AP vs HE - Short barrel vs Long

[KiwiJoe]

Here's the deal... I've been really interested in WW2 over the last couple of year's and have read massive amounts about all the units/tactics/politics involved. I luv it

Anyway one thing that has been really pointed out is the difference between AP and HE rounds. Namely that solid shot AP rounds need high velocity to be effective, and HE rounds are better at a lower velocity to increase blast/sharpnel effects. Thus you find that tanks generally had a long barrel if their primary job was to shoot AP rounds against armour, or a short barrel to shoot HE agianst soft targets. Seems logical I guess. Then I read about a British gun that actually had 2 inter-changable barrels, 1 short, 1 long, for each job. Nice idea but a bit slow in battle. Tnat leads me to my point. Why didnt they just design all tanks with long barrels and simply put less gunpowder/cordite in the shell casings of the HE rounds. Wouldnt this propell the HE rounds at a lower velocity out of a long barrel? I must be missing something here cause it seems like the ideal answer to me. If any1 knows why they didnt do this I'd be very interested to hear the answer.

[Guest Michael emrys]

In fact it was done exactly that way. I've seen photos and stats for AP and HE rounds intended to be fired out of the same gun, and the propellent loads for the HE rounds were noticeably smaller and their muzzle velocities correspondingly reduced.

Note that sighting has to be adjusted for the different rounds.

One final thing: I am unaware of any advantage at the receiving end for HE shells to travel more slowly. There is an advantage at the gun end in that barrel wear is greatly reduced, and the HE shells don't really *need* to travel that fast.

Michael

[KiwiJoe]

From everything I've read, firing HE rounds at high velocity reduces its effectiveness due to the fact that the round digs further into the groud before exploding.

[Jarmo]

The main advantage in reducing the amount of propellant would

be, that you can then fit more HE into the shot.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Jeff Heidman]

Good points all.

I think Jarmo was the closest however. The point of an HE shell is to deliver the maximum amount of high explosives to the target. The point of an AP round is to deliver some amount of penetrating steel to the target at a very high rate of speed.

This is why, historically, the 75mm gun on the early Shermans was considered superior to the 76mm gun on later Shermans when it came to infantry support. The 75mm shell carried more HE, and was smaller and easier to handle, resulting in a higher rate of fire.

One thing odd in CM is that the 17lb gun in the FIrefly has a higher blast effect than either the standard 75 or 76. Anyone know if the 17lber actually had more HE in its HE shell?

Jeff Heidman

[:USERNAME:]

do a search and you will dig up alot of heated debate.

Theres a big difference between indirect and direct fire HE. Normally a direct fire HE weapon is attacking a hardened target. Either a bunker, trench, stone building, etc. Schrapnel is not the agent of destruction as much as the explosion itself. AS I have pointed out before, the higher the velocity the greater the impact for HE shells. 1/2 *mass * velocity^2 coming into play. Since velocity is squared, it is the most significant term in the equation.

Another factor is that higher velocity weapons can attack point targets more accurately and of course more effectively (because they get HE on target quicker). Direct fire HE is really point target attacks. Indirect fire is really area fire.

Lewis

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Theres a big difference between indirect and direct fire HE. Normally a direct fire HE weapon is attacking a hardened target. Either a bunker, trench, stone building, etc. Schrapnel is not the agent of destruction as much as the explosion itself. AS I have pointed out before, the higher the velocity the greater the impact for HE shells. 1/2 *mass * velocity^2 coming into play. Since velocity is squared, it is the most significant term in the equation.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis, the velocity is only significant in the energy imparted by the actual momentum of the shell itself, which, when it comes to HE, is relatively meaningless. The destructive energy is provided by the explosion of the round, not the kinetic energy of the round. And the explosion energy is almost entirely provided by the amount of explosive. Who cares how fast the explosive is travelling through the air? You are not expecting a direct hit anyway!

Granted, a higher velocity is a little more accurate, but probably not enough to matter, since you (again) are not likely to get a direct hit. That is why it makes sense for HE shells to trade propellant for HE. The amount of flight time is meaningless. The difference between the round arriving on target in 1.2 seconds instead of 1.5 seconds is immaterial.

There is a reason that howitzers and infantry guns had short barrels. It was not a coincident. A high velocity for an HE round is not worth the trade off in hitting power.

Jeff Heidman

Jeff Heidman

[:USERNAME:]

I think you need to look up the difference between momentum and kinetic energy.

If I follow your "logic", then velocity of HE shells would not matter in ARMOR penetration. If you look, BTS models HE penetration as being range dependant. As it should be because velocity even in HE shells effects the impact.

I expect a direct hit BTW. Direct fire means directly targeting an enemy position in my LOS. I expect to hit it directly in as quick a manner as possible. 0.3 seconds makes all the difference between life and death BTW. I think you might be a bit cavalier in your assumptions.

Lewis

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I think you need to look up the difference between momentum and kinetic energy.

If I follow your "logic", then velocity of HE shells would not matter in ARMOR penetration. If you look, BTS models HE penetration as being range dependant. As it should be because velocity even in HE shells effects the impact.

I expect a direct hit BTW. Direct fire means directly targeting an enemy position in my LOS. I expect to hit it directly in as quick a manner as possible. 0.3 seconds makes all the difference between life and death BTW. I think you might be a bit cavalier in your assumptions.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lewis, you are completely missing the point. My "logic" is not saying that kinetic energy has no effect, it is stating that KE is not what is IMPORTANT. Take a look at the HE penetration figures, and you will see that they do not decline at even close to the rate that AP shots do. Why? Because the force of the round is primarily in its explosive power, not in its KE.

For an even more extreme example, look at the HEAT penetration figures. Gosh, they do not decline AT ALL for range! So how does that fit into your logic?

I am not being cavalier at all, I am being realistic. While you might never miss and always directly hit your target, the reality is that in combat, direct hits are extremely rare, which is why it is important to make a big BOOM so that even the misses do damage. If you expect to always hit directly, I would suggest that you do not need any HE to begin with.

My "assumptions" recognize that there is no free lunch. You might like your shell to get their .3 seconds faster, but you have to give something up for that. Namely, you have to trade high explosive for propellant. While you mght never miss, apaprently in WW2 a lot of people did, which is why they decided that HE rounds should have more HE, and less propellant. This is the reality. You are arguing against every single designer of direct fire guns for the last 200 years.

This is a common mistake when people discuss attributes and capabilities. You state that it is better for the round to arrive quickly, and I am "cavalier" because I dismiss your assertion. But you are forgetting that engineering is all about trade offs. I do not dismiss the .3 seconds because I doubt it CAN make a difference, I dismiss it because the potential difference it might make is outweighed by the difference you give up to achieve that metric, namely payload, as measured by the pounds of HE you are trying to place on the target.

Jeff Heidman

[:USERNAME:]

Jeff

Again, look up the difference in Momentum and Kenetic Energy. You just say things and then ignore them. Momentum is not the same as KE.

So you agree then that KE (NOT MOMENTUM) has an effect on target, armored or not?. Good. I dont follow your example because you dont cite a weapon. Keep in mind that HE and AP could be very different velocitys BTW. Example 75mmKWKL48 HE 550m/s AP750m/s.

Why am I missing houses, bunkers, etc? You need to convince me why a higher velocity weapon is missing as you say "realistically". I dont accept your assumption.

your reasoning is correct for indirect fire where CEP and such come into effect. But when you are directly targeting the enemy and can immediatly see the error and correct for that error, HIGHER velocity pays off. You are more accurate, flight time is reduced and engagements are shorter. I say you are being cavalier because you assume that the firer can just blast away at his own leisure. The enemy usually disapproves and will take some action. Either fleeing or try to kill you. I call your condition "chairborne commando" syndrome. Been in the service?

You dont need HE against buildings? You will use AP exclusively? You are getting further out on the reality limb there.

You misunderstand HEAT. Typically the related rate of the extremely fast penetration focused explosion is orders of magnitude greater than the velocity. The spinning of the shell does effect the performance BTW. I have seen variable HEAT penetration data BTW. HEAT as in the panzerfaust used an especially fast and dangerous explosive BTW.

As for direct fire guns for the last 200 years, what about the last 50? Infantry guns are gone and almost ALL arty and tank weapons have gotten longer barrels. Whats your point?

In WWII a stug (I have to throw them in here) would usually engage targets direct fire out to 1200 meters and hopefully not closer than 500. They would destroy targets with direct fire.

Lewis

[Jeff Heidman]

Lewis, I did not say that direct fire was not used, I said that direct fire != direct hit. There is a difference.

AS far as why you might be missing a bunker or building, the reasons are numerous. You could be moving, your target can be obscured, you might not even be able to see your target, your target might be a bunch if infantry in some woods, and not a point at all, your gun might not be zeroed, you might not be a good shot, it might be too far away, you might be rattled becaise people are shooting at you, you could be tired, hungry, cold, or just in a bad mood.

So, lets look at a specific example, a common one at that. Your Sherman jsut came upon a enemy AT gun emplaced in some woods. They ahev some sandbags or cover. What becomes more important? That your shell get to the target .3 seconds faster, or that your shell have a lethality radius to that gun crew of 20m instead of 15m? I'll take the lethality radius any time.

I am not sure how this discussion is getting so far afield. Don't give me any crap about "armchair commando", yes I have been in the service, not that it is relevant. Have you ever heard the term "argument ad hominen"? Your statement questioning my service is a very precise example of that logical fallacy.

The point remains. Velocity for a high explosive shell is NOT important enough to give up explosive weight for, which is precisely WHY there are different velocities for HE and AP shells. That is WHY infantry guns are typically not long barrelled.

Yes, I know that KE and Momentum are not the same thing. So what? I certainly never said that they *were* the same thing, although they are closely related.

You are, as I stated before, continuing to ignore reality. I keep pointing out that these attributes cannot be taken in isolation, and you just continue to take them in isolation, and refuse to address the point.

Shrug. I'm done. Tell you what, the next time you play a PBEM QB, just buy the highest velocity gun you can, and worry not about shell weight, since velocity is the only important thing. You will have lots of success, I am sure.

For anyone out there who remembers the original comment or question, KiwiJoe is correct. Guns primarily desinged for killing things other than armor typically have shorter barrels and muzzel velocity than dedicated anti-tank guns. Of course, as WW2 progressed, the idea of dedicated guns on tanks went away and most guns became longer because they were needed to both kill tanks and engage other targets. A long barrel can still throw out effective HE by reducing the propellant, but a shorter is limited in AP performance, so the logical choice is the longer barrel for multi-role guns.

Jeff Heidman

[:USERNAME:]

So let me get this strait:

You understand that the effect of HE on armor is improved by velocity.

You would trade off accuracy and quickness of engagement and the effect velocity has on adding to HE effectiveness (which you seem to agree with if you agree to the above) for the extra HE payload?

You want to confuse area targets (troops in the open/woods) with point targets?

You want to call (quote from you)"not being able to see your target" direct fire?

You want to mix up tank weapons, infantry guns, howitzers, whatever to make your point?

Momentum and Kinetic Energy are closely related? Even though ones a linear relationship and the other squared relationship?

Your point target in the example, the AT gun (aside from being really strange, you dont give range or anything else related to the reality of the situation), proves my point. In this case, the quickest on the draw and more accurate weapon will prevail. The AT weapon will certainly be high velocity. Milliseconds count actually. You assume that the AT weapon you "happened upon" is not going to do something about the situation? Since he has a shield and sandbags , I would desperatly want my HE WHATEVER ITS SIZE to hit the weapon dead on more so than a slow BIG miss. Horseshoes and handgrenades son. Where are you coming up with a 15m to 20 m jump in lethality? Are you claiming this for a same calibre (mm) diameter shell? Do you know the approximate content improvement you would need?

"A long barrel can still throw out effective HE by reducing the propellant, but a shorter is limited in AP performance, so the logical choice is the longer barrel for multi-role guns."

You bet your life.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-04-2000).]

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-04-2000).]

[Rattus]

I have some data on the 17lbr which bears this out:

15.4lb HE shell @2875f/s with 7lb2oz chge

16lb15oz AP shot @2900f/s with 8lb20z chge

7lb10z APDS round @3950f/s with 6lb10z chge

All fixed rounds

I don't have the shell weight for the 75mm to hand - but I think it is about 13lb-14lb.

Bearing in mind once the gun is built the chamber size is fixed - which limits variation in charge & round sized for fixed rounds when developing new ammo. There are limits on how far the shell (projectile)can be lengthened for a given degree of twist in the rifling so there is not such an easy trade off between shell/proppellant. Of course ideally this was sorted out when the gun was designed.

Michael

Rattus

[:USERNAME:]

Sprgr. Kw. K. (34)

HE

60/40 Amatol

0.853 kg.

Zdlg. C/98

Kl. Az. 23

olive green

-

Heres the explosive content in a german 75mm HE shell. 0.853Kg=1.88lbs explosive.

"have some data on the 17lbr which bears this out:

15.4lb HE shell @2875f/s with 7lb2oz chge

16lb15oz AP shot @2900f/s with 8lb20z chge

7lb10z APDS round @3950f/s with 6lb10z chge"

I believe the charge weights here are for the propellant?.

Lewis

[Rattus]

Yes - sorry charge weights are for propellant. Hence lighter HE round uses reduced charge to minimise (within reason) mv/barrel wear etc. Obviously if designers had thought mv was critical they could have used same charge as for AP round for higher mv. Don't have the weight of filler to hand - but unlikely more than 10%? of projectile weight. Even the type of filler is important here (RDX vs TNT or Amatol) Total weight of fixed AP round was 35 1/2 lb (includes weight of cartidge case). By way of comparison the US 3in M5 AT gun (also used in some US TDs') fired 12.875lb HE round with 4.56lb propelling charge. Again filler unknown. Curiously mv is given as 2800f/s - which is 200f/s more than for AP round. This is because the round used was that for the 3in AA gun - for which MV is critical. BTW the 25lber round (exactly 25lb) had a filling of 1lb 2oz of originally Amatol.

[Rattus]

BTW I'm using Hogg's Brit & Ami Arty as my source here. Filler for US 3in round above is 0.86lb of TNT. That for 75mm (French 75 as used by US) has filling of 1.5lb TNT or 1.36lb of Amatol.

[:USERNAME:]

Good data.

I see the US M10 fired roughly HALF the amount of explosive as the german 75mm (I have stated in the past that ALL 75mm german weapons ie L24, L43, ,L46, L48, L70 fired the same projectiles) and I wonder how the "legendary" sherman 75mm compares. Anyone have numbers on this?

I have read that the M10 was a great bunker buster and with that high a muzzle velocity I would believe it. The velocity adds an extra punch to the point attack.

Another consideration is case materials. Germans used cast or forged shells. I have read that steel will break up up non uniform or very large pieces and is not ideal for shrap effect. If you can somehow score or put a pattern effect on the inside of a steel shell, then the pieces will be uniform.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-04-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

So let me get this strait:

You understand that the effect of HE on armor is improved by velocity.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, minimally. Never said any different. I jsut said that that factor is unimportant for most targets that HE is designed to engage. For some reason you decided to bring up its AP pentration.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You would trade off accuracy and quickness of engagement and the effect velocity has on adding to HE effectiveness (which you seem to agree with if you agree to the above) for the extra HE payload?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Velocity adds minimally to HE effectiveness, HE payload IS the HE effectiveness. So yes, I (and, incidentally, the people who design the weapons and ammunition in question) would certainly trade off a minimal increase in penetration power and accuracy in return for a larger HE payload.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You want to confuse area targets (troops in the open/woods) with point targets?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is confused? These are the target types we are discussing. You do not get a seperate HE round for area targets and point targets. You have to use the same shell for both.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You want to call (quote from you)"not being able to see your target" direct fire?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ignoring the totally out of context quote (I notice you did not adress the dozen or so factors I mentioned, and just choose to adress the most extreme), yes, you often use direct fire against targets you cannot see. Like, if you know there is some kind of enemy in that tree line over there, or your target is behind smoke. That is still direct fire.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You want to mix up tank weapons, infantry guns, howitzers, whatever to make your point?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The discussion in question adresses HE rounds. The gun used to send the HE down range is not the point. Try to keep up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Momentum and Kinetic Energy are closely related? Even though ones a linear relationship and the other squared relationship?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You should take a class in physics. The nature of the equation is irrelevant to whether or not they have a relationship. They are related because they both measure the effects of mass and velocity on energy.

This is a red herring anway. Do you actually have a point that bears on the discussion?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Your point target in the example, the AT gun (aside from being really strange, you dont give range or anything else related to the reality of the situation), proves my point. In this case, the quickest on the draw and more accurate weapon will prevail.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gross oversimplification. The first to incapacitate the other will prevail. It is entirely possible that the fastest and most accurate will still lose.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The AT weapon will certainly be high velocity. Milliseconds count actually.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not in the context you want them to. The amount of time for other things to happen is great enough that the actual flight time of the round is inconsequential. The drving time factors will be target recognition, acquisition, and bringing the weapon to bear. Projectile flight time will be very low on the list of relevant time factors.

being an ex-TOW gunner myself (an application where projectile flight time is critically important), I know how to recognize relavent variables.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You assume that the AT weapon you "happened upon" is not going to do something about the situation?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are really bringing out the logical fallacies.

Please do not put words in my mouth. Try arguing with what I say instead of what you wish I would say.

From the perspective of the tank crewman, the actions of the AT gun are irrelevant, since he cannot effect them. All he is concerned with is incapcitating the crew as fast as possible. If the best way to do that is with a direct hit on the wepon, they would use AP to begin with.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Since he has a shield and sandbags , I would desperatly want my HE WHATEVER ITS SIZE to hit the weapon dead on more so than a slow BIG miss.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Problem is, no matter how much you wish it, the odds of you actually striking the weapon itself are exceedingly slim at most ranges.

And if the odds are good at hitting the weapon itself, why not just use an AP round? If you intend to strike the target, you do not need HE at all.

According to you, the guner should not be using HE at all. And yet they do. Why is that? Could it be because the quickest way to take out that AT gun is to put something that goes bang (and the bigger bang the better) close enough to the crew to incapcitate them?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Horseshoes and handgrenades son. Where are you coming up with a 15m to 20 m jump in lethality? Are you claiming this for a same calibre (mm) diameter shell? Do you know the approximate content improvement you would need?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, cannot say that I do. I was speculating. Do you? Or are you just good at blanket refutations?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

"A long barrel can still throw out effective HE by reducing the propellant, but a shorter is limited in AP performance, so the logical choice is the longer barrel for multi-role guns."

You bet your life.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that is the entire point. Barrels got longer to improve AP performance, not to improve HE performance, because that is not an efficient way to improve HE performance. Better to just make a larger, shorter barelled gun. Which (for example) is why in 1941 the PZ III has a long barrelled 50mm AT gun, and the Pz IVD has a short barrelled 75mm infantry gun. Because one was desinged to maximize AP performance, and the other to maximize HE performance.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Good data.

I have read that the M10 was a great bunker buster and with that high a muzzle velocity I would believe it. The velocity adds an extra punch to the point attack.

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-04-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be more effective because it has a higher chance of penetrating, not because the velocity adds anything to the explosive effect. Once again you are confusing penetration with explosive effect.

Jeff Heidman

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rattus:

Yes - sorry charge weights are for propellant. Hence lighter HE round uses reduced charge to minimise (within reason) mv/barrel wear etc. Obviously if designers had thought mv was critical they could have used same charge as for AP round for higher mv. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for pointing that out. (Emphasis added).

