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

[JackTheRipoff 68]

They gave the IS-2 super ammo, so why not.

[juraleona 3,944]

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.

It is an 88mm APCR shot from sabot that has 128mm to fit the 12.8 cm gun. So no, the penetrator in case of this 'APDS' is 88mm.

 

Also, I have no idea how to calc an APCR penetration. When does the jacket of APCR is torn off, and when it passes the armor with a penetrator? No idea.

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

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

the tungsten penetrator of the 88mm Pzgr 40 is 35-36mm

[arczer25 5,202]

the tungsten penetrator of the 88mm Pzgr 40 is 35-36mm

i was basing that on 88mm pzgr 40 scheme (they didn't listed penetrator diameter), so that's why "about"

[_Iluminas_ 3,769]

i was basing that on 88mm pzgr 40 scheme (they didn't listed penetrator diameter), so that's why "about"

 

 

 

140mm long and has an diameter of 35mm

Edited January 3, 2016 by JG27_Iluminas

[igeticsu 3,400]

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.

Agreed. Tiger 2 VS IS-4 no! I might be able to accept Maus VS IS-4... But Tiger 2 VS HEAT-FS shells?! NO!

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Agreed. Tiger 2 VS IS-4 no! I might be able to accept Maus VS IS-4... But Tiger 2 VS HEAT-FS shells?! NO!

 

That's what I thought. The IS-4 and the Maus are comparable. IS is lighter and faster, but with comparable armor due to sloping and similar armament, lacking any postwar shells, just like the maus which still has no APDS. That seems fair enough I suppose. But when the T-10 came in, that became unfair. Noooo, of course they have to keep the soviets happy. 

 

I hope they learn from their recent mistakes. From the failed E-100 event that's happening as we speak, to not upgrading the Maus' turret armor to 240mm as it was intended to have, don't give it APDS, don't add another 1cm of armor to the vent covers as was correct and here's another fun fact. That opening in the top of the Maus' turret? That's an inactive weapon known as a "Nahverteidigungswaffe" which is a flare launcher for smoke, but also served double-duty as a small caliber (90mm) grenade launcher;

 

 

This would be perfect for lobbing grenades into a ZSU or any lightly armored targets.

[Ruslan_DR 686]

Oh my god but how did i not realise this sooner? 

 

Looking at our own documents we can see why the photo of the Maus' APDS shows such a strange shape. The paint made it hard to make out, but it's likely got a BALLISTIC CAP, making it APDSBC;

 

 

If my theory is correct, then this could very well be an APCR round with a Ballistic Cap For better on-angle performance, meaning that our angle calculations may have been wrong, as it would have performed as over-sped APCRBC.

 

We got more work to do, it seems!

[arczer25 5,202]

emm all APDS and APCR have armor piercing cap (or something similar) (C) and ballistic cap (BC).

[bellezza03 6,009]

i would purpose even a new APCBC shell for the Jadgtiger/maus. In the penetration table posted by JG27 illuminas, is shown that german tested a 128 mm shell variant, with more propellant. Basically the actual shell, but with enaught propellant to reach 1000 m/s at the muzzle, giving it a energy output of 14 MJ. This would be a monster shell.

[Tantor57 10,318]

i would purpose even a new APCBC shell for the Jadgtiger/maus. In the penetration table posted by JG27 illuminas, is shown that german tested a 128 mm shell variant, with more propellant. Basically the actual shell, but with enaught propellant to reach 1000 m/s at the muzzle, giving it a energy output of 14 MJ. This would be a monster shell.

Wont be added because from Gaijin stats Maus must be clubbing and T10M being clubbed

[Ruslan_DR 686]

emm all APDS and APCR have armor piercing cap (or something similar) (C) and ballistic cap (BC).

 

Okay that I did not know. I figured it was literally just a regular AP round. Well, nevermind.

[TT33a 5,404]

That opening in the top of the Maus' turret? That's an inactive weapon known as a "Nahverteidigungswaffe" which is a flare launcher for smoke, but also served double-duty as a small caliber (90mm) grenade launcher; This would be perfect for lobbing grenades into a ZSU or any lightly armored targets.

Edited January 4, 2016 by TT33a

[Ruslan_DR 686]

 

what brought my attention to it is the Maus' is fully modeled, open and all that so it's detailed.

[Remiak 108]

I'm glad someone brought this to my attention, its been quite a long read (i read thru the entire thread) and i have a few things to say, opinions only, unfortunately, i wish i had something more useful to add:

 

First and foremost: I agree with the addition of this shell to be used by the Maus tank, its in desperate need of them, specially as the t62 pokes its ugly head into the game.

 

Second: The Jagdtiger does not need this kind of ammo. It just doesn't, its new 7.0br put it in better matches where its finally able to face WWII tanks (for the most part) and its finally enjoyable, if this kind of ammo is given to it it will be immediately perked back to top tier where it gets shred to pieces.

 

Third: I do not understand why people keep confusing the frontal turret armor with the mantlet in the Maus. In some tanks, there is a mantlet and no frontal turret armor and you can say they are the same (like the tiger I) but in the Maus this isn't the case the Maus has a 240mm thick mantlet already, the frontal turret armor is 220mm thick. I blame wikipedia on this, the probably caused the confusion with the lack of clarity in their Maus article where they state "The turret armour was even thicker, the turret front was up to 240 millimetres" yes, guess what is in the front of the turret, the frontal turret plate and the mantlet. If anyone believes i'm wrong i cordially invite you to refute, but do please explain why.

 

Fourth: recently, i have noticed they changed the way the 128mm cannon behaves. It has improved a lot from the first few months i used it. 2 signs of this have been that none of my shells have bounced off a t34 frontal plate like they used to, and the T54... this is unconfirmed, and i need to test it in a controlled environment (custom battle) but it seems like the 128mm APCBC shells are capable of penetrating the frontal plate of a t54.

 

I've missed about 8 turret shots and 2 lower glacis shots, they all landed on the low or high part of the frontal plate of the t54 with their hull pointed straight at me and ripped right thru them. Shell reached the engine block, it was glorious. Is the 128mm cannon finally defeating armor like it should? Because the t54 (any of them) used to be able to negate the 128mm gun from any distance unless you happened to shoot it while going down a hill, or from a higher position.

 

Finally, i only recently discovered the Sturer Emil SPG (i never played, nor plan to play WOT) has it been suggested yet? from what little information i've gathered i believe it would be on par with the soviet SU-100Y.

[TheJoker1432 1,974]

I'm glad someone brought this to my attention, its been quite a long read (i read thru the entire thread) and i have a few things to say, opinions only, unfortunately, i wish i had something more useful to add:

 

First and foremost: I agree with the addition of this shell to be used by the Maus tank, its in desperate need of them, specially as the t62 pokes its ugly head into the game.

 

Second: The Jagdtiger does not need this kind of ammo. It just doesn't, its new 7.0br put it in better matches where its finally able to face WWII tanks (for the most part) and its finally enjoyable, if this kind of ammo is given to it it will be immediately perked back to top tier where it gets shred to pieces.

 

Third: I do not understand why people keep confusing the frontal turret armor with the mantlet in the Maus. In some tanks, there is a mantlet and no frontal turret armor and you can say they are the same (like the tiger I) but in the Maus this isn't the case the Maus has a 240mm thick mantlet already, the frontal turret armor is 220mm thick. I blame wikipedia on this, the probably caused the confusion with the lack of clarity in their Maus article where they state "The turret armour was even thicker, the turret front was up to 240 millimetres" yes, guess what is in the front of the turret, the frontal turret plate and the mantlet. If anyone believes i'm wrong i cordially invite you to refute, but do please explain why.

 

Fourth: recently, i have noticed they changed the way the 128mm cannon behaves. It has improved a lot from the first few months i used it. 2 signs of this have been that none of my shells have bounced off a t34 frontal plate like they used to, and the T54... this is unconfirmed, and i need to test it in a controlled environment (custom battle) but it seems like the 128mm APCBC shells are capable of penetrating the frontal plate of a t54.

 

I've missed about 8 turret shots and 2 lower glacis shots, they all landed on the low or high part of the frontal plate of the t54 with their hull pointed straight at me and ripped right thru them. Shell reached the engine block, it was glorious. Is the 128mm cannon finally defeating armor like it should? Because the t54 (any of them) used to be able to negate the 128mm gun from any distance unless you happened to shoot it while going down a hill, or from a higher position.

 

Finally, i only recently discovered the Sturer Emil SPG (i never played, nor plan to play WOT) has it been suggested yet? from what little information i've gathered i believe it would be on par with the soviet SU-100Y.

Good statement I agree

 

The 128mm is strong but it still needs this ammo

 

Yes the sturer emil, dicker max and the nashorn all have been suggested and i think the devs agreed that they will add such a branch

[Remiak 108]

Good statement I agree

 

The 128mm is strong but it still needs this ammo

 

Yes the sturer emil, dicker max and the nashorn all have been suggested and i think the devs agreed that they will add such a branch

Oh, so they *might* be added as non-premium SPGs? that would be fantastic.

 

in their own branch? Odd. there is an SPG line already... well, not all SPGs are there. It would not be bad to have them after the Hetzer.

 

But it would be great to have more high caliber tank destroyers for germany.

[TheJoker1432 1,974]

Oh, so they *might* be added as non-premium SPGs? that would be fantastic.

