HE rounds r made wrong?

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by Silencer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One thing I think is definitely wrong however is the 20 mm HE rating. All the regular cars and trucks in the game have an armor rating of "5". 20 mil HE has a penetration rating of "3" max.

So I scripted up 5 russian tanks and a 222 scout car. I let it blast away at the trucks (close range) and watched. Oftentimes, the driver would be killed, unless you were shooting at the passenger side of the vehicle, but the truck itself went undamaged. Switching to 7.92 mm machinegun allowed me to devastate the trucks while the driver usually bailed.

????

This just seems wrong on the face of it, but I can't present any source to qualify my argument.

yes, that is def. a problem. 20mm HE would rape light trucks in seconds.

My guess is (I know this from another game), they gave the cars-trucks a little armour of 5mm, so they wouldn't instant die do a pistol or so. (The 7.92 MG is about 8 - 10mm at 100m)

Solution is, increase 20mm HE to +-6mm. that would do the trick. IIRC, the brittish hispano 20mm HE did 6mm @0°@100m

Germany didn't have any penetration charts under 75mm HE. Out of my head, the 88mm HE did 35mm @500m. </font>

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by GoodGuy:

[QB]

It is in Jentz. See page 133 of Jentz’s “Panther Tank, The Quest for Combat Supremacy”.

Below is an excerpt from a report on the Operations of the Panzer (Panther) Regiment von Lauchert by Guderian following Kursk. The passage of interest:

“Armor. Enemy weapons did not penetrate through the frontal armor of the Panther. Even direct hits from straight on fired from 76mm anti-tank and tank guns did not penetrate through the gun mantlet. However, the sides of the Panther were penetrated at ranges exceeding 1000-meters. The 76mm antitank and tank rounds broke cleanly through the turret sides and both the sloped and vertical hull sides. In most cases the Panther immediately caught fire. This was possibly due to the large amount or propellent in the ammunition that is carried.

The Panther is basically invulnerable to artillery fire. However, direct hits by calibers of over 150mm on the roof of the hull and turret had the effect of deforming the armor and causing internal damage. Hits by light caliber shells hitting the commanders cupola and the roof armor showed no effect.”

The roof armor revisions were not made -- thickening of the roof armor that is -- at least according to the official response to Guderians report because the Panther's suspension was inadequate for the heavier loading entailed. See page 134 same Jentz title.

Actual operational studies conducted during the war suggest only rather limited success on the part of tactical air vs. armored targets. Typically K-Kill counts attributable to TAC air were invariably less that 10% of all tanks destroyed. But than I already said this earlier on. Of course the best example of this was the Mortain counterattack in which a huge amount of in theater tactical air was dedicated to air to ground attacks against German armored attacks.

The British, having contributed a large number of sorties to this particular endeavor, sent in a number of Operational Research Teams to conduct "AFV body counts" in the area encompassing Mortain operation. Again the tank K-Kills attributable to this rather intensive use of tactical air was only about 10% of all Panzers KO’d during the counterattack. Again most panzer's were KO's by Kinetic Energy projectiles.

Undoubtedly we can all lay our hands on reports detailing such-and-such tank being destroyed in such-and-such manner. Like a Tiger tank being abandned as a result of a frontal hit from a 6-pdr. The point is of course to look at the larger picture. What does the statistical data tell us about how tanks were typically be destroyed. Again the overall numbers of tanks being killed by high explosive shells is a relatively small percentile of all tanks being destroyed. Again the biggest killer was of course kinetic energy projectiles -- AP. No big surprise.

[GoodGuy]

Erm, SlapHappy, what are you refering to?

RPG 40, the Russian ANTITANK STICK HAND GRENADE?.

It contained 760 gramm of TNT. The detonation velocity of TNT : 6900 meters/second.

Some russian webpages claim that the RPG-40 could penetrate 20 mm, but I'm not sure if that's right. If I'm not mistaken, HE shells carried more explosives than a RPG-40 grenade, and even those shells did not do much to a turret's armor, as you can see on the pic.

I could imagine that there was a chance that RPG-40 stick grenades would do some damage if thrown at the ventilator compartment or on the roof of a turret, or near the back of the turret, as the armor of some models was like 8-15 mm only on some of these spots (depending on the model).

[ June 13, 2007, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: GoodGuy ]

[SlapHappy]

Originally posted by GoodGuy:

Erm, SlapHappy, what are you refering to?

RPG 40, the Russian ANTITANK STICK HAND GRENADE?.

Yes.

It contained 760 gramm of TNT. The detonation velocity of TNT : 6900 meters/second.

So what factors play what proportions in the penetration model? The velocity and mass of the round and the explosive charge to what degree? That is part of what i am trying to arrive at.

Some russian webpages claim that the RPG-40 could penetrate 20 mm, but I'm not sure if that's right. If I'm not mistaken, HE shells carried more explosives than a RPG-40 grenade, and even those shells did not do much to a turret's armor, as you can see on the pic.

You forgot the pic. Could you post it?

I could imagine that there was a chance that RPG-40 stick grenades would do some damage if thrown at the ventilator compartment or on the roof of a turret, or near the back of the turret, as the armor of some models was like 8-15 mm only on some of these spots (depending on the model).

Well, that's my point, if I use the model for blast that they are using in the game, the best-case penetration would be around 5mm. In game, the weapon is more than effective attacking the top of tanks up to the PZ IV. It can also typically damage the gun on the Panther when more than a couple of grenades are deployed.

[SlapHappy]

I'm sorry, GoodGuy, you were talking about the test range pic.

[GoodGuy]

@Jeff Duquette:

First off, I think you misunderstood my post. I wasn't trying to follow that Bad-dude, but I just mentioned that kills (through HE) happened.

Also, I didn't mention shortcomings/weak spots of the several models' side armors (-> AP rounds), because the discussion was about HE ammunition... I see your point, I'd agree there too, but your post kinda missed the initial point of discussing effects of using HE ammo, and shows that you misinterpreted my post.

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

The roof armor revisions were not made...[]

Quite frankly: they were made.

Example: Panzer IV Ausführung "H", serial numbers 84401 - 86393 and 86601 - 89540, this tank's turret roof used to have only 10 mm of roof armor (even through Models E-G). The H-model received a reinforced turret roof, solely to counter the fighter bomber-threat. Again, the possibility of HE arty bombardments was not the trigger for this revision. 2,322 PzIV-H were built, from May 1943 to February 1944, and existing "older" Models upgraded where possible (as u can see by looking at the serial numbers).

So, in fact, I don't know what you're talking about, since revisions were made. There might be more examples, but I'm too lazy to sit down, get more books, and read atm.

Again the tank K-Kills attributable to this rather intensive use of tactical air was only about 10% of all Panzers KO’d during the counterattack. Again most panzer's were KO's by Kinetic Energy projectiles.

First off, just to clarify, I was referring to events during the Ardennes-offensive and/or during the retreat from France shortly before the Operation Market Garden (September). I was not talking about Mortain, St.Lo, or the Cotentin peninsula theaters.

German motorized units had quite some losses inflicted by air units. Given, the amount of kills conducted by Allied air units was not as high as the German High Command suspected. Still, the planning of the Offensive in the Ardennes was driven by fears of Allied air superiority, and fighter bomber sorties, nevertheless. Afaik, the amount of German tanks destroyed/immobilized/damaged was somewhat higher (means more than 10-15%) in late 1944/early 1945, in the Ardennes.

Undoubtedly we can all lay our hands on reports detailing such-and-such tank being destroyed in such-and-such manner .......[]Again the overall numbers of tanks being killed by high explosive shells is a relatively small percentile of all tanks being destroyed.

