Artilery Airburst effects on tanks

[Shandorf]

I was just wonder what people's opinions are on arty airburst concerning tanks.

IMHO I feel that there should only be a very small chance for damage to the tank such as tracking it or damaging the gun.

This is because shrapnel, no matter how fast it is going, has no ballistic penetration capabilities and to damage hardened steel such as tank tracks I feel is almost impossible. If this was so then a .50 machine gun or 20mm gun should be able to track tanks with ease.

In general though I feel Artillery is still a little too powerful in CBM when it is applied to reinforced structures or armored vehicles such as tanks.

What do you guys think?

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

[Guest KwazyDog]

Shandorf Im no expert here so Im not going to comment too much but I just wanted to add that one thing your forgetting about is the shock wave from an explosion. Fragments from a 105mm airburst may have no chance of penetrating a Panther but I wouldnt mind betting the shock wave from the explosion couldnt buckle or even break metal..

Just a thought

[Guest Mr. Johnson-<THC>-]

Its a very dangerious place in a tank, everyone is trying their best to take it out. In a perfect world you would let your AT guns and other tank killers concentrate on tanks, and you would use your arty on infantry. But they are such a great force multiplyer that everyones shooting at it, even VT rds. I've not done any tests, but are they actually blowing up the tank or just forcing the crew out? Any large arty round or bomb burns up so much oxygen, that the vacum created can suck your lungs out your mouth. Tank crews still have to breath too.

[Shandorf]

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

Shandorf Im no expert here so Im not going to comment too much but I just wanted to add that one thing your forgetting about is the shock wave from an explosion. Fragments from a 105mm airburst may have no chance of penetrating a Panther but I wouldnt mind betting the shock wave from the explosion couldnt buckle or even break metal..

Just a thought <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i would expect something if the arty round landed next to the vehicle but remember. A tank is designed to absorb direct fire from AP rounds. I would image the shockwave from an AP round striking would be greater than a shockwave dispersed already through the air.

[Shandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

Its a very dangerious place in a tank, everyone is trying their best to take it out. In a perfect world you would let your AT guns and other tank killers concentrate on tanks, and you would use your arty on infantry. But they are such a great force multiplyer that everyones shooting at it, even VT rds. I've not done any tests, but are they actually blowing up the tank or just forcing the crew out? Any large arty round or bomb burns up so much oxygen, that the vacum created can suck your lungs out your mouth. Tank crews still have to breath too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My specific encounter with this was that my tank got tracked from an airburst above and to the right of the tank. The crew is fine. The tank is fine except the track is out which I think would need an armor penetration hit to knock out the tracks.

Shrapnel just can't do this and if it can the chance should be VERY small.

Jeff

[Guest KwazyDog]

"i would expect something if the arty round landed next to the vehicle but remember. A tank is designed to absorb direct fire from AP rounds. I would image the shockwave from an AP round striking would be greater than a shockwave dispersed already through the air."

Actually to be honest Shandorf I would think the opposite. An artey round is a high explosive round where as a AT is purely a solid slug with a small explosive tip. The shockwave from the HE would far outweight that of the AP shell in my opinion.

I have a friend whom is a pyrotechnician whom will probably be able to give me specifics on this though...Ill have to ask him.

[Ben Galanti]

Immobile doesn't just mean a thrown track either, I'm no tank expert, but I would think a nearby HE explosion would certainly have a chnace of hitting something critical to the tank moving..

[Guest KwazyDog]

Good point Ben, in fact I imagine an airburst would be quite nasty on the lightly armoured area around the engines including air intakes, coverings, access panels, etc. It would only take 1 fuel line to be cut....

[Ben Galanti]

KwazyDog, the engine decking was exactly what I was picturing. I would think hot shards of metal going through there would cause a lot of damage. I just didn't want to mention it in case I was way off base with that thought, so I'm glad you brought it up

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

"i would expect something if the arty round landed next to the vehicle but remember. A tank is designed to absorb direct fire from AP rounds. I would image the shockwave from an AP round striking would be greater than a shockwave dispersed already through the air."

