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

[Ruslan_DR 686]

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/239151-id-0028815-wrong-penetraiton-values-of-the-kwkpak-44-128l55/

 

Now that's just insulting. Look at all those sources. Hrmph, well whatever, i'll stay around for the event vehicles if this is the case. They'll fix it EVENTUALLY. That's all we can do, wait :P

Anyways, hopefully they implement this, if it DOES get submitted it should be by the end of the month, in the november/december submission line.

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

Now that's just insulting. Look at all those sources. Hrmph, well whatever, i'll stay around for the event vehicles if this is the case. They'll fix it EVENTUALLY. That's all we can do, wait :P

Anyways, hopefully they implement this, if it DOES get submitted it should be by the end of the month, in the november/december submission line.

u know when i made that bug report??    it was in MAY

[Ruslan_DR 686]

u know when i made that bug report??    it was in MAY

 

yep, when i say eventually i mean after everyone has stopped caring, like, when we have something new to complain about, like an entire new line of tier 5's (is-7, kpz-70, and others for the Americans and british) they may go "Oh hey! look! we fixed those tanks you used to love! yaaaay! Haha, no need to have working top vehicles now right?"

 

 

Etc, etc, they'll do it. Here's hoping we get at least this round. Sure it will be.... nerfed no doubt, but it will be impossible to nerf it past a certain point. once we get 300 mm pen we can do at least SOMETHING. since that's what the L7 currently has.

Edited December 9, 2015 by Ruslan_DR

[PoggerMogger 7,084]

I would have been happy with a T-10A or T-10B with the 3BK10. But, I mean, Leopard 1 and M60 is in the game so it's too late for that now. 

 

Also, 3BM11 should do 450 mm - 0° - 10 m, and the HEAT is correct penetration wise, it's just not the correct shell used in the T-10M. T-10M units used the 3BK9M, which had 460 mm / 200 mm. Pretty sure APDS is nerfed across the board because the T-10M would break everything in half and then some.

 

 

 

Oh no it doesn't. But it's still performing closer to what it should be than the 128. 

oh yeah true, it's 450m, i mistook it for the 3BK7, but yeah, this is 60s ammo on an incredibly powerful gun, in made little sence that it was so close in performance with the L7 in-game, even though the L7 in underperforming too... they should have never added so much cold war stuff but its too late now, with the T-10M in 

[juraleona 3,944]

smb please help:

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/283177-m18-hellcat-missing-heat/?p=5530216

 

And I am very sorry for OT.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

oh yeah true, it's 450m, i mistook it for the 3BK7, but yeah, this is 60s ammo on an incredibly powerful gun, in made little sence that it was so close in performance with the L7 in-game, even though the L7 in underperforming too... they should have never added so much cold war stuff but its too late now, with the T-10M in 

 

Thinking on it, it might be helpful and more likely to be looked at if we worked and made a project with correct pen values for EVERY vehicle compiled into one and sourced. At least then it would be something, and if they buff only the Soviets like people expect them to do, many people won't be happy, so it'll generally mean buffs all around. Hopefully, anyways.

[GeckesPilotHUN 2,391]

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/239151-id-0028815-wrong-penetraiton-values-of-the-kwkpak-44-128l55/

I am still crying because they immidietly corrected the T10m-s apcbc and they still shit on the 128mm cannon ;_;

[PoggerMogger 7,084]

Thinking on it, it might be helpful and more likely to be looked at if we worked and made a project with correct pen values for EVERY vehicle compiled into one and sourced. At least then it would be something, and if they buff only the Soviets like people expect them to do, many people won't be happy, so it'll generally mean buffs all around. Hopefully, anyways.

some will be buffed, some will stay the same, the thing is, there is a decent margin of error when converting from one penetration standard to another and many of the tests you can find give rather contradictory data, so its very hard to find an exact value, all values listed are more or less estimations anyway, assuming hypothetically that the tests used as reference was performed under perfect conditions, but that is very often not the case

[RohmMohc 11,494]

if the Pak44 would atleast be able to do this ingame...

