why dont british ww2 tanks have sabot shells?

[CT center]

i did some reading and discovered that british research of the APDS (Armour Piercing Discarding Sabot) shell started in 1940 around the fall of france and usage and production started by around 1944, the shell was used by the british in tanks such as the churchill and sherman firefly.

the shell used by the sherman firefly had a penetration value of 203mm at 500m compared to the 156mm penetration you get with the APCBC currently available!

this is an explanation of the APDS:
"Armour-piercing discarding sabot could penetrate 256 mm of armour at 500 m and 233 mm at 1000 m, and allowing it in theory to penetrate the armour of even the German Tiger II heavy tank. Most sources are in agreement that APDS was not available on D-Day itself, but reached Normandy in increasing amounts by the end of June or early July 1944. It was available for the breakout battle from Normandy and the advance to the Netherlands and Germany. Weight of the enclosed shot, minus the enclosing sabot, was 7.7 pounds."

"A Bovington Tank Museum document states the 17-Pounder Mk II firing APDS could penetrate 187 mm at 500 yards with a 30° angle of obliquity, while Jane's Armour and Artillery 1981-82 gives a penetration of 231 mm at 1,000 yards with the same strike angle."

a chart that shows penetration value of the APDS with the 17pdr:
APDS 1,204 m/s (3,950 ft/s)
100 m..... 250 m...500 m....... 750 m.......1000 m.......1250 m.......1500 m...1750 m....2000 m
275.......268..........256..............244..............233............223.........213...........204........194

some sources i used:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17-pounder#Ammunition
https://www.britannica.com/technology/armour-piercing-discarding-sabot
https://www.quora.com/Were-many-WW2-German-tanks-destroyed-by-the-British-using-APDS-ammunition
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/06/a2187506.shtml
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=75:17-pounder-anti-tank-gun&catid=40:anti-tank&Itemid=58

[Rabbit]

Probably because with that type of penetration you could just point, click, and penetrate. But if you up the BR of the Sherman Firefly, then it might be useless because it relies on an APDS shell with all the other shells being obsolete, just a guess.

[Shard]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

Probably because with that type of penetration you could just point, click, and penetrate. But if you up the BR of the Sherman Firefly, then it might be useless because it relies on an APDS shell with all the other shells being obsolete, just a guess.

In the current patch APDS is way underpowered and has zero post penetration value, especially with 76 mm guns. Bad damage would actually be an equal trade off in my opinion. If they were to buff APDS again it would probably make less sense.

[Tankfriend]

The Centurion Mk 1 uses the 17pdr with APDS.
Why it doesn't occur earlier? Because it would be either overpowered or extremely frustrating to use:
1. Too powerful penetration. It would make the armour of virtually all tanks at its BR almost completely useless, i.e. it would be overpowered. Doesn't matter if you have to hit and penetrate a target several times, the first shot tends to be the decisive one.

2. Too inaccurate to be useful. Early 17pdr APDS suffered from horrific accuarcy issues to the point that the shell was practically useless. At longer ranges, it wouldn't hit, and at shorter ranges, its extra penetration power was overkill.

[CT center]

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

The Centurion Mk 1 uses the 17pdr with APDS.
Why it doesn't occur earlier? Because it would be either overpowered or extremely frustrating to use:
1. Too powerful penetration. It would make the armour of virtually all tanks at its BR almost completely useless, i.e. it would be overpowered. Doesn't matter if you have to hit and penetrate a target several times, the first shot tends to be the decisive one.

2. Too inaccurate to be useful. Early 17pdr APDS suffered from horrific accuarcy issues to the point that the shell was practically useless. At longer ranges, it wouldn't hit, and at shorter ranges, its extra penetration power was overkill.

the round itself didnt lead to innacuracy but because the tank had a muzzle break, this would make the sabot first stage areas hit the gaps in the barrel and then bounce back, hitting the round.

the round would be as powerful as the pt-76b sabot, every hear anyone complain about that?

[CT center]

Originally posted by Rootin Tootin Putin:

Probably because with that type of penetration you could just point, click, and penetrate. But if you up the BR of the Sherman Firefly, then it might be useless because it relies on an APDS shell with all the other shells being obsolete, just a guess.

the round would have slightly better damage compared to the pt-76b sabot which cant even instakill crew, so this shot would kill around 2 crew at most, imagine an AP round but nerfed like hell.

[Kay]

Originally posted by CT center:

Originally posted by Tankfriend:

The Centurion Mk 1 uses the 17pdr with APDS.
Why it doesn't occur earlier? Because it would be either overpowered or extremely frustrating to use:
1. Too powerful penetration. It would make the armour of virtually all tanks at its BR almost completely useless, i.e. it would be overpowered. Doesn't matter if you have to hit and penetrate a target several times, the first shot tends to be the decisive one.

