Is artillery too powerful against tanks?

[Fernando]

I'm playing Chambois and I've been unfortunate enough to lose a Panther to British artillery fire AFAIK it was destroyed by veteran or crack 25 pdr (IIRC about 85 mm) or 4.5 inch artillery wich scored a "top penetration, knocked out" hit. It's the second direct hit on this game (the other “top penetrated” tank was an open-top Wespe). I was shocked so I checked Jentz's book about the Panther and I found the following text:

"The Panther is basically invulnerable to artillery fire. However, direct hits by calibers OVER 150 mm on the roof of the hull and turret had the effect of DEFORMING the armor and causing internal damage. Hits by lighter caliber shells hitting the comander cupola and the roof armor showed NO effect"

It's Guderian report (he was General-inspekteur der Panzertruppen) on the operations of Panzer-Regiment von Lauchert (a Panther regiment) in Kursk.

AFAIK the Russian had LOTS of artillery in Kursk (well, everywhere in fact). The Panthers were heavily engaged there and received a lot of attention from the Russians, their artillery included. I guess it “rained” artillery shells over those Panthers but the result was “it’s basically invulnerable” and “hits by lighter caliber (less than 150 mm) showed no effect”. I understand gun malfunction and inmobilization results but it seems that light and medium artillery couldn’t penetrate Panther’s top armor.

[IntelWeenie]

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

I was shocked so I checked Jentz's book about the Panther and I found the following text:

"The Panther is basically invulnerable to artillery fire. However, direct hits by calibers OVER 150 mm on the roof of the hull and turret had the effect of DEFORMING the armor and causing internal damage. Hits by lighter caliber shells hitting the comander cupola and the roof armor showed NO effect"

*snip*

but it seems that light and medium artillery couldn’t penetrate Panther’s top armor.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, the Panther only has about 16mm of top armor (according to my copy of the CM unit database). I can't see how a 75mm+ HE shell couldn't penetrate unless it was point detonating or VT. Maybe this is what Jentz is talking about?

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Wild Bill Wilder]

I personally don't think so. I feel CM's rendition of artillery effectiveness is quite accurate.

I've just read too many accounts in WW2 history, especially tank histories where artillery created havoc among tanks, even mortar rounds.

Tankers had a healthy respect for artillery, especially barrages and sought to avoid them.

Wild Bill

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

Wild Bill

Lead Tester

Scenario Design Team

Combat Mission-Beyond Overlord

billw@matrixgames.com

[Mike Oberly]

I'm also playing Chambois,via email(excellent scenario,BTW) as the Poles,and I recently knocked out a PzIV using direct fire with a 60mm mortar.It even brewed up.I have to wonder how often this happened in the war.I can understand heavy rounds,such as 105mm and larger,taking out the thin top armor on a medium tank,but a lobbed 60mm mortar?

I have seen it happen before in QB's also,so it's not entirely uncommon.It just seems to happen too often in the game.

Mike

[Schugger]

Fernando

May I ask you for how long you have left your tank in the same position?

Some wise man stated a while ago that real world tactics work best in CM and I have found out that this is the truth.

Leaving a tank into a position for such a long time that artillery can target it sounds not like a proper tactic.

I have not been a tanker, but I've heard they combat drill is much like infantry, if on a larger scale. That is: Move into positon, Engage, change position, move into position and so on.

This might not only overcome your problems with allied artillery but also being outmaneuvered by agile and fast turreted allied tanks.

However, there isn't much you can do against mortar fire. They prooved to be the killers of opened top vehicles since the early days of Last Defence.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Exactly, Shugger. Artillery can STILL be bad news for tanks...you can't have 2 feet of armor on every surface of the tank - or you'd have a bunker

[Kingfish]

I have no hard data to refer to, but I would think that the engine grills were unable to withstand a 25lbr. Also, what about the AT rockets carried by Jabos?

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

Charlie don't surf!

[Schugger]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

Exactly, Shugger. Artillery can STILL be bad news for tanks...you can't have 2 feet of armor on every surface of the tank - or you'd have a bunker <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, a compliment from a Tanker to a ex-groundpounder. I'm happy to lived that long

[Fernando]

It seems some people didn’t understand me or didn't read my message

In an OFFICIALl report as General-Inspector of Panzers about the new Panther in the light of recent heavy combat experience (please, remember it wasn't a small engagement but the battle of Kursk), Guderian said:

"Hits by lighter caliber shells (smaller than 150 mm) hitting the comander cupola and the roof armor showed NO effect"

Please remember it wasn't an oppinion but an official report.

