Panzerschreck vs. late war soviet armor

[Pugilist]

Currently playing a scenario in which 'schreck teams are ambushing advancing soviet armor of the SU-76, IS-2, and T-34/85 ilk. I am getting multiple penetrations (no partials), even more than one per tank, on all types, with nary a kill yet. Specifically, approx. 6-8 full penetrations so far on three or four tanks, not one kill. If the phenomenon was limited to one type of tank, I could probably make the obvious deduction myself, but this isn't the case.

Also tried some forum searches, no results. Any ideas as to the ineffectiveness? I know range is not a factor with HC rounds, although for the record a couple of hits were at about 140m.

Anyhow, my motivation is pure curiosity, I'm not looking to debate or criticize the authenticity of the phenomenon, but it would be nice to rationalize it. Thanks.

[YankeeDog]

I think you've mostly just had bad luck.

While the Panzershreck does not have the kill power of the Panzerfaust, in my experience against teh SU-76 and T-34, it has a pretty good chance of a kill. The IS-2 is another matter, as depending on the facing it's armor can be thick enough to resist the Shreck, or weaken the penetration jet enough to cause 'partial penetration', but it you were getting full 'penetration' messages, you obviouly hit the IS-2 form an angle where you were able to penetrate with the shreck with a fair bit of energy to spare.

The Panzershreck is not an overly energetic warhead, though, so even against vehicles like the SU-76, non-killing penetrations are more common than with, say, the Panzerfaust, which rarely penetrates without killing.

To get 5-6 Shreck penetrations in a row without a single kill would be very unusual based on my experience, though. Are you sure none of your penetration aren't still under the 'death clock'? - I've seen the death clock run for more than a turn before the kill registers.

Cheers,

YD

[Pugilist]

My opponent confirmed that his tanks are ok.

Bad luck, then, eh? How poignant.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

That's a very interesting point you've raised. Come to think of it, I've played a game fairly recently where I had a Panzerschreck team obtain a full penetration on a T34/85 for no effect and then the following turn had a Panzerfaust do the same on the side hull of the same tank for a non killing hit (although a crew casualty was caused). I've also been on the receiving end of a favourable result of a non killing Panzerschreck hit on one of my T34/85's althogh it did cause a crew casualty.

Clearly there have been some tweaks to the deadliness of Panzerfausts and especially Panzerschrecks in CMBB compared with CMBO as in the earlier version of the game, any hit with either weapon on virtually any tank was a guaranteed kill. Perhaps BFC are allowing for the shaped charged weapons being less effective against AFV's that have highly sloped aspects, although that certainly wouldn't apply in the case of an SU 76?

Regards

Jim R.

[Redwolf]

Seems to me the chance of kill on penetration is lowered for all weapons in CMBB compared to CMBO.

Not sure that is correct, HC has always been tested as more effective in killing tanks than AP and CMB should reflect that.

HC against very thin armor an not engind up in the crew compartment is a different matter however, I assume an AP hit is more effective here (the high speed cause more flying fragments).

[Pugilist]

Frankly if this is the case (i.e. less effective German infantry AT weapons) I'm surprised no one else has remarked on it. In continuing the aforementioned game (a pbem) I have had at least two or three 'faust penetrations at ranges of 30m or less with no effect, against a tank that is immobile from an initial grenade bundle.

On that note, I have noticed grenade bundles are by comparison very effective.

[togi]

Yes, Redwolf..You may be right. In CMBO (Elsdorf scenario) I had managed to kill two M-26 Pershing with one Panzerschreck, but I can't do yet in CMBB especially against to the heavies (KV, IS etc.)

Tolga.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Seems to me the chance of kill on penetration is lowered for all weapons in CMBB compared to CMBO.

It's most noticeable to me in the smaller calibres.

Originally posted by redwolf:

Not sure that is correct, HC has always been tested as more effective in killing tanks than AP and CMB should reflect that.

Not for behind-armour lethality it hasn't. Modern HEAT is probably superior to tungsten-carbide APFSDS for the same gun, but during WW2 hollow-charge rounds were generally inferior to AP of the same calibre.

I've posted this before, but it illustrates the point nicely. It's adapted from PRO document WO 185/178, "Tank armament versus armour", and gives the estimated mass of metal shot into a tank by penetration of 3-inch thick armour.

Weapon_____Amn nature___Mass of metal

88mm_________APCBCHE______11.9 Kg

17-pdr_______APC___________9.5 Kg

75mm_________APCBCHE_______8.2 Kg

6-pdr________APCBC_________4.3 Kg

75mm PaK 41__APCNR_________1.25 Kg

95mm_________HEAT__________0.45 Kg

All the best,

John.

[Lumbergh]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I've posted this before, but it illustrates the point nicely. It's adapted from PRO document WO 185/178, "Tank armament versus armour", and gives the estimated mass of metal shot into a tank by penetration of 3-inch thick armour.

Weapon_____Amn nature___Mass of metal

88mm_________APCBCHE______11.9 Kg

17-pdr_______APC___________9.5 Kg

75mm_________APCBCHE_______8.2 Kg

6-pdr________APCBC_________4.3 Kg

75mm PaK 41__APCNR_________1.25 Kg

95mm_________HEAT__________0.45 Kg

All the best,

John.

John,

A question. Does a HEAT/HC round produce its lethality through a mechanism that would not be evident in your above table? Or does the mass of metal flying about after a penetrating hit pretty much sum up the round lethality?

cheers,

Dave

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Lumbergh:

A question. Does a HEAT/HC round produce its lethality through a mechanism that would not be evident in your above table? Or does the mass of metal flying about after a penetrating hit pretty much sum up the round lethality?

cheers,

Dave [/QB]

Pz regt Report on Panzer gun effectivness

7,5cm Kw.K L/43 in 4 P.IV: Pzgr 39 (APCBC) was fired at ranges from 1200m to 1600m. Every hit caused a destructive effect with the tank going up in flames... Gr38 HL/B (HEAT) ammunition was seldom used. one to five rounds were required to set the enemy tank on fire. (Jentz 1996)

Pz Regt Grossdeutschland reported in 3 April 1943 that Pzgr 39 was the preferred round and that the troops had little faith in HL/B Heat rounds due to poor effect and very poor accuracy above 600m.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Lumbergh:

[snips]

John,

A question. Does a HEAT/HC round produce its lethality through a mechanism that would not be evident in your above table? Or does the mass of metal flying about after a penetrating hit pretty much sum up the round lethality?

AIUI (and I bain't a warheads researcher) the main things that matter sbout Behind-Armour Debris (BAD) are its mass, velocity and pattern of distribution -- pretty much the same as what matters for the effectiveness of fragmenting munitions against personnel in the open, unsurprisingly. Obviously the mass of metal is only part of that story, but equally it was an important enough part for the researchers at Chertsey during WW2 to take it as a first-order indicator of relative effectiveness.

I think blast can be safely disregarded. To quote from a passage in Macksey & Batchelor's "Tank" about hand-held HEAT weapons of WW2, page 146:

"...even after a penetration of armour had been achieved, there was no guarantee the tank would be destroyed; on more than one occasion tank crews merely closed hatches which had been blown open by the explosion and went on fighting -- having incidentally dispelled the rumour that the blast from the internal explosion was in itself lethal."

The other big factor in behind-armour effect is the internal layout of the tank itself, as so much depends on what is known as the "target response". The question (which survivability simulators such as the old "Tank Kill" answer by what is little more than ray-tracing geometry) is whether a penetrator or debris fragment hits something vital like a crewman, stowed ammo, fuel, or an indispensable piece of mechanism.

Russian tanks generally have smaller internal volumes than Western ones, which combined with their hideous ammunition stowage arrangements has traditionally made them quite poor at surviving penetration. The British policy of refusing to stow ammunition above the turret ring arose for survivability reasons, as did the American innovation of "wet stowage". I believe that the Tiger had good penetration survivability characteristtics, with large internal volume and clever stoage of loose kit; the Panther, on the other hand, seems to have had its ammunition stowage devised to ensure a brew-up in the event of a hull penetration.

It would seem reasonable to me to guess that a HEAT penetrator, as it is moving a good deal faster than the projectile and debris from an AP penetration, will be more likely to detonate fuel or ammunition it strikes; the velocities are high enough that I doubt it makes much difference to any crewman unlucky enough to get in the way.

I don't know if there's any important difference in the distribution of debris fragments between AP and HEAT. Evidently an APCBC round will score best at this if the fuze actuates the burster, but I rather doubt that many fuzes functioned after penetration unless the projectile overmatched the armour by a considerable margin.

Both British and Russian experience showed burster charges to be futile in small calibres, the British abandoning 2-pdr APHE after testing when it seemed to offer no advantage over AP, and the Russians replacing the BR-240 APHE round in service with the 45mm with the BR-240SP, the "SP" standing for "sploshniy", or "solid".

The opinion of the Chertsey folks who wrote the paper I quoted from seemed to be that any projectile of about 57mm or larger penetrating a tank would cause considerable problems for the folks inside regardless of its nature. One of the disadvantages of APCR, APCNR and APDS is the reduction in penetrator diameter, to half the overall calibre for all British and American ammunition. The resultant loss of behind-armour lethality was one of the motivations for keeping APCBC in service for some time after APDS became plentiful.

All the best,

John.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

John, please correct me if I'm wrong but I seem to recall reading somewhere that the main effect of a Heat penetration was the noxious gasses that would permeate throughout the tank in very quick time once the tank was hit. This would often panic the crew to want to bail out immediately for fear of being overwhelmed by the gasses the heat round caused. Did I make this up or have you read it somewhere as well?

Regards

Jim R.