Fifth Army Bazooka tests vs. Panther

[John Kettler]

This is a set of U.S. bazooka effectiveness tests vs a Panther. This is nitty gritty weapon grog stuff and, to my knowledge, has never been seen or discussed on the CM Forum.

http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

Excellent find. I have never seen it before.

[bobo]

Really good read! I liked that one a lot.

Bobo

[YankeeDog]

Oh, that test has been known amongst the wargaming community for quite a while -- I remember discussing it here on the forums back in CMBO days.

But that webpage is a much better presentation of the test than anything I have previously seen -- In particular, I had never seen that hand-drawn diagram before, which appears to be lifted directly from the primary source.

Great link; definitely going in my bookmarks.

[JasonC]

The most interesting bits are (1) the robustness of the running gear, which is just too massive to physically dismantle with small shaped charges, even if some incremental damage will be inflicted by each hit, (2) the way numerous hits on otherwise vulnerable plates were rendered ineffective by hitting some protrusion or other (towing hitch, exhaust pipes, etc), and (3) the variation in "flaking" behavior on effective hits (sometimes large flakes and lethal interior spalling over a wide area, sometimes pencil sized hole only).

Clearly the turret side is the right practical target...

[John Kettler]

dieseltaylor and bobo,

Glad you liked it!

YankeeDog,

Your memory is clearly better than mine.

JasonC,

The disruptions to shaped charge munitions and jet paths noted in the bazooka tests above were fully reflected in a classified tank damage analysis for the 1967 War I saw while at Hughes. Said analysis was a special JMEM (Joint Munitions Effectiveness Manual). There, various flanges, towing hooks, lifting eyes and other excrescences saved tanks outright or limited the scope of damage sustained from HEAT impacts.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Brent Pollock (WBRP)]

I was surprised by all the references to ricochets, which I don't recall seeing as part of HEAT discussions, just AP.

"Upon the front armor, it is difficult to get an effective burst, as the slope of the armor will ricochet the rocket. No perpendicular hits were obtained during the trial."

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, I suspect they are loosely using the term "ricochet" to describe the blast effect being redirected when failing to penetrate sloped surfaces. I don't think it would be possible for the round to actually ricochet in the same sense as a kinetic penetrator unless it failed to detonate.

[akd]

The original M6 and M6A1 rockets used in the M1 and M1A1 launchers had a pointed nose, which was found to cause deflection from the target at low impact angles. In late 1943, another 2.36-in rocket type was adopted, the M6A3, for use with the newly standardized M9 rocket launcher.[4] The M6A3 was 19.4*inches (493*mm) long, and weighed 3.38*lb (1.53*kg). It had a blunted, more round nose to improve target effect at low angles, and a new circular fin assembly to improve flight stability. The M6A3 was capable of penetrating 3.5 to 4*inches (89 to 102mm) of armor plate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bazooka

[dieseltaylor]

That does highlight one faintly worrying omission in that the report is not dated. Also the range of firing is not given.Any looping effect of firing at long ranges will not be represented but particularly interesting on the glacis plate when the angle of incidence would be lower.

Perhaps they felt that firing at extreme ranges head on was nonsensical : )

[womble]

It's interesting how shaped charge development has come on since WW2. I saw a programme the other day where a (roughly) bazooka sized charge drilled a hole lengthways through a 600mm steel cylinder. It was a "perfect" situation, of course, with the charge stationary, at presumably the optimum standoff distance on some little legs, but two feet of penetration...

[c3k]

What's of more interest to me was how inaccurate the bazooka fire was. Look at the dispersion in the picture. (Thanks John Kettler for posting the link.) I would assume near perfect firing conditions for this test, yet, there are many near misses (edge of plate, etc.). Also, we don't know how many rounds were fired to get this number of hits.

The robustness of the interleaved road-wheel design is interesting.

[ArgusEye]

Nice find, mr. Kettler!

When the report mentions ricochets, I assume it is the entire rocket ricocheting off the impact site, without detonating? Hyperplastic metal jets don't bounce well.