4 HTs with one AP round

[dieseltaylor]

If the burster failed then .....multiple penetrations of thinnish metal may be possible -- add a few limbs ...

I have no idea if sonic shock comes into this. I know it was lethal to satnd to the front of a 17pdr - especially if it fired : )

[argie]

Earlier in that game a Panther fired and the concussion took a Gunner from one of the halftracks... behind the Panther!

[Bastables]

Going by the angles of the hits, in at least some of the cases if not the very first, the shell is striking an engine and/or parts of the chassis. That should have caused the fuse to detonate or at the very least have stopped the shell's further progress. Seems to me that the game is not modeling the resistance of all that metal.

What's interesting is that all this mayhem is being created by a -2 tank commander.

Michael

Yes I wonder if the shell is slowed down by the previous penetrations. Bounces seem to reflect that the game tracks shell having lost some it's kentic force after meeting immovable object.

Or if it's penetrating it ignores or does not calculate: I've just gone through combined 16mm of armour an engine and two fellows, I've become 20% slower. Although it must calculate a loss of kentic force after penetration otherwise every hit on a Sherman would have the round exiting even at 1000m plus ranges. hmmmmm

[akd]

Yes, energy is lost.

[YankeeDog]

Based on what I've seen (mostly in CMSF) the game does model loss of kinetic energy on a through-and-through penetration.

The issue of triggering the HE delay fuse for the burster on the AP shell is an interesting one. I don't know exactly how much force it takes to trigger the typical AP burster fuse, but I can believe that the very thin armor on a halftrack, or a soft human body might not be enough. But it does appear that the path of the projectile in the incident at hand would have hit some of the bigger internal components like engine block, transmission, drive train, etc. I would think some of these large, predominantly metal components would provide enough resistance to trigger the fuse. So I wonder if penetrating 4 soft-skinned vehicles like this is realistic, or if the AP shell should have detonated and effectively self-destructed somewhere after the first or second penetration.

Regardless, this is a very good example of why clumping your vehicles together can be a very bad idea.

[Bastables]

Hopefully shells now have a chance of dud fuzes?

[argie]

Regardless, this is a very good example of why clumping your vehicles together can be a very bad idea.

Even if they are UBEr US Halftracks.

[argie]

Bumping it just because I like it.

[Barrold]

Nice.

Panther armed with Duke Nukem's BFG 9000

BFS5

[wokelly]

Shouldn't the HE bursting charge preclude something like this? Or is there some chance modeled in the game that the fuse will be defective, and this was an extraordinary piece of luck (well, for him at least)?

The German shells were set to detonate only if they encountered an impact equivalent to 30mm of armor or greater. The HTs don't have near 30mm of protection so the shell would act like a solid shot round.

The only organisation that thought AP shot was a better anti tank projectile was the British army which is at odds with the royal navy that after several decades of thinking and testing armour penetration used AP Shells and not shot.

The British Army view was that the amount of explosives in a AP round was simply too minor to warrant the decreased penetration and increased chance of shatter a APHE round had over a AP shot. The british did tests with solid shot 40mm rounds and APHE 40mm rounds and found almost no difference in shrapnel created. As shells got bigger and they hit thicker armor, more and more spall was created which limited the need for a burster charge. Anyways German explosive filler for a 75mm round was in the realm of 16 grams of inferior HE (in comparison the HE shell for a 75mm had 640 grams of good quality HE), enough to make the round fragment into several large chunks but nothing notably more lethal. A solid shot AP round is structurally stronger and gives you more penetration and less chance of shatter, which was seen as more important.

Also the Germans tried out spaced armor on their tanks in Africa (30mm plates spaced 6 inches from the front armor) which would cause fuzed shells to detonate, thus the British were wary of US fuzed rounds as if they ever encountered German tanks with such armor as their AP shot would become useless. As it was US fuzes were unpredictable and did not always detonate, so it was questionable if using US fuzed rounds would have increased lethality that much.

The one nice thing about US burster charge was it was pretty big, 67 grams for the American 75mm compared to 16 grams for the German 75mm.

[Michael Emrys]

The German shells were set to detonate only if they encountered an impact equivalent to 30mm of armor or greater. The HTs don't have near 30mm of protection so the shell would act like a solid shot round.

However, in the case under consideration, given the hit locations and trajectory of the shell, it would likely also have encountered engine blocks, parts of the chassis, and drive train, as well as possible other substantial bits. I think an engine block would have been more than sufficient to trigger the fuse.

The British Army view was that the amount of explosives in a AP round was simply too minor to warrant the decreased penetration and increased chance of shatter a APHE round had over a AP shot. The british did tests with solid shot 40mm rounds and APHE 40mm rounds and found almost no difference in shrapnel created. As shells got bigger and they hit thicker armor, more and more spall was created which limited the need for a burster charge. Anyways German explosive filler for a 75mm round was in the realm of 16 grams of inferior HE (in comparison the HE shell for a 75mm had 640 grams of good quality HE), enough to make the round fragment into several large chunks but nothing notably more lethal. A solid shot AP round is structurally stronger and gives you more penetration and less chance of shatter, which was seen as more important.

All true, I don't doubt. The great advantage of the bursting charge is that it is more likely to quickly ignite any flammables inside the tank. Although those can also be ignited by hot bits of flying metal, even a small charge of TNT would do it faster and more reliably. Or so I would expect.

Michael

[Bastables]

The German shells were set to detonate only if they encountered an impact equivalent to 30mm of armor or greater. The HTs don't have near 30mm of protection so the shell would act like a solid shot round.

The British Army view was that the amount of explosives in a AP round was simply too minor to warrant the decreased penetration and increased chance of shatter a APHE round had over a AP shot. The british did tests with solid shot 40mm rounds and APHE 40mm rounds and found almost no difference in shrapnel created. As shells got bigger and they hit thicker armor, more and more spall was created which limited the need for a burster charge. Anyways German explosive filler for a 75mm round was in the realm of 16 grams of inferior HE (in comparison the HE shell for a 75mm had 640 grams of good quality HE), enough to make the round fragment into several large chunks but nothing notably more lethal. A solid shot AP round is structurally stronger and gives you more penetration and less chance of shatter, which was seen as more important.

Also the Germans tried out spaced armor on their tanks in Africa (30mm plates spaced 6 inches from the front armor) which would cause fuzed shells to detonate, thus the British were wary of US fuzed rounds as if they ever encountered German tanks with such armor as their AP shot would become useless. As it was US fuzes were unpredictable and did not always detonate, so it was questionable if using US fuzed rounds would have increased lethality that much.

The one nice thing about US burster charge was it was pretty big, 67 grams for the American 75mm compared to 16 grams for the German 75mm.

Well, that's the thing as our experience in the desert was that AP 40mm shot would shatter against FH plates, this was solved by placing a cap on the shell in 42/43. The German experience noted that when 40mm penetrated there pretty a much lower chance that the veh would burn. They noted that our tanks would burn when penetrated by 5cm apc shells even with partial penetrations.

The Shattering issue was "solved" by the RN by placing caps on the shells not by reverting to solid shot. http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/AP_Shell_vs_Armor.pdf

PDF of a report concerning AP and APC performance against Harvey and Krupp style FH.

[ShakyJake]

The German shells were set to detonate only if they encountered an impact equivalent to 30mm of armor or greater. The HTs don't have near 30mm of protection so the shell would act like a solid shot round.

Well, if this scenario was to happen in real-life with that requirement, I imagine the HE burster would have gone off after all... eventually. If the HE burster's fuse is anything like the standard model, it has to be armed though the centripetal force of the shell's rotation pulling a side stop out of the way of the percussion pin and the starter block, after which the only thing keeping the two apart is a spring. Since there's no magical way to say "detonate on 30mm or more of armor!" to the fuse, it would have to operate on impulse, so that once the shell lost a proper fraction of its current velocity the starter block would continue traveling forward (against the resistance of the spring) into the pin, setting it off. Even though each small penetration is less than the designed-for resistance, so many of them all in probably less than a tenth of a second would have probably been a sufficient impulse to strike the pin.

Take that with a grain of salt, if you like. It's not documented fact or researched opinion, but rather a chance for me to throw a little Engineering towards something fun for a change. I'd even be willing to bet that a shell designed under that specification would probably go off by firing it through a thick enough bank of leaves. Well, a very thick bank of leaves. It is a fairly interesting piece of engineering, though, as this would allow shells to be fired into a target behind concealment or light cover without risk of the shell detonating prematurely, assuming it all worked correctly. Thanks for the share.

[slysniper]

If the shot just passed through the rear compartments of the vehicles, it would have done no damage to them aside from punching a couple of holes in each one. In order to kill one, it would have had to strike something more substantial, like an engine or drive train, which would have brought it to a halt sooner rather than later. I think this is an instance where the game got it wrong. No big deal though since the likelihood of something like this happening again is extremely small.

Michael

I disagree with this statement, in just a few games I have played already, I have seen too many double kills from large AP shells going through multi tanks or halftracks.

What I do not like about it, is the shell never changes speed or angle when it penetrates a armoured unit.

Now I have read accounts of shells actually going right through units, I recall one where a M5 stewart tank crew had no causulties and it had went right through the turret, missing limbs and equipment, only one trooper was hit with a piece of spalding that logged into him. the commander joked that it gave him a view port to see the enemy tank that fired on them.

But the game either treats it as a deflection or a straight through kill, I would think that penetrations would loose a large amount of volocity and that pure flight would be unlikely after hitting any solid steel object at a angle.

[slysniper]

Oh, I did want to add, even if I question the game echanics on this some. I think it is cool how he lost the four halftracks, spreading units out and poor troop location is a big factor in the game now.

You see it with infantry also, too often the game has them walking in a column formation, the enemy opens up and you see one bullit pass through multible guys.

[Cranky]

Nice.

Panther armed with Duke Nukem's BFG 9000

BFS5

A Technical Point:

The BFG 9000 was never fielded by Duke Nukem, being encountered instead as part of the arsenal of the anonymous Space Marine in the 'Doom' universe.

Perhaps the original poster was thinking of Duke's RPG or maybe the Devastator?

Those who have posted comments relating to the use of the Shrink Ray in CMBN are making a similar unfortunate error: getting their games mixed up.

[Barrold]

We have reached the age where there are "senior moments" regarding Duke Nukem and Doom...lol.

I stand corrected.

BFS5

[GLynn41]

It is not unusual to find stories that a panther or "88" ,would shoot through a building and kill a Sherman on the other side-- HT can be penetrated by some shell frags- and heavy machine guns-- - multiple penetrations on HT by the L70 is more than possible considering that the round would go through over 4" of solid armor at 1000 meters

[wokelly]

However, in the case under consideration, given the hit locations and trajectory of the shell, it would likely also have encountered engine blocks, parts of the chassis, and drive train, as well as possible other substantial bits. I think an engine block would have been more than sufficient to trigger the fuse.

That is assuming the round hit the engine block which we can't know from the picture. It may simply have gone through the drivers plate above the engine and would have only encountered other plates.

All true, I don't doubt. The great advantage of the bursting charge is that it is more likely to quickly ignite any flammables inside the tank. Although those can also be ignited by hot bits of flying metal, even a small charge of TNT would do it faster and more reliably. Or so I would expect.

Michael

The burster charge for German tanks was not even TNT, it was a mixture of cyclonite and wax. That will at best break up the shell, there will be no notable explosion from 16 grams of inferior explosive. A burster charge increases the lethality of the shell itself to a degree, it breaks it up into a few chunks which will bounce around inside rather than one large chunk which will bounce around inside. Still the biggest killer remains armor fragments thrown into the tank by the penetration. There is no explosion per say with a burster charge, no overpressure and whatnot that say a HE shell into an armoured car would create, it just makes the shell itself more of a threat.

Well, that's the thing as our experience in the desert was that AP 40mm shot would shatter against FH plates, this was solved by placing a cap on the shell in 42/43. The German experience noted that when 40mm penetrated there pretty a much lower chance that the veh would burn. They noted that our tanks would burn when penetrated by 5cm apc shells even with partial penetrations.

The Shattering issue was "solved" by the RN by placing caps on the shells not by reverting to solid shot. http://www.navweaps.com/index_nathan/AP_Shell_vs_Armor.pdf

PDF of a report concerning AP and APC performance against Harvey and Krupp style FH.

The British tanks for the longest time did not have armoured bins for their ammunition, which partially explains why British tanks went up in flames so often in the desert. The 37mm and 50mm rounds had very small burster charges due to their size, under 10 grams of cyclonite/wax mixture. That is not what was causing british tanks to burn up, exposed ammunition and exposed hydraulics were the cause. In Normandy the British did several studies on German and Allied tanks burning up, and despite the British using solid shot AP rounds the German brew up rates were not dissimilar from the Sherman tank.

As for caps, that did not stop rounds from shattering though it improved performance against German FHA. If you watch the Koln Pershing vs Panther clip on youtube, you will notice the very first 90mm strike we observe under the mantle shatters. Solid shot rounds still offered better penetration and less chance of shattering than APHE rounds, especially given many of the rounds were striking armour much thicker than the shell was.

[RogCBrand]

Mythbusters need to take this on!

[Bastables]

The British tanks for the longest time did not have armoured bins for their ammunition, which partially explains why British tanks went up in flames so often in the desert. The 37mm and 50mm rounds had very small burster charges due to their size, under 10 grams of cyclonite/wax mixture. That is not what was causing british tanks to burn up, exposed ammunition and exposed hydraulics were the cause. In Normandy the British did several studies on German and Allied tanks burning up, and despite the British using solid shot AP rounds the German brew up rates were not dissimilar from the Sherman tank.

As for caps, that did not stop rounds from shattering though it improved performance against German FHA. If you watch the Koln Pershing vs Panther clip on youtube, you will notice the very first 90mm strike we observe under the mantle shatters. Solid shot rounds still offered better penetration and less chance of shattering than APHE rounds, especially given many of the rounds were striking armour much thicker than the shell was.

After the investigations in May 1942 to discover why British tanks had a propensity to burn when hit by German shells: Major G.B. Jarrett states; The German projectiles which have caused the greatest amount of damage to Allied tanks in the Western Desert campgains have been the APHE type in 47mm, 50mm, 75mm and 88mm respectively. These projectiles at long ranges need only attain a partial penetration and the explosive charge can complete the destruction of at least the tank crew. At closer ranges the destructive effect is very great, where in many cases destruction of the tank is permanent.

Lt Col Gruver: it was noted that the fuze functioned perfectly, that is to say it functioned only after penetration and the always in the fighting compartment where most of the damage is done.

The adoption of Caps to 2pdr shot was post 42 was to halt the shattering of shells when hitting German FH plate, the same fix undertaken by the RN after studying impacts of shells on FH plates of both Harvey and Krupp.

Of those Pz III and IV knocked out in combat by AP-Shot, fewer than 20% were destroyed by fire or damaged so severely that they could not be repaired. (1998 Jentz P47).