APHE vs stone buildings and similar

[John Kettler]

In the Road to Berlin demo, one of my tanks expended its entire load dealing with multitudinous threats, leaving me with only APHE and smoke (no WP) for cannon rounds. I would've expected it to make things hot for the building occupants (knew it was occupied because I heard a scream when I worked it over with the .50 cal) by penetrating and detonating, but it all it seemed to do was flake off a few chips. Is there no modeling of APHE vs. buildings in the game? If not, why not?

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Used "aphe versus stone buildings" and got "No results found." I also tried "aphe against structures" and got the famous 2 pdr. thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=50874&highlight=aphe+against+structures

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

In general, I find AP rounds to be pretty effective against infantry, whether or not they're in a structure. Doesn't bring the house down as quick as HE from the same system, but does hurt hiding pTruppen.

[John Kettler]

wombie,

I'd expect APHE to be more effective than regular HE against stone buildings, not less, since full or partial penetration of the structure would occur before detonation, allowing more of the detonation to do real work, rather than dissipating in the air.

[womble]

wombie,

I'd expect APHE to be more effective than regular HE against stone buildings, not less, since full or partial penetration of the structure would occur before detonation, allowing more of the detonation to do real work, rather than dissipating in the air.

I don't have enough accurate data to argue one way or the other, since I can't order my tanks to use AP against buildings, so the number of instances of AP rounds is low.

By the same token, it's largely irrelevant, since you can't control what the vehicle will fire anyway.

When you buy the game, you'll be able to set up test scenarios to answer this sort of question.

And there's still no 'i' in my forum handle.

[John Kettler]

Sorry about my misread of your name! Am pretty sure I did target AP on buildings and watched chunks come off at each impact.

Regards,

John Kettler

[altipueri]

I think Wombie sounds quite nice and should be adopted immediately.

[Vanir Ausf B]

+1. Rhymes with zombie, so that's in its favor.

[Pak40]

JonS,

Used "aphe versus stone buildings" and got "No results found." I also tried "aphe against structures" and got the famous 2 pdr. thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=50874&highlight=aphe+against+structures

Regards,

John Kettler

Probably because APHE isn't commonly called that. It's usually APC or APBC or APCBC etc...

My only experience in CMBN with AP vs infantry in a building is when one of my Churchill 57mm tank ran out of HE and fired several rounds of AP. The rounds simply seemed to shoot directly through the building as if it weren't there, no deflection or impacting explosion that I could notice. I expected there to be some damage at least but was disappointed. I'm not sure if this was a bug or what.

[Glukx Ouglouk]

The Brits only used solid AP shots, without a HE filler, so it seems reasonable that they would mostly shoot through the buildings. Americans and Germans, OTOH, usually preferred APHE shells.

As for APHE vs. HE against buildings, the best answer may be "HE with delay fuse" (if it can penetrate the walls of the building)... But I don't know what was available to WW2 tankers in terms of fuse options for HE rounds.

[Pak40]

The Brits only used solid AP shots, without a HE filler, so it seems reasonable that they would mostly shoot through the buildings. Americans and Germans, OTOH, usually preferred APHE shells.

A stone building? I doubt it. A wood barn or house probably so. In this case it was one of the bigger 'heavy' buildings.

[JonS]

A stone building? I doubt it. A wood barn or house probably so. In this case it was one of the bigger 'heavy' buildings.

Stone, even think stone, is a lot less hard and tough than armour plate. I've come across a number of first person accounts from Normandy and Arnhem (and other places) that talk about solid shot blowing straight through buildings, leaving 2-3ft(?) holes in each wall on their way through.

[wokelly]

The Brits only used solid AP shots, without a HE filler, so it seems reasonable that they would mostly shoot through the buildings. Americans and Germans, OTOH, usually preferred APHE shells.

As for APHE vs. HE against buildings, the best answer may be "HE with delay fuse" (if it can penetrate the walls of the building)... But I don't know what was available to WW2 tankers in terms of fuse options for HE rounds.

They had the option of delay fuzes. I have read in one or two books about HE rounds being fuzed to blow through bocage and detonate on the other side.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

Too right, though I believe one of the famous Arnhem cases was a long brick building through which 88s fired lengthwise, tearing 6' holes in each wall as they went. It's in A BRIDGE TOO FAR, by Cornelius Ryan. Since I doubt they would've used the scarce PzGr 40 for this, it must've been PzGr 39, which failed to detonate while passing through the relatively weak brick.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Amizaur]

An APHE is not a HE shell - it doesn't fragment completly. Only it's rear part - containing a cavity with small amount of HE would fragment to few large pieces, the whole solid front part (about 2/3 of whole shell mass) would usually continue on it's path.

The PzGr 39s would detonate as soon as they pierced the first wall, then the rear part of the shell would be fragmented and front part would continue and could easily pierce trough the second wall and any subsequent walls, as long as it has enough energy.

[John Kettler]

Amizaur,

The account I read mentioned no detonations, just that the 88s ripped through the schoolhouse, I think it was, from one end to the other. Fortunately for the paras, the shots were consistently high.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

Stone, even think stone, is a lot less hard and tough than armour plate. I've come across a number of first person accounts from Normandy and Arnhem (and other places) that talk about solid shot blowing straight through buildings, leaving 2-3ft(?) holes in each wall on their way through.

http://www.tf.uni-kiel.de/matwis/amat/mw1_ge/kap_8/advanced/t8_4_2.html

Not easy to find a comparison but hardened steel and granite are not hugely apart in hardness and granite in buildings tends to be fairly chunk blocks probably 12" plus. However that would be the exception build rather than the norm

Not hard but interesting is sand , these figures from Wikipedia on Hesco:!