[IceySmooth 198]

+1 

Was Protod, was deployed in some degree, would have been deff used in 1946 in full scale had things been a lil different. Good for balance. All for it. (& I dont even play German)

[Nope 10,634]

Warning: this is complete guesswork. Do not take this as solid fact. You have been warned.

 

So I have somewhat calculated the approximate penetration for this. What you should know involves these:

 

- Penetration of 76mm HVAP from 76mm M32: 255mm

- Penetration of 76mm APDS from 76mm M32: 270mm

- http://longrods.ch/down.php (fourth link, page 7)

 

Now, I can somewhat estimate for the case of the APDS through Pzgr 40/43 (306mm penetration) at increased velocities given that 128mm APDS uses the same core. With conversion I get 366mm or so. However, APDS is not HVAP. This is why I use the ratio given by 76mm APDS divided by 76mm HVAP (270/255). At this point we get close to 390mm apparently.

 

However, this is only pure speculation. This is why I have the second link. Take note of the APDS section, which seems to work for HVAP. The core diameter of Pzgr 40/43 is 36mm, and the muzzle velocity is rated at 1280 m/s. Through this, we get 270mm. That's vastly different, but this is why simple conversion is needed as modern 260 BHN RHA is significantly more refined than German 240 BHN RHA in terms of quality. Taking the value for Pzgr 40/43, I get 200mm or so. This leads to a multiplier of around 1.55. With the exact value, I get around 420mm using something that's seemingly more accurate. Lowering the velocity to the levels of Pzgr 40/43 also brings 350mm penetration: a value that is by all means reasonable.

 

Now, this leaves an estimate of 390-420mm penetration at muzzle. The ballistic coefficients for both values are equally logical for the round. What do you guys think?

Edited December 29, 2015 by Nope

[arczer25 5,202]

Warning: this is complete guesswork. Do not take this as solid fact. You have been warned.

 

So I have somewhat calculated the approximate penetration for this. What you should know involves these:

 

- Penetration of 76mm HVAP from 76mm M32: 255mm

- Penetration of 76mm APDS from 76mm M32: 270mm

- http://longrods.ch/down.php (fourth link, page 7)

 

Now, I can somewhat estimate for the case of the APDS through Pzgr 40/43 (306mm penetration) at increased velocities given that 128mm APDS uses the same core. With conversion I get 366mm or so. However, APDS is not HVAP. This is why I use the ratio given by 76mm APDS divided by 76mm HVAP (270/255). At this point we get close to 390mm apparently.

 

However, this is only pure speculation. This is why I have the second link. Take note of the APDS section, which seems to work for HVAP. The core diameter of Pzgr 40/43 is 36mm, and the muzzle velocity is rated at 1280 m/s. Through this, we get 270mm. That's vastly different, but this is why simple conversion is needed as modern 260 BHN RHA is significantly more refined than German 240 BHN RHA in terms of quality. Taking the value for Pzgr 40/43, I get 200mm or so. This leads to a multiplier of around 1.55. With the exact value, I get around 420mm using something that's seemingly more accurate. Lowering the velocity to the levels of Pzgr 40/43 also brings 350mm penetration: a value that is by all means reasonable.

 

Now, this leaves an estimate of 390-420mm penetration at muzzle. The ballistic coefficients for both values are equally logical for the round. What do you guys think?

problem is that it isn't normal APDS, and 76mm HVAP have different construction, the same with 76mm APDS. also that site is for long rod APFSDS with are late 70 APFSDS¹, not early 45 short APDS.

also 128mm APDS is really have HVAP (APCR) core, as its bit modification of pzgr 40/43 with added diving bands.

 

all thing that you really need is to calculate penetration improvement with improved velocity for pzgr 40/43.

 

last thing: "Lowering the velocity to the levels of Pzgr 40/43 also brings 350mm" that's strange? 128mm APDS is 88mm Pzgr 40/43 fired from 128mm gun so lowering it to 1130m/s you should get about 306mm with is normal pzgr 40/43 penetration at 1130m/s

as in that manner   Pzgr 40/43 =/ Pzgr 40/43

 

¹ from site

 

The Round

The APDSFS ammunition is the main ammunition of modern tanks. It does't contain explosives and uses the high impact velocity to penetrate the target. APDSFS stands for Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot Fin Stabilized. A cylindrical rod - preferably made of a heavy metal like tungsten or depleted uranium - is the heart of the cartridge. This rod penetrates the target material only due to the very high kinetic energy. The hollow space between the gun barrel and the penetrator is filled out with a sabot which transfers the pressure of the propellant gases to the penetrator. The high velocity causes a very flat trajectory with a short flight time and a good accuracy performance.

this is long rod penetrator for what that site is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/125_mm_smoothbore_ammunition#/media/File:125mm_Bm15_APFSDS.JPG

88mm pzgr 40

https://www.google.pl/search?q=120mm+bm23&biw=1280&bih=889&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilksuBkYLKAhVGzxQKHc5VCtQQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=88mm+pzgr+40%2F43&imgrc=iJqLEDbWnhGqTM%3A

see difference?

Edited December 29, 2015 by arczer25

[Ruslan_DR 686]

same reason we didn't use an existing equation on Lanz Odermatt's site.

 

Basically what you're doing is comparing a... say 20mm shell, to a high-powered crossbow, because the APSFDS round is shaped exactly like one. In addition it works different. Where APDS and other eariler AP shells penetrated using their weight and a pointed tip, APFSDS can be completely flat on the head and still go through.

 

The reason why is because while they both use impact force, APFSDS has a longer body, which squishes down as it's used to penetrate a target, essentially consisting of a soft but dense metal. This gives the round greater linear-velocity and Kinetic energy, with the projectile grinding down as it forces it's way through armor.

 

 

Normal APDS and AP however, use their inherent weight, and will generally keep their shape when hitting a target, as they aren't meant to inherently deform on collision.

Edited December 29, 2015 by Ruslan_DR

[arczer25 5,202]

that's also why you don't want to get hit by destabilized APFSDS, its like hit by few ton hammer

[SmartSkull007 2,991]

Yes, gib NAO!

[Ruslan_DR 686]

this would be even better if it was APDSBC, less angle influencing pen, more pen, it's like the best of both worlds.

[BHmaster 288]

I support this, for the sake of balancing  :salute:

[Nope 10,634]

problem is that it isn't normal APDS, and 76mm HVAP have different construction, the same with 76mm APDS. also that site is for long rod APFSDS with are late 70 APFSDS¹, not early 45 short APDS.

also 128mm APDS is really have HVAP (APCR) core, as its bit modification of pzgr 40/43 with added diving bands.

 

all thing that you really need is to calculate penetration improvement with improved velocity for pzgr 40/43.

 

last thing: "Lowering the velocity to the levels of Pzgr 40/43 also brings 350mm" that's strange? 128mm APDS is 88mm Pzgr 40/43 fired from 128mm gun so lowering it to 1130m/s you should get about 306mm with is normal pzgr 40/43 penetration at 1130m/s

as in that manner   Pzgr 40/43 =/ Pzgr 40/43

same reason we didn't use an existing equation on Lanz Odermatt's site.

 

Basically what you're doing is comparing a... say 20mm shell, to a high-powered crossbow, because the APSFDS round is shaped exactly like one. In addition it works different. Where APDS and other eariler AP shells penetrated using their weight and a pointed tip, APFSDS can be completely flat on the head and still go through.

 

The reason why is because while they both use impact force, APFSDS has a longer body, which squishes down as it's used to penetrate a target, essentially consisting of a soft but dense metal. This gives the round greater linear-velocity and Kinetic energy, with the projectile grinding down as it forces it's way through armor.

 

 

Normal APDS and AP however, use their inherent weight, and will generally keep their shape when hitting a target, as they aren't meant to inherently deform on collision.

 

You guys clearly have not looked at the link. Seriously, you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be making such silly assumptions. The Lanz-Odermatt equation also does not work with APDS anyway, as evidenced by warnings when using the calculator. I'm not one to ignore warnings you know.

 

htt p://longrods.ch/downloads/2001%20Kinetic%20Enercy%20Projectiles-Development%20History,State%20of%20the%20art,%20Trends.pdf

 

If I posted this normally, it would not work. But here it is, though you must remove the space and look on page 7. The chart clearly states that the APDS chart works with HVAP. My directions may not have been clear last time, but this time there is no excuse for these sorts of arguments.