Actually to be honest Shandorf I would think the opposite. An artey round is a high explosive round where as a AT is purely a solid slug with a small explosive tip. The shockwave from the HE would far outweight that of the AP shell in my opinion.

I have a friend whom is a pyrotechnician whom will probably be able to give me specifics on this though...Ill have to ask him.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While I think it quite likely that a nearby HE hit could cause a mobility kill for a number of reasons, I think the ones you cite are inaccurate. First of all, AP shot do not have explosive in their tips. Some of them may have explosive in their base, but that is intended to detonate *after* the armor has been penetrated. It contributes nothing to the actual penetration of the armor.

Secondly, I believe it to be the case that the actual joules per square centimeter of force applied by an AP shot is greater than that of a simple HE round, especially if the latter is any distance away from the surface of the armor. HEAT is another matter, obviously.

Michael

[Guest KwazyDog]

I believe it was in fact fairly common for AP rounds in WW2 to have a small explosive charge, though I indeed believe I was wrong about the location . Im at work at the moment and have more references to this in books at home but just did a quick search on thw web and came up with the following info off of the following web page : http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html Hehe, tis not really relevant as such but it is interesting

Below are definations of rounds used in CM's era.....

AP

Armour Piercing. An anti-tank round where the projectile is a full calibre projectile of high strength material, such as steel, which is either completely solid or which contains a small amount of high explosive. The latter type of projectile is sometimes distinguished in other texts by appending the suffix “/HE”. Solid shot AP projectiles were uncommon in World War II so to avoid unnecessary repetition the suffix “/HE” is not used; all projectiles can be assumed to have explosive unless otherwise noted. In other texts “AP” is sometimes used as a general term to describe any anti-tank projectile, although on this site I spell out the term “armour piercing” rather than using “AP” to indicate this. More information about this and other ammunition types is in the Background Information section.

APBC

Armour Piercing with Ballistic Cap. An AP projectile with a truncated nose (as if the end had been sawn off) covered by a light weight ballistic cap to improve flight characteristics. Nearly all APBC projectiles contained a small amount of explosive but to avoid unnecessary repetition the suffix “/HE” is not used; solid shot projectiles will be specified where applicable. More information about this and other ammunition types is in the Background Information section.

APC

Armour Piercing Capped. An AP projectile with a metal piercing cap fitted over the tip. Nearly all APC projectiles contained a small amount of explosive but to avoid unnecessary repetition the suffix “/HE” is not used; solid shot projectiles will be specified where applicable. More information about this and other ammunition types is in the Background Information section.

As for the joules per square cm comment to be honest I dont know. I do agree that the force would indeed be greater per square cm *but* it is also focussed on a much small point of impact where as a HE shell is evenly dispersed. I do know I have seen photos of near misses from artey that have tipped over heavy tanks and have read descriptions of Tigers being literally thrown into the air by 155mm shells (can quote this from the book when I get home).

Anyways, just food for thought, Im certainally no expert, which is the first thing I said This has been discussed before way back though and Im just trying to repeat the discussion from back then.

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 08-18-2000).]

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 08-18-2000).]

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

KwazyDog, the engine decking was exactly what I was picturing. I would think hot shards of metal going through there would cause a lot of damage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to mention the high pressure blast going in through every slit and opening in the tank. Remember that WW2 tanks were not designed to be air tight and NBC protected.

It's not unreasonable to have the crew at least shaken by a nearby blast...

Cheers

Olle

[Hans]

If I might add to this discussion

In December 82 I had the misfortune to be part of a training accident at Ft Riley Kansas. MY FO's were located on a hill in M113 directing rounds when four 155mm PD shells hit the OP.

2 M113's 60-100 meters away were nicked but functional, my M113 at 50 meters away from the nearest burst lost 2 of four antennas

and took a few sharpnel hits

The fourth M113 was 13 and 17 meters from hits and was straddled. It lost all antennas and the shock knocked out the engine, radios DMD's and Laser Range finders. The vehicle's tracks were fine.

Hope that helps

The crew besides being knocked silly was fine and probably could have functioned normally after a minute or so (shocked)

[Jeff Heidman]

Of course, you can look funny at an M113 and they will become immobilized. They have what, about 12mm of armor or so? Nice, huge flat planes for shockwaves to reflect on?

