xellos Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Why pak40's vel data on the document is 750m/s?(792m/s in cm) And its penertration data also seems much weaker than CMBB's data(I dont know cmbn's data) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 The girls have never complained about my penetration data. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iMolestCats Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 The girls have never complained about my penetration data. HAHAHAHA aw man you killed me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 The girls have never complained about my penetration data. Guaranteed FTP, low risk of spalling. Pretty safe for the ladies. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Careful. Each major combatant in WWII had a different standard for what was considered a "penetration" in armor vs. projectile tests. I don't remember all of the details off of the top of my head, but suffice it to say that without knowing the testing standards, you can't really compare data of gun 1 from nationality A to data gun 2 from nationality B because there may be fairly different criteria involved. For the data in CMBB, BFC obviously had to conform the penetration data for all projectiles to a constant standard regardless of nationality. I don't remember offhand what that standard is, but I do remember that there is one. As far as the velocity, hard to say... one wonders if this varied through the course of the war as manufacturing techniques changed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Not entirely sure if this is relevant to this situation but while developing I am sure Battlefront mentioned new reference materials/data for many aspects, so CMBB data may be quite different to the CMBN mechanics apart from what was required to fit the numbers in with the new engine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 A quick and dirty cut 'n paste from Wikipedia. The muzzle velocity was about 790 m/s (2,600 ft/s) as opposed to 750 m/s (2,500 ft/s) for the KwK 40 L/43. This velocity was available for about one year after the weapon's introduction. Around the same time, the Panzer IVs 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/43 gun and the nearly identical Sturmkanone (StuK) 40 L/43 began to be upgraded with barrels that were 48 calibers long (L/48), which remained the standard for them until the end of the war. In the field, an alarming number of L/48 cartridge cases carrying the hotter charge failed to be ejected properly from the weapon's semi-automatic breech, even on the first shot (in vehicles). Rather than re-engineer the case, German Ordnance reduced the charge loading until the problem went away. The new charge brought the muzzle velocity down to 750 m/s (2,500 ft/s), about 10 m/s higher than the original L/43 version of the weapon. Considering the average variability in large round velocities from a given gun, this is virtually negligible in effect. The first formal documentation of this decision appears on May 15, 1943 ("7.5cm Sturmkanone 40 Beschreibung") which details a side by side comparison of the L/43 and the L/48 weapons. The synopsis provided indicates very little difference in the guns, meaning the upgrade had little if any benefit. All further official presentations of the KwK 40 L/48 ( "Oberkommando des Heeres, Durchschlagsleistungen panzerbrechender Waffen") indicate a muzzle velocity of 750 m/s for the gun. As for the Pak 40, the desire for commonality again appears to have prevailed since the APCBC charge was reduced to 750 m/s, even though case ejection failures apparently were never a problem in the Pak version of the gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkelried Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 A quick and dirty cut 'n paste from Wikipedia. so size (/43 to /48) really doesn't matter ... more if you're on the move or static (at least for the ejection) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArgusEye Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Do you have a bigger pic of the data sheet? I find it quite hard to read. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 never mind. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.