BIG artillery shells (more than 150 mm) DIDN'T penetrate the armor but deformed it. Guderian also said it.

What's the hitting power/Kynetic energy of an artillery shell? AFAIK non-mortar shells couldn't hit top armor in a 0º angle and they hadn't the kinetic energy/velocity of an AP shell. What's the expected impact angle and velocity of a non-mortar artillery shell? I guess the impact angle could range from 30 to 60º. If I’m right then Panther top armor isn’t just 16 mm but a greater equivalent.

I've read that someone destroyed a PzKpfw IV with a 60 mm mortar in Chambois. My Panther was hit by an 88 mm shell, exploded and brewed up. The Germans threw about 200 panther to the battle of Kursk. They faced heavy concentrations of enemy artillery and it seems no top armor was ever penetrated and AFAIK they lost, repaired and lost again LOTS of them during that battle.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Jarmo]

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

"Hits by lighter caliber shells (smaller than 150 mm) hitting the comander cupola and the roof armor showed NO effect"

BIG artillery shells (more than 150 mm) DIDN'T penetrate the armor but deformed it. Guderian also said it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Puzzling.

Seems obvious a top armor of 16mm could easily be penetrated by

artillery HE fire.

But then, surely Guderian knew what he was talking about?

Maybe the armours ability to deform, give in rather than break,

would explain it to some extent. But even then, 16mm only goes that far...

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Fernando]

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

Puzzling.

Seems obvious a top armor of 16mm could easily be penetrated by

artillery HE fire.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the artillery shell impact the top armor at an angle of less than 30º then it hasn't too much kinetic energy (it loses most of its velocity then falls over the ground). If it impact it at an angle of more than 30-45º then it could have a greater kinetic energy (greater velocity) but then Panther's effective top armor isn't just 16 mm but much greater

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

But then, surely Guderian knew what he was talking about?

Maybe the armours ability to deform, give in rather than break,

would explain it to some extent. But even then, 16mm only goes that far...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK regular artillery shells aren't designed to penetrate but to explode when they hit something BEFORE penetrating it. An artillery shell which buried into the ground and then explodes isn't a very effective one.

[Fernando]

Please are there any artillery experts there?

I think we need them to know about trajectories and kynetic energy upon impact

[Fernando]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wild Bill Wilder:

I personally don't think so. I feel CM's rendition of artillery effectiveness is quite accurate.

I've just read too many accounts in WW2 history, especially tank histories where artillery created havoc among tanks, even mortar rounds.

Tankers had a healthy respect for artillery, especially barrages and sought to avoid them.

Wild Bill

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I'm sure artillery scares tank crews but what about Guderians official report?

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

Fernando

May I ask you for how long you have left your tank in the same position?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It doens't matter how much time I left my Panther there but wether a 25 pdr shell can penetrate Panther top armor. Guderian says it cannot penetrate. BTW I just moved to that position but artillery covers a wide area.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 09-25-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Fernando]

I'm sorry, I thought I could delete this post

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 09-25-2000).]

[argie]

Fernando,

jugando un escenario contra la AI, una vez puse fuera de combate un Panther con un mortero de 2"

Eso es raro!!!

Ariel

[Basebal351]

Fernando,

Great job on bringing up a possible problem you've found with the game, and backing up your claim with a valid report from the time period. This game wouldn't be where it is today were it not for people like you.

But, when others give their opinions, and when these opinions differ from yours, it's probably not best to continue pointing to the same evidence to say "I'm right, and this report is right, so you're wrong." At least, that's how it sounded to me.

The best thing to do would be to get more information on the topic yourself, to further back up your stance. To validate your claim, you're going to need more than one report. Especially for a claim that would involve a change this drastic. You're going to need more than just ONE report from some German guy (could there be some personal biases, or a desire to please his superiors here?), for BTS to make the Panther impervious to artillery fire. That could make A GIGANTIC difference in many people's games. So, good job on finding the information initially. But that one report isn't going to cut it.

Thanks,

Jim

[Schugger]

Fernando, I'm far from being an artillery expert and I don't have any scientific data ready. I'm sure there are many experts on the board who can provide you with adequate data that is contrary to Guderians report.

As far as I'm concerned with the penetration power of an 88mm HE shell i'd took a look at the british Sexton who could penetrate 60mm of armour at an 30° degree angle at a range of 2000m. I think you can compare the velocity of the Sexton's shell at this range with that of an artillery shell.

Well, 60 mm penetration is more than most german AFV's can deal with.

I will not state that Guderian's report is worthless, but it alone will not backup you argument.

You may wish to open a new thread, where you ask for artillery penetration data. I'm pretty sure you find many helpful hands here.

Regards

Schugger

[RudeLover]

Just a few earlier discussions of this topic:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002839.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/005215.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/009110.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007598.html

BTW, you should add a 'spoiler' comment in case there are people who haven't played that scenario (see last topic for an example).

[Fernando]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Basebal351:

Fernando,

Great job on bringing up a possible problem you've found with the game, and backing up your claim with a valid report from the time period. This game wouldn't be where it is today were it not for people like you.

But, when others give their opinions, and when these opinions differ from yours, it's probably not best to continue pointing to the same evidence to say "I'm right, and this report is right, so you're wrong." At least, that's how it sounded to me.

The best thing to do would be to get more information on the topic yourself, to further back up your stance. To validate your claim, you're going to need more than one report. Especially for a claim that would involve a change this drastic. You're going to need more than just ONE report from some German guy (could there be some personal biases, or a desire to please his superiors here?), for BTS to make the Panther impervious to artillery fire. That could make A GIGANTIC difference in many people's games. So, good job on finding the information initially. But that one report isn't going to cut it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got some information about it (an official report in fact) and people repplied with their opinions but not with facts or reports. I’m still waiting for an official report and not for opinions. People say “I think 16 mm is not enough armor and artillery can penetrate it” but don’t contribute with official reports and opinions aren’t enough for me. I don’t know how artillery works and my knowledge about basic physics is a bit rusty but IIRC a shell just dropping from 1000 m height will hit the ground at 140 m/seg . IIRC some AT guns had muzzle velocities of about 800 m/seg. Well, the kynetic energy of those AT shells is about 25 times greater than that of my “dropping” artillery shell then. I think artillery shells impact the ground at higher velocities but they are still much smaller than AT shell velocities so its kynetic energy is much smaler. You know, if they have half the velocity then its kynetic energy is 4 times smaller, if its one third then it’s NINE times smaller, if one fourth then it’s SIXTEEN times smaller and so on. I asked for artillery grunts because they know what are the trajectories and velocities of artillery shells. I guess mortar shells have the smaller velocities among artillery shells thus having the smaller kynetic energy. To kill a Panther with a 60 mm mortar seems rather odd.

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

Fernando,

jugando un escenario contra la AI, una vez puse fuera de combate un Panther con un mortero de 2"

Eso es raro!!!

Ariel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hola Argie,

Raro no, yo creo que es sencillamente casi imposible y algo que hay que corregir. Por lo que parece es algo que pasa demasiado a menudo.

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hi Guys.

Im no expert in the area under discussion (though I have read many accounts of armour being knocked out by artillery) but I do have a link here which may be of interest.

http://history.vif2.ru/destroyed/german.html

It shows many pictures of German armour knocked out by artillery. A lot of it is listed as being ambushed by the Russian which I found interesting. Does anyone know if this was a common Russian tactic out of interest ?

[This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 09-25-2000).]

[Maj. Bosco]

I think some one else said it before but it could be that the Panthers were deformed by a shell bursting above them fairly close and not actually impacting. Now I know that artillery shells are supposed to air burst but if you just do a few tests with the artillery in CM you'll see that unless it's VT arty then it's gonna hit the ground and thus the tank. As the for the impact speed from what I remember if you fire a bullet straight up into the air it'll hit the ground with about the same velocity that it left the muzzle with, disregarding air resistance. It's kinda late and I don't really feel like doing any physics now but I think the no-math reasoning goes something like if you fire the bullet straight up then it'll accelerate towards the ground at the standard 9.8 meters per second per second and at the top it'll be stationary. Then it'll fall all the way down and since energy (work?) is conserved at the bottom it'll have all that energy back. Angle the barrel and the energy in the forward vector isn't affected by gravity and the vertical vector goes through the same thing it would if you fired it straight up. Naturally it won't be quite the same because there is air resistance in real life but those arty shells were pretty streamlined (did they have shells that released gas or something as they flew to reduce drag from the partial vacuum a shell in flight causes yet?) and thus probably didn't suffer too drastically. Other than that I can't really speculate much because I don't have any similar reports but if it doesn't offend you too much I'd like to offer an opinion: A explosive shell as big as you fire out of an artillery peice dropping onto a peice of metal thinner than what most german halftracks have on their front hull is going to destory/massivly deform the metal and wound/maim/kill anything under it.