 

in their own branch? Odd. there is an SPG line already... well, not all SPGs are there. It would not be bad to have them after the Hetzer.

 

But it would be great to have more high caliber tank destroyers for germany.

I think at least im not sure ^^

[Nudelblitz 22,006]

Third: I do not understand why people keep confusing the frontal turret armor with the mantlet in the Maus. In some tanks, there is a mantlet and no frontal turret armor and you can say they are the same (like the tiger I) but in the Maus this isn't the case the Maus has a 240mm thick mantlet already, the frontal turret armor is 220mm thick. I blame wikipedia on this, the probably caused the confusion with the lack of clarity in their Maus article where they state "The turret armour was even thicker, the turret front was up to 240 millimetres" yes, guess what is in the front of the turret, the frontal turret plate and the mantlet. If anyone believes i'm wrong i cordially invite you to refute, but do please explain why.

Mantled was 250mm of armor, this was actually measured in kubinka.

Turret front was around 240mm.

 

Anyway, here measured by the Germans themselves the Maus V2 prototype with the V1 turret:

Says clearly 236mm front turret measured.

 

Even better:

First number is planned thickness, second ( ) is German measurements after shoot tests, third is british measurements (I think they did this on the produced but not yet completed Maus turrets, and the 4th one is the Russian measurements (in Kubinka they stated now its 240mm frontal armor).

 

Gaijin knows that the Kubinka has the 240mm front turret and the 250mm mantled, but says they moddel it after the production specs.

What makes no sence ofcourse.

 

I hope this helps

[GeckesPilotHUN 2,391]

Is of sad ;-; but I lost my last hopes in the devs when they corrected the ammo of the t10m immidietly and my poor 128mm cannon still waits for its correct pen values ;-; 

[Ruslan_DR 686]

I'm glad someone brought this to my attention, its been quite a long read (i read thru the entire thread) and i have a few things to say, opinions only, unfortunately, i wish i had something more useful to add:

 

First and foremost: I agree with the addition of this shell to be used by the Maus tank, its in desperate need of them, specially as the t62 pokes its ugly head into the game.

 

Second: The Jagdtiger does not need this kind of ammo. It just doesn't, its new 7.0br put it in better matches where its finally able to face WWII tanks (for the most part) and its finally enjoyable, if this kind of ammo is given to it it will be immediately perked back to top tier where it gets shred to pieces.

 

Third: I do not understand why people keep confusing the frontal turret armor with the mantlet in the Maus. In some tanks, there is a mantlet and no frontal turret armor and you can say they are the same (like the tiger I) but in the Maus this isn't the case the Maus has a 240mm thick mantlet already, the frontal turret armor is 220mm thick. I blame wikipedia on this, the probably caused the confusion with the lack of clarity in their Maus article where they state "The turret armour was even thicker, the turret front was up to 240 millimetres" yes, guess what is in the front of the turret, the frontal turret plate and the mantlet. If anyone believes i'm wrong i cordially invite you to refute, but do please explain why.

 

Fourth: recently, i have noticed they changed the way the 128mm cannon behaves. It has improved a lot from the first few months i used it. 2 signs of this have been that none of my shells have bounced off a t34 frontal plate like they used to, and the T54... this is unconfirmed, and i need to test it in a controlled environment (custom battle) but it seems like the 128mm APCBC shells are capable of penetrating the frontal plate of a t54.

 

I've missed about 8 turret shots and 2 lower glacis shots, they all landed on the low or high part of the frontal plate of the t54 with their hull pointed straight at me and ripped right thru them. Shell reached the engine block, it was glorious. Is the 128mm cannon finally defeating armor like it should? Because the t54 (any of them) used to be able to negate the 128mm gun from any distance unless you happened to shoot it while going down a hill, or from a higher position.

 

Finally, i only recently discovered the Sturer Emil SPG (i never played, nor plan to play WOT) has it been suggested yet? from what little information i've gathered i believe it would be on par with the soviet SU-100Y.

 

 

the 128mm would naturally hav ehad 306 or so mm of penetration if modeled correctly. With it, we could easily frontally pen a t10m, however they will not give us this correct pen because bias.

 

I know there's a bias because reasons that just made me uninstall the game.

 

However I won't get into those here. To answer your statement with another statement, we should have had this long ago because almost ALL tier V's have APDS, including some mid-tier brits. 

 

So, frankly I am overall disappointed by the dev's negligence. The germans can use A LOT of buffs, and this is just one of them, so the next one or two updates better be about them exclusively because we have it the worse. Our last update was with the leopard, which was what, the middle of last year? and still isn't good enough to reliably defeat soviet armor?

 

This suggestion is full of many things that would help, from APDS, Keiler, sturmtiger, to some earlier vehicles to help pad out the tree more. At least something, the soviets get a new vehicle EVERY. SINGLE. UPDATE.

 

So yes, overall I am dissatisfied with their behavior. 

 

Back to the subject at hand, we're still unsure about a few specifics, if it's really pzgr 40, or pzgr 39 in the image, since it stated that the round would be pzgr 40 IF POSSIBLE. 

 

That means different values are possible.

 

 

Is of sad ;-; but I lost my last hopes in the devs when they corrected the ammo of the t10m immidietly and my poor 128mm cannon still waits for its correct pen values ;-; 

 

I agree, and they've only further proved my point.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Ruslan_DR

[IceySmooth 198]

I'm glad someone brought this to my attention, its been quite a long read (i read thru the entire thread) and i have a few things to say, opinions only, unfortunately, i wish i had something more useful to add:

 

First and foremost: I agree with the addition of this shell to be used by the Maus tank, its in desperate need of them, specially as the t62 pokes its ugly head into the game.

 

Second: The Jagdtiger does not need this kind of ammo. It just doesn't, its new 7.0br put it in better matches where its finally able to face WWII tanks (for the most part) and its finally enjoyable, if this kind of ammo is given to it it will be immediately perked back to top tier where it gets shred to pieces.

 

Third: I do not understand why people keep confusing the frontal turret armor with the mantlet in the Maus. In some tanks, there is a mantlet and no frontal turret armor and you can say they are the same (like the tiger I) but in the Maus this isn't the case the Maus has a 240mm thick mantlet already, the frontal turret armor is 220mm thick. I blame wikipedia on this, the probably caused the confusion with the lack of clarity in their Maus article where they state "The turret armour was even thicker, the turret front was up to 240 millimetres" yes, guess what is in the front of the turret, the frontal turret plate and the mantlet. If anyone believes i'm wrong i cordially invite you to refute, but do please explain why.

 

Fourth: recently, i have noticed they changed the way the 128mm cannon behaves. It has improved a lot from the first few months i used it. 2 signs of this have been that none of my shells have bounced off a t34 frontal plate like they used to, and the T54... this is unconfirmed, and i need to test it in a controlled environment (custom battle) but it seems like the 128mm APCBC shells are capable of penetrating the frontal plate of a t54.

 

I've missed about 8 turret shots and 2 lower glacis shots, they all landed on the low or high part of the frontal plate of the t54 with their hull pointed straight at me and ripped right thru them. Shell reached the engine block, it was glorious. Is the 128mm cannon finally defeating armor like it should? Because the t54 (any of them) used to be able to negate the 128mm gun from any distance unless you happened to shoot it while going down a hill, or from a higher position.

 

Finally, i only recently discovered the Sturer Emil SPG (i never played, nor plan to play WOT) has it been suggested yet? from what little information i've gathered i believe it would be on par with the soviet SU-100Y.

Well said and agree - Keep the Jagdtiger where it is. If this APDS ammo makes it ingame (and I fully think it should) as its newer tech it should be given to the newer beasts, those being the Maus & E-100 of course. 

[RohmMohc 11,494]

 

Well said and agree - Keep the Jagdtiger where it is. If this APDS ammo makes it ingame (and I fully think it should) as its newer tech it should be given to the newer beasts, those being the Maus & E-100 of course.

aha you mean like the B417D shell the IS-2 44 gets? Which it got very late and never fired during WWII? If they want a IS-2 44 with the Shell they hsould make a IS-2 Mod 44 (19xx (XX being the date of the shells introduction) or the IS-2M...

[Choogleblitz 10,205]

aha you mean like the B417D shell the IS-2 44 gets? Which it got very late and never fired during WWII? If they want a IS-2 44 with the Shell they hsould make a IS-2 Mod 44 (19xx (XX being the date of the shells introduction) or the IS-2M...

Mod. 1944 is the IS-2 variation with the non-stepped upper front plate. In the same way the IS-2 Mod. 1943 is the official designation for the stepped plate version. Adding new ammunition to the M46 didn't make it a new tank, neither would adding APDS to the Maus. Why does it magically apply to the IS-2?

[RohmMohc 11,494]

Mod. 1944 is the IS-2 variation with the non-stepped upper front plate. In the same way the IS-2 Mod. 1943 is the official designation for the stepped plate version. Adding new ammunition to the M46 didn't make it a new tank, neither would adding APDS to the Maus. Why does it magically apply to the IS-2?

i'm just reffering to his "old tank no new ammo" thing... but well... Tiger H1 and Panther D APcr please? APFSDS for the KWK 36 armed tanks?

 

also: Su 85 -> SU-85M, T-34/57 -> T-34/57 Mod 43

Edited January 22, 2016 by RohmMohc