give me 623m/s for L39 but that can be incorrect.

WG give AP and HE shell 757m/s and HEAT 606m/s but that can be also incorrect.

here i founded some formula but i don't know that it apply to this gun http://arc.id.au/CannonBallistics.html

50mmL42 APC had 684m/s

50mmL60 APC had 835m/s

Edited November 29, 2015 by JG27_Iluminas

[arczer25 5,202]

50mmL42 APC had 684m/s

50mmL60 APC had 835m/s

i used that values, i can't get other way right now

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

ah ok

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Tier 5 is dead, it is only a drop on a hot stone when you add the ammo for the WW2 tanks to fight against Tanks produced and or delivered after 1955.

 

that a Maus and or a Tiger would battle against a IS3 tank would be fully ok for me, but later Tanks like a IS4 and IS10 is a absolut no go for me. this is also true for the US Tanks.

 

Yup, but even little changes add up. it's not much.... but it's something.

[igeticsu 3,400]

Personly I don't care that a WW2 tank fights a cold war tank. If they are an even match, it doesn't matter which year they are from. Problem is that most cold war tanks are not an even match for ww2 tanks.