2. Too inaccurate to be useful. Early 17pdr APDS suffered from horrific accuarcy issues to the point that the shell was practically useless. At longer ranges, it wouldn't hit, and at shorter ranges, its extra penetration power was overkill.

the round itself didnt lead to innacuracy but because the tank had a muzzle break, this would make the sabot first stage areas hit the gaps in the barrel and then bounce back, hitting the round.

the round would be as powerful as the pt-76b sabot, every hear anyone complain about that?

Half and half, manufacturing techniques weren't up to scratch so early APDS rounds didn't seperate from the sabot properly, along with muzzle breaks fouling on the sabot as it seperated early (if it did so)

[CT center]

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

Originally posted by CT center:

the round itself didnt lead to innacuracy but because the tank had a muzzle break, this would make the sabot first stage areas hit the gaps in the barrel and then bounce back, hitting the round.

the round would be as powerful as the pt-76b sabot, every hear anyone complain about that?

Half and half, manufacturing techniques weren't up to scratch so early APDS rounds didn't seperate from the sabot properly, along with muzzle breaks fouling on the sabot as it seperated early (if it did so)

well from what i saw before the average accuracy of a shell was 98% and the accuracy of the muzzle break with sabot was roughly 60% and then just the sabot had about 3/4 accuracy.
we dont actually know what this means exactly, you could be 100% accurate firing the shell within 500m for all we know, we dont know the sread and at what distance.

[Katokevin]

Originally posted by CT center:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

Half and half, manufacturing techniques weren't up to scratch so early APDS rounds didn't seperate from the sabot properly, along with muzzle breaks fouling on the sabot as it seperated early (if it did so)

well from what i saw before the average accuracy of a shell was 98% and the accuracy of the muzzle break with sabot was roughly 60% and then just the sabot had about 3/4 accuracy.
we dont actually know what this means exactly, you could be 100% accurate firing the shell within 500m for all we know, we dont know the sread and at what distance.

U.S. Army Firing Test No.3
U.S. Army Firing Tests conducted August 1944 by 12th U.S. Army Group at Isigny, France.

30 August 1944
SUBJECT: Final report of board of officers appointed to determine comparative effectiveness of ammunition of 76mm gun and 17pdr gun.
TO: Commanding General, Twelfth Army Group.
1. The board convened pursuant to the attached order at the firing range established by First U.S. Army near Isigny, France at 1030 hours, 19 August 1944 and conducted firing tests against the front plate of German Panther Tanks. The firing was continued, as the weather and the availability of target tanks permitted, on 20 and 21 August 1944. Because of the urgency of the test, a preliminary report, dated 21 August 1944, was submitted on 22 August 1944.

The 17pdr guns were fired by two superior British enlisted gunners. The 76mm gun was fired by two officers with considerable test firing experience.

Forty-two (42) rounds of 17pdr SABOT were fired and only 57% [24 rounds] were hits.

Firing was done at between 200 and 600 yards at a stationary Panther.

It was suggested that the APDS ammunition was sub-standard.

This really was under sub-standard. Such range with so few hits is quite poor, and if any crews knew it, they would not want to be loading it unless they were desperate.

[Tankfriend]

https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly/
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly2/
https://worldoftanks.com/en/news/chieftain/The_Chieftains_Hatch_Firefly3/

[Lord Castellan Majorian]

Originally posted by CT center:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

Half and half, manufacturing techniques weren't up to scratch so early APDS rounds didn't seperate from the sabot properly, along with muzzle breaks fouling on the sabot as it seperated early (if it did so)

well from what i saw before the average accuracy of a shell was 98% and the accuracy of the muzzle break with sabot was roughly 60% and then just the sabot had about 3/4 accuracy.
we dont actually know what this means exactly, you could be 100% accurate firing the shell within 500m for all we know, we dont know the sread and at what distance.

It was 90 or 60% it was 50% at best under great conditions. That's absolutely terrible for a modern weapon

[CT center]

id still be interested in seeing it ingame, it would be a good close range shell that would garuntee a penetration, although id like to see how itd work if gaijin implements it...

[Lord Castellan Majorian]

I mean 17 pounder guns all ready have it

[CT center]

Originally posted by Magister Militum Castellan:

I mean 17 pounder guns all ready have it

some but not all, like the sherman firefly

[Chaotic Harmony]

The issue iv'e found is finding enough documentation to prove the usage of sabot; yes i'm aware the 17-pdr guns could use it. And that multiple vehicles were knocked out in combat with fireflies using sabot; but from just a casual look on the fourms that's not enough. If you or anyone else could find documentation that said at X date X unit with X vehicles was equipped with X amount of sabot rounds standard; that would go a long way towards a bug report.

Note this would need to be from a historical british report or something to qualify as a primary source; then the other stuff could be used as secondaries. As for balance reasons; the comet just got lowerd to 5.0 RB. And multiple vehicles have higher penetrating rounds at or below the BR; if the stuff proved a issue they can always adjust later.

It just needs to be reported and then we can see what happens.

[saymyname]

Because sabot would hurt stalinium