Protection

Filled with sand, 60 centimetres (24 inches) of barrier thickness will stop rifle bullets, shell fragments and other shrapnel. Approximately 1.2 metres (four feet) of thickness provides protection against most car bombs.[citation needed] It takes 1.5 metres (five feet) of thickness to prevent penetration by a rocket-propelled grenade round. In addition, HESCO bastions are even more effective than sandbags against water, which will not compromise the competence of the latter.

Shooting through buildings could be misleading. A warehouse may well have many thin walls with the roof etc being held by structural parts - obviously they will give very different results if hit by a shell. And angle of attack will also have some effect.

In my limited tests I took some time to blow through a ground floor of a major building but was then unable to shoot at targets through the gap : (

[JonS]

No kidding. A large thickness of soft stuff is the same as a much smaller thickness of hard stuff. Laminate enough layers of tissue paper together and it's stop a M829A2 APFSDS round.

[dieseltaylor]

No kidding. A large thickness of soft stuff is the same as a much smaller thickness of hard stuff. Laminate enough layers of tissue paper together and it's stop a M829A2 APFSDS round.

More useful information : ) Thanks.

[womble]

...hardened steel and granite are not hugely apart in hardness...

Hardness on its own is not a good measure of resistance to penetraion by AP shot. Glass is harder than either steel or granite, but 1cm of glass won't stop what 1cm of steel armour plate will, no matter how heat-treated (as a laminate with tough plastics, it might compare, but not as homogenous glass)

A warehouse may well have many thin walls with the roof etc being held by structural parts...

Yeah, I'd expect a warehouse of the era to have a single leaf of brick for its walls. Battle rifle rounds will easily punch through 2 leaves of brick.

[dieseltaylor]

I think there was , particularly in V1, a game where results against people in buildings seemed high and there was quite a thread on it. Peoples views still seem tinged with Middle East or North American construction techniques and therefore we have a mismatch in expectations. This seems very useful:

http://www.claybrick.ca/pdf/cmri_bulletproof_project.pdf

Perhaps the most interesting result is the resistance of grouted brick walls to Browning 0.5" bearing in mind at right angles and at 25metres thats not really very long range. Allowances for improved bullet technology might also need to be accounted for against what bullets were available in 1944. And of course the old-fashioned building methods.

[YankeeDog]

Perhaps the most interesting result is the resistance of grouted brick walls to Browning 0.5" bearing in mind at right angles and at 25metres thats not really very long range. Allowances for improved bullet technology might also need to be accounted for against what bullets were available in 1944. And of course the old-fashioned building methods.

Important to recognize that "grouted brick wall" is a very generic term, which could mean a lot of different things. In the case of those tests, the "grouted brick wall" that resists .50 Browning is:

"constructed using a fully grouted backup with concrete brick as the veneer."

The "backup" being hollow 150mm concrete masonry blocks. So that's quite a thickness of concrete (rather than clay or other brick constructions, which generally resist less well), albeit with some hollow space inside.

As to how this would this compare, say, a 200-year old stone-and-mortar wall on a Norman farmhouse, I have no idea. One of the interesting things about stones like granite is that while they are indeed very hard, they are also relatively brittle, which makes them prone to shatter when struck by high-velocity projectiles.

[dieseltaylor]

One of the interesting things about stones like granite is that while they are indeed very hard, they are also relatively brittle, which makes them prone to shatter when struck by high-velocity projectiles.

I think the problem with CMBN and buildings protective value has maybe been sorted.

I imagine granite also bounces more shots fired at an angle than concrete block so its swings and roundabouts. Also the concrete block reinforcement is only 90mm which is very thin if you are building in stone. In the days before science a stone wall for a building would be 500-600mm.

With science:

Thickness Of Walls

97. A very good rule to fix the thickness of stone foundation walls is, that they shall be at least 8 inches thicker than the wall next above them, for a depth of 12 feet below grade or curb level; and for every additional 10 feet or part thereof in depth, they should be increased 4 inches in thickness. Thus, if the first-story walls are 12 inches thick, the stone foundation walls would have to be 20 inches thick for 12 feet in depth, and 24 inches thick if the depth is increased beyond 12 feet. When of stone, the wall should not be less than 16 inches thick, as a thinner wall than this does not bond well, only small stones can be used, and it cannot be carried to any height.

The thickness of foundation walls in all the large cities is controlled by the building laws. Where there are no existing laws, Table 2 will serve as a guide:

http://chestofbooks.com/architecture/Building-Construction-V2/Thickness-Of-Walls.html

[dieseltaylor]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/ch7.htm

Deals extensively with penetration effects but of course is dealing with current weapons. However it is fairly categoric regarding dense stone. It also covers blind spots for current US tanks

d. Wall Penetration. Continued and concentrated machine gun fire can breach most typical urban walls. Such fire cannot breach thick reinforced concrete structures or dense natural stone walls. Internal walls, partitions, plaster, floors, ceilings, common office furniture, home appliances, and bedding can be easily penetrated by both 7.62-mm and caliber .50 rounds (Tables 7-5 and 7-6).