Point me to the section where I stated the opposite. No doubt, AP shells were the tools to beat a tank. I just stated that kills using HE occured, but, most notably, in a different way than Bad initially claimed/suspected.

[ June 13, 2007, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: GoodGuy ]

[GoodGuy]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

It can also typically damage the gun on the Panther when more than a couple of grenades are deployed.

According to the accounts I've read so far, the RPG-43 (HEAT) grenades were bundled and then thrown either at the turret, the side or under the bottom of a tank. The latter seems to be the most promising way of using them, which reminds me of the German Goliath devices (small tracked RC-"cars" carrying TNT, which were supposed to detonate under the tank).

I can't imagine a RPG-40 grenade (HE) doing any major damage tho, even if bundled, unless they were thrown at/attached to the engine compartment, and even that was a high risk for the Russian troops, as chances of harming a tank that way were small.

[ June 13, 2007, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: GoodGuy ]

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

This is pretty simplistic as I am guessing impact velocity will tweak these numbers up or down. Moreover OF-412 is a pretty high velocity HE round, but perforation of about 0.2 to 0.3 calibers is about the ballpark for HE vs. steel armor. This isn't completely from the hind quarters. Having looked over a bit of ballisitic test material for CPC and semi-armor piercing projectiles it's apparant that this form of shell will do about 0.45 to 0.65-calibers of armor perforation. But of course CPC and semi-armor piercing are a bit more like AP-shell design in that these things employ a heavily thickend solid nose section and base fuze rather than no nose section and a relatively fragile PD fuze.

Best Regards

Jeff

So if I understand you properly, Jeff, you would suspect .2 or .3 calibers for most HE rounds

or 100mm x .2-.3 = 20mm to 30mm penetration?

But in the case of the heavy, higher than normal velocity OF-412 you would say .45 to .65 calibers or:

100mm x .45-.65 = 45mm to 65mm penetration?

Or am I off by a decimal place?

In any event, what it does make me wonder is how the RPG-40 (non-heat) grenade manages to penetrate 20mm of armor (at least by several sources) without having anywhere near the velocity of an HE cannon round and lower projectile mass as well?

I'm trying to "normalize" the HE effects on armor in the game and am having a rough time doing so because of lack of available information sources. </font>

[SlapHappy]

Jeff

So any suggestions for "normalizing" the HE performance against armor given the fairly simplistic modeling used in the game. Is there one shell type that could be used to extrapolate the performance to be applied to other ammos types?

Given that there is only one type of HE listed for each gun, does that seem like a reasonable approach?

Sort of similar to the approach you used when modeling the 50L42 for Oudy's mod tank....

[Jeff Duquette]

While this is far removed from the actual topic\subject, I suppose this might be interesting to some folks here. Regarding the Battle of the Bulge being a major killing ground for Allied Tactical Air Attacks, a similar operational study as that I described above for the Mortain counterattack was conducted throughout the vicinity of salient by a joint group of Americans & British in January of 1945. This was conducted under the auspices of No.2 ORS Group. They were of course very interested in proving the efficacy of modern tactical air support and his ability to shape ground combat results. The group examined 101 German Tanks, self-propelled guns, and other "light armored vehicles". Of this total, four panzers, one SP-gun and one Lt AFV were identified as definite air-to-ground related kills. One SP-Gun examined had both a air to ground rocket hit and an AP penetration. Assuming the second SP was killed by the air to ground rocket, that would put the air to ground tank kill percentage at slightly less than 7%.

High Explosive Shells killed 3 Panthers, 1 Sp-Gun, and 4 Light AFVs. That's a total of eight HE shell kills; a little less than 8% of the sample attributable to HE shell fire.

Abandonment + Demolition accounted for 39-armoured vehicles. The rest were killed by AP.

See No.2 ORS 2nd TAF Joint Report No.1 "Air Attack on Enemy Amour in the Ardennes Salient, Operational Research in Northwest Europe."

