- Thread starter
-
- #61
schwarzpanzer
Senior Airman
- 662
- Aug 8, 2005
Hi Shortround,
Thanks for the HE info. In a tank, HE is used for 2 different things:
1. Attacking targets out in the open - such as ATGs, infantry etc. This often means not a direct hit, often relies on frag blast effect. I expect this could disable tank tracks? (if very close - which is possible on a tank @ long range, as are even direct hits).
2. Attacking buildings and bunkers etc. Now this is where I fall down. As I see it though, the explosive detonates on contact and rips the target apart - I would expect the same to happen to metal plates, if they were brittle or thin enough, or badly joined. I know about HESH, but I would expect HE to work slightly similar? (only with less velocity on the 'scab').
BTW, apparently Soviet HE shells were very simple and effective - having a 2-positon 'switch' - one for blast (number 1., above) and one for contact (2.).
Thats what I'm pretty much meaning. It depends a lot on the exact shell (size quality) vs the exact armour (thickness, quality cconstruction) though. I'm only talking of direct hits (unless for track jamming).
45mm sloped @ 60 degrees. Aprox 60-70mm @ round IIRC (turret front). Turret sides rear were somewhere inbetween (all aprox equal). 'Shell-proof' was actually referring to 76.2mm Soviet AP shells - not just artillery fragments (which the pre - shell-proof BT could keep out). T-34 prototypes were good quality though, but unreliable - the exact opposite of production versions!
lol. The Sturmtiger thing actually happened - apparently 12 Shermans were destroyed in a single hit IIRC. Of course though, this was, as you say, a freak happening. Probably in desperation, or set up with the help of an observer, pure luck, skill or pure accident - but I used it to hopefully illustrate that a smaller, higher velocity weapon, such as a SiG-33 could easily destroy a single Sherman with a direct hit?
I'm not sure Zero Elevation was what was suggested? - but then, it was Krupp, so who knows?
Rommel made the same point you did, to Hitler, because of what Krupp said. Probably Krupp was a gigantomaniac loon, but then again?... I think it wasnt so much Hitler that was the loon, but his designers (Henschel, Porsche, MAN Krupp all seemed to have produced no end of idiotic ideas).
Of course HE isnt ideal for Anti-tank use, but if its all thats available... I'm trying to find out just how useful that was. BTW the 1st tanks to be destroyed (in WW1) were very likely destroyed by HE shells.
I was thinking that, as the KwK 37 had a high trajectory, that the shells would not hit it flat-on. I wondered whether I shouldve put 'comfortably' but IIRC it was the best option. There was also the turret to consider. The Matilda was a small target though (but slow) and the KwK 37 hard to get hits with - especially early war, as training with this round had been sabotaged by infighting. It did score hits on the fast-moving, low-slung T-34 though (some of them by Michael Wittman). Once it hit though, the cramped confines of the Matilda would have made the effets devastating. True that variations in rounds would also have hindered though - but was it really that bad?
I have heard of HEAT rounds skidding/ricocheting, though this has been something I'm always researching (no answer yet!). I wonder if this is why the Bazooka had problems with the T-34 in Korea?
hartmann, tomo and I are discssing the PPS round, I thought you were too, sorry.
I meant the lighter APCR shell would have a higher MV? Your idea for a 75mm sub-projectile is a good one though ( would remove the need for tungsten), but IIRC the APCR penetrator wouldve been more like 40mm. Also, at this point, I'm not sure APC 75mm ammo was available? Again, this is a round for desperation - until the PaK 40 comes online in sufficient numbers ( for desperate self-defense).
No I am not!!
Wouldnt this make penetration easier? - though I suppose it would spread the load...
There are many advantages to a Cap, in addition to your points: It reduces ricocheting (esp. off sloped armour), and acts as a 'damper' or 'cushion'.
I think this may be where you may be getting confused. When vs tank armour, the projectile is better going into the interior (though the 'plug' will add to the damage). I suppose on ship armour it is the most important part?
