APCR need a serious buff

[saymyname]

Sly, is useless.
Why even use it if it has zero to low killing power and get horribad angled hit penetration as well ?
Just fix the damage, it doesn't need to one shot or get the same killing power of aphe/apc/apcbc, but it should be able to one shot when properly aimed or do serious mechanical damage, let's stop pretending a tungsten round flying at 1100+ ms/s won't do fragments bouncing around at 800+ m/s because it isn't Stalin approved tungsten shall we Gayjin ?

[cobalT]

It does great against flat armor, but the slightest angle can put it off course. I suggest you just use APCBC

[Narf]

Originally posted by cobalT:

It does great against flat armor, but the slightest angle can put it off course. I suggest you just use APCBC

Not sure I'd say "great". It lacks post damage to anything that isn't pretty much in a straight line of the projectile. Which is what OP is talking about - lack of spalling.

And talking about using other rounds is really besides the point of the thread.

[Wiesell]

Why do you need to use apcr? y not ap. Its better

[saymyname]

I'm not asking what i should use, i'm saying that APCR DESERVES a buff in killing power and no stupid deflection penalties. Really no discussion here, just because APCBC works it doesn't mean we should just stick to it and have no options whatsoever.

Same for APDS and HVAP.

From how it looks, Gayjin is keeping specific high velocity solid shots back so factions like UK and Germany that should capitalize on range over a certain (guess who?) AP/APHE faction can't properly do it.

Outside of the myth of HVAP/APCR not doing damage (complete moronic bs, we should put dev team inside a tank and let them see what high velocity fragments of their own tank armor can do when solid shots hit), the deflection thing is utterly ahistorical outside of Gayjin red sekrit dokuments...if anything, tungsten rounds of any nation had way less chances to bounce feom sloping and angling.

[Wiesell]

Originally posted by SAY_MY_NAME:

I'm not asking what i should use, i'm saying that APCR DESERVES a buff in killing power and no stupid deflection penalties. Really no discussion here, just because APCBC works it doesn't mean we should just stick to it and have no options whatsoever.

Same for APDS.

APDS is just like APCR but way faster and has a different material.

[Kay]

Originally posted by SAY_MY_NAME:

I'm not asking what i should use, i'm saying that APCR DESERVES a buff in killing power and no stupid deflection penalties. Really no discussion here, just because APCBC works it doesn't mean we should just stick to it and have no options whatsoever.

Same for APDS.

APCR having angle penalties is something true to RL, post penetration should be only slightly worse than AP rounds though

[saymyname]

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

Originally posted by SAY_MY_NAME:

I'm not asking what i should use, i'm saying that APCR DESERVES a buff in killing power and no stupid deflection penalties. Really no discussion here, just because APCBC works it doesn't mean we should just stick to it and have no options whatsoever.

Same for APDS.

APCR having angle penalties is something true to RL, post penetration should be only slightly worse than AP rounds though

No, honestly, the tungsten shaped change had less chances to bounce than any capped shell, especially at that velocity.

Yeah, if we ignore the massive difference in velocity trasmitted to fragments than yes, otherwise really no. HVAP is deemed for good reasons as a plain and simple upgrade.

[saymyname]

Originally posted by Pizza_4_l1f3:

Originally posted by SAY_MY_NAME:

I'm not asking what i should use, i'm saying that APCR DESERVES a buff in killing power and no stupid deflection penalties. Really no discussion here, just because APCBC works it doesn't mean we should just stick to it and have no options whatsoever.

Same for APDS.

APDS is just like APCR but way faster and has a different material.

APDS discharge sabot, this is it.
It should be just better at 2000+ ranges compared to HVAP/APCR.
Both are useless tho

[Kay]

Originally posted by SAY_MY_NAME:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

APCR having angle penalties is something true to RL, post penetration should be only slightly worse than AP rounds though

No, honestly, the tungsten shaped change had less chances to bounce than any capped shell, especially at that velocity.

Yeah, if we ignore the massive difference in velocity trasmitted to fragments than yes, otherwise really no.

No they didn't, at higher angles APCR bounced more often (not APDS though) because of the outer shell (at least, that's what I get from the penetration curves, at the very least they suffered from counter-normalisation at higher angles)

[saymyname]

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

Originally posted by SAY_MY_NAME:

No, honestly, the tungsten shaped change had less chances to bounce than any capped shell, especially at that velocity.

Yeah, if we ignore the massive difference in velocity trasmitted to fragments than yes, otherwise really no.

No they didn't, at higher angles APCR bounced more often (not APDS though) because of the outer shell (at least, that's what I get from the penetration curves, at the very least they suffered from counter-normalisation at higher angles)

Right, my mistake.
But even by that, considering the Panzerg Patrone 39 and 40 comparison, there's a ridicolous difference of LESS than 4% between the loss of pemetration of the two when facing a t34 like 30 degrees slope from vertical.
Similar scale for us 76mm HVAP compared to APC.

NOWHERE as ridicolous as the difference in game, and it should still not bounce if a simple APC/BC will instead penetrate.

And the damage ? at that velocity a succesful penetration could make fragments travel and bounce to the point of hardly leaving anything that resemble a body in there.
They were far more lethal than aphe if a full penetration was scored.

Slope penalties should at least be cut in half.
Damage increased for any pure solid shot.

[Kay]

Originally posted by SAY_MY_NAME:

Originally posted by Ki'agh:

No they didn't, at higher angles APCR bounced more often (not APDS though) because of the outer shell (at least, that's what I get from the penetration curves, at the very least they suffered from counter-normalisation at higher angles)

Right, my mistake.
But even by that, considering the Panzerg Patrone 39 and 40 comparison, there's a ridicolous difference of LESS than 4% between the loss of pemetration of the two when facing a t34 like 30 degrees slope from vertical.
Similar scale for us 76mm HVAP compared to APC.

NOWHERE as ridicolous as the difference in game, and it should still not bounce if a simple APC/BC will instead penetrate.

And the damage ? at that velocity a succesful penetration could make fragments travel and bounce to the point of hardly leaving anything that resemble a body in there.
They were far more lethal than aphe if a full penetration was scored.

Slope penalties should at least be cut in half.
Damage increased for any pure solid shot.

Absolutely, both APDS and APCR were far more dangerous IRL than they are in game, APDS was at least on par with AP rounds, possibly even AP rounds of full calibre of the cannon firing the APDS

[Katokevin]

APCR and APDS (especially early APDS) are by no means close to similar. APCR was more often then not simply a far smaller penetrator inside a steel wall, resulting in quite poor performance against sloped armor. Take a Tiger II's 88mm APCR, the actuall penetrator is only a small 35mm in diameter and 138mm long. These have to carry the quite large exterior and heavy casing with it as well.

Move on to APDS, and you find big differences. The Soviet 3BM8 100mm APDS was still quite poor against sloped armor as it was quite similar to WWII APCR, only difference really being the discarding exterior case as Sabot does and the cone did have some lightweight metal inside of it. Compare that to British 84mm and 105mm APDS and you will find a difference. Mk.3 Saobt did have a cap to aid against sloped armor which was made of steel while the L28 had a tungsten cap.

Weight, size of the projectile, length, what is in the cap, etc are all things that need to be considered. The problem with most APCR of the time was there was little to no aid when it comes to griping an angled plate. All the mass in in the rear of the shell and when it hits a thick angled plate. If the tip can't dig in enough, it's going to travel along the slope and simply bounce off or lodge itself into the armor.

But, I will say APCR could use some reworking. Bouncing on an angled surface is understandable, but in WT, even the slightest angles can seem to mean the difference between a bounce and penetration. Though I still remember the days it was the best round. It would tear through anything and wipe crews with ease, but that was very early in GF.

[saymyname]

Originally posted by Katokevin:

APCR and APDS (especially early APDS) are by no means close to similar. APCR was more often then not simply a far smaller penetrator inside a steel wall, resulting in quite poor performance against sloped armor. Take a Tiger II's 88mm APCR, the actuall penetrator is only a small 35mm in diameter and 138mm long. These have to carry the quite large exterior and heavy casing with it as well.

Move on to APDS, and you find big differences. The Soviet 3BM8 100mm APDS was still quite poor against sloped armor as it was quite similar to WWII APCR, only difference really being the discarding exterior case as Sabot does and the cone did have some lightweight metal inside of it. Compare that to British 84mm and 105mm APDS and you will find a difference. Mk.3 Saobt did have a cap to aid against sloped armor which was made of steel while the L28 had a tungsten cap.

Weight, size of the projectile, length, what is in the cap, etc are all things that need to be considered. The problem with most APCR of the time was there was little to no aid when it comes to griping an angled plate. All the mass in in the rear of the shell and when it hits a thick angled plate. If the tip can't dig in enough, it's going to travel along the slope and simply bounce off or lodge itself into the armor.

But, I will say APCR could use some reworking. Bouncing on an angled surface is understandable, but in WT, even the slightest angles can seem to mean the difference between a bounce and penetration. Though I still remember the days it was the best round. It would tear through anything and wipe crews with ease, but that was very early in GF.

OK, but it was NOWHERE as much as an issue as it appears to be in war thunder.

To begin with, we aren't talking about bounces. If in the same conditions APC wouldn't bounce, then what should really happen is that, given an unfavourable angle, APCR would go through the armor following a trajectory that goes from the impact point, to a far higher hull point like this (/).

What i'm trying to say is that, even if the shaped tungsten can't get a grip, and that's a big if since penetration charts for APCR consider the loss of penetration IRRELEVANT for angles like 30 degrees that instead in game give crazy bounces, and still minimal for rare worse angles, all at 1000ms -_-, an APCR wouldn't simply bounce.
It would go through the hull slope damaging good portion of it and the frontal armor of the tank, making it useless.

APHE/APC should lose a bit of lethality and keep spalling/general damage, and HVAP should produce more fragments, be more lethal against weakpoints (against crew and components) and in general at the longer range, have more then we can talk about a way lower in scale penalty that solid shot could suffer against angles.