![]() Its only defense is its small size, making it extremely difficult to notice, let alone hit. One of the smallest tracked vehicles in the game, weighing only 3.3 tons, the ASU-57's complete lack of armour makes it extremely vulnerable. As it won't consistently kill SPAAGs due to the small calibre and low explosive mass, don't try to hunt these vehicles as they will kill you much faster than you will. O-271: HE a slow round with a high explosive mass useful for taking out the crew of open-topped vehicles.The small added penetration (a few mm) does not make a viable ammo choice to deal with heavily armoured targets. BR-271N: APCR a composite round with a slightly increased penetration but no explosive filler and will only penetrate flat vertical surfaces.This should be your main shell once you unlock it. It will punch through most targets frontally and its explosive filler will take out most targets in a single shot. ![]() BR-271M: APCBC an armour-piercing round with ballistic cap and explosive filler.It is your stock shell, use it until you unlock BR-271M. BR-271SP: APBC a solid shot with a good penetration but no explosive filler.The gun itself has a fairly fast reload, which is a good thing since it is not uncommon for the first penetrating hit to not completely destroy the target. The mounting has a very limited amount of gun depression and traverse due to the small size of the ASU-57. In a tactical situation, where the Patton's superiority in effective movement range is less of a deciding factor, it would come down more to crew training, luck, and positioning: with the traditional defensive advantage.Įdited to clear up some ambiguous language regarding range and development time.The ASU-57 is armed with the 57 mm Ch-51M, a derivative of the 57 mm ZiS-2 anti-tank gun encountered previously on the ZiS-30. You do all that, then you have some vaguely comparable vehicles, disregarding electronics which can be a big deal breaker in some situations, and irrelevant in others. If the armor can't theoretically stop an M60 round at any meaningful range however, then the armor can be lightened (I think that would be a fairly easy fix: I'm not sure though) which fixes some of the other problems, like the transition which was mentioned previously.ģ) If we can assume away some of the obvious war time caused issues, like the switch in armor manufacture methods which clearly degraded performance, the armor might actually be almost comparable (not sure how much more advanced 1960's armor technology was than 1940's). Probably still inferior to the M60 gun, but still more threatening.Ģ) some adjustments to the armor scheme could be made: the Tiger II was armored as it was because it could theoretically stop Allied weapons. If they had to penetrate more armor though, they could increase armor penetration with a relatively simple changing of munitions and tweak to the gun, evening the odds a bit. They didn't use more penetrating rounds because it wasn't necessary and the increased penetration seems to have come at the cost of less lethality against things like Sherman and T-34s because of over penetration: more penetrating rounds tended to go right through such tanks, only causing casualties if they directly hit a crewmen, while their preferred APCBC-HE shell would penetrate into the tank and then explode/bounce around doing more damage to the tank and crew itself. If you told the Tiger II factory "Here's what a M60 can do, modify the tank to fight it better" there would be a bunch of relatively quick tweaks that could be made to improve effectiveness against the M60 with then present technology.ġ) Penetration could be improved: The 88 had a relatively slow velocity AT gun: 1000 m/s compared to 1,200 m/s of the QF 17-pounder, which was a significantly smaller shell which seems to have had similar penetration abilities with its discarding sabot rounds (something the Germans also used, but more for AA work). Yeah, you have the traditional issue where one weapon system (the Tiger II) is not designed to handle the threat and was effectively a WWII stopgap ( I wouldn't be shocked if the Tiger II's combined development and service period was shorter than the M60s development period alone), while you have another vehicle which was designed to fight systems like the Tiger II (but better) and had the benefit of being a peacetime system with none of the material and time constraints of war.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |