47mm AT gun-pathetic after armour affects

[Cranky]

OK, so we've got some evidence that suggests that a 2 pdr HE shell was produced, and available at least for the Daimler AC by June 1944?

Again, I wonder what evidence the Battlefront team drew on to

(a) make the HE shell available in the Middle East from April 1943 onwards?

( to make it available to the Russians so they might fire it from their Lend-Lease British tanks beginning the same month and year?

Can anyone produce the shipping manifests that show such shells in transit via Murmansk or the Iranian border?

Seriously, I was just curious, because I had always believed that no-one had bothered to make a HE shell for the 2 pdr, until I just happened to see such offered in the Scenario Editor for CMAK.

[John Kettler]

Cranky,

I have a vague statement from the Anthony Willams site that HE for the 2pr was issued late in its service life, and we know that various armored cars were fitted with that gun. Despite an incredibly detailed doc on the Daimler Mark I, II, I still can't tell you what the designation of the HE shell was, nor whether something else was adapted in order to make it. Scribd lists the right British Ammunition Handbook, but it's private, and I don't have 50 pounds to buy an actual one.

That's where things stand, but I think your idea's excellent and shall follow up on it.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Cranky,

This isn't looking good for us or BFC's data. I found a 2 pounder shell in the Lend-Lease docs, but it's AP shell, not HE shell! The numbers are line, total rounds delivered, delivered to the British Empire, then Russia. Page 12 here

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/LL-Ship-3C.html

10 Shell, 2 pdr, MKVI, AP, QF rds 3,331,796 2,934,576 0

This is fascinating in and of itself, and there have to be records of British ammunition shipments to Russia, but I don't have those. Besides, while it's uber groggy, we still have no direct proof of this 2 pounder HE shell.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Cranky]

Indeed it is uber groggy, and so am I, having spent rather too much time on the internets this eve...

Interested to find out the truth, though - if such an animal can be brought into captivity.

[Amizaur]

I called on my trusty unit converted and found out that .03 kg was one ounce of TNT. That's a bit less than 1/10th the energy of a stick of dynamite. Only enough energy to crack the shell into fragments, I guess.

Believe me, you WOULD NOT want to be close to 30 grams of RDX going off, even less so if those 30g were closed in a steel case, and you absolutely would not want to be in a closed space on few m^3 in which such a charge goes off. 30g of HE may be not very impressive in an open, watched from far, but in closed space, or if it was used to propell steel fragments, such "small" charge is deadly.

[John Kettler]

Amizaur and MikeyD,

The complete skinny on projectiles for the 47mm are here (page 26 et seq.), to include data on two different APHE projectiles. Talking cutaways, all explosives involved and more!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/96063990/Handbook-of-Enemy-Ammunition-Pamphlet-7-1943

Regards,

John Kettler

[Lee_Vincent]

Last game I played a PIV got 6 penetrating hits on an M10 at point blank range, after which it was destroyed by the M10.

[c3k]

I vaguely recall something about the British Ordance Department finding out that their fuzes were shearing off of their APHE shells. It is a dim memory, with no citations. Take it as heresay, but there's an odd itch in the back of my mind about that. Something to do with the unexpectedly hard German face-hardened armor, compared with the softer British armor that they used when developing their shells.

Having said that, I, too, had an M10 which stayed in the fight despite repeated long 75mm hits. (It did lose a lot of sub-systems and a few crewmembers.) I don't think one or two "my M10 survived" stories are enough to declare anything.

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

We had a very, very long debate about this sort of stuff before CMBN came out. Adjustments were made to what we had before using a very detailed British survey of tank damage. It was surprising how many tanks had multiple penetrations before being KO'd.

Having said that, I still think our crews are a little less likely to bail out than they were in real life. More of a gut feeling than anything else.

Steve

[womble]

The most surprising survivor of ATG hits I've personally seen was an M8 Greyhound that took two hits from an 88mm PaK and continued fighting. It took a Wheels hit, then a Weapon Mount hit. The Wheels hit didn't immobilise it, but the Tank Hunter team (I assume - it was the only other unit firing at the AC)'s SMG fire finished the immobilisation job, just as the M8 backed into enough concealment that the 88 stopped firing at it. The AC's 37mm then killed one of the TH team before a Shreck up the jacksie finished it off.

