Bad Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 why they have 0 impact on tanks? HE was usefull vs tanks, not as good as AP vs thick armor, but vs med armor they were great ( from big caliber guns) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jippo Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 No they were not. HE is useless against armor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnN Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Actually they don't quite have 0 impact - if you look at the penetration bar they'll go through light armour. Very rarely indeed I've had direct impacts from my artillery go through the roofs of light tanks too (Pz35/38s). For medium vehicles if the angle is right you'll sometimes get crew kills (I've had this happen to me a few times). I also wouldn't be surprised if some medium tanks had limited areas where armour was light enough for a big HE round to penetrate. Have fun Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 you know 76mm+ HE should be able to kill pz4s from side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzerwu Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Hmm.... Well does a Jagdtiger 128mm round go through a T-34/85's 45mm armour??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 i dont know all the small details, but i know that Big caliber HE rounds should be able to kill tank with medium armor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 So in other words you don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Originally posted by Normal Dude: So in other words you don't know. I know that HE we have are wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 today i say a T34-85 taking about 45 hits of HE. 75 long and 88/56 kaliber. its gun was damaged prior to this. all hit where made from the side or back, low section...some mid. it didnt moved. all shots faild to break the tracks. after i gave up on the try to safe ammo by that way and drove on it sudenly reversed away. after about 1 houer realtime i found it abandomd not far away. well, HE could be just a bit more effectfull. EDIT: i have to add; the t34 standin next to that one was KOed after 3 hits to the back. it was burning as if something catched fire. the other one however...took all pather HE´s and some Tiger ones. [ June 01, 2007, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Pandur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Markus86 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 so you can for sure name your sources or have you heard about it from a cousins friends, who has a girlfriend with an aunt, whose husband told this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Originally posted by Markus86: so you can for sure name your sources or have you heard about it from a cousins friends, who has a girlfriend with an aunt, whose husband told this? we had this discussion on ww2-online forums;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jippo Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 The figures are more or less correct. It depends on fusing of the HE. With fuse set to sensitive he will only "wipe the dust" of the armor and will not penetrate. With delayed fuse heavy HE will penetrate light armor, not anything like T-34 though. HE design is pretty much the opposite to what is required for penetrating. They have low sectional mass and relatively low shell integrity with brittle steel and fuse in the nose. They are designed to shatter, not penetrate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Originally posted by Jippo: The figures are more or less correct. It depends on fusing of the HE. With fuse set to sensitive he will only "wipe the dust" of the armor and will not penetrate. With delayed fuse heavy HE will penetrate light armor, not anything like T-34 though. HE design is pretty much the opposite to what is required for penetrating. They have low sectional mass and relatively low shell integrity with brittle steel and fuse in the nose. They are designed to shatter, not penetrate. they still deliver alot of energy and it doesnt need penitration to kill the crew inside the tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnN Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 As mentioned earlier, crew kills from non-penetrations are in the game. I've killed crew and had crew killed by HE shells, takes a few hits though. Possibly it's toned down a bit in some cases (I imagine there should be some deaf and panicked crew members out there that aren't), but I don't see what's happening in the game to be implausible. Have fun Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jippo Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 How does heat kill the crew without penetrating? -heat? -pressure? -shockwave? -spalling? I don't think you know a great deal about these things, so this discussion is not very useful. I think we can say that for a computer game the effect is close enough in ToW, or not? I suggest that you will find some reference for HE effects on armor before continuing. I mean "HE was usefull vs tanks, not as good as AP vs thick armor, but vs med armor they were great ( from big caliber guns) " is not quite good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnN Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I believe I read that spalling is in the game, and it seems to be born out by my experience with crew casualties. Have to agree with Jippo though, you can't 'know' something without some sort of evidence or reference - otherwise it's just an opinion (it might be right, but that's all it is). Have fun Finn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 its a fact that big caliber HE shell should kill crew, how and why im not sure, and since you have no idea what you talking about how can you say that im wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matchstick Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 If HE is such an effective tank killer why does no modern army use it against armoured vehicles ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Originally posted by Matchstick: If HE is such an effective tank killer why does no modern army use it against armoured vehicles ? who is talking about effective? did you even bother to read thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Wel, in your very first post, you said HE was useful vs tanks. That pretty much means the same thing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Originally posted by Normal Dude: Wel, in your very first post, you said HE was useful vs tanks. That pretty much means the same thing... U dont no what ur talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bad Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Originally posted by Normal Dude: Wel, in your very first post, you said HE was useful vs tanks. That pretty much means the same thing... no it doesnt, again, you dont need penitration to kill tank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pas De Charge Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 http://sill-www.army.mil/famag/2002/NOV_DEC_2002/NOV_DEC_2002_PAGES_8_11.pdf This only briefly mentions WW2 scenarios but it still has some interesting stuff to say on the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 OK, since you guys need to be walked through this miscommunication, I am going to start from the top: Step 1: Bad Posts in first post: "HE was usefull vs tanks" (direct quote) As in, HE was a useful projectile/ammo/whatever against armored targets. Step 2: Matchstick posts later: "If HE is such an effective tank killer ..." As in, questioning the effectiveness (Perhaps, usefulness???) of HE vs tanks. Step 3: Bad posts (and pretty damned rudely I might add): "who is talking about effective? did you even bother to read thread " I'm assuming you misunderstood him, which brings us to step 4: Step 4: I then respond: "Wel, in your very first post, you said HE was useful vs tanks. That pretty much means the same thing..." As in, trying to point out to you that HE being USEFUL against tanks and HE being EFFECTIVE against tanks could easily be construed to mean the same thing, and that you were out of line in responding in step 3, because he quite obviously DID read the thread and was responding to it in a constructive manner. Step 5: Bad then responds to me with: "no it doesnt, again, you dont need penitration to kill tank" Which tells me you are definetely ARE misunderstanding, because in reality you just agreed with the quote in Step 5's response. Is this clear now? Or maybe "useful" and "effective" mean different things to you than the rest of us. Pvt Ryan: Care to elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FinnN Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Originally posted by Bad: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matchstick: If HE is such an effective tank killer why does no modern army use it against armoured vehicles ? who is talking about effective? did you even bother to read thread </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts