Panzerfaust penetration data

[Wolfe]

Searched for numbers for CM, but didn't come up with anything, so I did some testing with CM.

In CM, Panzerfausts can penetrate more than 178mm of armor at 0 degrees slope (178mm is the thickest Allied armor in CM). Panzerfaust puts the official number at 200mm.

In CM, PFs can penetrate greater than 178mm of armor at 30 degrees (I obliqued the Jumbo to do the test). Again, no thicker armor is present in CM, so that's as close as I can get.

At 45 degrees, penetration lies somewhere between 152mm (some penetrated, some didn't) and 178mm (all 12 hits on the Sherman Jumbo's front turret failed to penetrate). Ok, so maybe 12 isn't a statistical sample, but the PF also failed to penetrate the Jumbo's 152@6 side turret armor at 45 degrees as well as rear turret armor (152@2) sometimes. At other times it did get through, so I gotta figure 152mm is close to the limit for 45 degrees.

At 60 degrees, penetration lies somewhere between 114mm and 152mm.

There didn't seem to be any difference in penetrating power between the Panzerfaust 30, 60, and 100. Is there supposed to be?

Incidentally, I had a panzershreck penetrate the front turret of a Sherman Jumbo (178@0) a couple of times; it's max penetration is listed as 170@0. Yeah, I know, the tables in CM are just rough guidelines, but still.

- Chris

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 09-01-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

There didn't seem to be any difference in penetrating power between the Panzerfaust 30, 60, and 100. Is there supposed to be?

the warheads of Panzerfaust 30, 60 and 100 have the same shape and build and carry the same amount of explosives, so for all practical purposes they can be considered as identical. the difference in weight between these models is due to the amount of propellant etc. that are connected with the increase in range. only the Panzerfaust 150 introduced a new warhead, the conical shaped one we know so well from the RPG-7. the penetration performance for the PzF30/60/100 - type warhead is generally accepted to be a good 200mm (no angle) of armor.

hope this helps,

M.Hofbauer

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

"Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

[IntelWeenie]

*Important for CM2, but probably not CM1.*

The PF30 came in two versions, the 'klein' and 'gross', with penetration of about 140mm and 200mm respectively. Production on the 'gross' was about twice that of the 'klein'. The 'klein' model is better known as the Faustpetrone 1.

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[PzKpfw 1]

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

Searched for numbers for CM, but didn't come up with anything, so I did some testing with CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris a shaped charge rounds penetration limit, is not realy affected by the obliquity of impact. Their are only a few thing's that can impede a shaped charges penetration. Ie, if it hits an obstructiion prior to contact with the main armor Ie, skirt armor on German tanks, which could dissapate the stream far enough from the main armor to render it innefective.

Or if the geometry causes the SC's sides to close in on itsself & causes an imperfectly formed jet. Or when the SC round reaches a point where the pressure exerted from the jet is no longer able to effect penetration.

It has been found that high hardness armor or aluminum decreases the rate of penetration by SC warheads, allied armor at 240 - 250BHN or even German armor at 300BHN will not impede an SC rounds penetration path, Ie, their was no area on the Panther that was immune to an Panzershrek or Panzerfaust SC round.

Regards, John Waters

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

"die verdammte Jabos".

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-02-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

Whoops Dbl post.....

Regards, John Waters

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-02-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

PzKpfw 1 (John Waters),

Chris a shaped charge rounds penetration limit, is not realy affected by the obliquity of impact.

I disagree. That is I disagree if I understand you correctly. The fact alone that something hits the armor plate at an angle makes for an increase in effective armor, as the entry-exit distance through the armor is longer...mayby I misunderstand you, and I don't know how to describe it, wait...ok here is a pic that is from an entirely different discussion, but why not recycle it for the issue at hand:

I hope you see what I mean?

surely obliquity etc. doesn't make for ricochets for HC ammunitions like it does for kinetic energy penetrator rounds, although in this context it must be noted that the Faustpatrone (PzF30 klein) warhead was redesigned for the later versions specifically because it often failed to detonate correctly on sloped surfaces such as on the T-34.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

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

"Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

[howardb]

I've read your homepage Hofbauer and I've given the URL to many friends, it has to be one of the most impressive sites on WW2 on the net.

Wolf: If you're interested in Panzerfausts you should read: http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm

[M Hofbauer]

thanks for the kind words howardb. alas, it is old by now and is long overdue to an extensive overhaul in face of new evidence and info, so it is in a rather poor state

however, Wolfe already referred to the page in his post

as regards the Schreck, sources range from 160 to 240mm, so 170 is probably not too way off and an acceptable figure either way. with AP figures I am always at a loss because obviously it differs a lot depending on the armor quality of the target.

as regards the image above, please note again that it was used in an entirely different context, I am not even sure if the applied pythagoras-formula math is correct (iudex non calculat), the pic is only meant to illustrate my point about increase in effective armor solely due to geometric logic.

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-02-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Wow Markus is here thats an improvement!

A couple of points

All; projectiles will ricochet even HEAT the question is at what angle and what velocity and - in the case of HEAT - if this is before or after HEAT JET detonation and stretching[ ~1/3 millisecond].

HEAT is effected by slope but its not completly clear how. Robert Livingston told me that 105mm HEAT was tested on Panthers Glacis and achieved penetration when the warheads supposed to do only 4.5 inches[?].

Int.J.Impact Engng,Vol22-pp328

Shaped Charge Jet studies

<PRE>

0° 100%

45° 97%

60° 94%

</PRE>

Rheinmetall Hand book on Weaponary

....[figure 1128]relative penetration of 105mm projectiles......

<PRE>

10° 30° 45° 60°

AP 1.05 1.3 1.77 2.5

HVAP 1.03 1.25 1.84 2.68

APDS 1.02 1.24 1.63 2.11

HEAT 1.02 1.14 1.37 1.96

LOS 1.02 1.15 1.41 2.0

</PRE>

None of the warheads has the same penetration as the LOS suggest,most are more but HEAT is less-except for 10°.

ARMY & WEAPONS #50 pp33....

Chinese and Czech 100mm gun warheads...

<PRE> 1000m 2000m

0° 60° 0° 60°

BK-354M 280mm 110mm 280mm 110mm

ZBK 5M 390mm 150mm 390mm 150mm

BR-412B 152mm 64mm 134mm 54mm

PSv 171mm 65mm 146mm 55mm

PrSv 335mm 168mm 335mm 168mm

BR-412D 175mm 71mm 156mm 63mm

BK-354M 264mm 100mm 237mm 90mm

</PRE>

Chinese PrSv is the only one with 60° penetration the same as the LOS suggests.

The difference in the HEAT performance could be due to the standoff effect.

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 09-02-2000).]

[Check6]

Shaped charges penetrate modern RHA at a rate of about 2-3mm of effective armor for 1mm of charge diameter. I should think that the steel armor of WWII tanks might be somewhat less resistant so let's say 4x armor/penetration. I don't know what the diameter of the PF's warhead is but I'll pull a number out of my ass and say it's 60mm, like the M9. That gives 240mm penetration of effective armor.

[This message has been edited by Check6 (edited 09-02-2000).]

[howardb]

Well I never read a post careful if no one was flamed anyway

[M Hofbauer]

check6,

LOL...according to your definition the Panzerfaust warhead with it's 14cm diameter should penetrate 560mm

no, obviously you cannot use this rule of thumb in connection with our weapons in this ww2 discussion for a number of reasons. the 2mm per 1mm diameter figure gets closest but is still too optimistic.

interesting quote Paul, but I am not sure if I understand it - what 105mm is the Rheinmetall work referring to? must be the postwar M68?

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

"Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

PzKpfw 1 (John Waters),

I disagree. That is I disagree if I understand you correctly. The fact alone that something hits the armor plate at an angle makes for an increase in effective armor, as the entry-exit distance through the armor is longer...mayby I misunderstand you, and I don't know how to describe it, wait...ok here is a pic that is from an entirely different discussion, but why not recycle it for the issue at hand:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shaped charge penetration is not affected by obliquity of impact nor does the yeild strength of the target armor material effect SC rounds penetration thats what my *sources state.

As to AOI from my reading no one seems to know for sure if SC rounds are effected by slope, and if they are, no one knows in what way, again thats what I gathered from my limited reading concerning SC projectiles.

Sc rounds use high pressure detonation that turns the SC's liner (usualy copper)inside out & streching it into a jet, that travels up to 7km/sec, and flows thru the target armor like water pushes soil. This also known as hydrodynamic penetration.

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

surely obliquity etc. doesn't make for ricochets for HC ammunitions like it does for kinetic energy penetrator rounds, although in this context it must be noted that the Faustpatrone (PzF30 klein) warhead was redesigned for the later versions specifically because it often failed to detonate correctly on sloped surfaces such as on the T-34.

yours sincerely,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SC rounds penetration process is only similiar to KE penetration, in that during impact the SC's liner material becomes an KE penetrator but with an impact velocity much higher then KE penetrators can achieve.

Concerning the 30 problems it was most likely a case of the warhead being affected by its geometry & its sides closed in on its'self causing the failure I described last post.

*See: Backhofen, Joseph E. Jr. Armor Technology Part III. Armor Magazine March - April 1983. p.19

* Evolution of Blazer Reactive Armor and its Adoptation to AFVs. Military Technology December 1987.

*ATAC: Los Almos Science Summer 1989 Issue.

Regards, John Waters

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

Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-02-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

Shaped charge penetration is not affected by obliquity of impact

food for thought: an extreme shallow angle of 5 or 10° makes for an almost horizontal penetration (assumed the round detonates) all along the length of the armor plate - this should prove sufficiently that your sources can only be wrong (if they are saying that).

let's get this straight, maybe I wasn't clear in my last post:

your sources' statement would mean this:

while I maintain angle of atack / angle of impact _does_ play a role, because what would happen would be THIS:

so see if understand you correctly - you indeed maintain that picture 1 would happen, right?

if you still don't understand what I mean or still disagree then well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Sc rounds use high pressure detonation that turns the SC's liner (usualy copper)inside out & streching it into a jet, that travels up to 7km/sec, and flows thru the target armor like water pushes soil This also known as hydromatic flow.

I was aware of that, but what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

Concerning the 30 problems it was most likely a case of the warhead being affected by its

geometry & its sides closed in on its'self causing the failure I described last post.

the Faustpatrone / Panzerfaust klein warhead worked just fine if it detonated correctly. Besides, in any event the shaped charge is more open than today's versions, so that this theory does not apply IMHO.

again, PzKpfWg I, I think if you are not seeing what I mean or still don't agree then -despite the healthy debate- we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I will never swallow the absolute theory you relate from your sources

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

(btw IIRC the use of copper liner is a postwar thing)

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

"Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

[modified to include the second image]

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-02-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

food for thought: an extreme shallow angle of 5 or 10° makes for an almost horizontal penetration (assumed the round detonates) all along the length of the armor plate - this should prove sufficiently that your sources can only be wrong (if they are saying that).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno M, I only typed what was stated in the articles concerning Shaped Charge ballistics Ie, Shaped charge penetration is not affected by obliquity of impact. If their wrong their wrong but consideing Backhofens reputation I find it hard to believe.Have you read the articles? maybe you will see something I'm misssing or maybe Paul can chime in and explain it better.

let's get this straight, maybe I wasn't clear in my last post:

Yes you were clear

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

your sources' statement would mean this:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ayup..

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

while I maintain angle of atack / angle of impact _does_ play a role, because what would happen would be THIS:

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see it nice graphs

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

so see if understand you correctly - you indeed maintain that picture 1 would happen, right?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No I maintain what the articles stated as I said if I misinterpreted them literaly then maybe Paul can take a look at them or you & tell me what I missed.

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

if you still don't understand what I mean or still disagree then well we'll just have to agree to disagree.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Its not a matter of you & I disagreeing, its your questioning my interpratation of the refrence material I cited.

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

I was aware of that, but what does this have to do with the discussion at hand?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was expanding on the material so everyone could read it definition of SC penetration In that we get more responces from more learnred ppl on the SC principal then I.

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

the Faustpatrone / Panzerfaust klein warhead worked just fine if it detonated correctly. Besides, in any event the shaped charge is more open than today's versions, so that this theory does not apply IMHO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So its not possible that the geometry affected the warhead? as thats the stated main cause for SC Warheads incorrect detonations as the articles explained it. Well the Articles deal with Shaped Charge warhead effects etc so I assumed they were relevant to any discussion concerning Shaped Charges, but if not ok....

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

again, PzKpfWg I, I think if you are not seeing what I mean or still don't agree then -despite the healthy debate- we'll just have to agree to disagree, because I will never swallow the absolute theory you relate from your sources

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh I get your drift M, and see what your graphs show, but at the same time you dismiss the refrence material I have taken my SC data from on SC principals & effects outright. or dismiss it as not relevant to WW2 SC rounds.

As it conflicts with your veiw. As I said I am no expert in SC or HEAT, I merely related what I read in the refrences I cited, if I'm wrong then I am.

I can only go by what they supply for info. So I will agree that we will disagree on this as I cant prove or disprove the data & can only wait for a better definition of "The obliquity of impact does not effect Shaped charge penetration" as in is it literal or not.

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

(btw IIRC the use of copper liner is a postwar thing)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And this effects this discussion how? does affect the definition of the SC penetreation principal in what way?.

Regards, John Waters

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

Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster!

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-02-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

dear John,

Have you read the articles?

no, I haven't, unfortunately I do not possess these works, I would surely appreciate if I was able to read them, they sound interesting.

maybe you will see something I'm missing or maybe Paul can chime in and explain it better.

anybody is welcome to do so.

No I maintain what the articles stated

? not sure if I understand. see, you have two pictures. it's very basic: pic 1 shows your theory, pic 2 shows my theory. all you have to do is decide betwen 1 and 2. you can't say you maintain your position but you don't agree with pic 1, because puic 1 illustrates your opinion. ?

Its not a matter of you & I disagreeing,

yes it is

its your questioning my interpratation of the refrence material I cited.

please don't see this as a personal insult - it's merely that from my position in this argument there are two options: the books are wrong, or they are interpreted wrong. take your pick

I was expanding on the material so everyone could read it definition of SC penetration In that we get more responces from more learnred ppl on the SC principal then I.

I see.

So its not possible that the geometry affected the warhead as thats the stated main cause

for SC Warheads incorrect detonations as the articles explained it. Well the Articles deal

with Shaped Charge warhead effects etc so I assumed they were relevant to any discussion

concerning Shaped Charges, but if not ok....

now don't you start puting words in other people's mouth's - I'm the one that has a diploma for that

I didn't say that. What I said was that this was not the issue with the Panzerfaust klein warhead. Of course the geometry of the shaped charge is the beginning and the end of it's effectiveness and working, so of course it is not only possible but always the case that geometry affects the warhead and it's functioning. But we were not talking about malfunctions (or the failing to achieve the desired effects fully) in hollow charges per se but about a specific problem encountered with the PzF klein warhead in regard to sloped armor, which was caused by the external shape of the warhead front cap. The charge itself worked fine, hence your point that geometry of the charge affects the performance of a hollow charge is entirely correct, but has nothing to do with the PzF klein warhead problem.

Oh I get your drift M, but at the same time you dismiss the refrence material I have taken my SC data from on SC principals & effects; outright as it conflicts with your veiw.

yes, that is the basic concept of differing opinion. If I were of your or the sources' opinoon then of course I wouldn't dismiss them. Vice versa, if I copnflict with them I have to dismiss them, else I would be inconsistent within myself.

if I'm wrong then I am but I can only go by what they supply for info.

no that is not correct. you are a free thinking man, you are not a slave to some dead cellulose and black ink. just use your common sense, PzKpfWg I.

You seem to me to be a person that gives books a lot of credit. Granted, we are of course largely dependent on desk research to find out about things. But - now this might sound condescending but I am merely relating something that I learned while studying which conisted mainly of comparing such articles against each other and dismissing them, and writing your own, and realizing very fast, if you didn't know it before, that bull**** printed in b/w still remains bull**** even if it's sold as a hardcover edition - just because something is printed doesn't mean it's carved in stone. and even if it is carved in stone it still doesn't mean it's the stone of all wisdom and truth. Sorry for the disgression.

And this effects this discussion how? does affect the definition of the SC penetreation principal in what way?

