Why didn't tanks use the same hollow charges as anti-tank inf.???

[Guest Rommel22]

In a game I was playing against an oppnent and a good question came up.

Basicly my shrecks took out his cromwell and his churchill. He was pissed anyway, he asked why didn't tanks use the same ammo as the shrecks since it's so effective.

I told him well wouldn't be as accurate, the futher the round travelled the less accurate itwould be. Just like a shreck.

So my question and his is, why didn't tanks use hollow charges just like shrecks or zooks?

thanx

[Forever Babra]

They did.

[KiwiJoe]

When you spin a hollow charge round you DRASTICALLY ruduce its killing power. Thus you would need to have smooth bore guns in your tank. The problem with that is then your HE rounds arnt spun and would be DRASTICALLY inaccurate. They soloved that problem latter in history with fin stablized rounds and slip bands, but that was a bit ahead of the thinking in ww2. Some tanks in ww2 did have HC rounds, mostly 1's with large caliber low velocity, slow spinning rounds... churchill 95mm, M4 sherman 105mm etc.

[Guest Rommel22]

thanx for the response.

But I though that it doesn't amtter how far a target is for an HC round. How exactly would the killing power of the HC round be reduced?

Thanx again

[Forever Babra]

Read Kiwis answer again. He does not mention range. He mentions spin.

[KiwiJoe]

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust1.htm

read that, pretty much covers it.

[Guest Rommel22]

Another problem was that if stabilized during the flight by spin, that spin would unfocus the detonation jet stream and hence increase its diameter but lessen its force. Therefore shaped-charge projectiles should not be stabilized during flight by means of spin as is the case with almost any gun bullet or cannon round, but rather had to rely on small fins for some degree of stabilization.The low speed and lack of powerful stabilization make for an inherently rather inaccurate weapon that will deteriorate in accuracy exponentially with range.

Still, because it didn't require a complicated apparatus to achieve a high-energy muzzle velocity in order to work, the shaped charge was the ideal basis for a cheap, lightweight close-range infantry AT weapon.

this was on the site, tought me a lot thanx Kiwi!!!

[M Hofbauer]

another aspect to keep in mind is that the penetration power of a shaped charge is relative to the shaped charge diameter. The cumbersome Panzerfaust warhead, which you could hardly fit into a 7.5 or 8.8cm caliber cannon, could easily penetrate over 200mm. The more slim warhead of the Panzerschreck, limited to the Panzerschreck's bore diameter of 8.8cm, had a smaller penetration power, significantly below 200mm.

additionally, hollow charge munitions can be defeated relative easily with spaced or (nowadays) reactive armor. Also, today, laminated / composite / Chobham armor works miracles against the jetstream of a shpaed charge.

but of course that's just an almost neglectable side issue, and of course everybody here is right that the main problem at hand is accuracy / range.

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

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[Radar]

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

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust1.htm

read that, pretty much covers it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, thanks KiwiJoe!

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

'Lets go you apes! You want to live forever?'

[Olle Petersson]

I've seen another source, probably on the AFV-news BBS, stating that about 1/3 of the AT ammo in German tanks of WW2 was actually HEAT or HC instead of the more common APHE.

Cheers

Olle

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

Srategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight...