Jump to content


How Widespread was "Gold Ammo"


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

GAJohnnie #41 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 16:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 10880 battles
  • 9,553
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    12-22-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 29 2015 - 00:26, said:

 

Yes, but not because of any doctrinal or design flaw. They quite simply didn't think that the 75mm wasn't adequate for the job, and they honestly believed that if they did need to bring the high velocity gun along, the 76mm would be good enough. It was an intelligence and caution failure, not a doctrinal or design failure.

 

Also US per-war doctrine was TDs, not tanks, fight enemy tanks. That is why the US TDs were generally better tank killers then the US Tanks.

The_Chieftain #42 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 19:03

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14393 battles
  • 9,930
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostGAJohnnie, on Jan 29 2015 - 15:15, said:

 

Also US per-war doctrine was TDs, not tanks, fight enemy tanks. That is why the US TDs were generally better tank killers then the US Tanks.

 

Have you read any of the past few pages?!

GAJohnnie #43 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 19:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 10880 battles
  • 9,553
  • [WCTNT] WCTNT
  • Member since:
    12-22-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 29 2015 - 13:03, said:

 

Have you read any of the past few pages?!

 

No Sir! Sorry Sir! No Excuse Sir!

Anlushac11 #44 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 19:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 39404 battles
  • 2,361
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
Boot to the head

VIA_ #45 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 19:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 20438 battles
  • 4,992
  • Member since:
    06-12-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 29 2015 - 10:03, said:

 

Have you read any of the past few pages?!

 

Doesn't preclude him from commenting? :)

 

View PostGAJohnnie, on Jan 29 2015 - 10:11, said:

 

No Sir! Sorry Sir! No Excuse Sir!

 

+1 for funny

 

View PostAnlushac11, on Jan 29 2015 - 10:23, said:

Boot to the head

 

+1 for also funny

Xlucine #46 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 21:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 7663 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostNWGIX, on Jan 28 2015 - 17:15, said:

From what I heard on the interwebs, German crews were only given 1 or 2 APCR shells because the metal to make them was so scarce during the war.

 

no one lies on the internet

 

German APCR bigger than 50mm was pretty much non-existent - early into the war it was ordered that all APCR for big guns (i.e. the guns that didn't really need it much in the first place) should be handed to to get turned into machine tools, which were far more useful

Blackhorse_Six_ #47 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 21:40

    Major

  • Players
  • 53895 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostAnlushac11, on Jan 29 2015 - 13:23, said:

Boot to the head

 

That's how alot of Gunners got black eyes ...

 

I did that to one of my own gunners quite by accident one night when we fell into a hole ...

 

He had that shiner for weeks and I felt like shitt about it every time I looked at him ... :(



stalkervision #48 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 21:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 71923 battles
  • 9,826
  • Member since:
    11-12-2013

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jan 29 2015 - 10:05, said:

 

Yes, the spin rate was detrimental, but not so much as you imply, or no one would have continued to use it.

 

Folks simply don't walk away from a HEAT hit, even when they're under enhanced armor.

 

When HEAT hits you in the fighting compartment, you can expect to get hurt - it is not a low-probability event.

 

In the late 1950s and early 60s, the French developed a special rotating sleeve for their HEAT rounds which reduced the rate of imparted spin, but did not negate it altogether. Even when fired from a smoothbore gun, there is still a certain amount of spin imparted to the round.

 

why would a smooth bore cannon impart any spin ?? :)

 

and yes certainly the heat rounds still worked just not as well as they could have.


Edited by stalkervision, Jan 29 2015 - 21:46.


Anlushac11 #49 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 23:09

    Major

  • Players
  • 39404 battles
  • 2,361
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013
I have read that the only reason 50mm APCR was not turned in was that Germany still had too many PAK 38's and 50mm equipped vehicles well into 1944 that removing the APCR would have rendered too large a part of its forces impotent to deal with Western Allied Armor.

cashdash #50 Posted Jan 29 2015 - 23:20

    Major

  • Players
  • 5558 battles
  • 7,254
  • Member since:
    03-31-2013
To be fair, as long as they had the APCR the PaK 38 was a perfectly capable AT gun in 1944.

Shanzival #51 Posted Jan 31 2015 - 18:31

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9311 battles
  • 557
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jan 29 2015 - 10:05, said:

 

Yes, the spin rate was detrimental, but not so much as you imply, or no one would have continued to use it.

 

Folks simply don't walk away from a HEAT hit, even when they're under enhanced armor.

 

When HEAT hits you in the fighting compartment, you can expect to get hurt - it is not a low-probability event.

 

In the late 1950s and early 60s, the French developed a special rotating sleeve for their HEAT rounds which reduced the rate of imparted spin, but did not negate it altogether. Even when fired from a smoothbore gun, there is still a certain amount of spin imparted to the round.

 

The science behind how a shaped charge functions (especially in regards to a HEAT shell) was also understood more post war so better rounds were designed. It's why there was a good amount of effort put into making armor that was more resistant against HEAT attacks.

collimatrix #52 Posted Jan 31 2015 - 20:57

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 29 2015 - 11:35, said:

IRL heat rounds weren't half as effective as in the game. This is due to the fact that imparting spin to any heat round disrupts the "jet" and defocuses it a bit when it comes into contact with homogenous armor.

 

View PostBlackhorse_Six, on Jan 29 2015 - 16:05, said:

 

Yes, the spin rate was detrimental, but not so much as you imply, or no one would have continued to use it.

 

Folks simply don't walk away from a HEAT hit, even when they're under enhanced armor.

 

When HEAT hits you in the fighting compartment, you can expect to get hurt - it is not a low-probability event.

 

In the late 1950s and early 60s, the French developed a special rotating sleeve for their HEAT rounds which reduced the rate of imparted spin, but did not negate it altogether. Even when fired from a smoothbore gun, there is still a certain amount of spin imparted to the round.

 

The in-game post-war HEAT rounds are nerfed relative to their actual performance.

 

Post-war large-caliber HEAT rounds don't spin; the Obus-G that Blackhorse_Six mentioned is a rare exception, and like he said only the outside of the shell spins.  Take a look at a cross-section of M456 105mm for the L7:

http://64.78.11.86/u...HEAT-T-M456.jpg

 

See those fins?  The HEAT shell itself has free-rotating bands on it, so the rotation is negligible.

 

Small-caliber HEAT shells like the 30mm in the apache have a special fluted liner that helps mitigate the effects of the spin.

 

View PostPresident_Romney, on Jan 31 2015 - 18:31, said:

 

The science behind how a shaped charge functions (especially in regards to a HEAT shell) was also understood more post war so better rounds were designed. It's why there was a good amount of effort put into making armor that was more resistant against HEAT attacks.

 

I strongly suspect that HEAT design got better post-war because there was a lot of research into rheological behavior of metals when collapsed with high explosives.  Because reasons.



Wyvern2 #53 Posted Jan 31 2015 - 21:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 35835 battles
  • 3,114
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    06-08-2011

View Postcollimatrix, on Jan 31 2015 - 20:57, said:

 

 

The in-game post-war HEAT rounds are nerfed relative to their actual performance.

 

Post-war large-caliber HEAT rounds don't spin; the Obus-G that Blackhorse_Six mentioned is a rare exception, and like he said only the outside of the shell spins.  Take a look at a cross-section of M456 105mm for the L7:

http://64.78.11.86/u...HEAT-T-M456.jpg

 

See those fins?  The HEAT shell itself has free-rotating bands on it, so the rotation is negligible.

 

Small-caliber HEAT shells like the 30mm in the apache have a special fluted liner that helps mitigate the effects of the spin.

 

 

I strongly suspect that HEAT design got better post-war because there was a lot of research into rheological behavior of metals when collapsed with high explosives.  Because reasons.

 

they are and arent nerfed, its more like HEAT in this game is completely off from what it was irl, possibly only outmatched in offness by HESH. in game, HEAT has no normalization and fails at 80 degrees while being stupidly susceptible to spaced armor of any kind. Irl, spaced armor was not all that effective against HEAT, oftentimes, the spaced armor would only ENHANCE the effects of HEAT since it gave the jet of molten metal more time to form. At the same time, HEAT was stupidly unreliable against slope. Even the "best" HEAT, used by the soviets on their 115-125mm guns in the 60-70's failed at an angle between 60-70 degrees of slope. Other nations had even greater issues, with failure against lower amounts of slope. For example, the bazookas failing against NK T-34/85's despite technically having adequate penetration to go through, the fuse could and most likely would fail against the heavily sloped armor in a lot of situations, though i do believe storage issues were also a problem.

Walter_Sobchak #54 Posted Jan 31 2015 - 22:37

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View Poststalkervision, on Jan 29 2015 - 05:35, said:

IRL heat rounds weren't half as effective as in the game. This is due to the fact that imparting spin to any heat round disrupts the "jet" and defocuses it a bit when it comes into contact with homogenous armor.

 

I was under the impression that the primary problem with WW2 era HEAT was creating fuses that afforded proper stand off distance.  The fuses of the day pretty much limited heat to rocket propelled stuff and low velocity cannons.  And even then the fuses were not perfect.  I remember reading that General Patton commissioned some Third Army ordnance guys to study whether or not sandbags had any effect on panzerfaust.  Their finding was that the sandbags actually improved the penetration of the Panzerfaust because it gave the warhead that much more stand off distance before making contact with the armor plate.  Can't remember where I read that though...

Jarheadurpukes #55 Posted Feb 04 2015 - 18:19

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 26041 battles
  • 34
  • [PSYCO] PSYCO
  • Member since:
    08-01-2014
The "gold round" is a sabot, simply put and has more penetration than the other rounds.  Historically the sabot inflicted more damage beside the heat rounds aka HE.  Its use was proven in WWII.

collimatrix #56 Posted Feb 10 2015 - 00:03

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

View PostWyvern2, on Jan 31 2015 - 21:31, said:

 

they are and arent nerfed, its more like HEAT in this game is completely off from what it was irl, possibly only outmatched in offness by HESH. in game, HEAT has no normalization and fails at 80 degrees while being stupidly susceptible to spaced armor of any kind. Irl, spaced armor was not all that effective against HEAT, oftentimes, the spaced armor would only ENHANCE the effects of HEAT since it gave the jet of molten metal more time to form. At the same time, HEAT was stupidly unreliable against slope. Even the "best" HEAT, used by the soviets on their 115-125mm guns in the 60-70's failed at an angle between 60-70 degrees of slope. Other nations had even greater issues, with failure against lower amounts of slope. For example, the bazookas failing against NK T-34/85's despite technically having adequate penetration to go through, the fuse could and most likely would fail against the heavily sloped armor in a lot of situations, though i do believe storage issues were also a problem.

 

The heavily nerfed HEAT rounds I referred to are the post-war types, such as M456 for the M68.  In-game these get 330mm of penetration, or 3 charge diameters.  Actually, M456A1 could manage 390mm and the French 105mm Obus-G a little more than that.

 

If you look at a round of M456A1, you'll see that the projectile has a long standoff probe to fuse the round.  Therefore the round is fusing at optimal standoff distance, and spaced armor will not improve its effectiveness against the main plate.

 

Finally, HEAT jets aren't molten.



blurr91 #57 Posted Feb 10 2015 - 03:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 14646 battles
  • 2,549
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostPresident_Romney, on Jan 31 2015 - 09:31, said:

 

The science behind how a shaped charge functions (especially in regards to a HEAT shell) was also understood more post war so better rounds were designed. It's why there was a good amount of effort put into making armor that was more resistant against HEAT attacks.

 

 

For a while, tanks had very little armor because HEAT was so effective at going through traditional steel armor.  Leo 1 and AMX 30 came out of this school of thought.  Mobility was to be their survival tool.



Dominatus #58 Posted Feb 10 2015 - 03:24

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,790
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
I've come to think that people need to stop saying that the AMX-30 was unarmoured. In fact, it was more armoured than the previous generation of Soviet medium tanks, and wasn't much less armoured than the Chieftain which was designed (with marginal success) for armour and had about the same protection as the M60.

blurr91 #59 Posted Feb 10 2015 - 03:31

    Major

  • Players
  • 14646 battles
  • 2,549
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

Where did I say AMX 30 was unarmored?

 

And if AMX 30 were as well armored as the Chieftain, why was it 20 tons lighter?


Edited by blurr91, Feb 10 2015 - 03:33.


Dominatus #60 Posted Feb 10 2015 - 03:34

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,790
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
I mean "practically" unarmoured. The AMX-30 is not like the Leopard with its rather thin armour that was resistant to 85mm AP and not much else.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users