An interesting point, but not really much of a comparison to WW2 tanks.

I would think that it should be unlikely for a VT shot to do any damage to a tank unless it is unbuttoned. Of course, if you only say this happen once, you cannot say what the likelihood was except that it is >0, so I would not worry about it.

Jeff Heidman

[Guest KwazyDog]

I agree it wouldnt be overly common Jeff, though I do believe it not to be impossable and if an airburst is near a tank I wouldnt find it suprising, especially considering the lightly armoured areas to the rear of that tank.

Anyways, thought this like might be of interest to this thread....

http://www.history.enjoy.ru/index.html

Check out the destroyed AFV piccies. They have many piccies of AFV's destroyed by heavy shells and arety though I imagine in general they wouldnt be air bursts.

[Fionn]

Airbursts can immobilise tanks.

Just take a quick look at WW2 tank treads and think what an airburst going off 5 metres away could do to snap those little treads. Broken treads will immobilise any tank.

And yes, I'm the person Jeff is playing against. 3 salvoes of 105 VT have accounted for 1 schreck team, 1 Wirbelwind and have immobilised one other tank as well as causing the accompanying infantry quite a few casualties .

You've got to love the efficient application of force there don't you? About 500 points worth of attacker wiped out for the expenditure of roughly 15 points of my own arty ammo .

[jshandorf]

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

Airbursts can immobilise tanks.

Just take a quick look at WW2 tank treads and think what an airburst going off 5 metres away could do to snap those little treads. Broken treads will immobilise any tank.

And yes, I'm the person Jeff is playing against. 3 salvoes of 105 VT have accounted for 1 schreck team, 1 Wirbelwind and have immobilised one other tank as well as causing the accompanying infantry quite a few casualties .

You've got to love the efficient application of force there don't you? About 500 points worth of attacker wiped out for the expenditure of roughly 15 points of my own arty ammo .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ladies and gents... My esteemed opponent Fionn Kelly.

500 points my butt. Not even nearly that close. I will give you the number AFTER the battle. 15 points? Yeeeeah right... They have a fire sale on 105mm and 155mm FOs when you were buying units?

You bask away all you want. I am gonna roll up on you and slap you up like a red-headed step-child.

If airburst arty barely damaged a M113 at about 15 meters I doubt it would do much against a main line battle tank.

Jeff

[Hans]

Hi Jeff

point of correction,. PD fuses on those 155 they went off in 12 inches of snow. A Ti round/VT would probably have gotten the observers.

Oh yeah during a reforger a Mercedes rammed a M60 head on going 80 kmph caused it to loose a track................, how much for a kamikaze volkswagen? 6 points?

[jshandorf]

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

Hi Jeff

point of correction,. PD fuses on those 155 they went off in 12 inches of snow. A Ti round/VT would probably have gotten the observers.

Oh yeah during a reforger a Mercedes rammed a M60 head on going 80 kmph caused it to loose a track................, how much for a kamikaze volkswagen? 6 points?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your point about the PD fuses I am confused about. I am taking about obvious airbursting arty rounds. Not when the round strikes the Tank or impacts near it.

But the kamikaze mercedes.. Now there ya go! Does CM support collision damage? Never thought to try that! Hmmm.. I wonder how many Kubelwagons it would take to wipe out a Sherman.... Hmmmm...

Jeff

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

I believe it was in fact fairly common for AP rounds in WW2 to have a small explosive charge...

Below are definations of rounds used in CM's era.....

[snipped for brevity]

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. This is curious. I went to the Wargamers' site and read over the material there. This is the first source I've ever come across to claim that HE filled anti-tank rounds were common in WW II and that solid shot were rare. All that I have previously read claimed exactly the opposite.

In fact, the only HE filled AP rounds that I know of were naval shells. I am willing to accept an enlargement of my database on this subject, but I wonder what the author's sources were.

Michael

[Fionn]

Mike,

Check out some of the German shells . Some of them were even funky enough to have little teargas pellets behind the nose so they'd release tear gas into the enemy crew compartment.