[ June 13, 2007, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Jeff

So any suggestions for "normalizing" the HE performance against armor given the fairly simplistic modeling used in the game. Is there one shell type that could be used to extrapolate the performance to be applied to other ammos types?

Given that there is only one type of HE listed for each gun, does that seem like a reasonable approach?

Sort of similar to the approach you used when modeling the 50L42 for Oudy's mod tank....

Hi Slaphappy:

Yes, I think so. I just had to do this several months back for one of the Steel Beasts designers. He was interested in similar information, but of course much more modern ordnance. Let me look it over and I'll forward along the results. Perhaps we should do this via a few emails?

Best Regards

Jeff

[SlapHappy]

Emails fine with me, mines posted in my profile.

This started out as a question about the RPG-40 which seemed to be pretty darn effective after looking at it for awhile. Then I saw some problems in the game data.

1. They cheated and raised the RPG-40 to a blast rating which will penetrate 20mm of armor by setting it's rating at 15000. Apparently 30000 is used to designate a 40mm penetration rating. It's in the comments section right below the code.

2. Meanwhile, the German grenade bundle is completely hosed. They give it the same blast rating as the single stick grenade. The only difference being they made it "APHE" ammo type. In any event, it is useless as an anti-tank weapon. Incapable of injuring even the smallest tankette.

3. They gave the Gammon Bomb a rating of "4050" even though it has a typical upper charge capability of 900 grams of explosive (at least according to what I have found from various sources). They also gave it a timing fuse, when most accounts say it typically (but not always) used an "allways" fuse. I've fixed that already, though.

So, their is little consistency at all.

And a little info:

The timing on the grenades seems to be variable between two values: 3.2 and 4.2 seconds. I guess the value used is based on proximity of the target the nade is being launched at. A -1 value will achieve an impact fuse.

Tracking vehicles: Tracks seem to have an armor rating which varies from 10 to 60 (mm, I suppose). Heavier tanks tend to have the heaviest ratings (Tiger and Elephant). Most models tend to have around 20. So if you find it hard to track a Tiger in the game, that's why. There is also a "health" value associated with different parts of the vehicles, but I haven't figured out what that does yet.

[Jippo]

One thing you have to realise and take in to account is the fusing. If the fusing is set to sensitive the smallest twigs and leafs are enought to set the round off instantly. When such a round hits armor, it will detonate before penetrating anything. Upon detonation the round will createtulip shape volume of shrapnel which have high velocity but very low mass - and thus will not penetrate anything that could be refered to as armor.

[Ankh Morpork]

You should atleast be able to take out the tracks using HE.

[John Kettler]

SlapHappy,

Seven grenade warheads with the blast rating of one grenade? Sounds like a must patch to me!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jippo]

Originally posted by Ankh Morpork:

You should atleast be able to take out the tracks using HE.

Why?

[GoodGuy]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

[]..... The group examined 101 German Tanks, self-propelled guns, and other "light armored vehicles". ... []... that would put the air to ground tank kill percentage at slightly less than 7%.

[].....Abandonment + Demolition accounted for 39-armoured vehicles....[]

First off, I was referring to motorized/armored units in general, which includes all tracked and armored vehicles, so all AFVs, ATVs and SPGs.

But even the body-count conducted in January '45 does not tell the whole story, imo. Various tanks were towed to repair shops either after being attacked by bombers or Allied tanks/AT. Surely, tanks had been abandoned (and destroyed by German crews) due to lack of fuel supply, due to major breakdowns or engine failures, due to Allied infantry engagements, OR due to damages received from Allied bomber attacks (not only rockets, but bombs too). The question is: were the examiners able to verify whether a tank was bombed prior to being demolished/abandoned or not?. I've seen quite a number of pics of demolished tanks, and it was really hard to tell what happened to them prior to the final demolition, IF they weren't hit/penetrated by AT shells.