I was merely commenting on your statement about liners in hollow charge ammunitions. It does not have anything to do with the discussion at hand. That's why I put it in brackets and atached it as a btw - afterthought.

yours sincerely,

Markus Hofbauer

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

"Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

[Paul Lakowski]

I'm going to have to get a website to start explaining some of this stuff with graphics like Markus [ COOOOOOL].Yes the 105mm was a modern HEAT round for the M-68 /L-7 gun with a standoff probe.This may be part of the problem , since in a WW-II shell / sloped plate interaction the warhead may have an increased standoff 'built in' by the increasing slope of the plate.This in turn may increase or reduce the penetration depending on the original warhead standoff compared to the optimum standoff for that warhead design & liner material .

Johns right that Jet penetration works in a hydro dynamic manner but while the initial jet tip velocity is 7-8km /s the tail is as slow as 2-3 km/s. In addition the above figures are idealized velocities through air. While penetrating a armored target the penetrating velocities are slowed down by about 2/3.

A ultra long rod model [ konrad Frank recons 100:1 L/d -rod lenght to diameter] can be used for simulating jetting but must include the jets compressiblity .

In any rod impact the tip is going to be damaged by initial contact with the armor but studies confirm that any nose plate interaction problems should disappear after 2 projectile diameters of penetration.

When the jet impacts, the material of both the jet and the plate flow together radially outwards in all directions creating a debre field through which the jet must continue to penetrate until cleared.This process can take upto 50 micro seconds or 1/8th of the penetration time. When this is a spaced plate @ 45° ,the effect can be considerable making the spaced plate effectiveness about 3 times the plate thickness independant of standoff.

Now since the efficency per unit lenght of a HEAT jet is around 0.5-0.7 [copper] that means the first 3-4 rod [jet] diameters or about 1/25th of the jet lenght or penetration is effected .If you average this out thats

1 x 0.33 + 24 x 1.0 ÷25= 97% @ 45° . Compared to the tests I quoted above that sounds about right.

Now these test are for 60s/70s technology 'Precision charges', so we need to know more about WW-II SC before anything definate can be stated.For one thing its clear that WW-II jets were about 1/3 as efficent as 'precision jets' mainly due to stetching. This would suggest that the 'rod/jet is 1/3 as long and the 'damage from sloped impact'would propotionally be more say 0.33 + 8 ÷ 9= 93% & 45°.

Jentz figures for German HL HEAT at angle are [ normalized to 0°]

<PRE>

0° 105 1.0 = 1.0

30°100 0.95 ÷ 0.866 = 1.1

45° 80 0.76 ÷ 0.707 = 1.08

60° 50 0.48 ÷ 0.5 = 0.95

</PRE>

For every paper on shaped charge we have 10 on KE , so we know alot less about HEAT than KE.

[PzKpfw 1]

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

? not sure if I understand. see, you have two pictures. it's very basic: pic 1 shows your theory, pic 2 shows my theory. all you have to do is decide betwen 1 and 2. you can't say you maintain your position but you don't agree with pic 1, because puic 1 illustrates your opinion. ?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Markus thats the crux of it I can only go by what I have to go on, Ie, the various articles on SC penetration I have. I profess no knowledge of the inner workings of SC technology. So as tou your point based on the material I have I would then have to say I stand by the articles content.

But on a broader view the definition of shaped charge penetration method & effect I gave here is not my own, but around 6 diferent authors view including ppl considered 'Experts' in their feilds, your disagreement is with my refrences material. Hence I said its with the authors as the statements are not mine, but my interpratation of their content.

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

Its not a matter of you & I disagreeing,

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> LOL .

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

please don't see this as a personal insult - it's merely that from my position in this argument there are two options: the books are wrong, or they are interpreted wrong. take your pick

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't, I did notice the possibility that you are wrong wasnt included above . Or their is another posibility in that SC technology has changed so much since the 40s that my material is to advanced.

[

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

now don't you start puting words in other people's mouth's - I'm the one that has a diploma for that

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFL .

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

I didn't say that. What I said was that this was not the issue with the Panzerfaust klein warhead. Of course the geometry of the shaped charge is the beginning and the end of it's effectiveness and working, so of course it is not only possible but always the case that geometry affects the warhead and it's functioning. But we were not talking about malfunctions (or the failing to achieve the desired effects fully) in hollow charges per se but about a specific problem encountered with the PzF klein warhead in regard to sloped armor, which was caused by the external shape of the warhead front cap. The charge itself worked fine, hence your point that geometry of the charge affects the performance of a hollow charge is entirely correct, but has nothing to do with the PzF klein warhead problem.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok I'll accept that, the warheads external shape of the cone was causing the problems, is interesting as the HE cylnnder's delayed detonation after impact caused penetration, if it was mishapen that would effect the jets initial formation I'd reckon?.

Below is a full quote of the relevant section of Backhofens article:

"The penetration is also little affected by the oblquity of the impact unless the geometry causes the warhead sides to be to close to the armor, or some other material

in this case the results are an imperfectly formed jet, rather then material resistance to penetration."

So by the above ststement could it not be seen why I would form the opinion that the SC warheads functoning was determined by the way the warhead initially impacted. And that could cause failures, as material resistance was not an issue according to the article.

Now as Paul pointed out slope reportedly can effect an SC's penetration but to date no one has explained the AOI effects on SC warheads. An SC warhead is defined as an "point blank" attack vs armor, instead of an "critical angle" attack definition because the SC warhead effects penetration when the warhead detonates.

Now as of 1976 copper lined SC warheads could penetrate armor to a depth of 5 1/2 times the diameter of their cones, I have no idea what that WW2 SC rounds depth was. Anyone got any real good data on WW2 SC warheads cone diamaters? & liner compositions?.

Also I translated this as not affected in my previous posts & errord on the sides closeing in on itself, the text is rather faded, I had to use a magnifier tonight to discover my errors. I apologise, and again if I'm misinterpreting the above I'd apreciate it if explained better to me as again I'm no expert in SC tech.

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

You seem to me to be a person that gives books a lot of credit. Granted, we are of course largely dependent on desk research to find out about things. But - now this might sound condescending but I am merely relating something that I learned while studying which conisted mainly of comparing such articles against each other and dismissing them, and writing your own, and realizing very fast, if you didn't know it before, that bull**** printed in b/w still remains bull**** even if it's sold as a hardcover edition - just because something is printed doesn't mean it's carved in stone. and even if it is carved in stone it still doesn't mean it's the stone of all wisdom and truth. Sorry for the disgression.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I gathered all my papers on SC penetration written by ppl who are considered "experts" in their feild, Ie, Backhofen, Ogrorkiewicz, etc, then read them then compared them, and they all reached the same conclusion.

I can see where their could be an error in 1 paper but in over 4 papers written by diferent authors they all basicly state the same conclusions.

Now one could say that you can't trust the printed material etc, or use it to dismiss their findings out right if one doesnt agree with them. But one cannot outright dismiss them when its all you have to use to form an opionon on with no contrary evidence tou use as a basis for dismisal.

My only experience with SC warheads was fireing an LAW & looking at the impact. I would also sugest before you outright dismiss them that you get copys of the articles so you can determine if their factual in their conclusions or I am misinterpreting what I read.

Now why I may be reluctant to dismiss the articles findings is that I have no 1st hand experience with SC warheads (other then occasionaly fireing a LAW)and w/o hands on observation I'm dismissing scientificly documented event along with tons of supporting evidence including xray films of actual tests with no basis to do so.

I can accept my interpratation of the articles would be incorrect before I would dismiss their findings outright without concrete proof otherwise If you can provide data that Backhofen, Ogrorkiewicz. etc are FOS then I'll happily read it.

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

I was merely commenting on your statement about liners in hollow charge ammunitions. It does not have anything to do with the discussion at hand. That's why I put it in brackets and atached it as a btw - afterthought.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree the liner has everything to do with the SC warheads penetration performance & is relevant as if your correct that AOI effects SC penetration as the liner material, forms the jet that causes SC penetration then the jet would be affected by AOI.

I also want to add that in discussing this I was not refering to the Klien or problems associated with it, but to SC rounds general priciples of effecting penetration & what could impede or effect their penetration.

Regards, John Waters

----------

"die verdammte Jabos".

