Best AT round of the war?

[Doodlebug]

What's the accumulated wisdom on this? The hollow charge round is dependent on size yes? so the bigger the better. What about HESH? The same must apply I'm thinking. Did HESH ever see action in WW2? My "bet" would be for tungsten. The higher velocity it can be fired at makes for more accuracy at the longer ranges and it seems to have pretty reasonable behind armour effects. Can anyone tell me the size of HE charge carried?

[flamingknives]

Wrrrr. Nice small subject matter you've chosen there.

HEAT(shaped charge)/HESH - yes, for WWII purposes it is largely dependent on size. It has the benefit of the effect being independent of velocity.

Don't think that HESH was used to a great extent in WWII, but post war it was favoured by the British over the shaped charge.

Higher velocity doesn't make for higher accuracy, just easier aiming. Tungsten cored shot wins for armour-piercing, but has less behind armour effect. However, above a certain velocity and target plate thickness there isn't much need for any HE. The energy involved in the collision is plenty to spoil your day.

For a more detailed discussion, I'd recommend a book. Unless JasonC turns up, you not going to get as much info here.

[JonS]

Doodle - from reading your post it seems you think 'tungsten' (APDS, APCNR, etc) had an HE charge. This is incorrect. 'Tungsten' rounds relied purely on kinetic energy.

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by JonS:

Doodle - from reading your post it seems you think 'tungsten' (APDS, APCNR, etc) had an HE charge. This is incorrect. 'Tungsten' rounds relied purely on kinetic energy.

Sorry. Yes. Just double checked and tungsten is just a solid round carrying no charge. AP shot in effect. Why is it modelled as so efficient when every other type of AP shot is modelled as having so ineffective behind armour effects?

[aka_tom_w]

Off the top of My head my first reaction was the German 88 mm round.

I can't think of any better AT round than the German 88 mm for all around accuracy AND Penetration. (But According to some folks around here maybe all that 88 mm Accuracy and Penetration "hype" was just folklore and Legend so who knows!)

BUT that is JUST my own opinion, I am sure there are plenty more WWII AT Penetration Grogs that KNOW way more about penetration than myself!

-tom w

Originally posted by Doodlebug:

What's the accumulated wisdom on this? The hollow charge round is dependent on size yes? so the bigger the better. What about HESH? The same must apply I'm thinking. Did HESH ever see action in WW2? My "bet" would be for tungsten. The higher velocity it can be fired at makes for more accuracy at the longer ranges and it seems to have pretty reasonable behind armour effects. Can anyone tell me the size of HE charge carried?

[MikeyD]

The problem with Brit and U.S. tungsten core sabot rounds was their unreliability at longer ranges. They had an awful time keeping them following a straight flight path.

The Russian 100mm UBR-412 round fired from the SU-100 was pretty scarey.16kg shell fired at 880ms. Able to pierce 100mm of armor at 2000m, with substantial behind armor effect from its explosive filler. I'm not sure, that still may not match the KT's 88 with its 1000ms AP for best overall performance.

[Rabidbvr]

hello one and all

I for one think bigger is better... not in CMAK

but you will have to go a long way to beat the sov ISU-152... Never seen it pen armor on larger tanks but if it hits.... Just poor out what's left of the crew and if it's a miss still looks good...Good old HE

[Europa]

Originally posted by Rabidbvr:

hello one and all

I for one think bigger is better... not in CMAK

but you will have to go a long way to beat the sov ISU-152... Never seen it pen armor on larger tanks but if it hits.... Just poor out what's left of the crew and if it's a miss still looks good...Good old HE

Don't forget the sturmtiger. Can fire one of those at your own men just to watch the carnage..

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Doodlebug:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JonS:

Doodle - from reading your post it seems you think 'tungsten' (APDS, APCNR, etc) had an HE charge. This is incorrect. 'Tungsten' rounds relied purely on kinetic energy.

Sorry. Yes. Just double checked and tungsten is just a solid round carrying no charge. AP shot in effect. Why is it modelled as so efficient when every other type of AP shot is modelled as having so ineffective behind armour effects? </font>

[jrrich0000]

Higher velocity doesn't make for higher accuracy, just easier aiming.

I must differ here. Higher velocity means flatter trajectory, which translates into less vertical rise/fall for a given distance. This cannot help but improve accuracy. As a former tanker, I can tell you there is a world of difference in accuracy between a low-velocity HE round and a high velocity APDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot) round. Lob vs. aim at target.

Additionally, higher velocity rounds will tend to be less suceptible to windage, and will have greater stabilization from faster spin.

[Kingfish]

While not classified as an "AT round", these two examples are without doubt the most effective AT weapon used in WW2:

Accuracy sucked, but their blast factor sorta made up for it

[Stalin's Organ]

How many tanks did they ever KO??!!

All tungsten cored composite raounds had problems with accuracy, not just allied ones. This was because they were lighter overall to get higher velocity, hence they lost velocity faster and were more prone to being upset by wind.

The British ADPS rounds suffered from irregular separation of the sabots that could put the shot wildly off-target.

Squeeze bore rounds were an exception, since they did not have a large composite body or sabots.

