APCBC

[Mods]

So, when did Armor Piercing Capped shells loose their ballistics caps? APCR is arguably better then the stock shell for all Shermans that get M61/62 Shot after the pen calc update since the auto-bounce angles were heavily changed

[AttackerCat]

APCR
Good

Ha.
No but really, APCBC doesn't really impact riccochet angles. Ballistic caps are for aerodynamics when leaving the cannon barrel and have some slight velocity/accuracy improvements. It doesn't auto-bounce, that's for sure. APCR is the round that hates any form of gentle sloping.

[Mods]

AttackerCat の投稿を引用：

APCR
Good

Ha.
No but really, APCBC doesn't really impact riccochet angles. Ballistic caps are for aerodynamics when leaving the cannon barrel and have some slight velocity/accuracy improvements. It doesn't auto-bounce, that's for sure. APCR is the round that hates any form of gentle sloping.

APCR currently has a 68* no bounce angle, APCBC (The ballistic cap is what helps it with angles) has a 44* no bounce. specifically referring to the shells on the M4A3E2 (75) and (76) W

[Katokevin]

Mods_o_joy の投稿を引用：

AttackerCat の投稿を引用：

APCR
Good

Ha.
No but really, APCBC doesn't really impact riccochet angles. Ballistic caps are for aerodynamics when leaving the cannon barrel and have some slight velocity/accuracy improvements. It doesn't auto-bounce, that's for sure. APCR is the round that hates any form of gentle sloping.

APCR currently has a 68* no bounce angle, APCBC (The ballistic cap is what helps it with angles) has a 44* no bounce. specifically referring to the shells on the M4A3E2 (75) and (76) W

The Ballistic cap is nothing more then a hollow cone that shatters on impact, adding nothing to penetration or bounce chances. The cap (a softer metal cone on the tip of the shell) is what helps. Caps were generally flat (as seen with tanks such as the Panzer III that does fire an APC round). The cap really was intended to help prevent the round from shattering, but the help at angles was just an extra.

That's why the Ballistic cap was added though as a flat nosed shell is not very aerodynamic, so a hollow pointed cap was added on the end to solve the issue resulting in the APCBC shell.

[Mods]

Katokevin の投稿を引用：

Mods_o_joy の投稿を引用：

APCR currently has a 68* no bounce angle, APCBC (The ballistic cap is what helps it with angles) has a 44* no bounce. specifically referring to the shells on the M4A3E2 (75) and (76) W

The Ballistic cap is nothing more then a hollow cone that shatters on impact, adding nothing to penetration or bounce chances. The cap (a softer metal cone on the tip of the shell) is what helps. Caps were generally flat (as seen with tanks such as the Panzer III that does fire an APC round). The cap really was intended to help prevent the round from shattering, but the help at angles was just an extra.

That's why the Ballistic cap was added though as a flat nosed shell is not very aerodynamic, so a hollow pointed cap was added on the end to solve the issue resulting in the APCBC shell.

...yes, i and the other guy know this, and stated as such, what's your point?

[Katokevin]

Mods_o_joy の投稿を引用：

Katokevin の投稿を引用：

The Ballistic cap is nothing more then a hollow cone that shatters on impact, adding nothing to penetration or bounce chances. The cap (a softer metal cone on the tip of the shell) is what helps. Caps were generally flat (as seen with tanks such as the Panzer III that does fire an APC round). The cap really was intended to help prevent the round from shattering, but the help at angles was just an extra.

That's why the Ballistic cap was added though as a flat nosed shell is not very aerodynamic, so a hollow pointed cap was added on the end to solve the issue resulting in the APCBC shell.

...yes, i and the other guy know this, and stated as such, what's your point?

My point was where you said "The ballistic cap is what helps it with angles" which the ballistic cap does not.