Those resilient shermans

[Nikki Mond]

I'll tell you what. When I see sherms coming I know I'm in for a rough one. They fire quickly, spin on a dime and take multiples like a bear takes BB's.

Here's a pic of a sherm76 after taking 3 heat rounds from a 75mm pak41. I think they turned the rad operator and driver to mush but this damn behemoth kept the main and coax firing throughout. Continued to take out my pak, 2 panzer 3M, and any suicidal soldier I could get to attack him.

[Werner_U292]

Thats BS if it really took 3 heat rounds. Any heat round should be over kill for a stupid sherm.

[Nikki Mond]

Originally posted by Werner_U292:

Thats BS if it really took 3 heat rounds. Any heat round should be over kill for a stupid sherm.

Count the holes, and it was HEAT.

[John Kettler]

Nikki Mond,

Color me multiply perplexed! To begin with, the Pak 41 was a very rare gun, with only 150 built. It was squeeze bore--75mm at bore commencement, and only 55mm at the muzzle. Holes shown are huge, unless that's simply how ToW shows where penetrations have occurred. The ammunition types fired were limited to APCR (PzGr 40) and HE. No HEAT! Had the tank been hit and penetrated by HEAT, the holes would in reality have been tiny.

Even if we charitably credit the gun with HEAT, my understanding of how the game treats shotline modeling and vulnerable components tells me that the tank has sustained HEAT penetrations smack into a primary ammo stowage area. Worse, this Sherman has no applique armor, either.

Something's badly wrong here, maybe several things! Barring not one, but a succession of miracles, that Sherman should've been K-Killed.

Note what Moon says here, in commenting on translated info from the 1C site discussion of ballistics and terminal ballistics.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=67;t=000009

Regards,

John Kettler

[ May 19, 2007, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Nikki Mond]

I'm going to get specific here, and make a correction. The gun was a 75mm Pak40L48 from escaping the pocket. It has 4 Heat rounds in the game. The crew automatically switched to HEAT. I think it does this based on range and/or trajectory. But thats another question.

Was there anybody else around to target the sherman? In this scenario there was a PZ 3M with its 50mm gun firing APBC, the tank was a little farther away. But I know I specifically targeted with the pak and watched it fire, and hit target at least twice just before it stopped. Range was maybe 200m.

[John Kettler]

Nikki Mond,

While I appreciate your posting a clarification, I'm afraid there's still a problem. You see, the Pak 40 has no HEAT round--because its Pz Gr 39 APHE and PzGr 40 APCR are not only better suited to tank busting (flat trajectory and shorter time of flight), but penetrate better, too.

I don't yet have the game, but I do know a fair amount about the weapons themselves.

Regards,

John Kettler

[R33GZ]

I dont mean to be nasty John, but.... if you havent got the game yet how cou you possibly know what rounds are/were available to the above mentioned Pak40.

I have no idea what the Pak40 historically used as its prefered ammo type, no doubt your 100% in what you say, more than likely, TOW isnt 100% accurate... unfortunately, that doesnt mean that Nikki Mond didnt experience an indestructable Sherman... Ive taken out hull down Tigers at 500m - 1km with a frontal shot from a lone sherman

I thought the Tigers had been made less invincible... maybe its actually that the Shermans have been made more uber.

just my 2 cents

[R33GZ]

Looking at that pic again... one of those holes, probably the one on the top of the hull would be an exit hole... either that or youve got an airborne Pak40

sorry for posting twice in a row

[John Kettler]

R33GZ,

I've been studying WW II and its weaponry since I was old enough to read (am 52). I own hundreds of books on military matters, with most of them being on WW II history, strategy, tactics, weapons and their characteristics.

To answer your specific question, the sources I checked include Gander & Chamberlain, WEAPONS OF THE THIRD REICH, p. 114 (no HEAT listed), THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II, p. 184 (no HEAT listed) and the just found again Gander, GERMAN ANTI-TANK GUNS 1939-1945, which does list it--last. That it was listed at all was news to me, never having even seen it mentioned before, though I've long known the 88 had HEAT and that it was used in the East with considerable effect as a denuder of tank descents so the tanks could be hit with PzGr 39 or 40. No HEAT round listed in the Wiki piece, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_PaK_40

Per answer.com, though, it does, and the information is quite specific.

http://www.answers.com/topic/7-5-cm-kwk-40

Further checking in reproduced period intel docs available at lonesentry.com found that it was issued, but the Germans were apparently, as of July 1943, beginning to curtail its use and shifting to PzGr 39 as the primary round.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/pak40_antitank_ammo.html

Two months earlier, May 1943, the initial report on the Pak 40 treated hollow charge as part of standard ammo issue.

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ge_at_tank/index.html

The Finns apparently had one version of HEAT for their Pak 40s.

http://www.jaegerplatoon.net/AT_GUNS2.htm

Based on the above, I think a pretty solid case can be made that the HEAT ammo was made and issued, but the later article taken from the period Intelligence Bulletin would suggest that the round had been phased out by D-Day. That it would be the primary antitank round by then strikes me as having almost nil likelihood.

Nikki Mond,

Just so we're sure we're all on the same page, would you please post a screenshot of the data placard for the gun you consider got the kill, ensuring that the ammo types available for the gun used are clearly shown?

Regards,

John Kettler

[wokelly]

Is the sherman in those pics shooting at your Pak that fired the 3 heat rounds?

[Nikki Mond]

OK I have a theory because this happened again during the Bastogne battle. Picture this. I have a King Tiger. My Last tank. I played bastogne horribly and thats all I have is a crippled King tiger. Shermans appear at the end. I hit a sherman twice beside the main barrel left front where the coax is. The Turret is skewed off its Mount. Two Huge holes are in the gun mount. But this sherman makes an end run towards me. Doesnt fire, ofcourse probably only the driver is alive. But its still manuevering.

I checked the roster in the editor and all these M4A3 are elite. I checked the roster in the Pocket scenario pictured above and there is one elite tank in the last wave, guess who it is. Could it be that an elite crewman will not bail. And if his section of the tank is not damaged it will function. Well Telly Savalus aside, two APBC hits from a Konigs tiger should be catastrophic and not compartmental damage.

Above the tank is firing at remnants and tank crew in the distance. nothing close.

anyways, on another topic I attached the ammo load out as requested for the pak40.

[met1966]

Seems like you guys are arguing pointlessly. You are both "right". John...sure as heck knows this german arms...but I dont believe he meant to imply that you dont know what happened in your game scenario. He was speaking historically...and you are speaking about ToW. So stop arguing! Okay?

So....the question remains...how the heck could a Sherman take that sort of abuse and still remain "alive". Seems to be the Sherm might remain alive (though I tend to think it would brew up) but the contents would have been shaken AND stirred and not up to much still in this realm. Hope 1C will fix things like this.

[Nikki Mond]

Who's arguing? I recognized we went real world OT for a bit.

I've been reading alot of individual accounts of tank battles. And this may not be so far off. Apparently there are many cases of shermans being hit by 88's and half the crew surviving. So compartmental damage does occur. And if the crewman are rated as elite then I can see these crippled tanks still manuevering.

So is this wrong, actually maybe not.

[Bad]

shooting AP with high caliber gun on thin ammo will just make shell enter and come out again, without doing any other damage exept where it passed

[R33GZ]

John, it would appear that you know your stuff

It just occured to me, Ive played a few different games now where heat rounds have been included in ammo load outs for German tanks, historically accurate or not... what is a heat round? Is it some type of AP incendiary?

I could probably google that, but sounds like Im more likely to get a qualified answer here

Cheers

[McIvan]

HEAT is high explosive anti-tank, otherwise known as hollow charge....consists of HE with an inward cone in the head of it, the cone is lined with copper (usually). The shape of the HE sends a jet of copper (in a funny sort of not-metal but not-liquid either state) in the direction of the cone's centreline. That jet is travelling fast enough to penetrae quite a lot of armour.

It is a very useful round because it isn't dependent on velocity. Specially good for low-velocity field guns etc, not so much for high-velocity AT guns since their standard AP round is usually better anyway. It does however have some HE effect along with its penetrating metal core, so situations arise where it can be useful. It is also better against sloped armour....the jet doesn't bounce or shatter, for example.

One slight negative is that the pentration will be relatively narrow indeed. There is probably less "behind armour" effect from HEAT than from normal AP. However a 75mm HEAT will usually suffice to knock something out.

[R33GZ]

Thanks for that McIvan... so in laymans terms, we're talking about a magma filled HE round. I imagine that would make quite a mess!

[John Kettler]

Nikki Mond,

In the case of the two rounds through the Sherman mantlet, the TC and loader are probably history, but

since there was no explosion, the gunner, radio operator and driver (the last two in the hull) are probably okay and may simply be carrying out the last order given by the AI, scripting, or what have you. The holes are probably rendered way oversize, BTW. Fine looking Pak 40, and I clearly see that HEAT's available. Interesting!

met1966,

This has been a marvelous, at times perplexing, learning experience for me, and I have no animus

toward my interlocutors. As to how the Sherman hit twice smack in the starboard ammo area survived, maybe it previously fired all that ammo off? Either that, or divine intervention! Telly Savalas insanity aside in the ghastly BoB movie, there was an incident reported at Kursk in which a Russian tank driver reentered a burning tank and rammed his F-Killed tank into what allegedly was a Tiger.