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 09-03-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

Markus thats the crux of it (...) So as tou your point based on the material I have I would then have to say I stand by the articles content.

ok I will take that as a "yes I firmly stand by pic 1" then

I don't, I did notice the possibility that you are wrong wasnt included above .

dammit. I thought I could pull it off.

Or their is another posibility in that SC technology has changed so much since the 40s that my material is to advanced.

naw, don't think so.

nice attempt though at making a compromise with which we could both save our faces

Ok I'll accept that, the warheads external shape of the cone was causing the problems, is interesting as the HE cylnnder's delayed detonation after impact caused penetration, if it was mishapen that would effect the jets initial formation I'd reckon?.

hmm maybe not sure...I really don't know any details, I always figured maybe it would simply kinda deflect off...

Now as of 1976 copper lined SC warheads could penetrate armor to a depth of 5 1/2 times the diameter of their cones, I have no idea what that WW2 SC rounds depth was. Anyone got any real good data on WW2 SC warheads cone diamaters? & liner compositions?.

as I stated before IIRC the PzF-30 type warhead did definitely not have a liner. the germans were experimenting with it for the new PzF150 however...

Now one could say that you can't trust the printed material etc, or use it to dismiss their findings out right if one doesnt agree with them. But one cannot outright dismiss them when its all you have to use to form an opionon on with no contrary evidence tou use as a basis for dismisal.

of course I feel uneasy dismissing these. my only explanation would be that meaybe they are not talking about what we are talking. Maybe they say something like "obliquity does not play a role" and they mean in regard to deflections etc, but theyx don't mean the effective increase of the mater to be penetrated due to simple geometry.

Otherwise I am at a loss to explain the perceived discrepancies to the autor's you quote.

My only counter evidence is common sense / logic, as I tried to illustrate with the images above.

I disagree the liner has everything to do with the SC warheads penetration performance

that's not what I meant. of course it is very important to the AP of HC ammunitions. But -I repeat myself here - it was not present in the early HC systems, hence the fact that the liner contributes (emphasis is on contributes since the HC effect works without the liner, too) to the effect of the HC is of no relevence to our discussion of the PzF-30 type HC warhead. so we kinda cross-talked (rather -typed).

yours sincerely,

Markus Hofbauer

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

"Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Chris a shaped charge rounds penetration limit, is not realy affected by the obliquity of impact.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh! So that's why I don't remember ever getting a ricochet with a shreck/zook IN CM. Thanks, John.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The fact alone that something hits the armor plate at an angle makes for an increase in effective armor, as the entry-exit distance through the armor is longer.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. So the actual amount of material the round would have to penetrate, given the results from tests I did with CM would be:

<pre>

Successful Penetration:

200/0 = N/A

178/30 = 206mm

152/45 = 215mm

114/60 = 228mm

.

Failed Penetration:

178/45 = 252mm

152/60 = 304mm

</pre>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzerfaust ... is long overdue to an extensive overhaul ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great page, Markus. If I might make a suggestion: a summary table at the end of the pages listing the various specs (tube size, weight, etc) for each weapon would be real handy.

Thanks again for the info, guys.

- Chris

[This message has been edited by Wolfe (edited 09-03-2000).]

[M Hofbauer]

Interesting. So the actual amount of material the round would have to penetrate, given the results from tests I did with CM would be snip)

basically yes but please keep in mind that this is only the increase of matter alone due to geometric logic. There are additional factors of deflection, structure etc. that slope benefits from, much too compliacted for someone like me.

nice to see that at least someone got my point re. the plain logic of increase in armor due to geometric angle alone (hey this is a jab at you, Waters *g*)

a summary table at the end of the pages

listing the various specs (tube size, weight, etc) for each weapon would be real handy.

yes that sounds like a good idea indeed!

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

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

"Please fix!!! or do somefink" (CPT S.)

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>basically yes but please keep in mind that this is only the increase of matter alone due to geometric logic. There are additional factors of deflection, structure etc. that slope benefits from, much too compliacted for someone like me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, most certainly! The "math" I presented is a gross oversimplification and undoubtedly doesn't even describe how CM performs the calculation, much less what happens in real life. I was just looking for some very rough penetration numbers for the Faust since it isn't listed in the game. And that's exactly what I got, some very rough numbers.

- Chris