06-02-2016, 08:06 AM | #21 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
HEAT vs. APEX is a bit border line at this point and in some cases APEX is better! if you look at the Rheinmetall 7.5cm KwK40,, the APEX is 6dx10(2) pi++ with follow up 6d [4d-1] cr ex it's HEAT round is Dmg 6d(10) cr ex with 4dx4 cr ex linked. The APEX is 2x as good at penetrating, and has that lovely follow up explosion. Of course the nice thing about HEAT is you no longer need to get as higher velocity as possible which helps in other areas. Which is why if you give the RIA M2A1, 105x371mmR Howitzer an APEX round it's much closer in penetration to the HEAT round in the description. Or make hand held HEAT launchers, recoiless rifles etc, etc Last edited by Tomsdad; 06-02-2016 at 08:20 AM. |
|
06-02-2016, 09:21 AM | #22 | |
Join Date: Jul 2006
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
The PAK 36's bonus round (looked it up, it's called the Steilgranate 41) was ~6" in diameter. That's roughly the same sort of calibre as a modern ATGM... I assume there were other 6" HEAT shells in WW2 that we could compare performance to... |
|
06-02-2016, 09:34 AM | #23 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
It was more the HEAT vs. APEX out of cannon comparison I was thinking of rather than HEAT vs. HEAT But it makes the point though, I don't think anyone was firing a 6" HEAT shells out of a gun (that's 150mm, so the largest howitzers) But you don't need a massive great howitzer to do so, as you can fire over calibre, low velocity HEAT rounds from smaller weapons, the panzerfaust is 150mm* but more effective 6dx3 vs. 7dx2 (and lighter even with it's mount) Of course you suffer in range etc. *hmm one has to assume the panzerfaust's warhead was developed from the Steilgranate 41 Last edited by Tomsdad; 06-03-2016 at 12:38 AM. |
|
06-02-2016, 11:41 AM | #24 | |
☣
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Southeast NC
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
One thing about War Thunder (and World of Tanks) is that HE isn't really presented realistically. If an AP shell fails to penetrate, it does no damage. HE shells still do damage, but significantly less. Meaning HE is primarily used when you can't penetrate with AP. That's somewhat true, but the effect only really matters with huge HE charges (heavy artillery) or when you have unrealistic ablative hit points.
__________________
RyanW - Actually one normal sized guy in three tiny trenchcoats. Last edited by RyanW; 06-02-2016 at 11:46 AM. |
|
06-02-2016, 12:02 PM | #25 | ||||
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. Last edited by Ulzgoroth; 06-02-2016 at 02:26 PM. |
||||
06-02-2016, 12:25 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
Cool |
|
06-02-2016, 12:30 PM | #27 |
Join Date: Jul 2008
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Plus the fact that the APHC round existed, at considerable expense in rare metals, to give better penetration than the basic shell. And penetration data indicate that it worked.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident. |
06-02-2016, 02:14 PM | #28 | |
Icelandic - Approach With Caution
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Reykjavķk, Iceland
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
|
|
06-03-2016, 12:21 AM | #29 | |
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brighton
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
Quote:
Yep, it was on a couple of ground attack planes. |
|
06-03-2016, 06:12 AM | #30 |
Join Date: Oct 2010
|
Re: WWII: 40mm Autocannon VS tanks?
The only time I have heard of WW2 40mm cannon being used against tanks (on a ground mount) was during the Pacific War, where early in the Burma battles the British used them against the Japanese. From what I remember to little effect, and this was against Japanese tracked coffins. While it will be partly down to ammunition type, and the British did have a weird obsession with specialising their guns and sticking to it, but it can't have been the only reason surely?
There is an issue with Savage World's presentation of the Bofors 40mm in their Weird War 2 sourcebook, as it is by far the most effective anti-tank gun of the game, aside from against the heaviest of tanks. Now, it isn't exactly a simulationist system, but even with the awkward things in the book (the British 2 pdr is better than the 6 pdr anti-tank gun) it stands out as particularly off. It has RoF of 4 (the same as an MG42) when according to the way the game is scaled it should probably have a RoF of 2, and armour penetration exceeding most of the "medium" AT guns of the game (the German 50mm, British 6 pdr etc). Last edited by borithan; 06-03-2016 at 06:20 AM. |
Tags |
40mm, aa gun, autocannon, spalling, wwii |
|
|