 

Also, I was possibly wrong with my math. I have made some silly assumption that has caused some pretty severe contradictions. I'm going to use 90mm HVAP as a base instead, since that's concrete enough. It's 240mm according to this, and thus I get around 340mm instead through ratios. Either way, at least we can estimate the probable penetration now.

[arczer25 5,202]

You guys clearly have not looked at the link. Seriously, you haven't, otherwise you wouldn't be making such silly assumptions. The Lanz-Odermatt equation also does not work with APDS anyway, as evidenced by warnings when using the calculator. I'm not one to ignore warnings you know.

 

htt p://longrods.ch/downloads/2001%20Kinetic%20Enercy%20Projectiles-Development%20History,State%20of%20the%20art,%20Trends.pdf

 

If I posted this normally, it would not work. But here it is, though you must remove the space and look on page 7. The chart clearly states that the APDS chart works with HVAP. My directions may not have been clear last time, but this time there is no excuse for these sorts of arguments.

 

Also, I was possibly wrong with my math. I have made some silly assumption that has caused some pretty severe contradictions. I'm going to use 90mm HVAP as a base instead, since that's concrete enough. It's 240mm according to this, and thus I get around 340mm instead through ratios. Either way, at least we can estimate the probable penetration now.

article focus on development history of kinetic penetrators and mainly focus on 1960+ development, also chart on page 7 is development, as there is from normal plain standard solid AP round later is APCBC round ending with modern APDSFS round. also that chart seems to contain confusing errors (for someone with less knowledge about kinetic penetrators, but probably you know enough about them)

 

in older calculations you stated this:  "Lowering the velocity to the levels of Pzgr 40/43 also brings 350mm" that's strange? 128mm APDS is 88mm Pzgr 40/43 fired from 128mm gun so lowering it to 1130m/s you should get about 306mm with is normal pzgr 40/43 penetration at 1130m/s

as in that manner   Pzgr 40/43 =/ Pzgr 40/43

also why you keep using as core other thing than 88 pzgr 40/43 with fired from 128mm gun have only improved velocity: core density. L/D ratio, core nose structure remain the same.

 

1 on chart is stated:

Figure 3. KE-projectiles: development and penetration milestones in RHA (BHN 260 / 0 Nato-obliquity)

on left side of chart is penetration/ core diameter, 5/10/15/20/25/30

below is impact velocity (km/s)

then on chart is L/D with means LENGTH/DIAMETER.

so penetration not mean penetration, but core length.

 

then 1 table with comparison of parameters of 1950 and 1994 projectiles.

                                               1950           1994

penetration P (mm RHA)          660           660

now 1950mm best kinetic penetrator penetrated barely 500mm...

penetration P means core length, then is core diameter... and then it starts to make sense as

                                    1950           1994

core length (mm)          660           660

core diameter (mm)    400mm      44mm

core L/D ratio                1.63x           5.5x

i really if someone don't know much about kinetic penetrators it can be confusing...

[Hail_DM33 619]

any word on accuracy? or the shatter gap? steel could have a hard time at super high velocities

Edited January 1, 2016 by nathanieljr

[arczer25 5,202]

any word on accuracy? or the shatter gap? steel could have a hard time at super high velocities

it have as core tungsten APCR, but to accommodate shatter gap calculated penetration is reduced by a bit (still beyond 322mm is unknown ground) , accuracy should be similar.

[Nope 10,634]

article focus on development history of kinetic penetrators and mainly focus on 1960+ development, also chart on page 7 is development, as there is from normal plain standard solid AP round later is APCBC round ending with modern APDSFS round. also that chart seems to contain confusing errors (for someone with less knowledge about kinetic penetrators, but probably you know enough about them)

 

in older calculations you stated this:  "Lowering the velocity to the levels of Pzgr 40/43 also brings 350mm" that's strange? 128mm APDS is 88mm Pzgr 40/43 fired from 128mm gun so lowering it to 1130m/s you should get about 306mm with is normal pzgr 40/43 penetration at 1130m/s

as in that manner   Pzgr 40/43 =/ Pzgr 40/43

also why you keep using as core other thing than 88 pzgr 40/43 with fired from 128mm gun have only improved velocity: core density. L/D ratio, core nose structure remain the same.

 

1 on chart is stated:

Figure 3. KE-projectiles: development and penetration milestones in RHA (BHN 260 / 0 Nato-obliquity)

on left side of chart is penetration/ core diameter, 5/10/15/20/25/30

below is impact velocity (km/s)

then on chart is L/D with means LENGTH/DIAMETER.

so penetration not mean penetration, but core length.

 

then 1 table with comparison of parameters of 1950 and 1994 projectiles.

                                               1950           1994

penetration P (mm RHA)          660           660

now 1950mm best kinetic penetrator penetrated barely 500mm...

penetration P means core length, then is core diameter... and then it starts to make sense as

                                    1950           1994

core length (mm)          660           660

core diameter (mm)    400mm      44mm

core L/D ratio                1.63x           5.5x

i really if someone don't know much about kinetic penetrators it can be confusing...

 

APDS always has a slight edge over HVAP in penetration regarding the same muzzle velocity, given that the muzzle velocity of my 76mm APDS example is roughly 1260 m/s. This is not exactly surprising, especially when using the maximum estimate rather than the minimum. I also stated that the core being used is Pzgr 40/43, and what I meant was lowering the muzzle velocity from 1280 m/s to 1130 m/s. The L/D is only there for finding the right curve, and it is obvious that 128mm APDS has a <5:1 L/D ratio penetrator by definition. This means the curve I'm talking about can work, though it can have inaccuracies. However, through this method I have figured out a rough estimate for penetration that can range from 340mm to 410mm. Through another method, I find 390mm or so. On top of that, the ballistic coefficients found always turn out superior compared to Pzgr 40/43, as completely expected  of APDS. This means the penetration is in that interval, no questions asked.

[arczer25 5,202]

APDS always has a slight edge over HVAP in penetration regarding the same muzzle velocity, given that the muzzle velocity of my 76mm APDS example is roughly 1260 m/s. This is not exactly surprising, especially when using the maximum estimate rather than the minimum. I also stated that the core being used is Pzgr 40/43, and what I meant was lowering the muzzle velocity from 1280 m/s to 1130 m/s. The L/D is only there for finding the right curve, and it is obvious that 128mm APDS has a <5:1 L/D ratio penetrator by definition. This means the curve I'm talking about can work, though it can have inaccuracies. However, through this method I have figured out a rough estimate for penetration that can range from 340mm to 410mm. Through another method, I find 390mm or so. On top of that, the ballistic coefficients found always turn out superior compared to Pzgr 40/43, as completely expected  of APDS. This means the penetration is in that interval, no questions asked.

pzgr 40/43 core have about 3.18 L/D, but real ballistic L/D is 3.77L/D (with ballistic cap). how ballistic coefficients turn to be better than Pzgr 40/43? both shells have the same weight, length and diameter of 88mm because they are APCR (128mm APDS core is APCR) so even thought core have about 44mm, entire projectile still have full 88mm,  only muzzle velocity is other.

you need to remember that 128mm APDS isn't true APDS in flight is more APCR.

[Nope 10,634]

pzgr 40/43 core have about 3.18 L/D, but real ballistic L/D is 3.77L/D (with ballistic cap). how ballistic coefficients turn to be better than Pzgr 40/43? both shells have the same weight, length and diameter of 88mm because they are APCR (128mm APDS core is APCR) so even thought core have about 44mm, entire projectile still have full 88mm,  only muzzle velocity is other.

you need to remember that 128mm APDS isn't true APDS in flight is more APCR.

 

APCR is still generally a full bore shell. The penetrator inside is what is subcaliber. With APDS, the smaller core is more exposed, thus being less subject to drag. I'm pretty sure the penetrator's diameter is less than 88mm.

[arczer25 5,202]

APCR is still generally a full bore shell. The penetrator inside is what is subcaliber. With APDS, the smaller core is more exposed, thus being less subject to drag. I'm pretty sure the penetrator's diameter is less than 88mm.

penetrator diameter is about 44mm, but 128mm APDS is still 88mm full bore APCR.