The whole HE in AP shells subject is very interesting. It's been discussed here before and any good book on AP shells should contain discussion along with shell disections for you to study.

[erl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr. Johnson-<THC>-:

[snip]

Any large arty round or bomb burns up so much oxygen, that the vacum created can suck your lungs out your mouth. Tank crews still have to breath too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Umm, all explosives contain an oxidizer (i.e. black powder, a LE), or are composed of a compound (i.e. TNT) which breaks down into a fuel/oxidizer combo. You think HE sucks its oxygen out of the atmosphere?

erl

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

Mike,

Check out some of the German shells . Some of them were even funky enough to have little teargas pellets behind the nose so they'd release tear gas into the enemy crew compartment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I know. The 7.62mm AT rifle.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The whole HE in AP shells subject is very interesting. It's been discussed here before and any good book on AP shells should contain discussion along with shell disections for you to study.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've *seen* good books on the subject along with many cut away shot. I've even held some of them in my hand. While I am willing to be told that some AT shot may have contained some explosive (one learns something new every day), I am surprised by the claim that a great many did.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Warning! Long post!

Shandorf,

The short answer is yes, it can. To understand why, you need to know something about explosion dynamics. Though a typical artillery shell generates a formidable blast effect, blast falls off dramatically as range decreases (forget the exact mathematical expression, though). Blast is therefore not the primary kill mechanism. Shell fragments (what some people wrongly persist in calling shrapnel) perform that function.

When a shell detonates, what happens is that the casing almost instantaneously expands and stretches, much like blowing up a long, thin balloon. The shell bulges the most in the relatively unsupported middle, tapering toward the nose and base of the shell. When the elastic limits of the shell casing are exceeded, the shell shatters into a multitude of very high velocity jagged, burning hot metal shards, shards of widely varying weight and size.

We live in a time when shell casings are prescored and hand grenades are filled are filled with tightly wound notched square section wire, all in pursuit of uniform fragmentation. It wasn't like that during WW II. Even those lovely pineapple grenades didn't fragment the way they looked like they would. The grooving has to be toward the explosive for that to work.

Therefore, we're left with the somewhat haphazard process in which on average a shell can cause some level of damage out to a specified range, but you may well get a heavy chunk (a flier) which carries much farther.

To illustrate this, I'm looking at page 131 of the 1975 edition of BRASSEY'S INFANTRY WEAPONS OF THE WORLD, in which there is a photograph of the fin assembly from a Spanish 120mm mortar shell. That assembly is surrounded in successive circles by the recovered shell fragments, with the lightest ones on the inner ring and the heaviest ones on the outer ring. There are at least twenty distinct fragment sizes there, with the largest (total 92) being about the size of one of the fins and the smallest about the size of a BB. That's for a modern shell.

Thinking back to my days as a military analyst, I seem to recall that a Self-Forging

Fragment (a kind of inverted shaped charge that fires the liner, used in standoff weapons against armor) comes roaring out at something like 8000 fps. Now imagine the kinetic energy in a chunk of steel, say, an inch on a side and maybe 1/4" thick, traveling at better than twice the muzzle velocity of an M-1 rifle bullet. Do you really think that mild steel (road wheels, possibly lower hull, tracks, etc.) can take that kind of punishment without at least the possibility of trouble? It doesn't take much to make a tank throw a track, and I assure you that a .50 cal in the running gear, especially in this period, was a real threat.

We're talking about something at least as heavy as that which is going twice as fast. The kinetic energy is enormous and is quite capable of going through an appreciable amount of unarmored steel. There is an entire volume devoted precisely to this kind of calculation called Project Thor or the Thor Equations, investigating the effects of fragment shape, size and velocity on penetration of steel plate. I know this because I got stuck running some calculations of this sort while working on a blast/frag warhead analysis for a Maverick missile version for shipping strike.

Let me put it this way: the Air Force, which owned the target vessel, a decommissioned minesweeper, was most put out when the target ship sank after only one hit. What happened was that the Maverick plunged into the ship, the warhead exploded, and the resulting heavy fragments turned the bottom of the hull and several successive bulkheads into a metal sieve, completely wrecking watertight integrity. The ship didn't sink right away, but she definitely sank. She was there after the test, but wasn't there the next morning.

You might also be interested to know that the mujahideen in Afghanistan discovered that a close-in shot to the mild steel lower side of the driver's compartment of a BTR-60 (8-wheeled armored personnel carrier) using an AK-47 and ball ammo would pierce the compartment, kill the driver, and immobilize the vehicle.

Of course, figuring out what happened and why in your case is, in reality, a complex problem, getting into such things as shell orientation at detonation, shell standoff from the running gear, shell fragment density (number of fragments per solid angle; this is a 3-D problem, after all); presented area of mobility related components (including engine compartment items)/vulnerable area = chance of mobility kill given a sufficiently powerful hit.

Another thing you need to remember is that whatever gets hit won't be uniformly stressed. This causes intense forces at the point of impact, forces which tend to bend and distort what they hit, such as shear loads to track links. Bend that pin far enough that holds two links together, and you've got a track which won't work even if it doesn't break outright. Or consider what happens when our fragment slams into nested Panther roadwheels. It might pierce the outer one leaving a ragged egress hole which jams the inner wheel. Imagine what effect that same fragment might have on a wheel bearing. If you doubt this, think about what would happen to your car if you went out and sledge hammered a chisel into your car's wheel bearing. That would be only a tiny fraction of the energy we're discussing applying.

Paradoxically, given a low, close airburst it seems that your tank's mobility is at greater risk than it would be if the shell simply landed on the ground nearby. This is because the shell tends to bury itself at least partially before detonating. That allows the ground to reduce the blast effects and absorb/slow down the shell fragments. The airburst produces unhindered blast and fragments slowed only by obstacles and air drag.

Summing up, although it's not likely that an airburst would immobilize your tank, Shandorf, I see no reason whatever that it couldn't. Indeed, the attack geometry you describe could easily yield such a result, though I would expect it to happen more often if hit by large (4.2" up) mortars or 155s, since the fragments would be considerably larger and heavier.

By the way, field artillery shells have to withstand some 100,000 Gs of acceleration, hence are machined from high grade steel. Mortars can get away with even wrought iron projectiles, though I believe we used steel, simply because the launch stresses are far lower.

Finally, there is at least one case in which a Sherman was completely disabled using only small arms. Apparently an isolated tank wound up the target of an entire German rifle company. The immense fusillade cracked all the vision blocks, destroyed the weapon sights and even jammed the treads, completely immobilizing, blinding, and defanging the hapless Sherman. All this with projectiles a mere 7.92mm in diameter!

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[This message has been edited by John Kettler (edited 08-19-2000).]

[Shandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Warning! Long post!

Shandorf,

The short answer is yes, it can. To understand why, you need to know something about explosion dynamics. Though a typical artillery shell generates a formidable blast effect, blast falls off dramatically as range decreases (forget the exact mathematical expression, though). Blast is therefore not the primary kill mechanism. Shell fragments (what some people wrongly persist in calling shrapnel) perform that function.

When a shell detonates, what happens is that the casing almost instantaneously expands and stretches, much like blowing up a long, thin balloon. The shell bulges the most in the relatively unsupported middle, tapering toward the nose and base of the shell. When the elastic limits of the shell casing are exceeded, the shell shatters into a multitude of very high velocity jagged, burning hot metal shards, shards of widely varying weight and size.

We live in a time when shell casings are prescored and hand grenades are filled are filled with tightly wound notched square section wire, all in pursuit of uniform fragmentation. It wasn't like that during WW II. Even those lovely pineapple grenades didn't fragment the way they looked like they would. The grooving has to be toward the explosive for that to work.

Therefore, we're left with the somewhat haphazard process in which on average a shell can cause some level of damage out to a specified range, but you may well get a heavy chunk (a flier) which carries much farther.

To illustrate this, I'm looking at page 131 of the 1975 edition of BRASSEY'S INFANTRY WEAPONS OF THE WORLD, in which there is a photograph of the fin assembly from a Spanish 120mm mortar shell. That assembly is surrounded in successive circles by the recovered shell fragments, with the lightest ones on the inner ring and the heaviest ones on the outer ring. There are at least twenty distinct fragment sizes there, with the largest (total 92) being about the size of one of the fins and the smallest about the size of a BB. That's for a modern shell.