Jeff

[Rattus]

For taking out bunkers/pillboxes (that is concret etc emplacements with steel shutters to the embrassures) you would fire AP as an HE round hit on the shutter (and the chance of slipping a round through the slit is virtually nil) would have little effect - most likely the fuze and shell would be severely damaged/destroeyed on impact. AP round would penetrate the shutters and the splinters flying arounf inside would wipe out eveyone inside. Ideally you would use the APHE round (though still often designated APC)(if you had one) which has a tiny burster - eg. the APC, M62A1 round for 3in AA gun (and others) which had a 0.14lb burster of Explosive D in the 15.5lb projectile. Where the construction of the the bunker is less strong or the shutters are missing go for HE. In practice people had to use what they had! At the Meuse crossings in 1940 many of the French Pillboxes were incomplete & did not have the shutters. The Germans had taken the precaution of bringing up some 88's to deal with them but without the shutters the pillboxes were death traps.

On another point, the larger the filling for a givn weight of shell the thinner the walls & the less acceleraton (& hence mv) the shell can stand. If this thin walled shell hits something very hard - it is more likely to break up than a thicker walled shell with smaller burster. A similar analagy might be between "Common" and "High Capacity" naval shells with burtsers of about 5% & 10% respectivly. So sometimes less (fillin) is more (useful)

Comments on use of AP/APHE for dealing with pillboxes welcome.

[Rattus]

Ah - got the smilies working now!

The first round I would fire at any target would be whatever was loaded! After that whatever would make the targt ineffective - which may not mean destroying the ordnance or killing the crew. Note the comments on bunker busting refer to a very particular situation. In some cases & if plaentiful supplie, APCR/HVAP/APDS may be a better choice than APHE given much higher impact velocity and much faster (more energetic (lit.) splinters - slight flaw in that - the tungsten projectile is extermely unlikey to generate any splinters from itself (though they would still come from whtever it hit) so APHE probably still best. I have a 20pdr sabot round which has been all the way through a churchill turret - only a few tiny chips of the base!) Against concrete a good HEAT round is usually very effctive since peneteration of concrete is oftrn an order of magnitude more than steel.

[tss]

:USERNAME:: wrote:

As for direct fire guns for the last 200 years, what about the last 50? Infantry guns are gone and almost ALL arty and tank weapons have gotten longer barrels. Whats your point?

You have to remember that one important reason for short barrels that were used earlier was that all artillery was horse-transported. Longer barrels mean heavier guns and more horses. The mechanization of artillery after WWII has removed this constraint.

Also, the most important reason why field artillerists want to have longer barrels is longer range. Modern field guns can fire accurately to 25-30 km. Earlier only super-heavy railroad guns could do that and practically all guns had maximum ranges between 8-15 km.

- Tommi

[tss]

KiwiJoe wrote:

Then I read about a British gun that actually had 2 inter-changable barrels, 1 short, 1 long, for each job. Nice idea but a bit slow in battle.

The Swedes experimented with a field artillery piece that had two barrels. With one barrel it was a 105 mm cannon and with another it was a 150 mm howitzer. One of the prototypes was sent to Finland in January 1940 and it fired 731 rounds with the cannon barrel and 211 rounds with the howitzer barrel.

- Tommi

[dalem]

Lewis/USERNAME-

Interesting topic. I know my editorial comments are unsolicited, but....

1) You are not as smart as you think you are.

2) You are most probably not as dumb as you fear you are.

3) You are definitely as much of an A-hole as you are trying to be.

Now, as far as the actual topic is concerned, I find it difficult to believe that you can't see that you are actually confirming everything that Jeff has pointed out:

- AP is best fired from long barrels with high charge because a flat, fast trajectory is a highly significant factor in the success of an AP shot.

- It doesn't really matter what kind of barrel an HE shell comes from, regarding its downrange effect. It's cheaper to have short barrels, more effective for accuracy to have longer barrels and bigger charges. The effect on the target, assuming the same amount of filler, once it has a shell placed close enough, is minimal.

And your velocity argument is silly, assuming a surface impact of some kind. A faster HE shell isn't going to deliver a piece of shrapnel into my liver with enough of a velocity difference to matter (however much you may want that to happen). Certainly an airburst of a laterally-moving shell would cover a larger area than a ground burst, but it's the same effort expended over a larger area - bring more shells in that case. Oh well, I'm probably not adding anything of value, so bye bye for now.

-dale