APHE charge depiction?

[Wolfgang_Otto]

Almost all German AP shells of WWII(disregarding HEAT in this sense) were fitted with an explosive charge of various proportions. Today I recieved CMBB as a Christmas gift(woohoo!) and its great. In the few skirmishes I fought today I noticed that only the Russian AP shells/shot are listed in the info window as having HE content. For example I select a T-34 and tap the "enter" key and it reads something like "76.2 mm AP round(large explosive charge)." Same thing with a 76.2 mm field artillery piece a little later, Russian. However, I find no mention of such explosive charges in the info window of German shell/shot even though the Germans chiefly used HE content in their AP shells. Whats the deal?

[YankeeDog]

Actually, you'll find German AP shells that show "large HE charge" in the info window if you look through enough shell types. Off of the top of my head, I think the AP shell for the German 37mm AT gun (early war) has a "large HE charge".

In CMBB, "large HE charge" simply means that particular shell has a larger than usual HE charge when compared to other AP shells of similar size. As you note, most German AP shells contained an HE "burster" to increase the damage the shell would cause once it penetrated into the interior of an AFV. Many Russian AP shells also contained a "burster". CMBB does model the effect of an HE burster on damage to an AFV. In general, you're going to find that shells with a "large HE charge" are more likely to knock out an AFV if they do penetrate.

If the HE charge inside an AP shell is simply average for a shell of it's size, CMBB doesn't note this in the info window. I'm not sure if or how CMBB lists AP shells with small or nonexistent bursters (i.e. solid AP "shot".)

Hope this helps,

YD

[Doodlebug]

While we're on the subject I'd appreciate a little info on whether solid AP shot (with no HE content what so ever)is included in the game and if so whether it is treated favourably or unfavorably compared to APHE in terms of "knockoutability" after a penetration is achieved. My gut feeling is that solid shot being just a plain old lump of metal ought to be "denser" (when weight v cross section is compared) than shell and therefore less likely to break up on impact. I would have thought also that a shell could fail to detonate for any number of reasons (faulty fuse, fuse damaged on impact, faulty explosive filling etc etc) and that ought to degrade the performance of APHE at the receiving end. I can imagine that the initial reponse of readers to this question will be that an exploding HE shell is clearly better inside a tank than solid shot. My final observation therefore is this. We have all seen the gruesome effect on the human body that a bullet can have and how it can penetrate one man and strike another. How bad would it be if an oversized bullet (solid AP shot) having penetrated the armour of the tank and then being unable to penetrate the opposite side of the vehicle and exit then proceeded to ricochet around inside smashing equipment and liquidising the occupants?

Grogs please start your motors.

[Foxbat]

Doodlebug: IIRC british pre-war research showed that the HE-burster had no, or negligeble, effect. That was mostly caused by the small calibre of AT guns at the time, for bigger guns HE burster or filler is definetly a bonus. 1) it increases the change of the projectile breaking up, and not going out the backside 2) many small bullets ricochetting around are etter than one big one and 3) a bursting round is more likely to shear of parts of the armor it penetrates, and cause spalling, adding to the amount of lethal fragments flying around the tank.

That's all I know, maybe a real grog can come up with some numbers to quantify the difference.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Doodlebug:

While we're on the subject I'd appreciate a little info on whether solid AP shot (with no HE content what so ever)is included in the game and if so whether it is treated favourably or unfavorably compared to APHE in terms of "knockoutability" after a penetration is achieved. My gut feeling is that solid shot being just a plain old lump of metal ought to be "denser" (when weight v cross section is compared) than shell and therefore less likely to break up on impact. I would have thought also that a shell could fail to detonate for any number of reasons (faulty fuse, fuse damaged on impact, faulty explosive filling etc etc) and that ought to degrade the performance of APHE at the receiving end. I can imagine that the initial reponse of readers to this question will be that an exploding HE shell is clearly better inside a tank than solid shot. My final observation therefore is this. We have all seen the gruesome effect on the human body that a bullet can have and how it can penetrate one man and strike another. How bad would it be if an oversized bullet (solid AP shot) having penetrated the armour of the tank and then being unable to penetrate the opposite side of the vehicle and exit then proceeded to ricochet around inside smashing equipment and liquidising the occupants?

Grogs please start your motors.

The fantastic perpetual motion AP projectile bouncing around forever is usually a favoured argument of the various Internet champions of the Browning 50cal gun. Be that as it may an Excerpt from a German report on Armour penetration curves: “As a rule, this effect is of annihilating power when using armour-piercing shells with a high explosive charge. When using hard core projectiles, steel or soft core projectiles, completely annihilating effect cannot always be expected with a single shot, because crew located in the dead space of the tank, cannot be hit under certain conditions.”

It was not until 1942 did the British investigate the high incidence of fires in British tanks post penetration. Major G.B. Jarrett in May 1942: “The German projectiles which have caused the greatest amount of damage to allied tank in the western desert campaigns have been the A.P.-H.E. type in 47mm, 50mm, 75mm and 88mm respectively. These projectiles at long range need only attain a partial penetration and the explosive charge can complete the destruction of at least the tank crew. At closer ranges the destructive effect is very great, where in many cases destruction of the tank is permanent.”……….. Of those mark III and IV knocked out in combat by AP-shot, fewer than 20 percent were destroyed by fire or damaged so severely that they couldn’t be repaired.

A search would have brought out all these old arguments.

[flamingknives]

The different effect of AP shells and AP shot is modelled in CM:BB, and are differentiated in the unit data screen.