Thinking back to my days as a military analyst, I seem to recall that a Self-Forging

Fragment (a kind of inverted shaped charge that fires the liner, used in standoff weapons against armor) comes roaring out at something like 8000 fps. Now imagine the kinetic energy in a chunk of steel, say, an inch on a side and maybe 1/4" thick, traveling at better than twice the muzzle velocity of an M-1 rifle bullet. Do you really think that mild steel (road wheels, possibly lower hull, tracks, etc.) can take that kind of punishment without at least the possibility of trouble? It doesn't take much to make a tank throw a track, and I assure you that a .50 cal in the running gear, especially in this period, was a real threat.

We're talking about something at least as heavy as that which is going twice as fast. The kinetic energy is enormous and is quite capable of going through an appreciable amount of unarmored steel. There is an entire volume devoted precisely to this kind of calculation called Project Thor or the Thor Equations, investigating the effects of fragment shape, size and velocity on penetration of steel plate. I know this because I got stuck running some calculations of this sort while working on a blast/frag warhead analysis for a Maverick missile version for shipping strike.

Let me put it this way: the Air Force, which owned the target vessel, was most put out when the target ship sank after only one hit. What happened was that the Maverick plunged into the ship, the warhead exploded, and the resulting heavy fragments turned the bottom of the hull and several successive bulkheads into a metal sieve, completely wrecking watertight integrity. The ship didn't sink right away, but she definitely sank. She was there after the test, but wasn't there the next morning.

You might also be interested to know that the mujahideen in Afghanistan discovered that a close-in shot to the mild steel lower side of the driver's compartment of a BTR-60 (8-wheeled armored personnel carrier) using an AK-47 and ball ammo would pierce the compartment, kill the driver, and immobilize the vehicle.

Of course, figuring out what happened and why in your case is, in reality, a complex problem, getting into such things as shell orientation at detonation, shell standoff from the running gear, shell fragment density (number of fragments per solid angle; this is a 3-D problem, after all); presented area of mobility related components (including engine compartment items)/vulnerable area = chance of mobility kill given a sufficiently powerful hit.

Another thing you need to remember is that whatever gets hit won't be uniformly stressed. This causes intense forces at the point of impact, forces which tend to bend and distort what they hit, such as shear loads to track links. Bend that pin far enough that holds two links together, and you've got a track which won't work even if it doesn't break outright. Or consider what happens when our fragment slams into nested Panther roadwheels. It might pierce the outer one leaving a ragged egress hole which jams the inner wheel. Imagine what effect that same fragment might have on a wheel bearing. If you doubt this, think about what would happen to your car if you went out and sledge hammered a chisel into your car's wheel bearing. That would be only a tiny fraction of the energy we're discussing applying.

Paradoxically, given a low, close airburst it seems that your tank's mobility is at greater risk than it would be if the shell simply landed on the ground nearby. This is because the shell tends to bury itself at least partially before detonating. That allows the ground to reduce the blast effects and absorb/slow down the shell fragments. The airburst produces unhindered blast and fragments slowed only by obstacles and air drag.

Summing up, although it's not likely that an airburst would immobilize your tank, Shandorf, I see no reason whatever that it couldn't. Indeed, the attack geometry you describe could easily yield such a result, though I would expect it to happen more often if hit by large (4.2" up) mortars or 155s, since the fragments would be considerably larger and heavier.

By the way, field artillery shells have to withstand some 100,000 Gs of acceleration, hence are machined from high grade steel. Mortars can get away with even wrought iron projectiles, though I believe we used steel, simply because the launch stresses are far lower.

Finally, there is at least one case in which a Sherman was completely disabled using only small arms. Apparently an isolated tank wound up the target of an entire German rifle company. The immense fusillade cracked all the vision blocks, destroyed the weapon sights and even jammed the treads, completely immobilizing, blinding, and defanging the hapless Sherman. All this with projectiles a mere 7.92mm in diameter!

Hope this helps.

Sincerely,

John Kettler <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ack! Okay, I with ya now.

Jeff