Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
its got the same 105 like the leopard 1 and the same ammo so nothing special about it
Not for Gaijin
But seriously, I don’t have it tbh, but the German M48 is better than the US one, which is why it is 8.0.
*stock APFSDS*
You must be talking about the T-62, because the 8.3 (was 8.7) T-55 has stock APDS. The rest of the tanks at these tier don’t shoot stock APDS - they shoot stock APHE ammunition. Until you get to the 9.0 range, there are no other tanks I can think of that have stock ammunition that is APFSDS. The only reason the T-62 has stock APFSDS is because they were one of the first to mass-use smoothbore technology: in order to have stability, the shell needs fins regardless of HEAT or APDS or HE to fly stable, since there is no rifling to stabilize the shell. Funny enough, because of this Russia invented the APFSDS shell before they invented their first APDS shell. So... that is why the T-62 has stock APFSDS: because there are no other compatible shells it can shoot, unless you want to give it it’s HEAT-FS stock instead or something.
Most of the top tier Russian vehicles (9.0+) are inferior in certain scenarios to their counterparts, hence the reason why APFSDS is stock.
Infact, its one of the saving graces of having to use them in a game where Leopards and Abrams can crush you easily if they have a few brain cells intact.
Honestly, the variants aren't such a big deal.
Its the underperfoming of the APDS shells that make Germany / US / British tanks so pointless atm.
Currently its just a "pay to use heat" scenario rather than using an actual decent shell like the barrels were designed for with rifling.
People don't seem to realise that APFSDS is just a stabilized variant of regular ol' APDS that doesn't require a rifled barrel, which goes to show how far APDS is underperforming currently.
If APDS was performing correctly and not just "disappearing" into the components of the tank, it would be a truly viable alternative to APHE and an actually effective round.
https://forum.warthunder.com/uploads/monthly_2016_07/5796d396c1c0b_apdshistory.jpg.53ce6349340981e2d3ed4b47635992e4.jpg
In the figure, E is an APDS while the 3 above it are APFSDS.
I'm well aware of the fact that APFSDS has a longer penetrator which helps it against angled penetration, but as far as the characteristics are concerned, they're functionally the same.
A dense metal core fired at high speed, APFSDS is better at penetration if solely by design, fin stabilized so it doesn't require rifling, and therefore avoids damaging the barrel when firing it at higher speeds. (Hence the barrel lasts longer as a result)
But technically an APDS projectile is heavier and has a bulkier core, considering that the core is the component that does the damage, the two projectiles should at the very least perform similarly.
There is literally no reason for one projectile to do flat out nothing, and the other to be the complete god of ammo types, tearing through the entire tank. I'm not spreading misinformation here. >.>
APDS is kind of like a APCR shell that the light shell around the tungsten falls off after being shot. APDS is from my understanding is literally a solid shot tungsten AP shell that is a smaller caliber than the gun barrel: it’s like a WW2 solid solid shot shell, but made of tungsten (usually). I don’t know the exact size of say a 105mm APDS shell post-discarding of the sabot, but basically from what I understand, after firing it’s like a hyper-velocity 6pdr shell. If you look at cutaways of 105mm APDS, this reflects it - it looks like a slightly elongated AP shell.
APDS-FS, or APFSDS, is a completely different design: like shown in game, it is a long thin rod with fins. It’s why the shell looks completely different even before firing, it’s not a bullet, it’s a dart. Because of this, the shell brings a lot more damage, as it brings much more mass to a pin-point location, which after penetrating you have this long rod of material break apart along with the spalling it creates down the line of the tank, which is why it does so much more damage.
I am not saying though APDS isn’t underperforming: you’re not often going to one shot a tank with APDS in game, unless you ammo-rack the vehicle or the tank has it’s crew perfectly lined up. The APDS shell I think is actually performing just fine, the issue is spalling: it isn’t spalling as much inside the tank. Upon penetration, not much of the armor is breaking apart from the impact and penetration of a high velocity shell hitting it, and the shell itself should break apart more a little bit upon penetration in most cases. It will never be nor is it suppose to be as strong as an APFSDS shell, but like said, I imagine the most accurate description would be it should hit like a 57mm solid shot AP shell.
Image of both type of shells,
105mm APDS:
http://bulletpicker.com/cartridge_-105mm-apds-t_-m728.html
105mm APFSDS-T:
https://m.imgur.com/r/MilitaryPorn/ePgAxLD
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armour-piercing_fin-stabilized_discarding_sabot
Notice the APDS is literally a smaller shell in a sabot, while the APFSDS is a dart.
Technically though, only the DM33 is a true long-rod APFSDS shell. Majority of the current shells in the game are the thicker early fin-stabilized kind. A few of them (the stock T-64a ammo) for example even use a steel core.
Also, fin-stabilized still has a discarding "shell" casing just like APDS, that's why I'm saying that there's basically no difference, except for the type of the shell the sabot contains.
One is a core that's thin and designed for high velocity, the other is a solid bullet. The firing mechanisms are both the same, its just that Gaijin is unrealistic and portrays it "immediately" as flying with fins outside the barrel, the casing should realistically fall apart as it comes from the barrel; but that's laziness for you.
And yes, whilst its like APCR is a soft shell with a dense core, not just a solid dense metal unlike APDS, not to mention that APDS has better flight characteristics than the APCR and greater velocity = more energy. Whilst it isn't a dart, it was specifically designed to have a large centre of mass in a small area and was designed not to shatter on impact, I'm no physicist but I would assume that a penetration of similar armor (say 300mm) would have a similar impact as when compared to a dart.
You have to remember that the darts (Especially the earlier kinds) are smaller than their shell casings too, so the same logic that you apply to APDS applies to APFSDS as well.
I'm not asking for APDS to have the same penetration values or overpen effects as a projectile with (often) even greater velocities, but I am asking for a similar style of penetration damage in terms of shrapnel through the vehicle. :P
edit: It seems like the later the ammo type, the bigger the dart gets, as far as I've seen.