APDS SLOPE EFFECTS

[Simon Fox]

With regard to Simon Fox' intriguing and startling findings on why the two tests on John Salt site pointed to basic inconsistencies in APDS manufacturing, they aren't.

We figured out a long time ago one test had a good lot, another a bad lot.

We've been saying inconsistency was a basic element of APDS accuracy and penetration for a long time.

Seeing that so far you have been unable to express your conclusions clearly in this thread it hardly seems likely that I would be cogniscant of them. I am intrigued and startled that you would characterise my observations as intriguing and startling findings. Certainly, I would not go so far as to characterise my questions as "findings". I am delighted to find that the results of your detailed analysis concurr with my own inclination on this subject.

I am even more delighted to see that in your last post you are discussing with startling clarity issues of chronolgy which I have previously raised. The question is how could APDS be better modelled in CM. Clearly your analysis regarding slope modifiers is readily implemented.

In order model accuracy changes surely it is necessary to better define "inconsistency" as it applies to APDS?

Can the inconsistency in APDS be modelled on the basis of 'good' and 'dud' rounds? Or is it a bit more complex?

Is a 'good' APDS round more accurate than a 'good' APCBC round?

Can the batch variation you describe be modelled in terms of % 'dud' rounds? In which case it would be necessary to determine the % 'dud' for each scenario and hope you get a good batch and then for each round fired determine if it was a dud, could get pretty complex.

Or should it just be a flat % throughout the CM time period? As you suggest.

I should add that currently CM doesn't model dud rounds. Given the well documented quality control problems encountered late war by the Germans in shell production it may be that in modelling 'duds' for one round a real can of worms will be opened.