Want to say his name was Skriabin.

R33GZ,

Thanks! McIvan's answer is spot on, and contrary to what you may read, the shaped charge liner and jet do NOT form a plasma. Rather, what's formed, in a novel series of not quite states, is known as a "warm solid."

Bad,

Are you talking APHE of some sort, in which case, the AP shell may pass through so fast it can't fuze in time, or AP shot, where if enough energy remains, it might pass clean through? I've seen a picture of a U.S. halftrack drilled end to end by an 88. Holes in the radiator and rear compartment, and devastation in between those points!

McIvan,

Nice, succinct explanation that hits all the right points!

All,

The book here, written by the son of an American tanker based on extensive interviews with men from his dad's unit, plus a bunch of other interviews on the site, will give you quite a sense for what happens when a tank is hit in battle. Fascinating reading!

http://www.tankbooks.com/tanksfor/contents.htm

Regards,

John Kettler

[met1966]

John,

WOW. What an answer! offtopic question on armor for you...actually related to CoH. Could a Sherman t34 calliope tank fire its main cannon whilst having the calliope still attached? I cant see why it couldnt...but it cant in CoH. I realize that CoH is certainly NOT a realistic portrayal of combat (nor is it meant to be). Just curious if the developers might have rendered cannon inoperable for gameplay balance.

Thanks

Mark

[Slapaho]

Slightly off topic, but a very graphic portrayal of what happens in 'real' combat. If you have seen this before whichI am sure most have, sorry, but for those who haven't it should be of interest.

http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.pages/bates.index.htm

theres other sites carrying the pictures, as well as some pretty gruesome ones - I picked this site as there is no gruesome pictures (not graphic anyway)

[wokelly]

This has been a marvelous, at times perplexing, learning experience for me, and I have no animus

toward my interlocutors. As to how the Sherman hit twice smack in the starboard ammo area survived, maybe it previously fired all that ammo off? Either that, or divine intervention! Telly Savalas insanity aside in the ghastly BoB movie, there was an incident reported at Kursk in which a Russian tank driver reentered a burning tank and rammed his F-Killed tank into what allegedly was a Tiger.

Want to say his name was Skriabin.

Simple answer is that the ammo is not located there in the Sherman 76 series. Sherman 76s and the late war Sherman 75's had wet storage, and the ammo was no longer located where it use to be on the regular shermans, hence the loss of the extra welded armor that was visible on the sherman's sides.

Ammunition storage for the M4A1(76)W Sherman was drastically changed to improve safety in the fighting compartment. A wet storage system was developed and placed in all of the newly redesigned M4s. The ammunition storage racks were relocated from the sponsons to the hull floor, which was below the turret floor. The new racks were filled with water so that if the ammo racks were hit, the surrounding water would rush into the racks and stop the ammunition from catching fire. A wet storage system was also developed for the turret ready rack on the turret floor. The lower ammunition racks were divided into 2 separate spaces, one on each side of the driveshaft had 7 racks that contained 35 rounds and the other side had 6 racks with 30 rounds. The hull ammunition racks contained a total of 34.5 gallons of water. The ready rack held six rounds and was filled with 2.1 gallons. The new wet storage system proved itself to be a very effective way of stopping the ammunition fires that had plagued the earlier M4 series of tanks.

http://www.combatmission.com/articles/usmedtanks/m4a1.asp

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Slapaho:

Slightly off topic, but a very graphic portrayal of what happens in 'real' combat. If you have seen this before whichI am sure most have, sorry, but for those who haven't it should be of interest.

http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.pages/bates.index.htm

theres other sites carrying the pictures, as well as some pretty gruesome ones - I picked this site as there is no gruesome pictures (not graphic anyway)

What a just awful thing to have to go through.

[John Kettler]

met1966,

Glad to be of service! While I don't own a great Sherman reference (Hunnicutt), I do have Chamberlain and Ellis, BRITISH AND AMERICAN TANKS OF WORLD WAR II. According to it, the rocket launcher traversed with the turret and elevated with the gun via a simple rod linkage. No mention that the gun was disabled. As for why it's that way in CoH, it's probably play balance. Either that, or they want to discourage people with a rack full of rockets from getting into a direct fire engagement. BTW, Calliope mounts are jettisonable on all models except the M4A1.

