Jump to content

HE Effectiveness


Recommended Posts

I have never carried a antitank gun shield. They must be heavy. I think that they would be left on the gun and just towed around in that way by the prime mover?

Another important function of the shield is to protect the crew from non-lethal effects like heat/blast/ejecta/etc which can hamper the crew. It also gives morale support.

In any case. Here is some data that is so revealing that it figures to address many points brought up in this discussion.

http://img339.imageshack.us/my.php?image=hollow2oz.png

The data is usefull for many reasoons. It is for a velocity of shell that closely matches many WWII HE shells used in direct fire.

Note the very interesting 'beaten-zone'. It clearly is a 'zone' that shows a range of distance values that a 2 meter tall target can be hit. This is with perfect estimation of the range of course. Notice the narrowing of this zone as the range increases. If nothing else, a correlation between accuracy and range is evident against a vertical target.

If nothing else, a 1 meter tall target like an antitank gun would have even narrower 'zones' and the basic premise that an antitank gun is an easy target at medium and long ranges is pure poppycock.

Note the small amount of superelevation needed in most cases. The adjustment resolution on higher velocity guns must have been very sensitive indeed.

[ July 12, 2005, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Stools_for_fools ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Note also that the width dispersion would mean a narrow target, such as an antitank gun, would also mean width misses in addition to height misses.

Some might argue that the data for this hollow charge shell is not really applicable. In reality, I am shocked at how accurate it is. But this is with a predetermined known range of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And when you guys speak about lessons learned from WWI not being logically (in your minds) applied to WWII... keep in mind that the US force in Iraq was largely unarmored, for example. This despite the fact that everybody knows a spitball can punch through both sides of a canvas topped vehicle or flimsy sheet metal doors. Was it wrong to put such a force in Iraq? Probably yes. A gamble was taken, and I'm pretty sure most would agree it didn't work out so well. But were there good reasons for taking the risk? Absolutely. There are more things to consider on a battlefield than just "x can shoot y and do z" considerations.

One of the main ones being "how many can we afford to actually field if we put them all behind lots of armour?"

how big could the US army be if it was totally armoured as opposed to totally mechanised?

And it's not just in terms of capital costs of the equipment, but also ongoing running and maintenance costs.........

Back to ATG shields - does anyone know the reasoning behind the double shields seen in some photos of german AT guns? they seem to have a space of a couple of centimetres (say 1") between 2 parallel gunshields.

I assume it's not to defeat HEAT ammo!! smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Absolutely correct. Other examples are "why aren't all soldiers armed with MGs since their firepower is superior to all other small arms" or "why aren't all mortar platoons armed with the 120 instead of smaller", etc., etc. Just because x is better than y when a narrow examination is made doesn't mean that x is ALWAYS better than y in all other situations. Everything is a balancing act. Having AT guns with 100mm gun shields is one thing that didn't balance out too well :D

The double armor on some gun shields was, I think, an attempt to defeat certain types of armor piercing rounds and shrapnel. At least if the armor is face hardened that would make sense. But really... that's just a guess. I don't think it proved very effective since it wasn't widely adopted.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gpig,

I just cancelled the need for that age old theme song. Stools_for_fools should have thought about the consequences of breaking Forum rules when he called himself Wartgamer.

I've never been able to comprehend the psychological problems people have with playing nice. That is all it takes to be a Member of this Forum. So if someone REALLY wants to participate on this Forum, then can't they put aside their personality disorders enough to not violate the simple rules that govern behavior here?

Wartgamer/RexMan/Stool_for_fools... take a hint and go away. You've made your bed, now be a MAN and lie in it.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gpig,

I just cancelled the need for that age old theme song. Stools_for_fools should have thought about the consequences of breaking Forum rules when he called himself Wartgamer.

I've never been able to comprehend the psychological problems people have with playing nice. That is all it takes to be a Member of this Forum. So if someone REALLY wants to participate on this Forum, then can't they put aside their personality disorders enough to not violate the simple rules that govern behavior here?

Wartgamer/RexMan/Stool_for_fools... take a hint and go away. You've made your bed, now be a MAN and lie in it. Sheesh...

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gpig,

I just cancelled the need for that age old theme song. Stools_for_fools should have thought about the consequences of breaking Forum rules when he called himself Wartgamer.

I've never been able to comprehend the psychological problems people have with playing nice. That is all it takes to be a Member of this Forum. So if someone REALLY wants to participate on this Forum, then can't they put aside their personality disorders enough to not violate the simple rules that govern behavior here?

Wartgamer/RexMan/Stool_for_fools... take a hint and go away. You've made your bed, now be a MAN and lie in it. Sheesh...

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Mike:

Back to ATG shields - does anyone know the reasoning behind the double shields seen in some photos of german AT guns? they seem to have a space of a couple of centimetres (say 1") between 2 parallel gunshields.

I assume it's not to defeat HEAT ammo!! smile.gif [/QB]

Obviously Mike, actually German 50mm & 75mm ATG shields were double spaced with a 25mm gap. The shields on these PAKs were 24mm thick each. The 37mm PAK had a single 50mm thick shield on it. My source for this is Alex Buchner- 'The German Infantry Handbook 1939-1945'.

(I appologise for mistakenly saying that German Inf Guns were also double spaced, they were not and I hereby whole heartedly correct myself.)

Anyway Mike as to the reasoning behind the double spaced shields with an inch gap, I am accepting that the S.m.K discussion referred to above by Andreas makes it somewhat clear. I think I understand that it is because it is likely to help prevent more than a single shield would.

Thanks Andreas for the link to the Spitzgesschoss mit Kern discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Mike:

WW1 "armour" was not that hard AFAIK - by the mid-20's better alloys were being used allowing thinner armour for the same effect - hence the thinner shield on the 2 pdr.

Point taken. I realise that improvements were made, you just have compare the flaking Italian tank armour with everything else in CMAK. All the same it doesn't make sense say to leave that 7.9mm shield on the 2 pdr ATG nor to put it on the 6 pdr ATG later, if the British in fact did so, while it was penetrated by S.m.K. / APMG rounds. Especially considering the amount that is likely to be fired at them from Panzer MG42s!

I don't have any information as to wheither the British installed thicker shields on their ATGs after they realised that 7.9mm of whatever kind of alloyed armour thickness was penetrated at under 600 yards. If they did then it should be something to be aware of. So here is my point, I would like to see these armour qualities and differrences verses penetrative power effects modelled or explained as readouts in the game. Have ATG shields treated just as realistically as AFV armour is in CMx2. And to return to the subject of this thread, HE effects on those shields could also be treated better or more clearly if that is managed.

Phew! Bloody oath I am going to have to start up an ATG shield discussion.

[ July 14, 2005, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Oh cripes... way to go Safari. My connection cut out from me as I hit submit. I hit again, then again thinking the connection was dead (it was), but guess what happened when the connection came back up agian? Oy!

Oy!

(wait for it)

Oy!

I believe this is called trigger happiness?

You're practice shooting a sidearm that handles the recoil so well that you cannot help yourself, you have to press that trigger again, even though you're standing 10 yards away from the target and the first shot already halved that bullseye...

Know the feeling. Was recently on my parents sheep farm. Have a Remington 12 gauge pump-action shotgun. Dad had to show his girls. Emptied it on a 44 gallon drum. Felt like John Wayne actually. My 2 daughters, aged 5&7 and watching, asked: Dad, was that really necessary ...

I digress...

[ July 14, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: WineCape ]

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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


×
×
  • Create New...