Tank Vulnerability - Too Survivable to Frontal Penetrations?

[smbecket]

This post is a follow up to my thread of 07/19 regarding possible problems observed during a 65 turn PBEM game. I wanted to make this a seperate thread because I believe it is a much more important issue. I will state up front that I am in no way a grog on the issue of tank combat or tank vulnerability/survivability but I noticed during the game that tanks seemed able to survive frontal penetrations much more than I believe is realistic. Please note that I said penetrations not hits.

Here is my point in a nutshell: a tank is basically a steel box with maximum protection in the front and much less on the sides, rear and top. Ideally, that will result in most of the frontal hits being deflected away or, at worst, being only partial penetrations. If hit from other aspects there is a much greater chance of a penetration, and most of the time, a dead tank. That is easy for me to understand and seems to work in the game very well as far as the side/rear hits. But when a frontal shot does penetrate why is the tank not killed as easily as when hit from the sides/rear? Since part of the tanks own armor is blasted into the interior by the kinetic energy of the round penetrating its armor it would seem logical that when there is a frontal penetration there would be even more fragments to damage components and wound/kill crew. This, coupled with the explosion of the shell, would seem to me to be devastating in the close confines of the tanks interior whether from side, rear or front.

And yet in the game I just finished almost every penetration from the side was a one shot, one kill while penetrations from the front were only sometimes a kill, it seemed just as often that it took two or more penetrations to destroy the tank. In the most striking example one of my Pz IV Js was hit as follows: superstructure, front hull - armor spalling; lower front hull - penetration; next turn front turret - penetration. The tank was still alive although the crew was panicked. At the same time another tank beside it had a front turret penetration and backed away to safety. There were several more examples on both sides. Why??

I have read on the forums that the AT shells used at this time were "bursters" and I assume (got to watch those assumptions) a 75 mm shell had the power of a hand grenade. A shell exploding inside the very cramped confines of a tank and adding its fragments to the fragments of the tanks own armor, not to mention the overpressure of the explosion should be enough to put an end to the most vulnerable and important part of the tank, namely the crew. And the damage to the equipment inside the tank should have been extensive. Were the fuzes unreliable? Even if they were wouldn't the shell bounce around the inside and critically damage equipment and personnel?

That is my concern; how do they survive even one penetration? Has anyone else noticed a higher than expected survival rate for their tanks? I know BFC does extensive research and so I assume these survival chances reflect what happened in the conflict and my observations from one game may be a completely random occurrence. I would very much appreciate some feedback from the grogs and even BFC, if they have the time. Actual sources would also be much appreciated.

Thanks for reading!

[Pak40]

I'm not sure about your specific situations that you mention above, but I can tell you that the 57mm, 3inch, and 76mm guns had AP Shot as well as APC rounds. The Shot rounds typically penetrate armor better but don't explode when they penetrate. The APC doesn't penetrate as well but explodes soon after impact.

As to what the typical ammo loadout of tanks, TDs, and AT guns were at this point of the war, I have no idea. As to what BFC is modeling, I also have no idea. Maybe someone else can provide more info.

However, I think your theory about frontal armor penetrations being more dangerous to the crew isn't right. I think you need to think in terms of minor penetration and major penetrations. Even though both frontal and side penetrations are categorized as "penetrations", they may not be equal in devastation. In other words, a side penetration has a better chance to totally penetrate and therefore flake off more armor. It also allows the round to completely enter the tank and cause more damage either with kinetic energy or with an explosion deeper in the tank.

Frontal penetrations may just be barely getting penetration and therefore not have enough Kinetic energy to flake off too much metal.

Another issue is that side penetrations have a better chance of hitting ammo or fuel.

[MikeyD]

Remember the alternative to 'survivable' is 'not survivable'. From a game standpoint people would howl in protest if all their tanks burst into flames at the slightest touch. Actually, an example is CMSF where tanks actually do burst into flames at the slightest touch! Whether its a DU long rod penetrator or a Javlin or a Kornet missile hit, tanks most often only get one strike then they're dead. So be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

[smbecket]

Pak40 and MikeyD, thanks for your responses.

Pak40, I can not completely agree with your point on the penetrations in terms of "minor penetrations and major penetrations". A tank can be hit without any penetration but still have "internal armor spalling" where armor has broken free from the internal surface of the tank. Then you have the "partial penetration" where the round penetrates the surface of the armor but does not break free into the interior space of the vehicle. I would assume (bad word again) there would be an almost infinite number of different results for a partial penetration from just embedded in the armor with no real consequences to the interior space to partially protruding into the interior space with significant armor spalling. Does anyone know if there is an actual definition for "partial penetration"? And finally you have "penetration" which means, I believe, that the shell has entered the interior crew compartment. If the game defines these three events differently, please correct me. You are absolutely correct that a penetration from the front takes far more of the shells kinetic energy but it is the penetration itself that causes the interior spalling of the tanks own armor. If the shell penetrates into the crew area the subsequent explosion should be devastating to everyone within this very small enclosed space, whether from the front or side. Your point on the side penetration regarding fuel and ammo is excellent, however, and one I had not considered!

MikeyD, I understand where you are coming from but I am not suggesting that the tanks explode at the slightest touch. The tanks have far more protection from the front and therefore there are a large number of ricochets and partial penetrations. However, when the shell does penetrate the thick frontal armor it should do realistic damage. My observations certainly do not prove they are not but the number of frontal penetrations that occurred with the tanks surviving the initial one did not seem right. In this instance we have PZ IVs and early Shermans, but even if they were Panthers and Tigers with far better protection, once the shell does penetrate there should be very serious, if not fatal consequences for the crew/vehicle, in my humble opinion.

And one question for anyone who might read this and has some knowledge of the shells of the period; what is the explosive force of a 75 mm AT round? Greater or less than an American hand grenade?

Thanks again for taking the time to comment.