HESH vs HEAT

[Halmbarte]

Why didn't the US Army use HESH instead of HEAT?

On the face of it, HESH is as good as HEAT for engaging thin armored vehicles, ok against monolithic steel, and it's better than HEAT against exposed troops and for demolition work. 

I'm just not seeing any major disadvantages for HESH, particularly when using rifled cannons. 

H

 

[Amedeo]

If I'm not mistaken, simply because advanced HEAT rounds may have a chance to frontally penetrate tanks with composite/spaced/ERA/NERA protection. A 120mm HESH round should fail against the frontal protection of anything more recent than a T-62.

P.S. It will be interesting to see how well HESH equipped Wombat will fare against Soviet armour.

[Halmbarte]

56 minutes ago, Amedeo said:

If I'm not mistaken, simply because advanced HEAT rounds may have a chance to frontally penetrate tanks with composite/spaced/ERA/NERA protection. A 120mm HESH round should fail against the frontal protection of anything more recent than a T-62.

P.S. It will be interesting to see how well HESH equipped Wombat will fare against Soviet armour.

We know that, but when did the US know the Soviets were fielding composite armored tanks in mass? 

BSW

[Amedeo]

On 2/12/2023 at 7:04 PM, Halmbarte said:

We know that, but when did the US know the Soviets were fielding composite armored tanks in mass? 

BSW

I've read a 1980 CIA report (now declassified) that said both T-64 and T-72 appeared to have "unconventional armor" over most of their front areas. 

Another report, dated 1975, speaking of the T-72, remarks that "the armor on the new tank probably is of either the spaced or sandwich type".

So, during CMCW timeframe the US definitely knew, or was convinced anyway, that the Soviets were fielding composite armored tanks in mass.

Edited February 13, 2023 by Amedeo

[domfluff]

On 2/12/2023 at 6:04 PM, Halmbarte said:

We know that, but when did the US know the Soviets were fielding composite armored tanks in mass? 

BSW

By this point (as in, CMCW timeframe), yes, but there was a period of a number of years where this was apparently a pretty big surprise.

[Amedeo]

14 minutes ago, domfluff said:

By this point (as in, CMCW timeframe), yes, but there was a period of a number of years where this was apparently a pretty big surprise.

Indeed.
BTW the US Army did field a 105mm HEP round, actually. So, IMHO, for 105mm armed tanks they had actually a selection of rounds available (including HE) that gave them enough flexibility for their loadouts. The problems of dual purpose rounds actually started with the advent of the 120mm armed M1A1 using APFSDS/HEAT only. And my point is that, having to standardize on a dual purpose explosive round, instead of a mix, just because Abrams tanks are intended mainly as AFV killers, HEP was a big no-no, since it was ten years (at least) they knew HESH-technology was a dead end against the newer Soviet tanks. 

[domfluff]

So I don't know why the US didn't adopt a HESH/HEP round for the 105mm, they certainly could have done, so it was presumably a choice.

I suspect it wasn't a reaction to the Soviet armour - any problem in that direction is even worse for the M60A2, and those are still around in the timeframe.

Honestly it might be as simple as not wanting an additional nature to add to the logistics chain - that the M60 had the tools they needed it to, in their estimation, and wouldn't gain much from adding another ammo type.

[Amedeo]

35 minutes ago, domfluff said:

So I don't know why the US didn't adopt a HESH/HEP round for the 105mm, they certainly could have done, so it was presumably a choice.

I suspect it wasn't a reaction to the Soviet armour - any problem in that direction is even worse for the M60A2, and those are still around in the timeframe.

Honestly it might be as simple as not wanting an additional nature to add to the logistics chain - that the M60 had the tools they needed it to, in their estimation, and wouldn't gain much from adding another ammo type.

Actually, as I said, the US did field a 105mm HEP round, and it was also used on M60s.
See, for example, here: The M60 Thread - Page 14 - AFV Forum - tanknet.org

Edited February 13, 2023 by Amedeo

[wolfgang500]

We (AUTArmy) indeed had a mix HEP/HEAT/APDS in our M60A1/A3 as long as we operated them. It changed with the advent of Leo 2 (ca. 2000). The HEP round were the prefered choice for soft and lightly armored targets and a devastating effect on old tank hulls which served as targets. Of course the T 80 would have been a nasty surprise in real combat.

[MikeyD]

One issue with HEP, if my research is correct, is it has VERY low velocity, about the same as a smoke shell, which means its ability to reach out and touch the enemy at range is limited. Its comparative low velocity was why it dominated Stryker MGS loadout. Firing a full charge APFSDS round from Stryker was liable to rattle your fillings loose.