HE rounds r made wrong?

[Bad]

Originally posted by Jippo:

Yes, usually the person who makes the claim has the burden of proof.

Number 5 is large caliber HE hit on T-54( or T-55, can't remember) turret side. IIRC it was 100mm HE. Penetration in this case is roughly 10mm, and fuse has been a delayed one.

what caliber gun?

plus t34s armor is rolled

i dont have time to di up prove atm,

later

[Silencer]

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.

[ June 04, 2007, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: Silencer ]

[met1966]

Bad. You are turning out to look rather the bonehead in this discussion. Do you honestly believe that you can make any claim you want without a shred of evidence and then require your adversary to DISPROVE it? What planet of logic do you live on? I might state that dropping a huge anvil of say....5000lbs directly on a Pz III would crush the turret like a grape and further that it IS feasible to do so and the Russians tried it at some place and time. Now...you please disprove that statement.

Do you see how silly that type of argument is? Come on man.

[Pandur]

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

would work for sure.

when i see this penetration values,...i know that some values in the game are wrong listed but the game takes the right ones.

id like to know if the 14.5mm AT rifle of the russians did have a 4Xmm penetration @100m. i dont kow if it is just wrong inthe chart but it really performs like it would have it.

and about the HESH rounds, we dont have them in game so... .

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by Jippo:

Number 5 is large caliber HE hit on T-54( or T-55, can't remember) turret side. IIRC it was 100mm HE. Penetration in this case is roughly 10mm, and fuse has been a delayed one.

Jippo:

Excellent image. Thanks for posting it. Can you say what the original photo source was and if there are additional photos of this turret? Any larger-res images available of this turret?

What projectiles were responsible for the other complete-penetrations? 100mm BR-412 -- BR-412B, or something else?

Regards

Jeff

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by Bad:

what caliber gun?

I think Jippo indicated 100mm HE in his post. I assume these were trials using the D-10T or D-10TG or some other iteration of D-10?

Originally posted by Bad:

plus t34s armor is rolled

I think the early T34's were all RHA or HHS, but as I recall many marks\versions employed cast armor turrets. Perhaps one of the local T34 experts can verify this bit?

[ June 04, 2007, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Silencer]

id like to know if the 14.5mm AT rifle of the russians did have a 4Xmm penetration @100m. i dont kow if it is just wrong inthe chart but it really performs like it would have it.

yup, they did. even more under favorable circumstances. (40mm@100m@30°)

That's why the the Axis invented side skirts. (which additionally has also a protection versus shaped charges)

[Jippo]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Excellent image. Thanks for posting it. Can you say what the original photo source was and if there are additional photos of this turret? Any larger-res images available of this turret?

[/QB]

That turret used to be behind our tank park in the armoured brigade, and ís these days located in the Finnish Armour Museum in Parola. There is a T-72M1 turret as well which has had similar treatment. If really interested I think they will give information about it.

http://www.panssarimuseo.fi/kehys-e.html

I don't remember the exact ammunition used on the turret, but there is a list there (that's why they have the numbers). Basically they shot everything in Finnish arsenal at that thing.

[Jeff Duquette]

That turret used to be behind our tank park in the armoured brigade, and ís these days located in the Finnish Armour Museum in Parola. There is a T-72M1 turret as well which has had similar treatment. If really interested I think they will give information about it.[/QB]

Ok...thanks.

I am familiar with the T-72M1 tests, and have a number of photos of the turret from this vehicle on my hard-drive somewhere -- interior and exterior shots. As I understand it, the Finnish Army had tested 125mm BM-15 APFSDS and BK-14M HEAT against the T72 Turret. Interesting trials – particularly the armor section on the front of the turret.

Regards

Jeff

[ June 04, 2007, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[John Kettler]

Bad,

Here's a Novosti Press Agency shot of a Tiger I's numerous turret wounds at Kursk. Note particularly the apparent HE burst and radial armor gouging over the pistol port.

http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tigerdamagelj7.jpg

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jippo]

Worth noting in that picture is also the fact that the fuse ignited the round immediately upon contact, i.e. it was not delayed. There is absolutely no damage at the actual impact point(where the fuse was when hit), and only cosmetic radial damage where the first shrapnel from the shell hit.

When compared to the T-54/55 image posted earlier it is easy to see that the rounds there hadn't time to detonate properly and thus the shrapnel marks are not radial, but in a limited sector. Also there is circular crater where the shell front edge impacted the armor and caused some denting. I think we can conclude that in the latter case the shell/projectile was shattering when it (partially) detonated. Fusing was set to delayed action (i.e. optimum anti-armor performance), and it still didn't do **** to the turret.

Bad, take your time proving your case.

[John Kettler]

Jippo,

Are you talking about the Tiger 1 pic? If so, I'd imagine that the HE impact is from HE, Fuze Superquick. Anyone leaning against that side of the turret probably was most unhappy when it went off.

Jeff Duquette,

Howdy! Don't see much of you anymore on the CM Forums. Here's a great grog post.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=63;t=001308

Regards,

John Kettler

[Jippo]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Jippo,

Are you talking about the Tiger 1 pic?

Yes, and the HE hit on the left side of the picture on the port. Port itself is fully intact.

[Jeff Duquette]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Bad,

Here's a Novosti Press Agency shot of a Tiger I's numerous turret wounds at Kursk. Note particularly the apparent HE burst and radial armor gouging over the pistol port.

http://img243.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tigerdamagelj7.jpg

Regards,

John Kettler

The classic damaged Tiger armor photo. Good image to post what with the HE splash adjacent to the AP perforations.

Nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I read somewheres' that this photo was actually taken at Soviet testing\proving ground rather than Kursk. I know we have all seen this image in every Kursk book ever published. I can't for the life of me recall where I read this neuvo interpretation of the photo or why the dude thought it was from proving ground trials...

[Bad]

yea, what do you think armor is like on the other side?

[Jippo]

Originally posted by Bad:

yea, what do you think armor is like on the other side?

On the T-54/55 turret which shows more significant damage there is no effect what so ever on the inside. HE rounds cause far less spalling than non-penetrating AP rounds. It's effect on armor is miniscule as the energy is directed to the sides and not towards the armor at all.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Jippo:

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

yea, what do you think armor is like on the other side?

On the T-54/55 turret which shows more significant damage there is no effect what so ever on the inside. HE rounds cause far less spalling than non-penetrating AP rounds. It's effect on armor is miniscule as the energy is directed to the sides and not towards the armor at all. </font>Yep, Nature is lazy. If an HE shell explodes on the outside of an armored surface, the explosion is going to mostly go the path of least resistance. Not to mention that the shell is usually designed to go up and out since it is meant for anti-infantry/soft.

[Jeff Duquette]

I asked around a bit about the Finnish Army ballistic trials against the T54/T55 turret. A fellow from another forum was kind enough to respond to my inquiry with some additional images from these tests. He also provided a photo of the museum's placard that provides brief descriptions of the various projectile impacts.

The upper turret splash is 100mm HE -- fuze type and fuze setting is not indicated on the placard. Presumably OF-412 HE-Frag. The lower splash is 57mm HE -- fuze setting is also not indicated on the museum placard. Both hits were on the rear most side of the turret. The 100mm HE hit is on about the thinnest portion of turrets "vertical" armor – I think the “horizontal” armor on the turret roof is a bit thinner. Armor is about 56mm (cast) near the 100mm HE splash location, and about 62mm at the base of the turret rear in the vicinity of the 57mm HE splash location.

There is a bulge evident on the interior side of the turret from the 100mm HE hit. There is also a weld crack on the roof armor as well as what appears to be the start of an arc shaped shear crack -- probably the initial phases of rear surface plug formation. There is no indication of any backsurface scabbing or spalling. So for HE with t/d ~ 2 we are starting to see some rear face bulging and the start of plug formation, but nothing yet in the way of BAE.

There is no hint of any bulging or cracking on the interior side of the 57mm HE strike. Obviously at t/d of about unity there is nothing worth mentioning.

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

[ June 05, 2007, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Jeff Duquette]

I was perusing my dusty memory cells and I seem to remember Jentz going on about the roof of the Panther being vulnerable to heavy caliber Soviet HE shells. Or maybe it was Guderian made some comment about this issue after Kursk. Anyone remember coming across this and where it's located?

I know the British tested 75mm and 25-pdr HE against captured Panthers and neither shell had much effect on the heavier vertical armor – to include tests against the thin vertical armor on the rear of the turret. However, tests with the same caliber HE-shells could puncture the turret roof or hull roof armor and introduce blast and splintering into the crew compartment. By "could" I mean sometimes it did and sometimes it didn't.

Conversely the British also conducted tests in which they drove a number of Churchill tanks through 25-pdr air-burst barrages, but the Churchill’s suffered very little notable damage. Of particular note was there was apparently no damage to any of the vehicles optics inspite of all the splinters flying about. I think one of the tanks received some track damage and was immobilized.

[Jippo]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I asked around a bit about the Finnish Army ballistic trials against the T54/T55 turret.

Good info, thanks. I see my memory was partially wrong. But at least we now know exactly and don't have to rely on my flimsy memories from years back.

[Bad]

thx

[Jeff Duquette]

Good info, thanks. I see my memory was partially wrong. But at least we now know exactly and don't have to rely on my flimsy memories from years back. [/QB]

Thanks for bringing my attention to these Finnish Army ballistic tests I am still hoping someone has more detailed information for the AP trials -- possibly impact velocity or range at which the trials were conducted. But this more detailed information may be rather difficult to come by.

Best Regards

Jeff

[Canuck_TAR]

Baddy, you getting pwnd over here too I see.

[GoodGuy]

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I was perusing my dusty memory cells and I seem to remember Jentz going on about the roof of the Panther being vulnerable to heavy caliber Soviet HE shells. Or maybe it was Guderian made some comment about this issue after Kursk. Anyone remember coming across this and where it's located?

No. But the roofs of Tiger I and Panther tanks' turrets used to be THE weak spot, although they had been changed either in the planning or in production phase to deal with that issue. Panzer IVs received upgrades to the turrets to counter the growing amounts of attacks from Allied fighter bombers as well.

Afaik, possible HE (arty) fire did not play a role when making these revisions. On the western front, in late 1944, Allied fighter bombers scored quite a number of kills/major damages on Tiger I's and Panthers. There are also reports (collected by local German military historians) about several Panzer IVs that had been knocked out by Allied (HE) arty fire (most likely direct hits on the turret roof or on ventilator compartment) during the several battles in Huertgen forest.

The Tiger-I picture's describing text sounds like propaganda, though. "Hundreds of Tiger tanks" .... Germany's main problem was that the output of the armament industry was too low, it was not equipped for anything else than a "blitzkrieg", means not prepared for a longer war. It only changed after Albert Speer was appointed "minister of armament" in 1943, with the result that output numbers grew to an all time high in 1944, the year with the highest production rate, mostly due to reduced planning phases and optimized part designs ("streamlined" spare parts or components). When the plan "Zitadelle" (Kursk) was carried out, the Germans did not have enough Tiger I tanks on the front lines, due to relatively low production numbers, and due to the fact that the distribution of Tigers (heavy tanks in general) was in fact an attempt to fill just too many "holes" within the German forces - shortages of Tigers in the several sPz-Abteilungen (heavy tank batallions), for example, since the number of planned/assigned Tigers did not match the actual factory output.

There were SS-units participating in the operation at Kursk which had to fill their ranks with "resurrected" Panzer IIIs, tanks which were ineffective (if not useless) against Russian tanks at the time, just to get to required strength. I doubt that the Russians killed "hundreds" of Tigers, as these Tigers did not reach the frontlines in vast amounts prior to the offensive. Given, they killed some Tigers, but the amount of PzIV medium tanks killed was the real setback, as the German industry could never compensate these losses. Also, the Russian claims (after the offensive) regarding tank kills seem to be way off, the German estimations seem to be somewhat more realistic.

The tank on the pic looks like it has been used on a shooting range, but I wouldn't bet on it, since the Russians created several staggered devensive "rings" in many areas, infantry/AT/infantry/AT/Inf/Tank reserves, staggered defense lines using up to 9 rings or lines. It is possible that this tank "stumbled" over such a defensive perimeter, facing some overwhelming AT fire power. The Russian tankers on the pic just look like they're inspecting their results after a training session, though.

My 2 cents.

[ June 13, 2007, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: GoodGuy ]

[SlapHappy]

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.