![]() Most of the time the penetration power overcomes the lack of normalization.Īs the war lengthened, target armor became progressively thicker (and sloped) as new tank designs emerged, and early war AP and APHE became progressively less effective. You're getting a 33% better (more or less) effective penetration power, at the minor cost of not being able to handle stupidly extreme angles of armor as well.ĭoes this make sense? You're trading raw penetration power for the cost of normalization. There is almost no protective sheathe for the shot in this case, which gives the shell even more velocity, and higher penetrative power, which usually overcomes the fact that there basically is no shot normalization at all. Your standard AP type shell is supposed to hit a target, and as a result of the design, "bend" towards the armor.Īn APCR shell, while it has a layer of steel or other soft metal, that metal isn't there to normalize the shot, it's there to absorb the shock of high velocity impacts caused by the increased shot velocity of the shell usually being about half the weight of your conventional shell fired using the same amount of powder.ĪPDS and APDS-FS don't have the protective cover that the APCR shell does, but their projectile tends to be even longer and thinner than a typical APCR shot for it's given bore and gun. This is how Afghanit and other APS systems that use HE charges intercept APFSDS, through destabilization in flight.Īnyway, dont go around asking for factual evidence and blowing people off when your premise has basically zero support and is basically hearsay.ĪPCR and it's variants, like APDS are not designed to normalize, unlike other common AP shells, somewhat similar to how a HEAT shell worked. They also are very vulnerable to disturbance in flight as destabilization in flight can lead to extreme initial torque upon impact that shatters the projectile. high L/D rounds flow better through armor but are more likely to snap due to normalization. Lower L/D rounds also suffer from lower point pressures and far lower penetration values. Lower L/D Rounds can normalize more because the torque applied by normalizing forces wont snap the whole thing in half or break it apart. You also are ignoring variations in L/D ratios across shell types and the fact that high L/D ratio projectiles snap under high normalization forces due to angling as seen in this article. You are drawing massive conclusions from vague wiki documents and assuming all APFSDS and APDS across a 50 year window are constructed the same. ![]() You have not provided any diagrams of specific APFSDS showing this construction and have ignored the fact that some early russian and lower caliber APFSDS rounds were unsheathed or capped. You are drawing a conclusion that all APDS should perform well against slopes because of a section in the wiki that mentions APFSDS often have shock absorbing caps between the aero and penetration sections of the round. Preferably proof that does not come from the Dev or hearsay from the players maybe something from military testing? Hmm sounds a lot like APCBC to me but I'm told by people on here that APDS is bad against angles because it doesn't have a cap but that's obviously not true as APDS has both a penetrating cap and a ballistic cap.ĭoes anybody have any proof that APCR or APDS for that matter was/is bad against angles in real life? The steel sheath surrounding the core peels away, and the core goes on to penetrate the armour. The sequence upon impact of the APDS projectile,goes as follows: the lightweight ballistic cap is crushed, the penetrating cap then strikes the armour, distributing the shock across the whole surface of the core's nose, reducing the initial shock experienced by the core. Look under Sub-projectile construction in the link Look under Armor-piercing composite rigid in the linkĪPDS had a ballistic cap and a penetrating cap. The main difference between the 2 rounds is the light outer sheath remains attached to the core in flight with APCR while APDS discards the sheath shortly after leaving the barrel.īecause the sheath remains attached during flight APCR loses velocity and accuracy at longer ranges faster than APDS does.ĪPCR had a shock-buffering cap placed between the core and the outer ballistic shell as with APC rounds. I could not find anything that wasn't war thunder related saying APCR or APDS for that matter is bad against angles.įrom what I did find APCR/HVAP is the precursor to APDS.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |