Mr. Tittles

Guderian's order about the employement of heavy tank destroyers battalions (Jagdpanther) http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/4635/tanks/panther/jp_employement.htm As Jason said, I doubt this was ever really the case. It reminds me of US Tank Destroyer doctrine but nothing survives the reality of combat.

This tidbit.... "schwere Panzerjaeger-Abteilung 654 Formed before the outbreak of the war, this battalion took part in the campaign in Poland in 1939, the defeat of Holland, Belgium, and France in 1940 and in Operation Barbarossa. In 1942 it received the new 7.5 cm Pak 40 AT gun and, in 1943, it was equipped with the Ferdinand tank destroyer and was part of the 9. Armee in the battle of Kursk. Later it transferred its Ferdinands to schwere Panzer-Jaeger-Abteilung 653. It was intended to have all three companies equipped with the new Jagdpanther tank destroyer. These arrived slowly, however. On 28 April eight were transported by rail to the battalion. These were the only vehicles that arrived for a long time. As late as 11 June 1944 it still had only one partially equipped company with the total number of Jagdpanthers unchanged. It was intended to send the company to Normandy. On 14 June, however, trains with another 17 Jagdpanthers were dispatched to the battalion, even though it is unclear when they arrived. Two days prior to that—12 June 1944—OB West had recommended a company with the eight available Jagdpanthers should be sent to Cherbourg. This recommendation was overcome by events and, on 19 June, its new destination was the Panzer-Lehr-Division. According to Ritgen, the company was attached to the division from 27-29 June. After that, it was under the operational control of Panzergruppe West. On 1 July the unit had 25 operational vehicles, indicating the dispatched trains had arrived. However, most of the vehicles were probably still at Mailly-le-Camp. The 2./schwere-Panzer-Jaeger-Abteilung 654 seems to have been the first unit to arrive in Normandy, since it was reported to be present within the area of operations of Panzergruppe West with the XLVII Panzer-Korps on 18 July, while the remainder of the battalion was said to be on its way. One further company—3./schwere-Panzer-Jaeger-Abteilung 654—must have arrived somewhat later, since the elements of the battalion at Panzergruppe West reported 21 Jagdpanthers operational, 3 in short-term repair and 1 in long-term repair on 28 July. This makes for a total of 25 vehicles with the unit, a number that coincides exactly with the number dispatched, as indicated above. This means that all dispatched vehicles had arrived with the unit at the front and none had been lost. On 1 August it was reported that the battalion had 8 operational Jagdpanzer V's, while 13 were in short-term repair and 3 in long-term repair. Two had been total losses during July as had one Befehlpanzer V. Casualties during July amounted to 11 men. The 1./schwere-Panzer-Jaeger-Abteilung 654 remained at Mailly-le-Camp without any Jagdpanthers. The final deliveries of Jagdpanthers to the battalion were 8 vehicles on 31 July and another 8 on 14 August. The latter eight would have been hard-pressed to have been employed in the battle in Normandy, but those dispatched at the end of July may have arrived at the large tank training facility at Mailly-le-Camp, east of Paris. The 1./schwere-Panzer-Jaeger-Abteilung 654 was still there, and it was recommended the company be sent to Normandy on 10 August." from.... http://stonebooks.com/archives/001126.shtml

Will answered my email.... The article from which these data were derived is based directly on data that came from the APG. I've verified that the data on my web page is accurate relative to the article, though I can't, of course, guarantee the accuracy of the article itself. I'm not an expert in ballistics, but I believe concrete is indeed tougher than steel, but not inch for inch. IOW, steel one inch thick is tougher than concrete one inch thick. So it could be that the APG's testing compared penetration of steel plate of specific thicknesses against concrete of infinite thickness (they just measured how deep the round went into the concrete -- how deep the hole/pit/crater was). This might make sense because, somewhat unlike a duel with another tank, to destroy a bunker an attacking tank must generally fire multiple rounds and the damage is very much cumulative. The problem is that the requisite amount of concrete is prohibitively heavy for use in armoring an AFV, and hence the popularity of steel. And yet the Germans did actually use concrete to protect the driver on certain versions of StuG. --Will

http://www.lonesentry.com/new88mm/index.html Heres a tasty nibble. Its a report from Jan 1945. The report is aware of one of the JagdPanthers secrets; it can spin about on its tracks. This makes its frontal armor and weapon more effective still. Another nice thing is the driver, gunner and 'bow' mger are all at the same height. so when the driver gets hull down, the other weapons are right on. That front plate must have been a pain to manufacture. These vehicles were actually rarer than King Tigers.

The german co-ax MGs (at least in the Panther) were foot triggered by a pedal. Another rocker-type foot pedal would slew the turrets rotation. This would leave the gunners hands free to work the main weapon. Since the HE and MG had similar velocitys, he could work over soft targets with a double whammy. Fire several MG burts to get the range roughed in and then unleash a HE shell. The reticle looked like this: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html I have seen video footage of Panther turret MGs firing long tracer bursts. It appeared that the footage was shot near dusk/heavy overcast/dawn and there is no doubt that the tank is giving its position away to anyone with any LOS at all. I believe this would hold true for any MG that fires tracer. Does anyone know if any WWII tank used water cooling for its MGs? I know that they sometimes used heavier barrels like the german tank MG34 but water cooling, using a closed vessel pump-driven system that could be roof mounted and protected, would give long burst capability. Perhaps they were viewed by designers as secondary weapons. [ October 09, 2003, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I downloaded TM 9-1904. I dont know what year its from but it references AP, HE and WP shells for the 75mm gun. WP is M64. HE is two types, M48 and M41A1.

Comparing this to Combat Mission numbers shows the CM numbers to be higher across the range spectrum.

I have tried to contact the owner of the panzer IV universe website regarding possible errors in the data. I still can not believe that reinforced concrete would withstand either HE or AP better than ordinary steel. The armor penetration values seem correct for 90 degree armor but I would suspect that the steel and concrete values are reversed. Also the HE content of the german 75mm Sprgrntn (34) is listed at 0.853 Kg. This is 1.87 lbs. This would seem high. Almost like a mortor rounds filling. more HE than the 88mm I believe.

I really like computer wargames for one particular reason. I don't have to meet wargamers. I used to play squad leader/etc. I even went to SL games at 'peoples' houses/apartments/S<>tholes. I didn't mind the crappy accomodations as much as the exposure to wierd people. It freaks me out how many wierd people like wargaming. [ October 06, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I really like computer wargames for one particular reason. I don't have to meet wargamers. I used to play squad leader/etc. I even went to SL games at 'peoples' houses/apartments/S<>tholes. I didn't mind the crappy accomodations as much as the exposure to wierd people. It freaks me out how many wierd people like wargaming. [ October 06, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I don't scare easily; I scare readily. Theres nothing here that I need to get hooked on and eventually detoxify from! Get my drift? Huh? What was I saying? Anyway. The Peng-less Peng thread is becoming trifling and some other stuff too. The Peng-bar-flys..correction..Peng-Bar-fleas..are just so humdrum and shmoe-like that meandering wisps such as myself give gayporn hovels like this thread a try. Well I like my gayporn hard and non-cartooney. g'day and Goo'bye!

http://www.vietvet.org/arty.htm I wonder about HE being set off in microseconds. This site claims a millisecond or so.

More Kake adventures here: Adult Warning [/QB]

I have a pic of a M48 HE round (75mm)in cross section. It is roughly 11-12 mm as far as shell wall thickness. A big factor is that the front fuze screws into this shell. that part that has these threads actually gets thinner! i would imagine the fuze would just disintegrate/melt when the HE round would strike armor. the shell would then be akmost open ended and trying to push through the armor. I also downloaded a M64 WP cross section. These white phos shells apparently are the same as HE shells. The burster charge to crack it open acually seems to be a cylindrical centrally positioned HE charge that runs from the front fuze to the back of the shell. Almost like a stick of dynamite if you will. These WP shells had to be deadly affairs because of the burning chemicals but also from the blast and resultant fragments. A spinning shell from a rifled gun has a lot of energy. This energy would be released into the fragments when the burster cracked open the shell. I only own CMBB. Are these WP shells very lethal in CMBO? [ October 05, 2003, 08:37 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

I have a book with a cross section of a 7.5cm L24 AP round (K. Gr. rot Pz). This actually has a very large HE cavity for a AP round. The cavity extends into the shell over 60% of its length. The cavity narrows as it approaches the front of the AP shell. At the thinnest part of the shell, the walls are approx 20mm or so but this tapers inward as I said before. The fuze and tracer element take up a considerable space by the way. This would be a base acting fuze. This diagram shows the shell to be a APCBC. The Panzer IV website claims this L24 AP round to be a APC. A cross section of the L48 AP round shows the HE charge to be much less and the walls much thicker. I do not have any sources/diagrams on the 75mm HE rounds. Logic would suggest from the payloads listed at the Panzer IV website, that the walls would be much thinner. [ October 05, 2003, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

http://home.vicnet.net.au/~antitank/Publications/It_Happened_II/Chapters/Tally_Ho_/tally_ho_.htm this site claims that japanese tanks were destroyed with 2 #'er HE shells. actually used/prefered because the ap was just wizzing through!

It does not say they were abandoned, but rather were unmanned at the time of the attack. If anything, it downplays the rampage by saying that British AFV were destroyed easily because they weren't crewed up at the time. I would like to know if the other German AFV destroyed armor before they were KO'd themselves. The whole battle seems clouded in lore.

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/panther_11.jpg http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/panther_10.jpg This pics show panthers that have been hit by large caliber HE shells. The side armor in both cases shows holes bigger than the warhead and irregurly shaped. Almost like broken plastic. One panther appears to have the zimmerit blasted away suggesting HE detonated outside.

Thanks. Is that armor spaced on the Cromwell? Its certainly appears to have stood up to the energetic event. But in the picture, the un-penetrated inner layer seems to be without an air gap. The picture just makes me wonder what it would be like to stand on the inside of the turret when such a blast takes place. Metal being a good conductor for heat/vibration and all. If ammo was directly on the other side of the armor, could sympathetic detonation occur? I believe western allies/germany used a stable HE in shells but what about the fuzes in the shells? powder? I was thinking about the fragmentation from this Cromwell hit. It dawned on me that the shell splinters, which would normally be ejected sideways, would get a forward vector from the HV shell. That is, the armor would be extensively carved up by shrapnel that would normally be directed away from a lower velocity shell. This does seem to have happened in the pic. Anyone know escape velocity for shell splinters? I would imagine it depends on the size of the splinter. Another thing about splinters, it occurs to me that a shell rotating at a high speed from rifling unleashes this energy into the splinters when the shell breaks up.

http://www.panzerace.net/main/normandy.asp?page=3 This detailed account would suggest that it either came from a TigerI or perhaps a Panzer IV. Interesting tidbit is that a line of Cromwells were unmanned when the panzerace made his rampage. Perhaps Whittman wanted to try HE on them?

I am not too familiar with the shape of these tanks but maybe someone can confirm: 1. Is there supposed to be a big rivet at about 11 0'clock from the center of the hit? 2. Does the outer armor appear to be buckled in somewhat? It certainly appears to be a HE shell and not HEAT. From the blast area, It appears that it came from a flat trajectory. Is the outer armor not as hard as the inner armor? I would concur that it appears that the HE went off after 'stalling' at the inner armor. Would be nice to know what internal effcts it had if any.

Anyone know what the delay is? Is it some fixed setting or a variable type thing?

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/ammo.htm This site claims the 17lbr high velocity HE round was made from stouter material than other HE rounds. I would assume that other HVHE would also have to be made of materials to withstand the stress of firing at similar velocities.

If HE fails, then its penetration would go down, not stay the same. There would be a HE gap of sorts. A quick review of other weapons HE penetration makes me lean towards #2. For some reason, 61mm penetration shows up in multiple rows. I believe that the data shown in the info window might not reflect what is really going on as far as the games mechanics/algorithyms. The more thought I give it, the more it seems there must have been a mechanism for delaying the percussion fuzing. That is, there must be a setting on the shell to delay the explosion. Indirect Artillery uses a time mechanism based on revolutions. So does antiaircraft flak shells, but this direct fire HE would be a delay based on contact. That is, once the percussion fuze is tripped, its train of firing could be immediate or perhaps variable or a fixed value. A percussion fuzed HE shell that strikes armor and immediately explodes would have to rely primarily on the explosive to blast through the armor (well the front scab of the shell would help but much of the mass of the shell would leave the 1/2MV^2 equation). AP rounds must have some sort of impact fuzing (if it has a HE charge). The sudden impulse of deceleration setting off a delay. This must all be in the rear of the AP round. another reason HE would be a poor 'AP' substitute is that it has a hole in its front! The contact fuze is made of soft materials and is screwed into the front of the HE shell. A major factor is also how the HE shells are made. Are they cast? Forged? Drawn/stamped? [ October 02, 2003, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]

Its probably a safe bet that the explosion must occur after the HE shell has started or finished penetrating. If the HE detonates before, it blows much of the mass of the shell away. It may actually help penetration if it occurs after the shell has penetrated into the armor close to its diameter width. The explosion would then be acting as a sort of booster. It would be interesting to set up a 75mm HE shell against armor and find out what it can penetrate at no velocity whatsoever. It may be 5mm or less.