[John Kettler]

Amizaur and MikeyD,

It would appear my grammar engine (the one in my head) went offline briefly. Else, my subject and verb would agree in my reply to you.

womble,

I'd say that verges on miraculous. How could it be hit to the Weapon Mount and not lose a) the gun, the vehicle commander and/or c) the gunner, alone or in combination?

Here's a very nice discourse on the M8.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M8_Greyhound

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

I believe that in the game, 'weapon mount' usually (always?) refers to the AAMG or something similar; i.e., a weapon outside the main fighting compartment.

Michael

[JonS]

Most of the tanker memoirs I've read pretty much had them bailing out as a matter of course, if they were penetrated at all.

That's true, but there's a fair bit of survivor bias involved there, which shouldn't be ignored

[JonS]

I vaguely recall something about the British Ordance Department finding out that their fuzes were shearing off of their APHE shells. It is a dim memory, with no citations. Take it as heresay, but there's an odd itch in the back of my mind about that. Something to do with the unexpectedly hard German face-hardened armor, compared with the softer British armor that they used when developing their shells.

That sounds suspiciously similar to the problem the British had in the Western Desert with the tracer element of their AP rounds. On striking the face harder armour of German tanks the tracer element was breaking loose and whizzing off into the air, giving the impression that the 2-pr was wholly ineffective. What the tankers couldn't see was that while, yes, the tracer was zooming off to nowhere, the AP component was functioning correctly. This was in 1941/42.

[Childress]

Most of the tanker memoirs I've read pretty much had them bailing out as a matter of course, if they were penetrated at all.

You're sure your not conflating veterans' accounts with their misadventures on leave in some of the iffier Parisian arrondissements?

[Amizaur]

We had a very, very long debate about this sort of stuff before CMBN came out. Adjustments were made to what we had before using a very detailed British survey of tank damage. It was surprising how many tanks had multiple penetrations before being KO'd.

Well, I think it all depends on definition of "being OK'd".

The definition of real WW2 tankers may have been little different than the one used in CMBN game.

In many cases those tanks from the study could have been KO'd - with crews not willing to fight anymore and trying to escape" after first penetration - but they were penetrated again and again untill they were seen burning or the crew was seen escaping. So I think that the number of holes not necesarily corresponds with number of penetrations needed for tank to really "be KO'd". Maybe the numbers should be - for example - divided by half... I tend to believe tanker's memoirs where they describe how they acted after their tank was penetrated. It's much more anegdotical, but it's another piece of data, too.

"Having said that, I still think our crews are a little less likely to bail out than they were in real life. More of a gut feeling than anything else.

Steve

Especially the instances of "survived six penetrations, lost some crewmembers, but still killed my tank"... They should be so improbable, that would be very, very anegtotical - described here in forums once eevery few years...

I believe that - first: the crews should be more willing to abandon their vehicles after first penetration, especially crews of less armored tanks, and even much more after second penetration, second: the casualty rate should be a little higher. But biggest problem is the first one - that casualties which happen, doesn't cause the "shock" state for the rest of the crew, or rarely cause them to escape...

[JonS]

In many cases those tanks from the study could have been KO'd - with crews not willing to fight anymore and trying to escape" after first penetration - but they were penetrated again and again untill they were seen burning or the crew was seen escaping. So I think that the number of holes not necesarily corresponds with number of penetrations needed for tank to really "be KO'd".

Yeah, and exactly that behaviour is already in CMx2, and has been since day 1.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I believe that in the game, 'weapon mount' usually (always?) refers to the AAMG or something similar; i.e., a weapon outside the main fighting compartment.

It refers to the gun mantlet.

[Baneman]

Yeah, and exactly that behaviour is already in CMx2, and has been since day 1.

You mean the TacAI continuing to shoot at presumed KO'd tanks ?

I agree, that I've seen.

But on the subject of crews choosing not to bail - a recent example of an armoured car crew in a 234/1.

