Tank armament effectiveness vs infantry

Hits at least from naval 88mm, buildings still standing today. I have always admired the accuracy of German gunners when they fired at Borgströmin tupakkatehdas, the tall building at right. And also the guts of the Finnish workers who kept on firing even if German coastal battleship Beowulf and maybe one DD fired at them from almost point blank range. Or so the story was told to me many years ago. I'm sorry for the poor quality of the picture.

Hi Juha

i had not heard of that ship name before, but I suspect it was a captured norwegian Coast Defence vessel, armed from memory with 9.4" guns.

Where exactly is this photo taken Is it one of the Finnish islands (Aland islands?????)

LoL, you're unbelievabe Parsifal!

So let me get you straight here, you're presenting a bunch of WW2 footage clips from scattered locations, events time periods and then you claim that as proof that a 75mm HE shell will not bring down an ordinary two storey house. Are you serious ??!!

I looked through those vids and you can at no point establish what weapon caused this or that damage, its just a bunch of clips from all through WW2 put together to make a small film. As for buildings not collapsing while being struck by artillery, I see no such thing happening at any point in any of the clips, not once.

As for disputing the US Training manual on the M67, I aint, it says itself that it is dangerous even at 230m! Why the heck do you think the guys are standing behind protective concrete walls whilst throwing these things ??! For fun ??! Because they're all a bunch of pussies ???! Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel.

Now that having been said I can tell you that a cannon shell packed with 5 kg of explosives is not going to be anywhere near as "forgiving" as that!

Juha said:

Hits at least from naval 88mm, buildings still standing today. I have always admired the accuracy of German gunners when they fired at Borgströmin tupakkatehdas, the tall building at right. And also the guts of the Finnish workers who kept on firing even if German coastal battleship Beowulf and maybe one DD fired at them from almost point blank range. Or so the story was told to me many years ago. I'm sorry for the poor quality of the picture.

Juha

Click to expand...

Nice example of large buildings hit by Naval APHE shells, I bet they went straight through the building.

LoL, you're unbelievabe Parsifal!

So let me get you straight here, you're presenting a bunch of WW2 footage clips from scattered locations, events time periods and then you claim that as proof that a 75mm HE shell will not bring down an ordinary two storey house. Are you serious ??!!

I am doing that, because all I have to do is to present evidence that shows that in not every case was it possible to knock buildings down with Light HE shells (ie of 75 mm calibre or less). We are yet to see your proof that in nearly every case it will. This was only ever presented as anecdotal evidence incidentally, not as proof. It is sufficient "proof" however, to prove the exception. The footage shows numerous examples of buildings being hit and not falling down, or buildings that have not fallen down after being hit, which is all I set out to prove in this debate.

We are yet to see your proof, which is much harder to reach, since your contention is that in nearly every case, tank shells of 75mm or less will bring down a building.

I looked through those vids and you can at no point establish what weapon caused this or that damage, its just a bunch of clips from all through WW2 put together to make a small film. As for buildings not collapsing while being struck by artillery, I see no such thing happening at any point in any of the clips, not once.
So you are saying that the artillery shells hitting the buildings, and the buildings not falling down is not evidence. Are you saying that the buildings that have obviously been hit by shellfire, and not brought down is not evidence. If it wasn't shellfire that damaged those buildings, what was it?? A big wind?????

As for disputing the US Training manual on the M67, I aint, it says itself that it is dangerous even at 230m! Why the heck do you think the guys are standing behind protective concrete walls whilst throwing these things ??!
You are being selective when you read the manual. It actually says that the kill zone is 5 metres, and the casualty zone is 10metres. There is a safety zone of 230metres (which is the absolute limit for flying debris. The actual chances of being hit and seriously injured at that range can be calculated, and it s going to be something like 0.00001) You do know what that means don't you?? Just in case you don't, the safety zone means that you can be hit out to that range, not that the weapon is effective to that range. That's akin to arguing that just because a 0.22 rifle can fire out to a mile or more, that it is effective to that range. Much beyond 250 metres, and the rifle is nearly useless.

