Is artillery too powerful against tanks?

[Fernando]

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

And I agree that way too much importance is given to this ONE report. If arty couldn't take out tanks what chance would aircraft guns have?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right there's only one report in so far but it's an official report of the panther in combat. It wasn't for the public so I guess Guderian didn't need to lie about it.

Don't worry about your close air support The kynetic energy of the shell/bullet fired by an aircraft gun or machine gun is much greater than that of an artillery shell. I'm sure they can penetrate Panthers top armor most of the time

[Fernando]

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

If no, or little, damage was done... how does one know what they were hit by?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm pretty sure that the shell hitting a tank wasn't the only one to be fired to that/those tank/s and vets can easily identify what kind of guns are firing upon them just looking at the explosions

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 09-26-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 09-26-2000).]

[Claus B]

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

I'd like to know if you're just guessing or you've some data to support your stattement.

Please remember Guderian's report about the Panther:

"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 seems he and his crews were wrong and you're right <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Once saw a Panzer III with cracked turret armour. "Gee," I thought, "that must have been caused by artillery landing on top it."

Later I learned that the vehicle had been reversing across a minefield, hitting a mine that caused the track to snap and hitting the roof like a giant whip, cracking the roof armour.

I have a picture in a book somewhere showing a Cromwell tank, hit on the side turret by direct fire HE, probably 88mm. The outer layer of armour (51mm thick) has been "burned" away in a small circle with deep grooves going off in all directions from the point of impact. Luckily for the crew, the inner, 12.7mm plate held up to the blast. This HE round was probably fired point-blank at 600 - 800 m/s.

Eye-witness accounts tend to put too much emphasis on the effects of artillery against tanks. On June 14th 1944, an artillery observer with 22nd Armoured Brigade called a "Pandemonium" on Panzer Lehr armour assembling in a wood. The combined efforts of US V Corps and UK 30th Corps artillery assets (some 160 guns) were unleashed on the wood, eyewitnesses believing hundreds of Germans killed and dozens of tanks destroyed. In reality, no tanks were lost, but most had their periscopes and vision blocks destroyed and various fittings rattled loose, so the pending attack was aborted.

Regarding the data found in Jentz' book on the Panther, it is not conclusive. It is true, that Guderians report states that the Panther is all but invulnerable to artillery fire, save a few buckled plates (p. 133) but moving on to the October 1943 report from Panzer-Regiment 2 (p. 138) shows that " A Panther was fell out due to a direct hit on the front from a 152mm HE shell that ripped the hull." and "A direct hit from an artillery shell at the lower front plate broke all the weld seams back to the middle and broke a triangular piece several centimeters long out of the glacis plate and the hull side." Clearly, hits by high-explosive ammunition could make considerable structural damage to the Panther EVEN on the the 80mm thick frontal armour and the 40mm side armour. If a +150mm round could rip apart the 80mm thick front plate, a 25pdr should not have too much trouble doing ugly things to the 16mm top armour.

As seen the 21st Army Group report quoted by Jeff Duquette somewhere else in this thread, overall, artillery did not count for very many kills (3%). A German report from early 1944 states that about 9% of Soviet tanks destroyed on the Eastern Front from January to April 1944 fell to mines and artillery.

The bottom line is that tanks being destroyed by artillery must have been a fairly rare occurence, while structural damage, broken periscopes, buckled plates etc. would be more common effects and certainly take a tank out of commission for some time.

Claus B

[Bastables]

'A direct hit from an artillery shell on the lower front plate broke all the weld seams to the middle to the middle and broke a triangular peice several centimetres (correct spelling is metres not meters. The former is international, the latter is some lunitic US 'innovation') long out of the glacis plate and hull sides. It can be argued that the thick armour plate are not deeply enough welded. (Jentz, 1995 pg 138)

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

From the jshandorf

"Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?"

Mr T's reply

"Don't touch me FOO!"

[Philistine]

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

Don't worry about your close air support The kynetic energy of the shell/bullet fired by an aircraft gun or machine gun is much greater than that of an artillery shell. I'm sure they can penetrate Panthers top armor most of the time

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope. KE of machine gun is much less than 105mm shell (even without explosive effect --which really is the point of an HE shell).

.50 caliber MG bullet weighs about 50 grams with a muzzle velocity of about 884 m/s for a KE of 1.95E4 Joules.

20 millimeter (from 20 mm Flak 30) has a weight of 119 grams, and a muzzle velocity of about 900 m/s for a KE of 4.8E4 Joules.

A 105mm Shell from a US 105 mm Howitzer M2A1 weighs 15 KG with a muzzle velocity of 472. (The vertical component at 45 degree angle of fire would be 333 m/s [muz. vel. * sin 45]--about 5657 meters in height). Which gives a KE of 8.3E5 Joules. That's 17 times the energy of a 20mm shell and 42 times the energy of a .50 caliber bullet.

And that's if the shell is a dud!

--Philistine

(Note that all values come from "The Encyclopeida of Weapons of World War II" [except the .50 caliber weight which I actually had to look up on the web]. All physics comes from my creaky and dusty memory, and may or may not be correct)

[Jeff Duquette]

Jeeze Claus...you are omnipresent. Can you sniff the air and determine what internet forums are having disscussions on armour penetration Great Post by the way.

I am betting you are intimately familiar with many of the quality photos presented on the Russian Military Zone showing destroyed AFV’s. I am under the impression that many of the photos bearing the description “Destroyed By Artillery Fire” would be what an American like myself might have detailed with a description of “Destroyed by Anti-tank Artillery fire”. Would this be an incorrect assumption on my part?

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 09-27-2000).]

[Silencer]

Fernando,

why do you think the germans increased the tiger top armour to 40mm?

And 16mm top is nothing, even a dud 150mm shell would smash trough that thin plate.

S.

[Jarmo]

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

why do you think the germans increased the tiger top armour to 40mm?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jabos maybe?

[Guest Rollstoy]

Dear Philistine!

Not that it changes the point you made, but the total velocity enters the kinetic energy calculation (m*v^2/2), not just the vertical component. For the initial velocity you would, therefore, get twice the kinetic energy you have calculated. Until impact, this value is reduced by air resistance, but it will still be higher than the energy calculated solely based on the vertical velocity component.

Regards,

Thomm

[Fernando]

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

Nope. KE of machine gun is much less than 105mm shell (even without explosive effect --which really is the point of an HE shell).

.50 caliber MG bullet weighs about 50 grams with a muzzle velocity of about 884 m/s for a KE of 1.95E4 Joules.

20 millimeter (from 20 mm Flak 30) has a weight of 119 grams, and a muzzle velocity of about 900 m/s for a KE of 4.8E4 Joules.

A 105mm Shell from a US 105 mm Howitzer M2A1 weighs 15 KG with a muzzle velocity of 472. (The vertical component at 45 degree angle of fire would be 333 m/s [muz. vel. * sin 45]--about 5657 meters in height). Which gives a KE of 8.3E5 Joules. That's 17 times the energy of a 20mm shell and 42 times the energy of a .50 caliber bullet.

And that's if the shell is a dud!

--Philistine

(Note that all values come from "The Encyclopeida of Weapons of World War II" [except the .50 caliber weight which I actually had to look up on the web]. All physics comes from my creaky and dusty memory, and may or may not be correct)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right. It's a big mistake

I repplied too quickly and I forgot the mass of the shells/bullets in this case. Most of the time I could disregard the mass because I spoke about the kynetic energy of shells of the same mass or roughly the same mass so the most important factor was their velocity.

[Fernando]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claus B:

Eye-witness accounts tend to put too much emphasis on the effects of artillery against tanks. On June 14th 1944, an artillery observer with 22nd Armoured Brigade called a "Pandemonium" on Panzer Lehr armour assembling in a wood. The combined efforts of US V Corps and UK 30th Corps artillery assets (some 160 guns) were unleashed on the wood, eyewitnesses believing hundreds of Germans killed and dozens of tanks destroyed. In reality, no tanks were lost, but most had their periscopes and vision blocks destroyed and various fittings rattled loose, so the pending attack was aborted.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That’s my argument. I think artillery can do a lot of damge to enemy tanks (gun damage and immobilization in game terms) but to penetrate top armor was very difficult, if not impossible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claus B:

Regarding the data found in Jentz' book on the Panther, it is not conclusive. It is true, that Guderians report states that the Panther is all but invulnerable to artillery fire, save a few buckled plates (p. 133) but moving on to the October 1943 report from Panzer-Regiment 2 (p. 138) shows that " A Panther was fell out due to a direct hit on the front from a 152mm HE shell that ripped the hull." and "A direct hit from an artillery shell at the lower front plate broke all the weld seams back to the middle and broke a triangular piece several centimeters long out of the glacis plate and the hull side." Clearly, hits by high-explosive ammunition could make considerable structural damage to the Panther EVEN on the the 80mm thick frontal armour and the 40mm side armour. If a +150mm round could rip apart the 80mm thick front plate, a 25pdr should not have too much trouble doing ugly things to the 16mm top armour.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please, notize that shell hit the LOWER front plate, IMHO no shell falling from above can hit the lower front plate of a Panther. I guess it wasn’t a shell fired by artillery in an indirect role but a “direct” hit so the KE of that shell was greater than that of the same 152 mm shell fired by the same gun in an indirect role. A direct hit by such a big gun wasn't uncommon in the Eastern Front. It was very common for the Russians to use big artillery pieces in a direct role in fact. I don’t know what the weight of a Russian 152 mm shell is but I guess it was some times greater than that of a 75 mm AP shell. If it had half the velocity of a 75 mm AP shell and four times its weight then both shells had the same KE! Anyway armor WASN’t penetrated and both driver and radio oerator remained uninjured (pag 138) BTW the front lower hull armor wasn't 80 mm. It was 60 mm in the Ausf A and D and 50 mm in the Ausf G.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claus B:

As seen the 21st Army Group report quoted by Jeff Duquette somewhere else in this thread, overall, artillery did not count for very many kills (3%). A German report from early 1944 states that about 9% of Soviet tanks destroyed on the Eastern Front from January to April 1944 fell to mines and artillery.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many of those tanks were destroyed by top armor penetration? I guess most of them suffered enough damage to render them useless but very few of them (if any) were top penetrated.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Claus B:

The bottom line is that tanks being destroyed by artillery must have been a fairly rare occurence, while structural damage, broken periscopes, buckled plates etc. would be more common effects and certainly take a tank out of commission for some time.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I fully agree with you.

[This message has been edited by Fernando (edited 09-27-2000).]

[Maj. Bosco]

I think one thing we're losing sight of here is that in CM the tank doesn't nesecarily need to be obliterated for the crew to book. I've had crews in merely imobilized tanks (by mud not fire) bail after 8 or 9 turns of not having any orders. Even if the arty shells don't smash the tank to smithereens they might shake up the crew enough, and do enough superficial damage, to cause an abandonment. That could explain those smaller caliber 25 pdr events. I bet that the hit that caused that top penetration was the 4.5 inch gun. As has been echoed a couple of times the explosive power on a 114mm shell like that would probably split a 16mm steel plate wide open. I'm going to go look for some figures on the effect of shockwaves on steel. Hopefully some helpful arty officer will take notice of this post and save me the trouble though.

[This message has been edited by Maj. Bosco (edited 09-27-2000).]

[Guest rune]

When in doubt, go to unit historys. The unit invloved was the 1/92 Field Artillery, and they were using the M7 Priest...105mm. I quote:

The Battalion was alerted to move to an assembly area in the vicinity of Huy, Belgium to support the Division in the counter-drive to stop the enemy drive to the Meuse River. The Battalion moved out closing into the new area north of Pair, Belgium. On 23 December the Battalion moved to position just east of Havelange, Belgiurn in support of road-blocks established by the 32nd Reconnaissance Battalion. The Battalion was placed in direct support of CC "A" 24 December 1944 and moved into position in the vicinity of Corbion, Belgium, later displacing to Haid, Belgium. One mission was fired by Air OP on an enemy column south of Navrenne, Belgium knocking out and burning three vehicles. Observers were assigned to CC "B" of CC "A" on 24 December as well as CC "A" and 4th Cavalry Squadron. Targets were generally enemy vehicles with a total of thirteen trucks being set on fire and three Mark V tanks.

[Claus B]

A couple of points.

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

BTW the front lower hull armor wasn't 80 mm. It was 60 mm in the Ausf A and D and 50 mm in the Ausf G.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but the quote says the hit "broke a triangular piece several centimeters long out of the glacis plate and the hull side." The glacis plate is 80mm thick.

Regarding the British reports they do apparently not state how the vehicles were hit, only that they were hit by artillery. so speculating

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

"I guess most of them suffered enough damage to render them useless but very few of them (if any) were top penetrated." .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

is pointless.

But I found something else, you may find interesting. In 1942, the British experimented with the operation of tanks under shell fire. Test where conducted with 16 Churchill tanks (turret top armour 20mm) advancing slowly through a 600x400 yeard square while the area was shelled by 25pdrs firing airburst HE. In one test, the 25pdrs fired 72 rounds pr. minute for 8 minutes, in another 108 rounds pr. minute for 5 minutes. In the first case, casualties were one broken track and a broken suspension bogie rendering two tanks immobile, in the other test the tanks were unscathed.

I know airburst is a far cry from a direct hit but still, these tanks were driven throug the carnage by British crews so they must have been pretty confident that the crews were safe even if the odd shell should fail and land on a vehicle.

To Jeff: I think that "artillery fire" in the captions for the pictures at the RMZ means guns - anti-tank, field gun, whatever. But ask Valera, he probably knows.

Claus B

[Mike Oberly]

I don't really have much problem with the heavier off board artillery taking out a tank now and then,but it seems highly unlikely to me that a 60mm or 2" mortar can penetrate the top armor of a medium tank(such as a PzIV) more than once in a blue moon.It happens with a fair frequency in the game.I am open to convincing arguments that this is realistic,however.

Mike

[Guest rune]

Well, I found other units historys of Artillery knocking out German tanks. I also found this in Field Artillery Gunnery FM6-40, Department of the [uS] Army, January 1950 :

Armor

AP and HEAT ammo can be effective against vehicles, and HE on a direct hit due to the minimal deck armor. AP and HEAT are nearly useless against other targets.

Artillery usually has great effect against armor only in assembly areas, when the vehicles are densely packed, or when a vehicle is immobile, when precision methods can be used. Air burst HE and richochet can be used to force vehicles to button up.

So, I would consider a top penetration as something going through the engine deck. I can give you more actual AARs from field units if you prefer.

Rune

[Fernando]

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

I think one thing we're losing sight of here is that in CM the tank doesn't nesecarily need to be obliterated for the crew to book. I've had crews in merely imobilized tanks (by mud not fire) bail after 8 or 9 turns of not having any orders. Even if the arty shells don't smash the tank to smithereens they might shake up the crew enough, and do enough superficial damage, to cause an abandonment. That could explain those smaller caliber 25 pdr events. I bet that the hit that caused that top penetration was the 4.5 inch gun. As has been echoed a couple of times the explosive power on a 114mm shell like that would probably split a 16mm steel plate wide open. I'm going to go look for some figures on the effect of shockwaves on steel. Hopefully some helpful arty officer will take notice of this post and save me the trouble though.

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a 25 pdr hit (I asked my opponent about it) and the result was "top penetration, knocked out", a big explosion and my Panther catched fire.

[Fernando]

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

Well, I found other units historys of Artillery knocking out German tanks. I also found this in Field Artillery Gunnery FM6-40, Department of the [uS] Army, January 1950 :

Armor

AP and HEAT ammo can be effective against vehicles, and HE on a direct hit due to the minimal deck armor. AP and HEAT are nearly useless against other targets.

Artillery usually has great effect against armor only in assembly areas, when the vehicles are densely packed, or when a vehicle is immobile, when precision methods can be used. Air burst HE and richochet can be used to force vehicles to button up.

So, I would consider a top penetration as something going through the engine deck. I can give you more actual AARs from field units if you prefer.

Rune <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Rune. That's exactly what I'm looking for Please, let's know what some of those AAR say

Anyway the report doesn't state that HE IS effective. It states that HE CAN BE effective and don't states what kind of vehicles can be penetrated. All (Königstiger-type tanks included? some?

[gorilla]

First off, this is my first post. Not to into the discussion area thing (tho I read lots of em). This one caught my eye tho, and I read the whole thing. (I was at work... what else do you expect me to be doing?)

Anyway, the ideas/facts that people have brought up point to several things.

1. It seems like the FACTS point to the ability for artillery to destroy armor.

2. The FACTS also point to the rareness of such an occurence.

3. Velocity does have something to do with armor penetration (both HE and AP).

4. Velocity doesn't count _that_ much for armor penetration.(for HE only.)

Just so you know, I was in the marine corps not too long ago, and just happened to be in artillery (0842 (radar), so I wasn't a gunner) and have been interested in military things all my life (which aint that long... realy.) But I am, by no means an "expert".

With that said I would like to add a couple of things to this discussion. For one, it seems VERY unlikely that velocity has anything to do with armor penetration with an HE round (namely, an artillery round). I have two reasons behind this. One was stated already, in that the power behind an HE round is it's explosives, not kinetics. Second is, the HE round was designed to explode, not penetrate. Any WWII AP round was made from a very solid dense material, meant to hold its shape as it impacted a surface. Modern day AP rounds stay true to this, as even the Sabot rounds are made from solid dense material. (and are shaped more like thin spears than a bullet.) HE rounds were meant to rupture. Take the famous WWII american grenade... the pineapple grenade. (don't know it's nomenclature). This had it's pineapple shape so that more specific chunks of it would break apart when it detonated. It was made to be easily fragmented. HE rounds aren't that much different. They were meant to blow apart too. For these reasons, I don't think that velocity has much to do with it. (although it does to some amall effect, I'm sure).

With that said, we are talking about the ability for the shards of fragmented material to penetrate armor. This is not very likely either, because HE wasn't designed to destroy armor... it was designed to kill people. Armor would be useless if it couldn't stand up to HE fragments. This is true of course, until you place the explosion very close to the armor (most likely, hitting it.) At such close proximity, it is also the explosion itself that will effect the armor. This was actually put into effect in more modern times with the invention of the HESH round. HESH(High Explosive Squash Head... If my memory serves me right.) was designed as an anti-vehicle round which based its killing power on the shock value of the explosion. The warhead is actually located on the BACK of the round. When the round hits a target, it squashes itself onto the target, spreading the explosives out... like droping an egg in a frying pan. Once the rear of the round reaches the target, the round explodes. The armor isn't penetrated at all, but the shock of the explosion breaks off shards of metal from the INSIDE of the tank, and sends them bouncing around in the interior. I think you all can see why this is bad for the crew, and internal systems. This round is mainly used against personnel carriers afaik and just so you know.

Now, HE actually impacting a tank would probably do a fair amount of damage, if not destroy it and/or its crew. This, however, is HIGHLY unlikely, as it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to hit a point target, using artillery in a indirect fire role. BUT, as was mentioned earlier, when you are dealing with saturation of an area with artillery, the impossible becomes unlikely. There is still a chance. By the way, our artillery units practiced direct fire with the 155mm howitsers on point targets. So, someone with more rank than all of us seems to think artillery can take out an armored vehicle (even modern day).

[gorilla]

Forgot to ask. Is this game worth getting? I think I might like it, but would like some input if ya could. (sorry previous message so long winded...

[Mike Oberly]

Gorilla-the game is absolutely fantastic.All the argumentation over nits here speaks to that. Definitely get it.

[This message has been edited by Mike Oberly (edited 09-28-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Gorilla:

For someone who doesn't post much that was a good read. Thanks for taking the time. Unfortunately as to changing opinions here it is seemingly a case of arguing with the DMV or City Hall.

As far as how good this game is, I posted my own personal impression of Combat Mission at another web site…URL is: http://www.clubssi.com/ubb/Forum8/HTML/002457.html It's a good game…reminds me a great deal of the early Squad Leader games (before all the rules books became unbearable). It's Squad Leader with all the visual appeal of a first person shooter. There is a DEMO available, so if you're still unconvinced have a look at it. I think you can download it from this web site somewhere. CM isn't appealing to everybody's tastes in computer games, so have a hard look at the DEMO before spending your hard earned cash. A good 3D card is definitely a plus.

My overall impression of CM is one of "watching a war movie, and playing a wargame at the same time".

[Guest rune]

Well, Along with the 1/92 above, I found the 419th Field Arillery, using M7 Priests credited with destroying 118 vehicles, including Mark IV, Tiger and Panther tanks. Will keep looking for more AARs.

Rune

[Fernando]

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

Forgot to ask. Is this game worth getting? I think I might like it, but would like some input if ya could. (sorry previous message so long winded... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BUY it!!! It's a must.

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

If a number of rounds ... 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...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A well known design flaw with the early german 12cm mortars were that they did hit the same crater with all rounds... the dispersion was only one or two metres.

This was subsequently corrected.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>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”. ... I suspect that the “destroyed by artillery” description might be an abbreviated version of “destroyed by anti-tank artillery”.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think most of it was field artillery. The Russians had a habit of placing their 76mm field guns in direct firing positions, just as the Brits did with their 25pdrs in the desert. The 76mm field gun had a fair anti-tank capability.

Cheers

Olle