They encountered an M8 I believe and they both fired more or less simultaneously and both hit. The M8 wasn't KO'd, but the 234/1 lost a crewmember and was also immobilised.

Now, especially in view of the fact that they were immobilised, you'd think they'd bail, but no, these were real hard men. ( Veteran, normal, +1, I think ).

Now they were in a "Panic" state, so I couldn't actually give them orders, nevertheless, they continued to fire, KO'ing the M8. Then a 2nd M8 appeared, giving them another dose and causing a 2nd casualty.

Still "Panicked", they killed it too.

It seems .. a little improbable.

Granted, the 37mm of the M8 isn't the baddest AT round out there, but also, they were only an armoured car and quite (proven) vulnerable to it.

Not bailing from a casualty is not necessarily unrealistic, but with a casualty and immobilised it seems a bit of a stretch. And their morale state of Panicked didn't affect their gunnery at all ( no shock effect ) or induce them to bail.

Normally I only see the enemy soak up the fire, but in this case it was my own unit and seeing what was going on inside makes me think ( even more ) that it could use a little tweaking.

PS: in another test I was doing, I had a tank crew bail and they were Panicked - which didn't stop them from opening up on the nearby enemy infantry with pistols and the 1 MP40 they carried. So maybe it's nothing to do with the Bail/don't Bail decision making and more to do with something a leetle strange with Crew and morale effects...

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B and Michael Emrys,

My thought, exactly Vanir Ausf B, having recently gotten multiple weapon mount hits on what clearly was the gun mantlet of a tank in CMBN. That an M8 could survive a direct hit on that without doing devastating damage to 37mm and crew alike boggles the mind.

Amizaur,

It depends on what the tank is penetrated by, what is or isn't hit, and who's having the direct experience of said penetration. I submit, for example, that a 2-pdr penetration, especially at range, is NOT in the same category of APHE, at any range, which enters the fighting compartment, then explodes.

If a small AP shot comes in, hits no one and does relatively minor, even if scary, damage, that's one thing.(Heckmann,ROMMEL'S WAR IN AFRICA) If it comes through the armor plate in front of the driver, even if it just protrudes, that's another (Heckmann). A through and through might do nothing, as in the Stuart drilled through both sides of the turret by an 88 at spitting distance (www.tankbooks.com Interviews), or it might utterly wreck the vehicle, as seen in an M3 halftrack in North Africa that took an 88 hit in the front (Bradford, ARMOR CAMOUFLAGE AND MARKINGS NORTH AFRICA), a center line low hit which then traveled the entire length of the vehicle before exiting, having still not detonated.

Nor is it necessarily related to crew casualties. What might demoralize one group might well so upset another as to do something outrageous, as seen in the case at Kursk where the driver, reportedly enraged over the killing of his tank commander, jumped back into into his burning tank (KV-1S?) and rammed a German tank, believe it was a Tiger 1, destroying it!

Though not presented here, the link does give a good description of the practice.

http://english.battlefield.ru/tank-ramming.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

We purposefully have no hardcoded "if x hits or y penetrations or z damage the crew bails" logic in the game. This is as it should be because real life produces all kinds of "improbable" results and hardcoding would ensure they never happen.

Therefore, outliers (very unlikely events) should still happen. Given the number of engagements you guys observe down to the last shot, there's going to be a LOT of outliers noted here. Way, way more than would ever be recored in history books or period studies.

The problem arises when the outliers come about too regularly even with the above caveats being kept in mind. I don't think things are terribly off, but I do think there are probably some specific combinations of elements which should more likely produce bailouts. It's definitely something I think we should look into a bit more now that we have much larger sample sizes than a couple dozen testers

Still, it's going to be a gut call because there's no statistical information to get a true handle on how frequently the improbable should happen.

Steve

[womble]

Re: M8 weapon mount hit.

I believe "Weapon Mount" can mean either the flexible M2 or the gun mantlet. I would assume that in the case I described it was the latter which was hit, since the 37mm (indeed the whole vehicle) was still operative. I can also see a "Wheels" hit tearing off the back wheel and compromising but not eliminating mobility. The M8 was tremendously lucky to get "winged" twice.

[Amizaur]

Quote: Originally Posted by Amizaur

In many cases those tanks from the study could have been KO'd - with crews not willing to fight anymore and trying to escape" after first penetration - but they were penetrated again and again untill they were seen burning or the crew was seen escaping. So I think that the number of holes not necesarily corresponds with number of penetrations needed for tank to really "be KO'd".

Yeah, and exactly that behaviour is already in CMx2, and has been since day 1.

Not really. Yes, the tanks in CMBN are shot again and again untill they catch fire or the crew is seen escaping. BUT the crew rarely is trying to escape after first penetration or even first casualty. Instead of that, usually the crew of penetrated tank acquires the shooter, rotates the turret and counter-fires, and is even able to win this duel !

In real life tanks were shot repeatedly, but USUALLY after the first penetration (or after taking casualties) the crew only tried to save lives, didn't think about counterattacking !

In CMBN the tanks are shot repeatedly, but during this time, USUALLY the crew of repeatedly penetrated tank is still spotting targets (especially easilily spotting the one that hit them), rotating it's turret, aiming and shooting.

For me, this is not the same.

[Amizaur]

Vanir Ausf B and Michael Emrys,

Amizaur,

It depends on what the tank is penetrated by, what is or isn't hit, and who's having the direct experience of said penetration. I submit, for example, that a 2-pdr penetration, especially at range, is NOT in the same category of APHE, at any range, which enters the fighting compartment, then explodes.

Absolutely ! I agree completly ! I think about something like Sherman penetrated by 75/88mm shell - because this is what is most irrytating - that after 3-4 penetrations from Panther gun, a Sherman can return fire or retreat. Or a Panther after being penetrated twice from the side by Sherman, usually just rotates it's turret and kills the Sherman.

Such thinks should happen, but only extremally rarely. They are quite common, unfortunately. Some probabilities should be changed, or some functions reworked. Two penetrations in a row are - psychologically - not the same as doubled effect of a single penetration... ect...

Sure that low-energy and smaller cal penetrations, especially purely kinetic (no burster) have much smaller effect, and I can easily see a motivated crew surviving several such penetrations with only some wounds and willing to continue fight.

[Amizaur]

You mean the TacAI continuing to shoot at presumed KO'd tanks ?

I agree, that I've seen.

But on the subject of crews choosing not to bail - a recent example of an armoured car crew in a 234/1.

(...)

Now, especially in view of the fact that they were immobilised, you'd think they'd bail, but no, these were real hard men. ( Veteran, normal, +1, I think ).

Now they were in a "Panic" state, so I couldn't actually give them orders, nevertheless, they continued to fire, KO'ing the M8. Then a 2nd M8 appeared, giving them another dose and causing a 2nd casualty.

Still "Panicked", they killed it too.

It seems .. a little improbable.

Personally, I don't have problem with that . We talk about small calibers, and relatively soft-skinned vehicles. I can believe that a motivated gunner, if not hurt, would stay (or a charismatic commander, ordering their crew to stay on their positions), if they just took one penetration (that maybe killed the engine, killed one of crewmembers but there were no other effects, there is no fire ect), accidentally they also managed to kill the enemy that was dangerous to them, and they have a fair chance against next enemies. They are still in the game, though immobilised and with a casualty. As long as this doesn't happen often, I have no problem with that.

High energy 88L71 or 75L70 APCBCHE or high energy 17pd APCBC penetrating fight compartment of Sherman, PzIV or Panther is another story. Effects inside are not comparable to 37mm shell. And the crew of the penetrated tank - usually shocked, with some members wounded or killed - knows, that their tank is probably in someone's gunsight - someone having a big, bad gun attached to it, gun that penetrated them once already, and the next shell is just sliding into the breach....

I think "panic" means they are not obeying orders anymore, are only fighting for survival, and maybe not acting rationally, but they still have a self-preservation instinct so they will shot at nearby enemies. Only when they shot them, they continue to ignore your orders and instead of that, will try to retreat or hide. Panic may cause abandoning a vehicle, but also may cause the crew to retreat WITH their vehicle, if they feel it's a better idea .