Those things are lethal way past 50m and within 10-15m the blast will knock you cold! The reason the killing radius is listed as 5m is because if you're within 5m of one exploding you're going to die instantly, and from actual experience using these things I can tell you that at 10-15m you're dead as-well or soon will be from blood leaking out from the 30 or so holes in your body caused by shrapnel.

My grandfather once had a grenade explode at his feet, not more than a metre away from him. He walked away from the thing without a scratch

As for your "experience", You cannot bring that up as proof, because you refuse to reveal such experience. You just cannot do that because the "evidence" you present cannot be examined. If you do want to include your personal experience as supporting material, lets get the details of your "service".

Now that having been said I can tell you that a cannon shell packed with 5 kg of explosives is not going to be anywhere near as "forgiving" as that

I agree, but the effect is far less than you might imagine, because the blast radius is basically a 1/d3 relationship, and not a linear relationship, as you are suggesting. Assuming that the explosive characteristics of a shell and a grenade are similar (which they are not, but I don't want to go to trouble of calculating the diferent energy yields of grenade explosive versus shell explosive, so I am just going to assume that they are roughly similar. If you want to work out the difference, go ahead, but for the purposes of this debate it is a relatively safe assumption to make).

The M-67 has a n explosive charge of 184 grams, and an effective kill/casualty radius of between 5 metres (lethal) and 10 metres ( I am being generous) (non-lethal). Lets say, on average, that the effective zone is 10 metres. This means that the effectivel volume of the blast from one of these devices of 125 cubic metres. That means that each cubic metre of space requires 0.67 gms of explosive behind it in order to be considered in the effective range of the device.

Now, a 75mm shell, typically has an explosive charge of 2.18 kg (2180 grams). If the relationship of explosive to volume is even remotely similar for the 75mm shell explosive as it is for the M-67, the calculated effective kill/casualty radius of the 75 shell becomes 15 metres, (assuming similar performances from the different explosives that are used in each piece of ordinance). Why is it that the 75mm shell, with 12 times the explosive, has just three times the effective blast effect. Its because blast effect decreases by a factor of d3, and not a lineal relationship, as you are trying to suggest.

Now, just to confirm this theory, that site I posted earlier just happens to have the effective blast zones for typical artillery pieces. It says that the effective blast zone for a 76mm gun is from 10m to 22 metres, , say 16 metres. The calculated figure is close enough to the published figure, and certainly nowhere near the figures that you keep bleating out (without the slightest supporting evidence)

Hello
Soren, only one of those uppermost high hits went definitely through the building, I have seen a photo from other side of the Borgströmin tupakkatehdas/Tubaco factory. I know shockigly little on the fight, only that BB Posen lost 4 KIA and BB Westphalen 2 KIA, so they were also in the harbour alongside CL Kollberg and some smaller ships and some of the hits on the factory might have been 5,9in shells. I don't believe that BBs used their main armament, 280mm.

Juha

Parsifal
photo is from our capital Helsinki 90 years ago. first building outside the photo to the left is our presidental palace. SMS Beowulf's main armament, if it still had it in 1918, was 240mm cannon (3 pieces)

Nice example of large buildings hit by Naval APHE shells, I bet they went straight through the building

Err, actually no. Given the platform that Juha has described (incompletely, I am trying to get him to be a bit more precise) the ordinance firing the shell is likley to be a WWI era SKL/45, or more likley an SKL Flak L/45. If so, it would not be equipped with AP or SAP rounds. Its standard bombardment round was a HE. It was not issued with AP rounds, because of its age and purpose.

Moreover, what you see is consistent with HE blast effects, being a "crater" of around 2 metres by 1meter deep, hence the penetrations of the building walls, since these are a lot less than 1 metre deep.

Hello
my maritime historian friend made his almost daily call and I used the opportunity to get more info. And again oral history/ my memory proved to be imprecise. The mentioned BBs were in the harbour of Helsinki, so maybe some 500-700m from the buildings but according to today's knowledge didn't fire a shot. Beowulf was still outside the harbour helping ships through ice. The ships which bombarded were M-boats, there were 5 of them, but probably only one in time drove to the southern end of the small canal seen in the picture and bombarded the buildings with its 75 or 88mm cannon, my friend wasn't sure which was the calibre of the deck gun of M-boats at that time. So firing distance to the left building, the main guard house of presidential guard nowadays, was between 125– 250m, depending how literally one take the words at the southern end of the canal. So the cannon used was 75 or 88mm naval cannon.

Juha

Hello
my maritime historian friend made his almost daily call and I used the opportunity to get more info. And again oral history/ my memory proved to be imprecise. The mentioned BBs were in the harbour of Helsinki, so maybe some 500-700m from the buildings but according to today's knowledge didn't fire a shot. Beowulf was still outside the harbour helping ships through ice. The ships which bombarded were M-boats, there were 5 of them, but probably only one in time drove to the southern end of the small canal seen in the picture and bombarded the buildings with its 75 or 88mm cannon, my friend wasn't sure which was the calibre of the deck gun of M-boats at that time. So firing distance to the left building, the main guard house of presidential guard nowadays, was between 75 – 150m, depending how literally one take the words at the southern end of the canal. So the cannon used was 75 or 88mm naval cannon.

Juha

Thanks Juha, That pretty much confirms what i suspected. . Will be interesting to see the response. Another day at the office with Soren i am predicting

Regards

Michael

Hello
according to Die Deutschen marinen im Minenkrieg Band 1 p. 242 M-boots fighting in Helsinki Harbour were armed with 8,8 cm cannon, so it was probably 8,8 cm SK L/30. IMHO a good substitute to WWII 75-88mm tank gun.

Juha

Yes, near enough, and certainly not an AP or SAP round at that range, type, or time scale

All right here we are as promised. The range was approx. 600m firing at target boards and in intervals of 25-30m at Brick wall facades, simulating houses.
As one can see the impact of the single 20mm HEI shell on the Brick wall target, nobody would want to be an infantry soldier positioned in this building or behind the wall.

View attachment image5005.pdf

BTW, the person on the other photo is me as a Faehnrich (Officer Cadet) about 20 years ago.

View attachment image5006.pdf

Regards
Kruska

Now to get this discussion into the right track again let me please summarize the events IIRC:

1st. it was about tanks shooting at infantry, it was pointed out by Soren and me that infantry will be engaged with the MG and only emplacements, buildings or large Infantry concentrations would be shot at using the main gun.

2nd. It became a Hand grenade issue which I think has been clarified to such an extend that everyone now is aware that a defensive grenade is deadly within 10m and highly injury prone up to 20m.

3rd. The Parsifal brought up the issue of infantry taking cover in buildings. It was pointed out by Soren and me that this would be a bad idea, and that the Army even teaches not to take cover in houses. It was also pointed out that taking cover in the basement is a different story and that the soldiers off course took cover in buildings previously destroyed by artillery or bombardments. And that this house scenario does not apply to buildings such as a national library or a major's house or a 4-5 storey house/building.

4th. Soren pointed out that a single 75mm tank HE shell could blast a room and even cause a house to collapse, which is IMO a correct assumption.

5th. I then forwarded that even a modern German 20mm HEI cartridge can blow out a or two rooms and no one would be likely to survive this hit.

So now we are at a part of the discussion, were Parsifal is forwarding that a 75mm could not destroy or bring a house to a collapse and is even disputing the case of artillery being effective against buildings. – Which honestly I can't follow – because this is what happened throughout the 2nd WW until today.

Now a good way to finalize this discussion might be to look at Arnheim.

Since Arnheim was not bombed the only damage to the city could result from ground fighting. Unfortunately I was only able to retrieve one photo from Arnheim showing the devastation caused solely by ground fire.



Regards
Kruska

Hello Kruska
IMHO question is more complicated. IMHO Frost Paras did the right thing when they occupied the houses around northern end of the Arnheim bridge. IMHO without the rather marginal protection of the houses they would not hold out 3 days against Germans. And their orders were hold as long as possible.

In 70s Finnish Army manual taught ways to how to harden houses. I cannot remember much of that because I was one of those, like the great majority, who were trained to fight in the forests and in the countryside and also got some guerrilla war training. But anyway, the Finnish Army, which at that time was almost purely infantry army, thought that it was worth to use also houses as strongpoints, even if historically it had usually fought almost entirely outside towns, in the last days of the Winter War there was hard fighting in Viipuri/Wyborg but I know nothing on tactics used, other than orders were hold at any cost because of truce negotations and orders for Soviets were take the town whatever it cost.

And as the Borgström Tobaco Factory shows, it took at least 12 88mm hits to silent almost pacifist civilians, (the workers were those who hadn't joined to red guards when the revolution began and they had resisted the growing pressure to allow themselves to be drafteed into guard and had kept themselves out of war to the day when the Germans arrived), armed only with rifles and knowing that by joining the fight they would join the loosing side,from a big, unprepared building.

Later addition:
It occur to me that the others know even less than me on the situation on 13 May 1918 at Helsinki Harbour. Now in the factory there were say 80 workers of whom say 10 had some rudimentary weapon training. In the barracks on the forefront there were say 120 members of red guards, ie poorly trained militiamen. To the right of the photo on the headland and in the town district Katajanokka there were some 400 German Marines/Sailors. A little left and behind where the photographer stood were some 50 German Marines/Sailors pinned down by rifle fire from the barracks and from the factory. Now the option to reds and workers were, use the buildings or fight outside of them or run. Dispersing and trying a urban guerrilla warfare nearby wasn't a good option , because say 80% of population in that area sympathise whites. Now IMHO fighting in open against more numerous trained soldiers with bolt action rifles was hopeless even if Germans would not have bothered to use their mgs. Say end result a 5 min firefight. Now using buildings bought Finns at least 2 hours time gain plus Germans had to use say 23 88mm shells. Not much I admit but something.

Juha

Hey, Kruska, how about a little respect for perhaps the only one on this thread who actually served in an armored division. LOL At least give me a little credit for saying that a tank uses it's MGs to kill infantry. Many thanks to you in anticipation of that credit.

renrich said:

Hey, Kruska, how about a little respect for perhaps the only one on this thread ......

Click to expand...

Hello renrich, off course sorry, how could I forget?, not only did you make a correct statement, but you are also the only one who managed to make a statement on this thread and get away without ending in a brawl.

Regards
Kruska

Thank you again Kruska. If one watches the news, one sees many tapes of tanks engaging enemy troops with MGs in Iraq. Mainly these are MGs mounted on top of the turrets. Those enemy troops are presumably armed with small arms and perhaps RPGs. Of course the action in Iraq would probably be described as an unconventional war. It could be that the tank as we now know it could go the way of the battleship. I do try to maintain a sense of humor although not always successful.

Good point there. About 20 years ago I forwarded that the tank is a relic from the past and should actually be followed up by helicopters and heavier protected AFVs with AT capability. Talking about a Leopard IIA6, a helicopter such as a Huey Super Cobra I would believe is cheaper.

One will still need tanks but IMO not at the present numbers at all. The new German PUMA (hope we ever get the budget) might be just the right vehicle.

Regards
Kruska

Hi andy

I have to disagree with your summation I am afraid

Now to get this discussion into the right track again let me please summarize the events IIRC:
From the following summary, I dont think you have recalled correctly I am afraid

1st. it was about tanks shooting at infantry, it was pointed out by Soren and me that infantry will be engaged with the MG and only emplacements, buildings or large Infantry concentrations would be shot at using the main gun.

That was before the main debate started. But yes, this is basically correct

2nd. It became a Hand grenade issue which I think has been clarified to such an extend that everyone now is aware that a defensive grenade is deadly within 10m and highly injury prone up to 20m.


No, the US TM states lethal to 5 metres, and likley to cause casualties to 10 metres. Soren claims that a grenade is deadly to 230 metres, although as usual his posts are cryptic, and he will no doubt go into denial about this.


3rd. The Parsifal brought up the issue of infantry taking cover in buildings. It was pointed out by Soren and me that this would be a bad idea, and that the Army even teaches not to take cover in houses. It was also pointed out that taking cover in the basement is a different story and that the soldiers off course took cover in buildings previously destroyed by artillery or bombardments. And that this house scenario does not apply to buildings such as a national library or a major's house or a 4-5 storey house/building.


No, this is not how the debate developed. The original post was effectiveness of tanks against Infantry, and specifically the effectiveness of 75 mm guns and below against Infantry. The debate then travelled to the effect of AFV main armement on buildings. Soren and yourself intimated that single rounds could basically bring down any building, with a single hit . I pointed out that it would depend on the circumstances, the size of the building, the type of construction, and the context (ie is it a built up area). I then pointed out that tanks are not that successful in built up areas (ie not just single rural buildings), to which you guys took the view that this was not the case. This of course flys in the face of what we know DID happen in WWII. Namely that tanks were not that successful in built up areas, that Infantry routinely used buildings for cover, and thast casualties outside buidlings are generally higher than for troops inside buildings.

I then produced photograhic evidence of buildings being damaged by artillery, or that had previously been damaged by artillery, which was reinforced by Juha. Soren denied that such evidence was in front of him, and that the evidence presented by Juha was in fact undertaken by AP/SAP artillery. This theory has been poretty much debunked, although Soren has not replied at this point.

The central issue about all this is whether , in every situation, and against every building, armement of 75mm calibre, or less, is able to demolish a building with a single direct impact on the building. We have presented evidence that shows to the contrary. You guys are yet to prove your position AFAIK.

4th. Soren pointed out that a single 75mm tank HE shell could blast a room and even cause a house to collapse, which is IMO a correct assumption.


Its the central issue of the debate, and it needs to be proven by you guuys, not just assumed. We have shown evidence that it does not occur every time. Sorens position is that it is the norm, or the outcome in the majority of cases. i challenge that assumption, on the basis of the historical facts (eg Stalingrad, Caen, Berlin, Warsaw, etc). Now it is up to you guys to present good evidence that refutes that. We are still waiting for that evidence

5th. I then forwarded that even a modern German 20mm HEI cartridge can blow out a or two rooms and no one would be likely to survive this hit.

You did not clarify the number of rounds fired, or the type of construction of the building. Befrore I can make comment on the photo (which I could not make much from, I need that background information presented

So now we are at a part of the discussion, were Parsifal is forwarding that a 75mm could not destroy or bring a house to a collapse and is even disputing the case of artillery being effective against buildings. – Which honestly I can't follow – because this is what happened throughout the 2nd WW until today.

No, that is not my position. I am saying that buildings can be resistant to damage, depending on their context. And the evidence of this is allover the place. also, the original question was ordinance of 75mm calibre or smaller
The issue really is whether rounds of this calibre are likley to bring down a building with a single hit, and why Infantry is at such an advantage whilst in urban areas, viz a viz armour

Hello parsifal and Juha,

Let me give it one more try in order to prove

As for Arnheim; let's please analyze the situation and plan first.

The Battle of Arnhem Archive - Outline orders from Headquarters 1st British Airborne Corps to Major-General Urquhart

1. The plan was to take both bridges and or at least one.
2. 1 Airborne Div will seize ARNHEM 7378 and the crossings over the NEDER RIJN and est. bridgehead to the NORTH of that town.
3. Col Barlow, Deputy Comd. 1st Airlanding Bde., is appointed Town Commandant, ARNHEM. He will maintain close touch with Comd. 1 Para Bde. and will co-ordinate the tasks of the APM and OC Fd Security Sec.

MARKETGARDEN.COM - A BRIDGE TOO FAR - this site gives a very good description of forces and strength actually engaged with in Arnheim city and a formidable account on how German tanks took out the buildings systematically from top to bottom.

Primary intention was to keep approximately 2000-3000 men inside Arnheim, rounding up resistance and setting up defensive positions in the city and around the bridge ends.
Approximately 10000men were to build up a defensive perimeter around and specifically north of Arnheim.
This makes sense since 10000 men dug in and prepared in defensive positions outside Arnheim could not have been taken out by the expected German strength/forces.

However the whole plan failed as such enabling only about 600-800 men to enter Arnheim on the 17th and occupy defensive positions around the Bridge, naturally in buildings, since Frost did not expect to be attacked by tank formations or any heavy German opposition and did not have the manpower to establish any perimeter defense. Furthermore he was initially informed to hold out for 2 days till the XXX Corps will arrive and anticipating the rest of the 1st Para Bde. to reach him within the following day.

The main battle of Arnheim was actually around Arnheim and not in the city at all. The main German body was needed outside in order to prevent the 1st Airborne to reach Arnheim – Bridge in the first place. The actual German contingent attacking Frost and his men in the first 2 days was around 2000 men, initially without much heavy weapons. Therefore Frost's decision to barricade inside the surrounding buildings was off course the right thing to do.

However on the 19th the Germans send in tanks and Stugs. Leaving Frost's brave men without the slightest chance and forcing them to evacuate their positions on the 20th. The high German losses (about 5 times Frost's losses = 1500) is due to their need to push in infantry against Frost's barricaded force seeking cover in buildings in the first 2-3 days.

So IMO Arnheim gives a very substantial support that soldier in buildings stand less of a chance against tanks, mortars and artillery then dug in on open ground. - see the Arnheim picture in regards to destruction purley on behalf of artillery, mortars and tanks.

Stalingrad was shot to bits and pieces (the least by bombers), allowing the Germans to conquer 90%. Stalingrad was not lost due to urban fighting against Russians barricading in buildings, but due to supply not available after the city had been encircled by the Russians. The initial German Stalingrad attack even proves again that barricading soldiers in buildings do not have a chance against tanks, mortars and artillery.

Paul Hausser was smart enough to clear Charcow, after the Russians had settled inside the city he attacked and re-took Charcow.

As you might know, Hitler had the fanatic Idea of declaring cities as a fortress upon the allies entering Germany (meaning the barricading of troops inside the city) – which was sharply objected by the military commanders. Not a single city managed to hold out against allied artillery bombardment, mortars and tanks for more then 3-5 days, such as Frost, despite most cities already heaving been destroyed up to 40-60% by previous allied bombing raids. If actually the Germans could have used these forces outside the cities as forwarded by the Army commanders, resistance would have been far more effective and much less costly on behalf of civilian lives.

I will not say that a single shoot of a 75mm (or 20mm HEI) will cause a house to collaps, but I would not categorically out rule it. Fact is however that infantry in generall buildings have no chance against artillery, mortars and tanks. Their survival chance in trenches and dug out emplacments is far higher, since we already established that the main gun of a tank or a bomb is not such a serious threat to entrenched or dug in infantry.

Regards
Kruska

Hello
Now i have no time to go deep into plusses and minuses of city fighting. All terrains had its plusses and minuses and in the war there isn't safe places at front-line.

And artillery was even during WWII very destructive.

Here: Taipale
in the 2nd and 3rd rows you can see photos what a field positions dug in a forests looked after a couple weeks of heavy Soviet artillery fire. Not much cover from enemy observation and the protection of the trenches greatly minimized. And the ability of trees to hinder movement of enemy tanks significantly lessened. Plus side, at least the danger of air burst because shell hits in nearby trees greatly minimized. Regretfully no before photos, but on the bottom right photo one can get a idea what the forest had looked beforehand. But Finns were still holding on as they did at Taipale to the end. The price was high but the price of defeat would have been much higher. We were trained to fight against very heavy odds, one might say to fight a rather desperate war.

Juha