[Da Coder]

Just a note after looking at the pictures from the russian site with the destroyed afvs. If I am correctly interpreting what I am seeing, most of the pictures of vehicles have the penetration locations circled in white. On the the ones where the vehicles were "ambushed" it appears that most of the hits were on a flank side relatively low on the turret or hull. To me this would implie that the artillery was being used in an AT role rather than a bombardment role which is, again interpreting what Fernando was saying, was the type of artillery used against him. So again, it could be a case of apples and oranges.

[Jeff Duquette]

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

From: Artillery In The Desert, Prepared by Military Intelligence Service, War Department. This Case study was prepared by the United States Army and is available for review as FMFRP 12-3 United States Marine Corps Historical Publication, 7 November 1988.

This study focuses on the employment of both field artillery, and anti-tank artillery tactics and equipment employed by the Germans, Italians, and British during the Campaign in North Africa 1940 – 1942.

C. 25-pounder Field Gun-Howitzer

Fire from the British 25-pounder (3.45-inch) field gun-howitzer, the basic field piece of the British Army, has been extremely effective for two reasons: (1) the 25-pounder is an excellent field gun, and (2) British artillery was well-trained before the outbreak of war. German tanks when struck by 25-pounder armor-piercing (sic direct fire engagements of German Tanks) shell at ranges less than 1,000 yards have sometimes been knocked-out; some have had turrets completely blown of, and others have been set afire. Indirect 25-pounder fire is, however, not effective for stopping tank attacks, but it can cause the tanks to "button up" their hatches. Reports of indirect fire's stopping tank attacks are believed to be erroneous interpretations of the repulse of reconnaissance’s in force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The inability of a Panther to resist the impact of a direct hit from a 25 pounder on its upper deck or the top of its turret is not, I’m sure, in question by anyone on this thread. However, the question of how often an indirectly fired artillery round will land on the upper deck of a Panther should be answered as “not very often”.

There are numerous systematic errors at work, which limit the accuracy of indirect fire. The ability of F.O.’s or F.O.O’s and their associated FDC's to walk rounds onto a pin point target such an individual tank should be considered an unlikely occurrence at best.

If a number of rounds of ammunition of the same caliber, lot, and charge are fired from the same position with identical settings used for deflection and quadrant elevation, the rounds will not all impact on a single point but will fall in a scattered random pattern. This phenomenon is called dispersion, and the array of bursts on the ground is called the dispersion pattern.

The points of impact of the projectiles will be scattered both in deflection and in range Dispersion is caused by inherent (systemic) errors to include: Conditions in the bore. The muzzle velocity achieved by a given projectile can be affected by minor variations in the weight of the projectile, form of the rotating band, and moisture content and temperature of the propellant grains. Differences in the rate of ignition of the propellant. Variations in the arrangement of the propellant grains. Differences in the rate of ignition of the propellant. Variations in the ramming of the projectile. Variations in the temperature of the bore from round to round. For example, variations in the bourrelet and rotating band may cause inaccurate centering of the projectile, which can result in a loss in achieved range because of instability in flight. Conditions in the carriage. Deflection and elevation are affected by the Conditions during flight. The flight of the projectile may be affected by the difference in air resistance created by variations in the weight, achieved muzzle velocity, and projectile. Also, the projectile may be affected by minor variations in wind, air density or air pressure, and air temperature from round to round, etc etc

The ability to destroy tanks via indirect fire is really a function of massing fires of artillery battalions, and even artillery regiments. This is resolved into a question of density of fire within an area. Drop enough rain drops and you are bound to achieve a saturated condition. Combat Mission is typically simulating or modeling a less than saturated condition – so to speak. Scenarios are often limited to off-map artiller assets of single batteries or perhaps two batteries of medium or heavy artillery. We are therefore not really in a position to reasonably say for example: After such and such a historical event involving the concentration of 7 or 8 battalions of heavy artillery a resultant destruction of 4 Panthers occurred, and subsequently compare that historical event to a simulated battle in which the available dedicated artillery support consists of a single battery of 25 pounder howitzers. They are not really the same thing. It is really a matter of being very lucky or very unlucky (depending on weather you are on the receiving end or delivering end) when a tank is destroyed by low-density indirect artillery concentrations.

WWII Battlefield studies\statistics of tank casualties and the cause thereof would support this assessment. One such study conducted by the 21st Army Group, ETO, examined the cause of damage of some 333 tanks (Shermans, Crommwells, Fireflys, Comets, Stuarts and Challengers). Damage was defined as: (abbreviated) the tank of concern could no longer participate in the action at hand (so damage really includes out right kills, mobility kills, and other assorted mechanical damage). The following causes and associated percentage for each cause included: AP Shot 41%, Shaped Charge 35%, Anti-Tank Mine 21%, HE Shell 3%.

I have not seen similar statistics for German AFV’s in ETO. My gut feeling is that due to the availability of massed concentrations of American and Commonwealth artillery and abundance of ammunition available to Allied artillery, the number AFVs damaged as a result of HE shot would be somewhat higher. However, it is probable a stretch to think that much more than an additional 5 or 6 percent could be tacked onto the British 3% figure. And again to reiterate the higher percentages are more than likely attributable to massed battalion and regimental fires.

With respect to the URL posted by KwazyDog (The Russian Military Zone) it would be interesting to hear the authors description of what is implied by “destroyed by artillery”. In the case of many of the photos with artillery listed as the primary cause of destruction it is clearly evident that either front, side, or rearward facing plate perforations have occurred. I suspect that the “destroyed by artillery” description might be an abbreviated version of “destroyed by anti-tank artillery”. Two types of ordnance bearing similar names, but performing very different missions.

I would be curious to see similar statistics as those I have indicated above for either German or Soviet AFV’s. If anyone has access to such studies indicating hard numbers I’m sure it would be enlightening to all of us who may be interested in this subject.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Bosco:

As the for the impact speed from what I remember if you fire a bullet straight up into the air it'll hit the ground with about the same velocity that it left the muzzle with, disregarding air resistance.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But air resistance is not to be disregerded.

I know a one WWII instance from finland, where a a stray bullet

dropping from the sky, hit a private straigt in the middle of

his head. While it managed to break the skin, it certainly wasn't

deadly.

Arty shells suffer just the same, air resistance is the

only reason the penetration capability of a shell goes down

when the distance increases, and down it goes, fast.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Degrees of Frost]

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

I got some information about it (an official report in fact) and people repplied with their opinions but not with facts or reports. I’m still waiting for an official report and not for opinions. People say “I think 16 mm is not enough armor and artillery can penetrate it” but don’t contribute with official reports and opinions aren’t enough for me. I don’t know how artillery works and my knowledge about basic physics is a bit rusty but IIRC a shell just dropping from 1000 m height will hit the ground at 140 m/seg . IIRC some AT guns had muzzle velocities of about 800 m/seg. Well, the kynetic energy of those AT shells is about 25 times greater than that of my “dropping” artillery shell then. I think artillery shells impact the ground at higher velocities but they are still much smaller than AT shell velocities so its kynetic energy is much smaler. You know, if they have half the velocity then its kynetic energy is 4 times smaller, if its one third then it’s NINE times smaller, if one fourth then it’s SIXTEEN times smaller and so on. I asked for artillery grunts because they know what are the trajectories and velocities of artillery shells. I guess mortar shells have the smaller velocities among artillery shells thus having the smaller kynetic energy. To kill a Panther with a 60 mm mortar seems rather odd.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Would the kinetic energy of the falling shell be the only important factor here ?

Isn't it quite likely the falling shell would explode upon hitting the upper surface of the tank. I don't know what sized fragments are generated when a 25 lb shell detonates nor the kinetic energy these fragments possess. But is it possible that the shrapnel is capable of penertrating 16mm of armour ?