Armor penetration

[coe]

Ok lets say you have two tanks who have

the same gun. Both can penetrate eachother's

armor. Tank A has like more sloped armor/and

a bit thicker.

Assuming the shots from each gun penetrates

the other tank's armor...are the results

to the tank pretty much the same in general.

I.e. is the armor's effectiveness only in

keeping the shot out, or does it have

qualities in reducing the damage assuming

the shot penetrates.

Also I was wondering if there is such things

as (nonTank) anti tank guns these days, or

are they like all missles (hey are there

any sticky - anti tank mines anymore?)

[MrWinterbottom]

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

...snip...

Also I was wondering if there is such things

as (nonTank) anti tank guns these days, or

are they like all missles (hey are there

any sticky - anti tank mines anymore?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...I am sure weapons such as the tried and true Carl Gustaf is going to be in use for still quite a number of years. (Swedish toast ) Seen it be put to good use in Lebanon and Bosnia.

But then again, you might have been thinking about less mobile assets?

Mr.Winterbottom

[Michael Emrys]

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

Ok lets say you have two tanks who have

the same gun. Both can penetrate eachother's

armor. Tank A has like more sloped armor/and

a bit thicker.

Assuming the shots from each gun penetrates

the other tank's armor...are the results

to the tank pretty much the same in general.

I.e. is the armor's effectiveness only in

keeping the shot out, or does it have

qualities in reducing the damage assuming

the shot penetrates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Generally, more armor is better. Even if penetrated, it tends to absorb more of the projectile's energy and that offers more protection for what's inside.

An exceptional case might be where you have a largely empty volume (like a halftrack whose passengers have debussed). In that case, thinner armor might be preferred as it allows the shot to pass right through without messing up the interior. But as I say, this is an exceptional case. AFVs tended to be fairly tightly packed, and usually a high percentage of what they are packed with are inflammable or explosive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also I was wondering if there is such things as (nonTank) anti tank guns these days, or

are they like all missles...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There might be an anti-tank gun in service somewhere, but it would be unusual. All the major armies in the world switched to missiles a long time ago.

The reason is mobility and concealability. To be effective after about 1942, AT guns had to be big. They got to be VERY big. Look at the German 88mm, the British 17pdr., and the American 76mm. These are big guns. Trying to muscle them into position with any kind of alacrity was nigh on to impossible, and hiding them in ambush was a lot harder than, say, a 50mm PaK. They just weren't practical for the front line infantry.

For a given amount of penetration, missiles are far more compact and lightweight. Their only significant drawback is that round for round they are more costly due to their sophisticated guidance systems, much of which get expended with the round. But their usefulness is so much greater that the economics balances out.

Michael

[Ellros]

The Soviets used to use a 125mm AT gun (same gun that's in the T-72, T-80, etc), but I believe even they have phased it out in place of AT missiles.

Like Michael said, Size and Mobility are key. That 125mm AT gun was huge, and hard to conceal. While AT missiles are small, and easy to move.

[Jeff Heidman]

Missiles also have a greater range than guns, and a much better chance of hitting their target on the first round.

The advent of true fire and forget anti-tank missiles might be the beginning of the end for the gun-armed main battle tank.

Jeff Heidman

[Paul Lakowski]

Sloped armor tends to deflect kinetic energy away from the vehicle ,while vertical armor ends up absorbing the energy.

[Michael Emrys]

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

Missiles also have a greater range than guns, and a much better chance of hitting their target on the first round.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it should be viewed as a liability that the time of flight for a missile is longer than for a cannon or even MG round. This led to a lot of Sagger missileteers getting suppressed (sometimes permanently) during the 1973 war. But later generation missiles are getting faster, and with more fire-and-forget coming on line, the missileteer doesn't need to stick around after a launch to guide it to target.

Michael

P.S. After BTS does Korea as their first post-WW II game, I really, really wish they would do one (or three!) on the Arab-Israeli wars. Hint, hint.

[abuhabib]

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

Missiles also have a greater range than guns, and a much better chance of hitting their target on the first round.

The advent of true fire and forget anti-tank missiles might be the beginning of the end for the gun-armed main battle tank.

Jeff Heidman

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's what the airforce men thought about fire-n-forget missiles during the viet war. i guess the mig 17s showed them otherwise.

[JunoReactor]

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

that's what the airforce men thought about fire-n-forget missiles during the viet war. i guess the mig 17s showed them otherwise. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a- those missiles were not fire-and-forget. Sparrows are SARH. You needed to keep the target painted.

b- Tanks have much less speed and one less dimension to manuever. They also tend to be short on chaff.

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

... To be effective after about 1942, AT guns had to be big. They got to be VERY big. ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>... or use HEAT ammo.

Several recoilless ATGs have been in use worldwide after WW2. First as primary MBT killers, then to be used in a more auxillary role against lighter AFVs and MBT side armour.

I served with a towed ATG as late as 1990.

It was supposed to be effective against the side armour of any expected threat, up to and including the T72.

At 250kg it was a breeze to manhandle, even carrying if necessary.

Cheers

Olle

[Marnix]

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

a- those missiles were not fire-and-forget. Sparrows are SARH. You needed to keep the target painted.

b- Tanks have much less speed and one less dimension to manuever. They also tend to be short on chaff.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

c- IIRC, during the Rolling Thunder campaign, US fighter pilots were required to visually confirm the identify of enemy planes by the markings on the wings, to prevent them from accidentally shooting down Chinese MiGs. By the time you get that close, you're way past the optimum firing distance for most missiles...

[MikeyD]

As to levels of lethality with otherwise identical penetrations, combat anecdotes show that there are infinite levels of possible damage from shell strikes. 88 AP shells have been known to go into one side of a Sherman and out the other under the turret basket, doing little harm to the lucky crew. I recall one tale of a penetrating 88 shell hitting low on the hull, passing between the driver's legs and imbedding itself in the engine! Anyone who's hit his thumb with a hammer can imagine that when you're talking about ten pounds of solid shot rattling around an armored interior it doesn't take very much residual kenitic energy to do catastrophic damage. :eek: