Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

The Armored Warfare Disappointment Thread


T___A
 Share

Recommended Posts

My main gripes with AW are:

  • Shell velocity is artificially low for some reason
  • autocannons can and penetrate the front of heavily armored MBTs
  • HEAT has low penetration but higher damage Zm1RcyR.gif
  • T-64 is slower than the T-62
  • No substantial difference between rifled and smoothbore cannons
  • No substantial upgrades IE you can't upgrade to guns of different caliber or upgrade to new turret designs.
  • APDSFS does not perform like it should against sloped armor.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My main gripes with AW are:

  • Shell velocity is artificially low for some reason
  • autocannons can and penetrate the front of heavily armored MBTs
  • HEAT has low penetration but higher damage Zm1RcyR.gif
  • T-64 is slower than the T-62
  • No substantial difference between rifled and smoothbore cannons
  • No substantial upgrades IE you can't upgrade to guns of different caliber or upgrade to new turret designs.
  • APDSFS does not perform like it should against sloped armor.

 

-Silentstalker is remotely involved with it in anyway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could sort of see HEAT doing more damage than APFSDS, since it's shooting a jet of pseudo-molten goop into the crew compartment rather than simply sending in a kinetic penetrator. Not sure how the effects on the internals compare irl, though.

 

My point was mainly concerned with the idea that HEAT arbitrarily has less penetration than other types which doesn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear people bitching about the Sheridan and it's APFSDS round alot when I actually did play on someone elses account, and it should be removed because, rather then argue for balance sake, they tried to claim it "never had one designed for it in reality!"

 

......Which is correct, except for the fact that it isn't and it did.

 

500px-XM578E1_APFSDS.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that well as you might expect, It had a decent muzzle velocity of 1500 m/s, the problem was it had to be really stubby to fit the 152mm little derp guns that the Sheridan/M60A2/MBT-70 used so it only had a L/D ratio of something like 8:1.

 

Hunnicutt quoted estimates on the penetration and it was only something like 250mm at 2000m against a 60 degree slope.

 

Edit: got it, It's in his book "Abrams"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have made HEAT damage directly connectee to how much HEAT jet penetrated before getting into internal voluma of the vehicle. IRL the more HEAT penetrated, the less energy it have to cause damage inside. Thats why HEAT are more effective against lightly armored vehicles - HEAT warheads have enough energy to do a lot of damage to insides.

APFSDS should have been opposite of this - those rounds tend to do more damage to vehicle if they can dump all kinetic energy, which can happen only if it hit seriosly armored part of a tank or AFV. In case of light AFVs such projectiles can dump some noticeable amount of their energy only if they hit engine or something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess another thing is, a poster on the website www.bocn.co.uk actually does have a 152mm APFSDS penetrator rod photo in his collection, however it intrigues me because, unlike the XM578E1, this is Labeled as as the XM579E3, and I cannot find shit about it other then the patents linked to it and the former round or how they differ.

 

Any surviving examples of the APFSDS designed for the US 152mm gun are incredibly rare so, just a cool thing to see. (note the sheathe on the back has been cut off to show the core.)

 

152mmAPDSTSheridanTank_zps5879589b.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could sort of see HEAT doing more damage than APFSDS, since it's shooting a jet of pseudo-molten goop into the crew compartment rather than simply sending in a kinetic penetrator. Not sure how the effects on the internals compare irl, though.

 

Hunnicutt's Abrams mentions HEAT rounds with aluminum rather than copper liners because they have better behind-armor effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess another thing is, a poster on the website www.bocn.co.uk actually does have a 152mm APFSDS penetrator rod photo in his collection, however it intrigues me because, unlike the M578E1, this is Labeled as as the XM579E3, and I cannot find shit about it other then the patents linked to it and the former round or how they differ.

 

Any surviving examples of the APFSDS designed for the US 152mm gun are incredibly rare so, just a cool thing to see. (not the sheathe on the back has been cut off to show the core.)

 

152mmAPDSTSheridanTank_zps5879589b.jpg

 

Do you have any more info about the M578E1 or XM579E3? (Note the first result when I google "M578E1 152mm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Search for "XM578" or "XM578E1" instead, pretty sure it never got a standardized designation for it.

 

Anyway, unfortunately the best information is in Hunnicut's book Abrams where he speaks about the MBT-70 briefly, however I don't have this book, someone on tanknet posted the pages with relevant info on it which is where the muzzle velocity and penetration figures come from.

 

However, there is some info out there, the US army issued 2 patents for the shell in 1973 and 1976 respectively, see below if you want to sort through them.

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US37505781973

 

https://www.google.com/patents/US3978792?dq=ininventor:%22Dennis+L.+Purtilo%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Bs78Use3B6PR7Aahq4DwCA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwADgK1976

 

There's also this report that summarizes the program a bit, however it doesn't work for me right now.

 

https://books.google.com/books/about/Decision_Analysis_for_XM578_APFSDS_Cartr.html?id=Fy5kOAAACAAJ

 

Fortunately globalsecurity printed alot of the data inside on their site

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/m578.htm

 

As for how the XM579E3 differs, I honestly have no idea as it's either incredibly rare or a misbranding, the best theory I've heard is that it uses a DU core and/or a titanium alloy for the sheathe instead of Tungsten/steel, as this was also around the time the US Army was experimenting withing DU alternatives to tungsten penetrators such as the M735 used in the 105mm guns for example.

 

However, speculation, don't quote me on it.

 

Edit: Fixed the patents link, mistakenly double posted the 1973 link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, there's this thread where the same person who found the XM579E3 photo (on a different forum from where I found him though) obtained a drill round for an XM578E1, the drill round itself looks beat up as hell but the casing he also has is in great shape with all the original markings visible.

 

http://iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=16401&view=previous

 

And of course, D.E. Watters is there, how is he like Omnipresent on anything to do with ballistics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The T-64/Object-432 is IRL faster then the BPM-1 but in game I do donuts around T-64s in my BMP-1,  And im to lazy to spend xxxx battles playing a T-64/Lowe when I can play a BMP or BMD/ pz.kpfw. i ausf. c or mt-25,  all the tanks in armoured warfare need a big buff to there speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any game that says the chieftan is more armored than thr t-64 is worth writing off anyways

Its the T-64/Object-432 and its was 370mm vs APFSDS,  Now the T-64A/Object-434 is 450mm vs APFSDS

 

I agree, AW is going by WoT road and manage to go maybe even futher at times, in regards of in game presentation of real serial produced vehicles with a lot of avaliable information about them.

Armoured Warfare is still in EA4 and we still have EA5 and EA6 and maybe EA7 befor we hit beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...