Yup. IIRC I've heard 2600fps, but 2-3k fps is a good base. As I like to over-compensate, I like to work with 2k fps. 1250 fps is enough for steel LRPs though.
This point you mention though apparently have some advantages when vs angled plates, but I'm not so sure...
Even solid shots can break up though - /HE content just makes this worse. I think even 'shatter' and 'blunting' are 2 different things though - making 3 different effects under the 'shatter' umbrella.
No idea.
Thats true, but I think it was just usually lobbed at the side armour? 45mm of vertical, brittle armour there, so?... It would at least immobilise it? Maybe even cause mechanical shock (stopping the engine/trans?).
This would be easily achievable on a StuH (more likely a diret hit). A Wespe or LFH 18 though?... I think it would be possible?
I remember the guy who invented the Bazooka got totally laughed at - but he was driven, and made a good presentation... KE was seen as the way to go. The Soviets were the only ones who ever really treated ( treat) HEAT as a viable ATG round. Perhaps its just National doctrine more than anything else? Of course, I believe the KwK 40 to have been a better weapon than the KwK 37 - but the KwK 40 wasnt available then... Again, its trying to make the most of what the Germans had at the time (KwK 37, LFH 18 later PaK 38 - but no KwK/PaK 40s; then later150mms, but no105/128mm ATGs). These methods were used though, which backs up my arguement, but what I want to know is, how well? Of course, you are right in saying that they arent ideal - but thats not the point I'm trying to debate.
Which one is that please?
I actually have found 105mm HEAT penetration figures, these are: 103, 116 128mm - for A, B C types.
The short 75mm's, from the same source, are: 90, 96 128mm. Odd that the last 2 should be the same... (though the 75mm was considerd to need it more).
The longer 75mms also fired HEAT, but data for that doesnt come easy to had ( would be from a different source).
The source given is notoriously bad for HEAT data though, I should add, but it gives a rough view.
Still, it may be that 105mm HEAT performance was not much above the 75mms - but that would likely change, if the 105mm was developed to the same extent as the 75mm.
BTW, from that source, the 150mm 'A' shell is given as 206mm. ('C' shell was estimated on here as being 230mm, IIRC?).
Thanks for the HE info. In a tank, HE is used for 2 different things:
1. Attacking targets out in the open - such as ATGs, infantry etc. This often means not a direct hit, often relies on frag blast effect. I expect this could disable tank tracks? (if very close - which is possible on a tank @ long range, as are even direct hits).
2. Attacking buildings and bunkers etc. Now this is where I fall down. As I see it though, the explosive detonates on contact and rips the target apart - I would expect the same to happen to metal plates, if they were brittle or thin enough, or badly joined. I know about HESH, but I would expect HE to work slightly similar? (only with less velocity on the 'scab').
BTW, apparently Soviet HE shells were very simple and effective - having a 2-positon 'switch' - one for blast (number 1., above) and one for contact (2.).
Thats what I'm pretty much meaning. It depends a lot on the exact shell (size quality) vs the exact armour (thickness, quality cconstruction) though. I'm only talking of direct hits (unless for track jamming).
45mm sloped @ 60 degrees. Aprox 60-70mm @ round IIRC (turret front). Turret sides rear were somewhere inbetween (all aprox equal). 'Shell-proof' was actually referring to 76.2mm Soviet AP shells - not just artillery fragments (which the pre - shell-proof BT could keep out). T-34 prototypes were good quality though, but unreliable - the exact opposite of production versions!
lol. The Sturmtiger thing actually happened - apparently 12 Shermans were destroyed in a single hit IIRC. Of course though, this was, as you say, a freak happening. Probably in desperation, or set up with the help of an observer, pure luck, skill or pure accident - but I used it to hopefully illustrate that a smaller, higher velocity weapon, such as a SiG-33 could easily destroy a single Sherman with a direct hit?
I'm not sure Zero Elevation was what was suggested? - but then, it was Krupp, so who knows?
Rommel made the same point you did, to Hitler, because of what Krupp said. Probably Krupp was a gigantomaniac loon, but then again?... I think it wasnt so much Hitler that was the loon, but his designers (Henschel, Porsche, MAN Krupp all seemed to have produced no end of idiotic ideas).
Of course HE isnt ideal for Anti-tank use, but if its all thats available... I'm trying to find out just how useful that was. BTW the 1st tanks to be destroyed (in WW1) were very likely destroyed by HE shells.
I was thinking that, as the KwK 37 had a high trajectory, that the shells would not hit it flat-on. I wondered whether I shouldve put 'comfortably' but IIRC it was the best option. There was also the turret to consider. The Matilda was a small target though (but slow) and the KwK 37 hard to get hits with - especially early war, as training with this round had been sabotaged by infighting. It did score hits on the fast-moving, low-slung T-34 though (some of them by Michael Wittman). Once it hit though, the cramped confines of the Matilda would have made the effets devastating. True that variations in rounds would also have hindered though - but was it really that bad?
I have heard of HEAT rounds skidding/ricocheting, though this has been something I'm always researching (no answer yet!). I wonder if this is why the Bazooka had problems with the T-34 in Korea?
hartmann, tomo and I are discssing the PPS round, I thought you were too, sorry.
I meant the lighter APCR shell would have a higher MV? Your idea for a 75mm sub-projectile is a good one though ( would remove the need for tungsten), but IIRC the APCR penetrator wouldve been more like 40mm. Also, at this point, I'm not sure APC 75mm ammo was available? Again, this is a round for desperation - until the PaK 40 comes online in sufficient numbers ( for desperate self-defense).
No I am not!!
Wouldnt this make penetration easier? - though I suppose it would spread the load...
There are many advantages to a Cap, in addition to your points: It reduces ricocheting (esp. off sloped armour), and acts as a 'damper' or 'cushion'.
I think this may be where you may be getting confused. When vs tank armour, the projectile is better going into the interior (though the 'plug' will add to the damage). I suppose on ship armour it is the most important part?
Yup. IIRC I've heard 2600fps, but 2-3k fps is a good base. As I like to over-compensate, I like to work with 2k fps. 1250 fps is enough for steel LRPs though.
This point you mention though apparently have some advantages when vs angled plates, but I'm not so sure...
Even solid shots can break up though - /HE content just makes this worse. I think even 'shatter' and 'blunting' are 2 different things though - making 3 different effects under the 'shatter' umbrella.
No idea.
Thats true, but I think it was just usually lobbed at the side armour? 45mm of vertical, brittle armour there, so?... It would at least immobilise it? Maybe even cause mechanical shock (stopping the engine/trans?).
This would be easily achievable on a StuH (more likely a diret hit). A Wespe or LFH 18 though?... I think it would be possible?
I remember the guy who invented the Bazooka got totally laughed at - but he was driven, and made a good presentation... KE was seen as the way to go. The Soviets were the only ones who ever really treated ( treat) HEAT as a viable ATG round. Perhaps its just National doctrine more than anything else? Of course, I believe the KwK 40 to have been a better weapon than the KwK 37 - but the KwK 40 wasnt available then... Again, its trying to make the most of what the Germans had at the time (KwK 37, LFH 18 later PaK 38 - but no KwK/PaK 40s; then later150mms, but no105/128mm ATGs). These methods were used though, which backs up my arguement, but what I want to know is, how well? Of course, you are right in saying that they arent ideal - but thats not the point I'm trying to debate.
Which one is that please?
I actually have found 105mm HEAT penetration figures, these are: 103, 116 128mm - for A, B C types.
The short 75mm's, from the same source, are: 90, 96 128mm. Odd that the last 2 should be the same... (though the 75mm was considerd to need it more).
The longer 75mms also fired HEAT, but data for that doesnt come easy to had ( would be from a different source).
The source given is notoriously bad for HEAT data though, I should add, but it gives a rough view.
Still, it may be that 105mm HEAT performance was not much above the 75mms - but that would likely change, if the 105mm was developed to the same extent as the 75mm.
BTW, from that source, the 150mm 'A' shell is given as 206mm. ('C' shell was estimated on here as being 230mm, IIRC?).