Jump to content

Penetrating hits don't kill as much?


Recommended Posts

We've only played a few games so far, but have noticed that penetrating hits don't seem to kill nearly as much as before. In CMBB, usually only about a third or so of the shots that penetrate a vehicle seem to leave it alive. However, I used 2 Stuarts and a Lee to penetrate a PzIIIc no less than 4 times before a shot finally killed it. Similarly, one of my Stuarts survived a penetration from the PzIIIc and my Lee survived 3 or more penetrations itself.

One of my friends had an aggravating experience with a Tiger. He had 2 shermans and 3 bazooka squads all over the thing, getting at least 6 penetrations from the side and rear and it wouldn't die.

Have the effects of penetration been altered in CMAK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by sightreader:

We've only played a few games so far, but have noticed that penetrating hits don't seem to kill nearly as much as before. In CMBB, usually only about a third or so of the shots that penetrate a vehicle seem to leave it alive. However, I used 2 Stuarts and a Lee to penetrate a PzIIIc no less than 4 times before a shot finally killed it. Similarly, one of my Stuarts survived a penetration from the PzIIIc and my Lee survived 3 or more penetrations itself.

One of my friends had an aggravating experience with a Tiger. He had 2 shermans and 3 bazooka squads all over the thing, getting at least 6 penetrations from the side and rear and it wouldn't die.

Have the effects of penetration been altered in CMAK?

is anyone else reporting this kind of experience?

:confused:

is this MORE realistic or less Realistic than CMBB?

I think if other folks see this kind of thing as well we could agree it is different than CMBB

is it because its earlier in the war and the rounds are smaller?

surely the 88mm from the Tiger is NOT penetrating the Grant 3 times with no effect??

That is NOT what you are reporting is it?

but if the 37 mm round of the Stuart penetrated the Pz III three times it might not be all that surprising to see no K-Kill and no death to the tank (just a few injuries inside to the crew?) maybe?

:confused:

dunno?

any other Grogs with Comments?

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Yes. It was determined that the post-penetration damage for the smaller rounds had been over-modeled, so they have been tweaked downward. I would expect the same would be applied to bazookas as well, but not to 'schrecks or 'fausts.

Michael

Why would this change apply to bazookas but not to 'schrecks?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Hat Trick:

Why would this change apply to bazookas but not to 'schrecks?

Because the 'zooks at 60mm had a much less powerful warhead than 'schrecks at 88mm and the even larger 'fausts. American troops often armed themselves with captured 'fausts because they were in despair over the relatively ineffective bazooka rounds.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Yes. It was determined that the post-penetration damage for the smaller rounds had been over-modeled, so they have been tweaked downward. I would expect the same would be applied to bazookas as well, but not to 'schrecks or 'fausts.

This reminds me of an occurance when playing CMAK demo's "Line of Defense": I was surprised to see a Panzershreck penetration of a Stuart that didn't kill the bugger.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can say that I have seen this as well. My question is should there be a difference based on the target. I know this sounds strange (and probably impossible due to the game engine), but my example had an Italian tankette taking 5 40mm (A1 Cruiser) penetrations and continue to maneuver and fire. I thought that was strange in a relatively small vehicle like this.

Speedbump

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the problem with the Bazooka versus the Schreck was insufficient penetration, NOT insufficient after-penetration effect.

The Panzerfaust on the opther hand seemed to be a very nasty bitch penetrating and killing anything.

My reading would not support putting the faust into a different after-penetration category than the bazooka but not the schreck (although better overpenetration will still do more damage).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good question. CMBB had some Axis squads partially armed with captured Soviet weapons. I don't imagine there would be any insuperable problems with allowing some American squads to be carrying a PF or two after autumn of '44. But I've only heard so far of this being practiced in the ETO. I don't know if it was done in the MTO.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by redwolf:

I think the problem with the Bazooka versus the Schreck was insufficient penetration, NOT insufficient after-penetration effect.

I'm for thinking it could be both. Obviously if it doesn't penetrate there will be no behind the armor effects. But there should be a range of armor thicknesses where both the 'zook and 'schreck penetrate, but the 'schreck has more unspent energy available for interior damage.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Speedbump:

I know this sounds strange (and probably impossible due to the game engine), but my example had an Italian tankette taking 5 40mm (A1 Cruiser) penetrations and continue to maneuver and fire. I thought that was strange in a relatively small vehicle like this.

Speedbump

My little Stuart took a penetration from a PzIIIc and continued fighting as well. It seemed odd.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Speedbump:

I can say that I have seen this as well. My question is should there be a difference based on the target. I know this sounds strange (and probably impossible due to the game engine), but my example had an Italian tankette taking 5 40mm (A1 Cruiser) penetrations and continue to maneuver and fire. I thought that was strange in a relatively small vehicle like this.

Speedbump

That's a bit odd, British tests showed that Italian armour was only machine quality and very brittle. The brittle armour would shatter like glass when penatrated by 2pdr shot, riddling italian crew men/sacks with armour shards and the 2pdr shot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there should be a range of armor thicknesses where both the 'zook and 'schreck penetrate, but the 'schreck has more unspent energy available for interior damage.
Against tanks both panzerschrecks and Bazookas used directional shaped charges, HEAT that is.

This shaped charge is of the type refered to as a "differential cone". Inside the warhead is a cone(usually made from copper) with the point directed AWAY from area you wish to strike. The outside of the cone is lined with explosives. The cone is sloped so that the speed of the blast along the surface of the cone is equal to the speed that sound travels along the surface of the cone. This results in a hyper-sonic(about 3km per second is fairly normal) high velocity jet(the theory behind it is called the Monroe effect) that smashes through the armor and with a combined heat/kinetic effect makes a coinsized hole in the hull. The real damage that results from such a blast is mainly from spalling in the armor as well as overpressure from the expanding armor inside of the hull.

The point is....if the armor is penetrated it doesn't matter how much "extra" power the jet has.

Infact the thinner the armor is the less effect you get. If the armor is thin enough it can be turned into swiss cheese without any lethal effect for the crew(unless they happen to get welded).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Big Demonic Bunny:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But there should be a range of armor thicknesses where both the 'zook and 'schreck penetrate, but the 'schreck has more unspent energy available for interior damage.

Against tanks both panzerschrecks and Bazookas used directional shaped charges, HEAT that is.

This shaped charge is of the type refered to as a "differential cone". Inside the warhead is a cone(usually made from copper) with the point directed AWAY from area you wish to strike. The outside of the cone is lined with explosives. The cone is sloped so that the speed of the blast along the surface of the cone is equal to the speed that sound travels along the surface of the cone. This results in a hyper-sonic(about 3km per second is fairly normal) high velocity jet(the theory behind it is called the Monroe effect) that smashes through the armor and with a combined heat/kinetic effect makes a coinsized hole in the hull.</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about the statement, "The point is....if the armor is penetrated it doesn't matter how much "extra" power the jet has."

I've seen the pictures of the Abrams that was disabled by whatever hollow charge caught it, and I'd say the extra energy did a fair job of messing with that tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael Emrys:

I believe that is entirely wrong. Can you provide a source to bolster your case?
I can't. Not any written scientific paper in any case. That statement of mine was based purely on my own experience(limited as it is) and the experience of people I know(which is quite alot greater than mine).

Now when I do think about it there might be a higher effect if the jet doesn't go straight through the viechle(from the effect from hitting the armor on it's way out).

What I do know for a fact is that friends who served in Kosovo as well as in East africa have on a total of 3 occasions been shot with HEAT with no casualties. Twice in APCs and once in a mini-buss. In the case of the APC it was mostly thanks to an inner polycarbon anti-spalling layer and Kevlar and the fact that most of the energy just went straight through. In the case of the mini-buss the beam just went straight through one door and out through the other with no damage for the people inside.

Besides, it's pretty common knowledge(at least among military personel that I've met) that if you shoot a HEAT round against a non-armored target it's highly ineffective(they teach you that if your in a poor position with a fortifiend adversary, don't shoot the AT through the window, then you'll do nothing. If you can, aim for below the window which is the most likely placement for the radiator, which is the only way to create a sufficient amount of spalling).

To me that was confirmed few years back when a criminal MC gang here in sweden stole a bunch of AT-4s. Shot 2 of them into the HQ of a rival MC gang(which had 7 people in the room that was hit). Not a single injury.

Believe me, or don't believe me. It's up to you.

Snarker: You won't get through an abrams with a HEAT charge(except from above). The HEATs power is directly related to it's diameter. And a 120mm HEAT won't even get close to penetrating an abrams, except from above.

And in anycase. With the amount of force it takes to knock your way into an Abrams the energy released inside is quite respectable if you get through.

Though I believe that it must have been a kinetic penetrator of some sort, or some form of modern AT-missile and those create quite a effect anyway(enough to pulverize an T-72 so that only the tracks and undercarriage remain).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the amount of overpenetration is related to effectiveness. A firing trial of various HEAT warheads on the Conqueror tank indicated that a warhead with greater penetrative power (Malkara) was more effective in knocking the tank out than one which only just succeeded (Dart) The report also made a recommendation that the aluminium liner of the Dart be replaced with Copper for greater effect obtained by overpenetration.

Re: Abrams vs. HEAT, you can KO an Abrams from the side and rear with a number of LAW-type weapons. More to the point, someone did.

In the general forum there was a thread discussing it. The warhead punched a hole through the side and into the far side of the turret, passing through a number of critical systems.

Modern HEAT warheads can penetrate ~1000m of RHAe. No AFV has that sort of armour all round. Fortunately, most guerillas only have RPG-7s

The 'plasma jet' produced by the shaped charge is highly focussed, so it will only damage stuff in the way. Nontheless, overkill does matter, especially through thick armour. A marginal penetration won't create anything like as much spalling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, some of them have a penetration of 1000mm against rolled homogenous armor.

The problem is. Rolled homogenous armor went out of date with the T-72. No modern AFV uses it.

The penetration against a modern figting viechle using various forms of layered armor(like chobam) is much much less, closer to a 100mm.

Today, if you're carring a handheld LAW(like the AT-4), you'd be lucky to get through the side of an infantry fighting viechle, much less a main battle tank. Anything that weighs 30-tons or more is out of your league as a foot soldier unless you happen to have a 150mm+ anti-tank missile(and those need to be transported in a jeep at least).

If you're extremely lucky you might hit the turret ring. But that is a 1 in a million hit, and exactly what happened to that unfortunate Abrams, and that WITH a very modern anti-tank weapon, and possible large calibre as well.

What you MIGHT do against a tank with a LAW is to damage the tracks enough so that you immobilize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RHAe. The 'e' is for equivalent.

Most modern MBTs are recognised to have 1000-1500mm RHAe over the frontal arc, with significantly less on the sides and rear.

IIRC, the most likely candidate for the Abrams kill was an RPG-7v firing a PG-7VR, a modern upgrade of an old weapon.

LAW 80 (94mm) matches it, provided that there is no ERA, and the RPG-29 (105mm) does better. ATGWs often carry a more powerful warhead, non-withstanding top-attack weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Big Demonic Bunny:

Snarker: You won't get through an abrams with a HEAT charge(except from above). The HEATs power is directly related to it's diameter. And a 120mm HEAT won't even get close to penetrating an abrams, except from above.

And in anycase. With the amount of force it takes to knock your way into an Abrams the energy released inside is quite respectable if you get through.

Though I believe that it must have been a kinetic penetrator of some sort, or some form of modern AT-missile and those create quite a effect anyway(enough to pulverize an T-72 so that only the tracks and undercarriage remain).

I've seen the same Javelin video smile.gif But unfortunately they had charcoal barrels behind it and the tank was supposed to be filled with explosive ("emulating" fuel and ammo in a life tank).

The M1 knocked out from the side in Iraq recently was killed by some form of HEAT warhead although it penetrated the thinnest area below the thicker angled chobham armor.

Dual-head warheads for the good old RPG-7 have even been found on that Palestinian arms supply ship that the Israelis seized recently. In any case, HEAT penetration is more complex than just the diameter, there is a huge difference in quality of the jet stream, some weapons focus much better.

tanknet is the better forum for this stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odd. I know for a fact that the Strv122(Swedish version of the Leopard 2A5, with improved coms and armor...plus a few other features) has an ACTUAL front armorthickness of 1-1,5 meters. What the RHAe is for that I have no idea since it was way above my classification level(and I mean WAY above it).

Note: I looked through the FAS OPFOR WEG. Most of those weapons have a penetration of about 400mm RHAe. The Panzerfaust 3, RPG-7V and RPG-29 have a penetration of about 750mm RHAe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...