Slapaho,

I'd seen the clip many times, but the selected stills tell a much more informative tale. To catch even one outbound AP round in flight is impressive, but to catch two is astounding!

Wokelly,

Wonderful material! I've long known what Wet storage was, but knew very little about its implementation. Was under the erroneous impression that the extra protection was applied to existing ammo stowage locations. Clearly, though, moving most of the ammo to lower in the hull was the way to go. Am surprised that tankers would give up having the extra armor, but maybe they weren't given a vote. I clearly recall, though, an account in the green Ordnance volume in which American tankers, having had to go toe to toe with, rather than maneuver around heavier German armor in the Roer River campaign, practically assaulted an ordnance officer who when asked for a powerful new tank simply offered the desperate men more of what they were already using

and were dying in.

Normal Dude,

Concur! Ever seen the History Channel's Tiger I vs. Sherman analysis? Some survivors of brewups are interviewed. One TC reported being blown right out of his open hatch when the tank exploded. I think he was the sole survivor, too.

Nor did it help that Shermans ran on av gas!

Regards,

John Kettler

[R33GZ]

Originally posted by Slapaho:

Slightly off topic, but a very graphic portrayal of what happens in 'real' combat. If you have seen this before whichI am sure most have, sorry, but for those who haven't it should be of interest.

http://www.3ad.com/history/wwll/feature.pages/bates.index.htm

theres other sites carrying the pictures, as well as some pretty gruesome ones - I picked this site as there is no gruesome pictures (not graphic anyway)

Damn! Thats impressive, the frame where you can see the fire illuminating the penetration holes is spectacular... steel casing made into swiss cheese!

[John Kettler]

R33GZ,

That was the part burned into my brain from watching the film sequence a bunch of times before I ever saw the stills--the glowing holes providing unmistakable proof that the shots had pierced clean through the armor and the men scrambling to leave the growing inferno.

Slapaho,

One time, maybe as part of WW II in Color or similar, the History Channel ran some color footage showing crew remains being pulled from a French Sherman. The War Department evidently treated French casualties differently than it did our own, for I've never seen anything like that for U.S. or British tankers. This was a body absolutely shattered down one side of the ribcage, a horrific footlong bloody vertical gash that said everything that needed to be said about what happens when fragile flesh meets unyielding steel and pitiless explosives. Armored warfare's a fascinating subject, but ghastly at the outcome level.

All,

Speaking of killing armor, I highly recommend, with certain reservations, Gander's THE BAZOOKA: Hand-Held Hollow Charge Anti-Tank Weapons. It has a very good account of the development of the bazooka, the Puppchen, the Panzerschreck, and the PIAT, with lots of pictures and drawings, to include sectioned projectiles and side by side comparisons. There are some howlers, though, such as the blatantly incorrect statement that the bazooka was named for a giant cigar used by comedian Bob Burns. Here's the actual begetter of the name, a unique form of horn. Hear the jokes and the bazooka for yourself.

http://www.angelfire.com/de/classicalstories/

Here's a pic of what may be the last surviving Bob Burns bazooka, together with other info.

http://users.aristotle.net/~russjohn/burns.html

Brief bio.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0122589/bio

There are some other problems, too, but that one really got to me. If you're looking for German hollow charge rifle grenades, the Haft Hohladung magnetic hollow charge antitank grenade, or the British No. 68 antitank grenade, you're out of luck, though there is a photo of a wrongly thrown Panzerwurfmine and the rare Sticky Bomb.

Here's a good description, in considerable detail, of how a hollow charge warhead works, with a great deal of its development history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge

You can learn a great deal about the German side of things from here. The site is from our very own M. Hofbauer. Be sure to read the Hand Grenade portion.

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm

The Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck firing tests on a Grant armor array will show you how small the holes are from hollow charge weapons. Indeed, I've read an account from a Russian tanker in which he talks about how hard it is tell that a tank with a friend in it is dead, for the hole is not much bigger than a small coin, yet the inside of the tank is nothing but devastation. The firing sequences are late in the sequence, after the mobility comparisons.

Couldn't find the story I remembered, since it was probably lost when the site crashed and hasn't yet been retranslated, but this Russian view of armored warfare by Hero of the Soviet Union Dmitry Loza not only is terrific, but speaks directly to the tendency of even burning Wet Shermans not to have their ammo explode. Russian Shermans ran on diesel, BTW, not av gas. The tanks he commanded late in the war looked like these.

http://www.o5m6.de/m4a2_76mm.html

Regards,

John Kettler

Regards,

John Kettler

[ May 23, 2007, 04:13 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]