Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 50 battles to post in this section.
YabbaCoe

ST, new type of shells

34 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

[WG]
WG Staff
3,959 posts
4,310 battles

Captains! 

 

Soon there will be closed testing of the new mechanics of semi-armor piercing shells. Please note that if this concept of semi-armor piercing shells will be successfully tested, detailed information about its area of usage will be announced later.

 

Semi-armor piercing shells - a new type of shell, similar to high explosive terms of in armor penetration mechanics, which means that the shell explodes immediately after hitting the ship. However, the armor penetration of the semi-armor piercing shells will be higher than that of high explosive ones. The difference between this type of shell and high explosive shells is that they are not capable of causing fire or damaging the modules of the ship by the blast wave. When firing semi-armor piercing shells, it is possible to ricochet.

Semi-armor piercing shells, when properly used, can do more damage than high explosive shells, but the absence of fires and the presence of ricochets will give players the opportunity to effectively withstand this type of ammunition.

 

Please note that the information in the Development Blog is preliminary.

  • Cool 4
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Players
1,503 posts
3,118 battles

I like the idea, however, can they be called "General purpose shells", i think it will be more appropiate, even if they can't cause fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
995 posts
15,763 battles

BS idea, why did all the rickhochet mechanics tweaks and AP dmg to DD were even made? Spaming HE for fires is one thing, now there might be this premium WoT armor spam that does more damage  on every hit on any angle, why making the game so dumb simplified that even a cactus would be able to score high?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[DREAD]
Players
9,587 posts
6,760 battles

So. Ignoring angle and distance...? Meaning a medium „dumb“ shell type. 

 

Don‘t like it but hope it would be instead of HE which is the other dumb shell type.

 

Why is everyone expecting this to be the Italian shell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[AMOK]
Players
1,955 posts
8,549 battles

So this will be the shell to really f*ck up CL and DDs? No overpenns anymore on light targets or what does "explodes immediatly" mean?

And please WG don't even think about some sort of special "ballistics" premium ammo. This made me and other people leave WoT back then and I don't think it's gonna be any different here.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
5,378 posts
2,939 battles

Everybody : omg this is for the italian line

WG : ...YEAH. HOW DID YOU GUESS *shoves "premium ammo" reveal in a corner with the foot*

 

Either way : it's a common if I understand correctly.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
303 posts
10,931 battles
1 hour ago, YabbaCoe said:

but the absence of fires and the presence of ricochets

How should I read this sentence?

[the absence of fires] and [the presence of ricochets]

or

the absence of [fires and the presence of ricochets]

?

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
271 posts
12,254 battles
48 minutes ago, 1MajorKoenig said:

Why is everyone expecting this to be the Italian shell?

Because historically, italians used this type of shell on their guns, battleships and cruisers if im not mistaken.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Weekend Tester, In AlfaTesters
2,644 posts
10,081 battles
6 minutes ago, Yuudachi_Kai_II said:

 

[the absence of fires] and [the presence of ricochets]

 

 

Quote

The difference between this type of shell and high explosive shells is that they are not capable of causing fire or damaging the modules of the ship by the blast wave.

 

When firing semi-armor piercing shells, it is possible to ricochet.

 

So, can't cause fires and can ricochet.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
1,046 posts
8,508 battles
1 hour ago, Azalgor said:

BS idea, why did all the rickhochet mechanics tweaks and AP dmg to DD were even made? Spaming HE for fires is one thing, now there might be this premium WoT armor spam that does more damage  on every hit on any angle, why making the game so dumb simplified that even a cactus would be able to score high?

You my friend need to read the post again. This shell will not cause fires but will ricochet. So angling is a thing here. If put in correctly this can be a nice addition to the game. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[SCRUB]
Players
8,460 posts
13,036 battles
20 minutes ago, Miki12345 said:

Because historically, italians used this type of shell on their guns, battleships and cruisers if im not mistaken.

Yep, the catch-all term granata perforante for the SAP (as opposed to the common name palla or proiettille perforante for regular AP) is used for BB and CA caliber gun ammunition options. At least that's what a superficial Google search warranted.

 

It being the overture to WG finding the italian CA/BB niche is the most logical assumption. Though I wouldn't put it past WG to try and introduce premium ammunition into WoWs, at which point I'd have to break out my torches and pitchforks ... but for now I'll optimistically expect an italian cruiser line. WG been taken their sweet time with Italy as it stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ADRIA]
Players
271 posts
12,254 battles
1 minute ago, Aotearas said:

It being the overture to WG finding the italian CA/BB niche is the most logical assumption. Though I wouldn't put it past WG to try and introduce premium ammunition into WoWs, at which point I'd have to break out my torches and pitchforks ... but for now I'll optimistically expect an italian cruiser line. WG been taken their sweet time with Italy as it stands.

If heard and read quite a few theories on why SAP is getting introduced: Italian ships, IFHE replacement, Gold ammo and so on. All of them seem plausible but I wouldnt judge too early, it just started being tested.

 

Mass histeria always comes with these kind of announcements, especially when they are vague as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Modder
303 posts
10,931 battles
32 minutes ago, WolfGewehr said:

So, can't cause fires and can ricochet.

ok thanks, I didn't read carefully...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,485 posts
13,481 battles

So it follows the rules for HE penetration, a flat penetration amount that doesn't change over distance, with no overmatching but the possibility for shells to ricochet?

 

Less damage than AP shells and against any ship that doesnt have an exposed citadel surface wont be able to cause citadel damage either as the shells wont travel internally, however this also means they wont overpenetrate.

 

They will also not start fires nor cause damage to modules unless they hit directly, but will cause more damage than regular HE shells.

 

If the available shells were SAP + HE I can't imagine why I would want to use it instead of HE, I doubt the raw damage would outweigh the lost damage dealt by fires, especially when they have the potential to ricochet, and I cant see much potential from the increased penetration unless the penetration is either 50mm+ which only makes it consistent HE, or 400mm+ which enables it to penetrate thick belts.

If the combination is AP + SAP however, when changing ammo you lose any potential overmatching, you lose citadel potential and you lose some damage on penetrations, but you remove the possibility of overpenetrations and retain consistent penetration at all ranges at the cost of not being able to start fires or knock out a swathe of modules (not unlike RN CLs). A disadvantage if you face a target you cannot overmatch who is angled against you if you cannot switch to an ammo type that cannot ricochet.

 

An interesting shell, seems mostly beneficial to BBs but potentially to cruisers as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Tester
995 posts
15,763 battles
4 hours ago, TheBigLanowski said:

You my friend need to read the post again. This shell will not cause fires but will ricochet. So angling is a thing here. If put in correctly this can be a nice addition to the game. 

 You too need to read carefully, i meant the HE spam we have at this point, that AP shells shatter, do 0 damaghe on pens, bounce etc., that people pretty much use HE on anything just to set an ocasional fire and do some damage. With this new shell  type the HE spam will turn into something that doesnt set fires, instead does constant damage, and as i can imagine a lot more. 

 People used AP without bothering to switch, because you could do decent damage on any target, they changed that with how large caliber AP interact with DDs, now, u want to go back to mindless shelling? DDs will have fun again, not that they arent now with the reworked carriers.

 WG should just fix shell interaction that they messed up, instead of coming up with new ones, for better yet, if they want new shells, introduce star shells and bring out night battles, would be more fun ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,485 posts
13,481 battles
31 minutes ago, Azalgor said:

 You too need to read carefully, i meant the HE spam we have at this point, that AP shells shatter, do 0 damaghe on pens, bounce etc., that people pretty much use HE on anything just to set an ocasional fire and do some damage. With this new shell  type the HE spam will turn into something that doesnt set fires, instead does constant damage, and as i can imagine a lot more. 

 People used AP without bothering to switch, because you could do decent damage on any target, they changed that with how large caliber AP interact with DDs, now, u want to go back to mindless shelling? DDs will have fun again, not that they arent now with the reworked carriers.

What does this have to do with anything? You can moan all you want about people spamming HE or whatever but these SAP shells look like they are most likely going to be used as the gimmick for a new nation or shipline and will most likely replace HE shells for those ships. There would be no reason to label them as "SAP" shells if they were trying to make a more systemic change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,585 posts
16,408 battles

The question here is whether SAP has a similar mechanic to AP overmatch.

 

If yes, then BB SAP (potentially on italian BBs) would be a good way to ensure penetrations when you hit, at the cost of not being able to cit a lot of targets (I'd guess majority at this point have internal citadels). Technically even heavy cruisers could use such SAP on broadside targets. Though on CAs, it'd be kinda questionable, since they generally don't overmatch many ships and would thus really need broadsides in order to do anything (and then still couln't citadel a lot of cruisers).

 

If this is related to hypothetical future italian BBs, then I believe SAP with overmatch could work on them provided their accuracy isn't stellar - say like Roma. You'd then get only pens and cits on cruisers if you hit (unless you hit angled armor you can't overmatch). With actually accurate guns, that would make cruisers evaporate, particularly those with exposed citadels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FANDF]
Players
170 posts

I would have thought RN CL would be the first to get this, given bar Belfast they are the only line with a single shell type, and that the shell type they currently have is quasi AP with fast fuses to mimic SAP, due to the absence of SAP shell mechanics when they were introduced, given the shell type listed in-game is SAP, given it is somewhat unreliable in comparison to others who get to pick AP or HE, noting that the proposed IFHE and plating changes could well leave RN CL at a disadvantage firing quasi AP, rather than the new SAP mechanic shell, given RN CL have just one shell type.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[T-N-T]
Players
3,585 posts
16,408 battles
20 hours ago, b101uk said:

I would have thought RN CL would be the first to get this, given bar Belfast they are the only line with a single shell type, and that the shell type they currently have is quasi AP with fast fuses to mimic SAP, due to the absence of SAP shell mechanics when they were introduced, given the shell type listed in-game is SAP, given it is somewhat unreliable in comparison to others who get to pick AP or HE, noting that the proposed IFHE and plating changes could well leave RN CL at a disadvantage firing quasi AP, rather than the new SAP mechanic shell, given RN CL have just one shell type.

 

 

But the proposed SAP wouldn't bring anything for the RN CLs. On the contrary, it would make then unable to citadel some cruisers in brawls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FANDF]
Players
170 posts
4 hours ago, Toivia said:

But the proposed SAP wouldn't bring anything for the RN CLs. On the contrary, it would make then unable to citadel some cruisers in brawls.

the crappy shells they have now are often unable to do reliable damage, because WG used ordinary AP mechanics with very fast fuse timings as a stand-in for proper SAP mechanics, so if they are refining some proper SAP mechanics, then it should be applied to all things that primarily fired SAP, of which the RN CL did.

 

(CPBC (Common Pointed Ballistic Cap) is the old designation for SAPBC (Semi-Armor Piercing Ballistic Cap) used in 6"/50 BL Mk X___)

 

and if they are developing SAP mechanics, then fuse times should be longer (relative to quasi SAP using AP with very fast fuses), which will mean the shell will detonate further inside a ship rather than detonating prematurely not as far inside a ship dictated by the very short fuse time quasi SAP, so ultimately everything that can be citadel now should continue to be, with the addition that multiple levels of thin armour should be overcome because there will be no premature detonation, which will be more reliable damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,485 posts
13,481 battles
17 hours ago, b101uk said:

the crappy shells they have now are often unable to do reliable damage, because WG used ordinary AP mechanics with very fast fuse timings as a stand-in for proper SAP mechanics, so if they are refining some proper SAP mechanics, then it should be applied to all things that primarily fired SAP, of which the RN CL did.

SAP shells themselves are just AP shells with short fuses and a HE charge. Ingame we have these HE shells but in reality a significant number of them are common SAP ammunition and not actually HE/HC at all. If you check the full shell data with an external site you'll see that where AP shells have varying degrees of fuse thresholds and timers (such as the RN CL AP 12mm threshold and 0.005s timer) that all HE has a 2mm threshold and 0.001s timer. WG are not trying to redefine the way RN CL AP works, they are trying to create yet another alternative to regular AP and HE ammo choices.

 

Furthermore, it seems like you're making the assumption that SAP shells are somehow unique to the RN and therefore they should get the benefits, but despite being the nation to designate shells as SAPBC we are far from the only nation to use semi armor piercing shells/common burster rounds. Many ships had "SAP" shells to provide a means to engage targets of medium armor, relative to the heavily armored target the guns AP shells were intended for use against.

 

German battleships including Bismarck and Scharnhorst etc carried SAP shells, they were typically armed with an AP shell and two SAP shells; APHEBC, one with a nose fuze, one with a base fuze.

image.thumb.png.d8a72646b7ee339977041a855f9ec90a.png

 

The Japanese capped common shell use in their 14cm guns is another example.

 

One of the most well known examples of another "SAP" shell in this community is the Granata Perforante (Piercing Shell - using older terminology from when shells were HE) used by the Italian Littorio class battleships 381mm guns, this was the Semi AP alternative to their Proiettile Perforante (Piercing Shot - where shell meant HE, shot meant AP) sometimes referred to simply as Palla.

 

While not referred to as a SAP round, Italian cruisers also used Granata Perforante as their primary round at a calibre of 203mm on Zara and Bolzano class cruisers. They fulfilled the role as the ships AP shell type though with a greater HE charge than other AP shells. Some people have come to suspect that the invention of these SAP shells ingame are a component of an upcoming Italian tech branch.

 

SAP is just a term for shells with a armor piercing ballistic cap and a HE charge, which is the vast majority of naval HE shells especially at larger calibres.

Quote

and if they are developing SAP mechanics, then fuse times should be longer (relative to quasi SAP using AP with very fast fuses), which will mean the shell will detonate further inside a ship rather than detonating prematurely not as far inside a ship dictated by the very short fuse time quasi SAP, so ultimately everything that can be citadel now should continue to be, with the addition that multiple levels of thin armour should be overcome because there will be no premature detonation, which will be more reliable damage.

Whether a shell detonates prematurely depends rather more on the armor scheme of the target than the shell itself. You have an AP shell with specific performance characteristics and it is up to you to understand and use them in a way that optimises the results.

Shells with low fuse thresholds should also have short fuse timers. For the sake of game balance any AP shell that can easily arm itself should struggle to reach past spaced armor. This is already the case with RN CL shells which are extremely good against everything that isn't extremely well angled (and not being able to reach the citadel is not much of an issue for ships that can produce so many consistent regular penetrations) and even angling against it is challenging.

 

For the SAP shells described by WG to be a superior alternative to the enhanced AP used by RN CLs it would need to be significantly different, as described you would lose damage (SAP damage would be more than HE but less than AP), penetration (again, more tha HE but less than AP) and the RN improved penetration angles while gaining nothing. Increasing the fuze timer of the SAP shells would defeat the purpose of them on large calibre guns.

 

SAP shells exist as an alternative to AP shells that have a tendancy to overpenetrate, RN CL AP does not have this issue as it already behaves very much like SAP and rather seems to perform better than SAP should.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[GBUK]
Players
28 posts
12,615 battles

This very much sounds as if it would be good as a replacement for IFHE with the commander skill unlocking the ability to use SAP shells rather than reworking IFHE itself.

 

 

Italian line could then get these shells for free as their national trait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[FANDF]
Players
170 posts
On ‎7‎/‎6‎/‎2019 at 3:41 PM, Astolfo_Is_My_Waifu said:

SAP shells themselves are just AP shells with short fuses and a HE charge. Ingame we have these HE shells but in reality a significant number of them are common SAP ammunition and not actually HE/HC at all. If you check the full shell data with an external site you'll see that where AP shells have varying degrees of fuse thresholds and timers (such as the RN CL AP 12mm threshold and 0.005s timer) that all HE has a 2mm threshold and 0.001s timer. WG are not trying to redefine the way RN CL AP works, they are trying to create yet another alternative to regular AP and HE ammo choices.

 

Furthermore, it seems like you're making the assumption that SAP shells are somehow unique to the RN and therefore they should get the benefits, but despite being the nation to designate shells as SAPBC we are far from the only nation to use semi armor piercing shells/common burster rounds. Many ships had "SAP" shells to provide a means to engage targets of medium armor, relative to the heavily armored target the guns AP shells were intended for use against.

 

German battleships including Bismarck and Scharnhorst etc carried SAP shells, they were typically armed with an AP shell and two SAP shells; APHEBC, one with a nose fuze, one with a base fuze.

image.thumb.png.d8a72646b7ee339977041a855f9ec90a.png

 

The Japanese capped common shell use in their 14cm guns is another example.

 

One of the most well known examples of another "SAP" shell in this community is the Granata Perforante (Piercing Shell - using older terminology from when shells were HE) used by the Italian Littorio class battleships 381mm guns, this was the Semi AP alternative to their Proiettile Perforante (Piercing Shot - where shell meant HE, shot meant AP) sometimes referred to simply as Palla.

 

While not referred to as a SAP round, Italian cruisers also used Granata Perforante as their primary round at a calibre of 203mm on Zara and Bolzano class cruisers. They fulfilled the role as the ships AP shell type though with a greater HE charge than other AP shells. Some people have come to suspect that the invention of these SAP shells ingame are a component of an upcoming Italian tech branch.

 

SAP is just a term for shells with a armor piercing ballistic cap and a HE charge, which is the vast majority of naval HE shells especially at larger calibres.

Whether a shell detonates prematurely depends rather more on the armor scheme of the target than the shell itself. You have an AP shell with specific performance characteristics and it is up to you to understand and use them in a way that optimises the results.

Shells with low fuse thresholds should also have short fuse timers. For the sake of game balance any AP shell that can easily arm itself should struggle to reach past spaced armor. This is already the case with RN CL shells which are extremely good against everything that isn't extremely well angled (and not being able to reach the citadel is not much of an issue for ships that can produce so many consistent regular penetrations) and even angling against it is challenging.

 

For the SAP shells described by WG to be a superior alternative to the enhanced AP used by RN CLs it would need to be significantly different, as described you would lose damage (SAP damage would be more than HE but less than AP), penetration (again, more tha HE but less than AP) and the RN improved penetration angles while gaining nothing. Increasing the fuze timer of the SAP shells would defeat the purpose of them on large calibre guns.

 

SAP shells exist as an alternative to AP shells that have a tendancy to overpenetrate, RN CL AP does not have this issue as it already behaves very much like SAP and rather seems to perform better than SAP should.

it is your OWN fool assumption that I am somehow under the impression "that SAP shells are somehow unique to the RN", which I am not, but in-game the RN CL line IS entirely dependent on a single shell type, unlike ALL other ship lines in-game, thus if SAP mechanics are developed then it should be developed with the RN CL's strongly in mind too, which was the point I was making and WHY I used RN CL line as an example, given the unreliability of the "quasi SAP" relative normal AP or that of HE

 

likewise the scope of shells that fall under "SAP" is far from it only being "AP shells with short fuses and a HE charge" or "SAP is just a term for shells with a armor piercing ballistic cap and a HE charge" lol, as many AP shells didn't have a large enough cavity to take comparative size/mass bursting charges as their HE/HC counterparts, because they were fundamentally different shell-case, likewise NOT all SAP is capped (either ballistic or piercing), many are pointed somewhat similar to some HE/HC shell case types, just with thicker nose and shell body walls and thus a smaller cavity relative to the HE/HC shell case and thus a smaller bursting charge, SAP covers a much wider range of shells than full-blown AP or HE/HC, because it covers the diverse range of shells between the two points, which is dictated by the normal expected target types, normal engagement ranges dictated by equipment used for targeting and their height above the waterline, thus the horizon distance and the size of thing you can see beyond it and the down-range ballistic performance vs. expected target types, and your ability to set individual fuse timings attuned to what you are shooting at.

 

AP shells with a fixed fuse timing will over-penetrate when faced with something thin, but that is a function of fixed fuse timing, but IRL fuse timing was changed to fit the target, which is why some had in-breach fuse setting and fired exclusively AP at all warship types with their >300mm main guns, be it a DD or a BB and why they during WW2 never carried (*) more than 5 or 6 HE shells per main gun (which were exclusively for shore bombardment), as was typical for instance with RN BB's like KGV/DoY/WS/QE etc.

 

(*) unless they were exclusively going out on shore bombardment duties, at which point they would carry a greater proportion of HE shells

 

for RN CL's they could develop the SAP mechanic then have a togglable fuse timing, else a long fuse and short fuse setting, that would function like AP HE switching on other ships, but on RN CL its just switching from SAP (short fuse) to SAP (long fuse), which would plug some of the shortfall that RN CL's suffer from at the moment with lack of penetration due to hitting super structure rather than carrying on deeper within the ship, which can see hundreds of penetrations but very little damage relative to similar ships that have the choice of longer fused AP or HE both of which perform more reliably, and this fuse timing change could be one of the unique features of SAP in WoWs for all nations that SAP is the primary shell type.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quality Poster, In AlfaTesters
1,485 posts
13,481 battles

 

Quote

it is your OWN fool assumption that I am somehow under the impression "that SAP shells are somehow unique to the RN", which I am not

Good, then you should then be happy for WG to add something to the game called a SAP shell and that RN CLs dont have to benefit from the existance of that just because we designated some shells as SAP, since generally SAP shells are an idea for a shells configuration, not a technical design, and that SAP shells are just AP shells with relatively less penetration and there are numerous examples of many nations applying this concept. There is nothing special about the british implementation that justifies the RN CL AP performance ingame.

 

Quote

likewise the scope of shells that fall under "SAP" is far from it only being "AP shells with short fuses and a HE charge" or "SAP is just a term for shells with a armor piercing ballistic cap and a HE charge" lol

A semi armor piercing shell is an armor piercing shell with a fraction of the penetration. It's not that complicated. You can take an armor piercing shell, shorten the fuse, boom, semi-armor piercing shell. Sure they come in a variety of different designs with different casings and payloads and fuse locations, but theyre still basically just AP shells configured to not penetrate so much armor.

Quote

many AP shells didn't have a large enough cavity to take comparative size/mass bursting charges as their HE/HC counterparts

I never claimed they did. I did say that some ingame HE shells are actually SAP shells in the real world, but I never claimed those shells had the same yield as real world HE shells. Should be obvious that AP shells are not HE shells, not sure why this needed clarifying. All of them did contain some high explosive filler, hence why they are called AP shells and not AP rounds.

Quote

SAP covers a much wider range of shells than full-blown AP or HE/HC, because it covers the diverse range of shells between the two points

Ironically, the point of my post was to demonstrate that SAP as a term was mostly british but the concept of SAP shells covers a wider range of shells, but thanks for explaining it back to me anyway.

Quote

some had in-breach fuse setting and fired exclusively AP at all warship types with their >300mm main guns, be it a DD or a BB

So you're saying they're fired AP shells with shortened fuses? How novel.

Quote

for RN CL's they could develop the SAP mechanic then have a togglable fuse timing, else a long fuse and short fuse setting, that would function like AP HE switching on other ships, but on RN CL its just switching from SAP (short fuse) to SAP (long fuse), which would plug some of the shortfall that RN CL's suffer from at the moment with lack of penetration due to hitting super structure rather than carrying on deeper within the ship, which can see hundreds of penetrations but very little damage relative to similar ships that have the choice of longer fused AP or HE both of which perform more reliably, and this fuse timing change could be one of the unique features of SAP in WoWs for all nations that SAP is the primary shell type.  

An unnecessary upgrade to some of the best performing AP shells in the game. Minotaur absolutely does not need any enhancements that allow it to apply even more of its 700k damage per minute such as the ability to bypass spaced armor. It's already almost impossible to ricochet against targets beyond 12km due to the vertical angle of incidence and is effectively impossible to overpen.

The ammo is not meant to be perfect, it was designed to have this shortfall, otherwise it would be utterly ridiculous. It certainly is not in so bad a state as to require and added function that further increases its potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×