HESH was not used in hte way, but was trialed as an anti-concrete round for some british RCL's IIRC (going from memory of I Hogg's Allied artillery book) - these never saw service, but hte effect was noticed and development continued.

Weight for weight a tungsten round would beat anything else.

However mass was also useful - the official "AT" round from hte British 5.5" gun/howitzer was any HE round with the fuse replaced by the packing blank - at 80 or 100lb moderate velocity and actual penetration were not considered a problem!!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by jrrich0000:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Higher velocity doesn't make for higher accuracy, just easier aiming.

I must differ here. Higher velocity means flatter trajectory, which translates into less vertical rise/fall for a given distance. This cannot help but improve accuracy. As a former tanker, I can tell you there is a world of difference in accuracy between a low-velocity HE round and a high velocity APDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot) round. Lob vs. aim at target.

Additionally, higher velocity rounds will tend to be less suceptible to windage, and will have greater stabilization from faster spin. </font>

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

While not classified as an "AT round", these two examples are without doubt the most effective AT weapon used in WW2:

Accuracy sucked, but their blast factor sorta made up for it

I do like your nomination for the title

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by jrrich0000:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Higher velocity doesn't make for higher accuracy, just easier aiming.

I must differ here. Higher velocity means flatter trajectory, which translates into less vertical rise/fall for a given distance. This cannot help but improve accuracy. As a former tanker, I can tell you there is a world of difference in accuracy between a low-velocity HE round and a high velocity APDS (Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot) round. Lob vs. aim at target.

Additionally, higher velocity rounds will tend to be less suceptible to windage, and will have greater stabilization from faster spin. </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Don't higher velocity rounds usually have less dispersion? I.e., a smaller CEP?

Michael

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Don't higher velocity rounds usually have less dispersion? I.e., a smaller CEP?

No, on the sound engineering and accountancy principle of not getting something for nothing. High velocity has to be traded off against high accuracy and consistency.

In general, the lower the muzzle pressure (and hence muzzle velocity) at which a projectile is fired, the less will be its angular dispersion. Thus "conservative" designs like the US 75mm M3 and 3-inch have much lower dispersion than the British 6-pounder and 17-pounder, which latter are nonetheless clearly preferable for anti-tank shooting. Higher velocity not only gives more hole-punching power to a projectile, but, as Mr. Incendiary Cutlery has already pointed out, makes the hit probability against an AFV target much less sensitive to errors of all kinds. As, in WW2 anti-tank shooting, rangefinding error dominated all other sources of error, it is better to have a flat-trajectory weapon that will score a hit when laid a few hundred yards under or over than a low-velocity weapon that will drop the round precisely and consistently at a range where the target isn't.

British WW2 OR advice even suggested, for guns known to have high dispersion, that the correct respose to a first-round miss was to repeat rather than to re-lay.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Emrys]

Interesting. Thank you, John.

Michael

[Hensworth]

We interrupt this grogg contest for the following :

As one for whom CM is the source of all knowledge, I like to pick examples that combine performance with availability for 'all time favorite' threads.

The AT shell in CM I'm most impressed with is the one fired by the 75mm German Pak40. It can drill the front of all but the most invincible Allied tanks from early 1942 right through to the end of the war.

And now, back to the groggs.

[Dinsdale]

The problem with Brit and U.S. tungsten core sabot rounds was their unreliability at longer ranges. They had an awful time keeping them following a straight flight path.

APDS problems were linked directly to sabot seperation issues with 1-2 batches of amunition.

About 1 in 7 IIRC went high. Will verify that

My vote is the 17 Pdr. AtGun

[flamingknives]

Actually, I'd second that. In terms of AT performance, the 17pdr equals the 88, but is significantly smaller.

[MikeyD]

It looks like if you're willing to invest in a monster-size gun the 'best' round would still be a standard AP (or AP capped or AP-HE filled).

Sabots and tungsten cores were all attempts to extract higher performance out of smaller guns. But the trade-off was a steep drop in accuracy or behind armor effect. The big German 88 L/71 was able to push a standard AP-capped-HE filled round out to 1000ms with legendary long range accuracy. The trade-off for that was needing a Tiger II or JagdPanther to cart the big gun around!

It wasn't until the post-war Brit 20 pounder and 105mm guns that the 'big gun' / subcaliber projectile combo gained the high ground.

[John Kettler]

John D. Salt makes an excellent point. The British had to lower the muzzle velocity on their 15" naval rifle, by reducing the powder charge, in order to get the planned accuracy. Why? When firing with the original supercharge, barrel whip caused enormous dispersion. "Gentling" the 15" naval rifle resulted in an accurate, hard hitting weapon which did yeoman work during World War II.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Doodlebug]

All the comments here seem to highlight the need to trade off accuracy, effect and sheer size of gun and mount. The observation regards the need to control the raw power generated and apply it most efficiently is hightlighted by JK's comments above re. 15" guns. We are all familiar with tales of weapons being tweaked to squeeze a few more percent performanceout but the above is a good example of having to adjust the other way when the calculations don't pan out in reality. Perhaps on reflection something more "humble" like the Pak40 is worthy of more respect.

[flamingknives]

The American 120mm rifled gun was deployed with APDS before the 105mm was developed.