The figures (from 1945) you quoted still displayed rough estimations, as a sample body-count could not reveal all damages/kills, especially if keeping in mind that the Germans were able to retreive crippled armored vehicles, as described above, either using the rare tank-retreivers, or using other battle-tanks to tow the tanks in question.

Also, the overall-amount of German armor employed during the offensive, appeared to be lower than Allied assumptions or even German plans (KstN plan: indicating required strength) implied. There are sources stating that Germany fielded ~500-600 medium tanks, plus heavy tank Abteilungen here and there (independent hvy tnk batallions, required strength: ~45 each, but often understrength due to either low factory output or transport problems), plus some 40 or 50 Panther tanks meant to bolster the participating tank divisions. Since the Germans focused on retreiving damaged tanks (as their factory output wasn't as high as the Allied one) the real number of tanks damaged/immobilized by Allied aircrafts was somewhat higher, most likely, as explained above.

Even 20 yrs later, Hugh M. Cole's official history of WW2 still didn't deliver a complete answer (to the question what percentage got destroyed by Allied airforce sorties), as the American and the British airforce's claims regarding damaged/destroyed armored vehicles differed from the actual body-count on the ground.

Looking at local (german) studies (I am German, btw), researches coupled with comparisons of factory output numbers to numbers reported "fit for service", reveals a bit different picture.

The official American Summaries (gathered in the official American History of WW2, "UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II") of the first few days of the Normandy invasion contain sections where analyzations are based on hearsay, assumptions, or rough estimations (ex.: American GI's were interviewed shortly after the battles in Normandy, but some were interviewed months after the actual events or forwarded reports from other soldiers/units, which didn't help to clarify/verify.). So, even the official Army History contains weak sections, and they're present in the Ardennes section as well.

Let me still quote the official US summary:

written by Hugh M. Cole

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF MILITARY HISTORY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

WASHINGTON, D.C., 1965

UNITED STATES ARMY IN WORLD WAR II

THE ARDENNES:

BATTLE OF THE BULGE

Library of Congress Catalog Number: 65-60001

page 660 and follow. pages:

"The Allied tactical air operations in the main were directed against armored fighting vehicles, motor transport, and large troop concentrations. The thin-skinned supply vehicles which lacked tracks to carry them off the narrow, winding roads presented an easy target. German tanks were another matter. The IX, XIX, and XXIX Tactical Air Commands and 2d Tactical Air Force (British) claimed the destruction of 413 enemy armored vehicles. But a sample ground count of stricken German armor sets the number of kills inflicted by air attack at about a tenth the number claimed by the fighter-bomber pilots.6

6: [2d Tactical Air Force Operational Research Section, Report 19, The Contribution of the Air Forces to the Stemming of the Enemy Thrust in the Ardennes, 16-26 December 1944 (September 1945).]

German tank losses during the operation are unknown but appear to have been very high, probably as much from mechanical failure as from battle damage. For the 1,700 to 1,800 tanks and assault guns in Army Group B, there were only six tank repair companies. Even worse was the shortage of tank retrievers, and, after 23 December, the few available were extremely hard hit by air attack. The spare parts situation was so bad that new German tanks were cannibalized at a depot west of Koblenz. Three hundred and forty new tanks were assigned to the Western Front during the campaign, but only 125 can be traced as actually reaching the armored divisions."

The actual amount of armored units participating in the offensive was lower than assumed by the Allies in 1945. Also, the numbers referring to Army Group B's strength are misleading and might not be correct. It's a no-brainer to say that the Germans could not field "1,700 to 1,800" tanks and assault guns for the operation. And I doubt that, even if counting the units that were withdrawn from the East front and assigned to the West front (respective Group , Army Group B really had this number of vehicles (for the entire front it had to cover) at its disposal. Looking at the numbers of ATVs, SPGs and tanks being servicable in some of the divisions after the offensive, keeping in mind that the examined "samples" were NOT necessarily representative samples, looking at the US Army's studies summarized 20+ yrs after this war and looking at several recent independent researches published on the net, my conclusion would be that Allied aircrafts damaged/killed a somewhat higher amount of armored vehicles than your numbers imply. My personal estimation is something between 15-20 percent destroyed and/or damaged (=not fit for service/no combat value) by Allied aircrafts, with the vast numbers of non-armored vehicles destroyed not taken into account, of course.

I should add, that the German High Command overestimated the effectiveness of Allied fighter bomber sorties, no doubt, which could be seen in Normandy already, where it was holding back/pulling back vital tank reserves prior to the invasion in Normandy in order to reduce exposure to air attacks. These tanks had to travel long distances to get to the mission areas, thus exposing them to continious Air Attacks even more (since they were not dug in near the coast as requested by Rommel). The reason for limiting some of the armored units' movement in the Ardennes (some vital units were ordered to move at night only) was that the High Command feared the Allied air superiority, in particular the high amount of fighter bomber sorties.

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

.........[] Regarding the Battle of the Bulge being a major killing ground for Allied Tactical Air Attacks.... a similar operational study......[]

Just for the record, where did I say it was a "major" killing ground for Air Attacks? You seem to have what we call "selective perception". You might want to work on that one.

Also, these "studies" were based on samples, they were not based on (actual) total numbers, since the total numbers were.... guess what ... unknown, even 20 yrs after the war, since the Germans tracked casualties and losses in matériel differently, and - in quite some cases -> especially at the end of the year 1944 - losses haven't been tracked at all. That's where some researchers stepped in recently (Dr. Niehorster for example), trying to get a hold of a)factory output numbers/distribution figures (what branch? -> SS, Army?), German commanders' reports stating the numbers of vehicles "fit for service" and numbers of vehicles receiving maintenance/repairs. It's a damn puzzle, since even the OKW/OKH had to rely on inaccurate numbers at this stage of the war, and as far as I know, the total numbers (losses per theater/operation) are still not completely researched. On a sidenote, these researchers disproved the myth that SS-units received more/better equipment.

My 2 cents

[ June 14, 2007, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: GoodGuy ]

[Ankh Morpork]

Originally posted by Jippo:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ankh Morpork:

You should atleast be able to take out the tracks using HE.

Why? </font>

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Ankh Morpork:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ankh Morpork:

You should atleast be able to take out the tracks using HE.

Why? </font>

[Bad]

Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ankh Morpork:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ankh Morpork:

You should atleast be able to take out the tracks using HE.

Why? </font>

[Jippo]

What energy, where & why?

Question remains unanswered.

[Jippo]

Not to be rude and blunt, have you ever seen tracks of a MBT? Where would this energy of unknown quality show it's power and destroy the track? And, more important question is, how?

[Shifty101]

I was under the impression that HE could be used to throw a tank tread, but I have absolutely no data to back that up. Given that the treads aren't made of paper mache I thought that the impact of the shell and the resulting explosion had a chance to either throw the tread or disable/destroy the running wheels. I've been successful in at least a handful of in-game cases of trying this method.

On a completely unrelated note I was able to put an 88 round completely through an Su-100 and into the su-100 sitting behind it, destroying both with one shot while playing the Steel Torrent single mission, amazing to watch!

[Jippo]

IIRC, track of 40 ton tank (T-72) weighs 3 tonnes. I have seen rocks that larger than your fist reduced in to sand just simply getting in between of the drive wheel & the track. Links on that track are at thickest point 50mm thick (or so), and are designed to take the weight of the tank for thousands of kilometres on road.

I have also seen HE mortar hits on sandy ground that have penetrated on the (softish) soil no more than 20mm.

I woud like to think that HE is not a destroyer of armoured targets, but you can prove me wrong. (Not ment to you Shifty)

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by SlapHappy:

Emails fine with me, mines posted in my profile.

Slap:

Sorry -- works got me swamped. But yes, let's kick this around a bit. I'll send an email today as a commo check.

Jeff