cann a bomb destroy a tank ?? when no direct hit?

[heist]

an realy direct hit- thats  clear. 500kg destroys. BUT...

 

i thing even 500kg bomb expolosion near a tank cannt destroy him. it cann may be roll him upwards...ok, and the crew stays alive. 

so what do you think guys? thx for yours opinions.

 

will be not cool?, when it will be here like this- possible to flip over  tanks with a bomb )) 

 

 

[Finkeren]

Read here: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/27895-tank-damage/page-1

[Dakpilot]

While crewing a Tank online I have been flipped upside down a few times, not being killed, but put out of the battle for sure 

 

Did not observe which bombs these were, but it was quite disorientating 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[216th_Jordan]

While crewing a Tank online I have been flipped upside down a few times, not being killed, but put out of the battle for sure 

 

Did not observe which bombs these were, but it was quite disorientating 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Mostly its planes smashing into you lol!

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

In real life YES Easily Even a 500kg bomb would pick up and flip a M1 Abrams or Leopard 2A7 on its back and split it in half

Not sure why these games always treat bomb v tanks oddly
i mean Drop a 1T bomb within 10m of tank and its just driving along. (no it would be laying on its roof an extra 25m from where it was driving.

[Gambit21]

Finally, a thread on this subject.

I've been wanting to discuss this lately, but there just wasn't a forum, nor a suitable thread.

Especially within the last few days.

[Finkeren]

In real life YES Easily Even a 500kg bomb would pick up and flip a M1 Abrams or Leopard 2A7 on its back and split it in half

 

Not sure why these games always treat bomb v tanks oddly

i mean Drop a 1T bomb within 10m of tank and its just driving along. (no it would be laying on its roof an extra 25m from where it was driving.

There we go again. Show me one piece of evidence, that a 500kg bomb will toss around a modern MBT.

 

I won't ask for evidence for a bomb splitting a tank in half, because we both know, that will never happen.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

We're all talking about Destroying Tanks outright, but shouldn't we worry more about the Immobilization aspect of Detracking a Tank with Bombs?

[Roo5ter]

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

We're all talking about Destroying Tanks outright, but shouldn't we worry more about the Immobilization aspect of Detracking a Tank with Bombs?

That's one of the main issues with ai tanks atm. Incase of bombs it's kill or not kill without the ability to detrack them, injur/kill crew members of the vehicle, destroy internal components, damaging the structure/armour so it becomes weaker at certain places ect. While that would probably go too far in a combat flight simulation some ort of improvement in this area to improve air vs ground combat capebility would be nice in my opinion.

 

As for canons it also seems to be some sort of dice game. Some times tanks blow up right away, sometimes they stop indicating they've been damaged but continue driving after a short moment or blow up without crediting the player with a tank kill.

[Roo5ter]

There we go again. Show me one piece of evidence, that a 500kg bomb will toss around a modern MBT.

 

IEDs buried generally aren't massive due to the detection being made easy.  I will look for more evidence but the blast is actually pretty small which any experienced person would consider this explosion to be made from a bomb with probably much less charge than the 500KG.  Certainly it isn't wrong to ask for proof of a statement but your complete skepticism makes me feel like you haven't been around explosions much.  Really weird and incredible stuff starts happening quickly.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SIBSGel314

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

LMAO Many tanks split in half from bombs (specially in more modern wars 1960's onwards)

look @ damage from Small IED's now in syria an so on
there is endless footage from many modern wars of t-72s, t90's, Old IS tanks split into 4-5 pieces from even smaller bombs (tho many videos from modern active wars and so on im sure im not allowed to share here.)

Ill share this and hope i dont get in trouble.
Mod please just delete video link

Going by the original Article This is nowhere near 1T of tnt or even half a tonne and watch 60 tonnes of M1 Abrams fly into the air like a VolksWagon
:: If it was even 500kg TNT the truck and car there would have also been wiped out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SIBSGel314
 

hahaha Roo5ter Same video link while you posted yours :D

Also remeber this is NOT WAR THUNDER (where 1tonne bombs do same damage to tanks as 50kg bombs)
GERMAN 500KG Bomb
"Major Henk Silk explained that the bomb could have potentially caused a great deal of damage, had it exploded.
"It's 250 kilograms (550 lbs) of explosive, where you get a crater of 12 meters (39 feet) in diameter, five to six metre (16-19 feet) in depth and the fragments will fly about 1300 metres (4265 feet)," Silk said."

Park a M1 Abrams on top of that and tell me it would be ok and alive?
Even if only within 15m Its DEAD! (not put in its place a ww2 T34 it would be 20-25m kill range) Edited March 5, 2017 by =R4T=Sshadow14

[Roo5ter]

For reference here is a 1,000lb bomb which detonated on impact so obviously it was not subterannean but this should be more than enough to end your line of questioning whether it is even feasible for a modern tank to be thrown about Finkeren.

Also, a bomb could easily blow a tank in half, or more like blow the turret off.  You don't have to have enough explosives to tear a tank apart to do so, you simply need to penetrate the tank and allow the shells inside to detonate.  Here is a video of a TOW 2B blasting the turret off.

The TOW is an old weapon, which has been around since the 70's.  The 2B has been around maybe 15-20 years and flies above the tank then fires a pair of warheads straight down through the thin top armor.  The small warheads then ignite the shells inside the tank causing a catastrophic kill as seen in the video.  The warheads are so small in the TOW2B that one man loads the entire missile into the launcher.

Honestly your continued skepticism could have easily ended had you spent seconds on google. 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Nice vid of of tow seen it many times :D and yeah i doubt the tow has even 10kg of explosives in it (wait ill google it)

Variant: BGM-71D TOW-2B (he version not Heat Direct impact version)
Warhead: 6.14 kg EFP

[Roo5ter]

Nice vid of of tow seen it many times :D and yeah i doubt the tow has even 10kg of explosives in it (wait ill google it)

 

Variant: BGM-71D TOW-2B (he version not Heat Direct impact version)

Warhead: 6.14 kg EFP

Wow.  We skipped the entire precedent where a claim was made and the answer was found.  This thread is now going places.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Well, a Tow throws HEAT Warheads on Top Armor, The Bombs we drop on Tanks most likely Dig into the Ground upon Impact and have to work against between 20 to 80mm of Steel normally at an angle. Considering that Explosions go the Way of least Resistance they are more likely to throw a tank over than do a lot of damage to the hull themselves. 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Well, a Tow throws HEAT Warheads on Top Armor, The Bombs we drop on Tanks most likely Dig into the Ground upon Impact and have to work against between 20 to 80mm of Steel normally at an angle. Considering that Explosions go the Way of least Resistance they are more likely to throw a tank over than do a lot of damage to the hull themselves. 

Condition of crew in said tank :D

 

There would be no toasting with hot buttered vodka thats for sure

[Roo5ter]

Well, a Tow throws HEAT Warheads on Top Armor, The Bombs we drop on Tanks most likely Dig into the Ground upon Impact and have to work against between 20 to 80mm of Steel normally at an angle. Considering that Explosions go the Way of least Resistance they are more likely to throw a tank over than do a lot of damage to the hull themselves. 

If you reread the post you will see my entire point was you don't have to have enough explosives in the bomb to destroy the tank.

 

 

Also, a bomb could easily blow a tank in half, or more like blow the turret off.  You don't have to have enough explosives to tear a tank apart to do so, you simply need to penetrate the tank and allow the shells inside to detonate.  

See?

[Finkeren]

Roo5ter, a couple of points:

 

1. In the other thread I already said, that the only feasible way for a bomb to split a tank in two was if it sets off its ammo supply, so no disagreement there.

 

2. The jumping tank is a nice video, but since the explosion happens underneath the tank and lifts up the ground the tank is driving over, it's really not telling us much. Shadow's claim in the other thread was, that a 1000lb bomb will both toss an M1 Abrams around and split it in half over a distance of 30m, which is what I'm calling bull on.

 

3. Yep, half a ton of explosives going off makes a big boom and throws up a lot of dirt. That by itself doesn't tell us much.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

1 Tonne bomb(1,000KG) so like 2,200lbs or what ever it is in the Inferial system
- "SC 1000" 1090 kg general purpose (AP(dry) Mass =500kg?/ Explosive Mass =580kg/ Type = Amatol TNT)

Lol we are not talking about University Degree here.
It does not matter if i say maybe 30m and the real distance is only 20m
or instead of splitting it in half literally 50% each side maybe just a giant crack along the hull cover most of its circumference
(still effectively split in half for the guy welding that crack)
Its not like we are doing calculations and rocket science (approx info is ok for the point of a discussion like this)

If they are going to model large bomb with large craters and blast radius graphics then ANY tank sat within that crater circle from 1T, 1.8T or 2.5T should be obliterated

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Tanks yes, but what about soft targets like artillery, I had times when bomb exploded 3-5 meters off them and there were no damage to them.

[Scojo]

Just want to throw this out there..........

 

There's a reason America's main weapon vs tanks is slinging molten metal through them whether it be cluster bombs, missiles, or mines. The explosions you see in AT weapons or munitions now days are only to sling the penetrating element through the armor. The explosion isn't doing any or much of the actual damage unless it's aimed to take out a sensitive part of the tank such as tracks

Edited March 6, 2017 by 71st_AH_Scojo

[heist]

IEDs buried generally aren't massive due to the detection being made easy.  I will look for more evidence but the blast is actually pretty small which any experienced person would consider this explosion to be made from a bomb with probably much less charge than the 500KG.  Certainly it isn't wrong to ask for proof of a statement but your complete skepticism makes me feel like you haven't been around explosions much.  Really weird and incredible stuff starts happening quickly.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SIBSGel314

this look like under - groud explosion

[Roo5ter]

this look like under - groud explosion

Which I noted in the first two words of my post

 

IEDs buried 

[heist]

and another fact is: we use timed bombs. so. 

even when the bomb hit directly the tank, simply bounce and flyies away and explode after second away of tank )

 

and , how is possible that Ju was destroing tanks only with 37mm cannons ? they had to hit a special area from above? 

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

and another fact is: we use timed bombs. so. 

even when the bomb hit directly the tank, simply bounce and flyies away and explode after second away of tank )

 

and , how is possible that Ju was destroing tanks only with 37mm cannons ? they had to hit a special area from above? 

Very light APCR Shells, little damage, lot's of Penetration. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

and another fact is: we use timed bombs. so. 

even when the bomb hit directly the tank, simply bounce and flyies away and explode after second away of tank )

 

and , how is possible that Ju was destroing tanks only with 37mm cannons ? they had to hit a special area from above? 

Not if they're set to contact detonation...

 

The 37mm have a wolfram carbid core that gives it high penetration. If it hits the fuel tanks, engine or ammunition storage the effect it devestating.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Aluminium Shell and Carbide Core, very high Speed, very small Penetrator. 

 

[hames123]

Tanks should be destroyed by powerful bombs landing in a radius around it, but the tank should visually look intact. The crew would be killed by the shockwave(we are talking about huge bombs, right?)

[unreasonable]

Roo5ter, a couple of points:

 

1. In the other thread I already said, that the only feasible way for a bomb to split a tank in two was if it sets off its ammo supply, so no disagreement there.

 

2. The jumping tank is a nice video, but since the explosion happens underneath the tank and lifts up the ground the tank is driving over, it's really not telling us much. Shadow's claim in the other thread was, that a 1000lb bomb will both toss an M1 Abrams around and split it in half over a distance of 30m, which is what I'm calling bull on.

 

3. Yep, half a ton of explosives going off makes a big boom and throws up a lot of dirt. That by itself doesn't tell us much.

 

Direct hits on the top could kill WW2 tanks. HESH rounds (High Explosive Squash Head) used to be effective against simple steel plate armour: they cause spalling of the armour inside. Big flakes breaking off and flying around inside.... nasty.

 

But pure blast effect I agree is ineffective unless it is very close since most of the blast goes up in a cone, if the tank is outside the cone the chances of critical damage are low. The main danger to infantry and soft vehicles is fragments which can be lethal at up to 500m.

 

IEDs are a bad comparison: they come in two main types, the culvert bomb that attacks the underside of the vehicle so only comparable when bombs land right next to the tank, and shaped charge IEDs which use a penetrating mechanism, not blast.

 

Kudos for actually posting a link to a paper from a military scientific source. I wonder how many of the people disagreeing with you have bothered to read it. You might want to post the link to the PDF again here.

Edited March 6, 2017 by unreasonable

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Quoted from axishistory forum:

 

From “German Air Dropped Weapons to 1945”

Pg 108
-Autumn 1935 test by RLM and HWA at Kummersdorf - target: German Pz-I machine gun Panzer. Bombs used: SC-10 and SC-50 (Minebomben) results of test: “even the lightly armored Sdkfz 101 was still reliably protected from a distance of 5 to 10 meters (16 to 32.5 feet)

(panzer tracks 1-1 says that two guard dogs were inside the panzer I and survived these test without harm, also says that direct hits in Spain by Russian 45mm high explosive shells fused to explode on impact only produced dents in the armor)

HWA Wa Pruf conclusion: “…that attacks using air dropped weapons against tanks are not vary successful”

1942 detonation tests - Udetfield Upper Silesia, north of Beuthen ( Polish spelling “Bytom“)
Targets: ten Russian T-34, one American M-4 Sherman, three British Mark IV Churchill tanks
Bombs used: SC-250
Effect on T-34: remains intact at distance of 3 meters (9.7 feet) animals inside tank killed, diesel fuel set aflame.
Effect on Sherman tank: remains intact at distance 3 meters, animals inside killed.
Effect on Churchill tanks: riveted armor fails at 5 meters (15.5 feet) entire tank torn apart.

Some bomb crater info: (pg 12)
Without delay fuse:
SC-50 diameter 2.4 meter, depth 0.8 meter
SC-250 diameter 4.4 meter, depth 1.5 meter

 

Note that any of the mentioned effects in this test would render the tank out of action.

[Scojo]

Tanks should be destroyed by powerful bombs landing in a radius around it, but the tank should visually look intact. The crew would be killed by the shockwave(we are talking about huge bombs, right?)

Fink and I discussed this in the other thread. This actually isn't entirely true unless the hatches are open or the explosion is practically at the tank and it makes sense if you consider the physics behind it

[Finkeren]

Direct hits on the top could kill WW2 tanks. HESH rounds (High Explosive Squash Head) used to be effective against simple steel plate armour: they cause spalling of the armour inside. Big flakes breaking off and flying around inside.... nasty.

 

But pure blast effect I agree is ineffective unless it is very close since most of the blast goes up in a cone, if the tank is outside the cone the chances of critical damage are low. The main danger to infantry and soft vehicles is fragments which can be lethal at up to 500m.

 

IEDs are a bad comparison: they come in two main types, the culvert bomb that attacks the underside of the vehicle so only comparable when bombs land right next to the tank, and shaped charge IEDs which use a penetrating mechanism, not blast.

 

Kudos for actually posting a link to a paper from a military scientific source. I wonder how many of the people disagreeing with you have bothered to read it. You might want to post the link to the PDF again here.

Completely agree. Direct hits from even quite small bombs can destroy even the heaviest tank, but put just a feet or two of air between the tank and the detonation, at the situation is very different.

 

That's the reason why prior to guided misiles, that could ensure a high chance of a direct hit, cluster bombs like the Soviet PTAB became popular, because it was far more cost-effective to scatter large numbers of small charges to give maximum probability of a direct hit, than to try to drop a single enormously powerful bomb within 10-15m of a tank.

Edited March 6, 2017 by Finkeren

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Completely agree. Direct hits from even quite small bombs can destroy even the heaviest tank, but put just a feet or two of air between the tank and the detonation, at the situation is very different.

 

That's the reason why prior to guided misiles, that could ensure a high chance of a direct hit, cluster bombs like the Soviet PTAB became popular, because it was far more cost-effective to scatter large numbers of small charges to give maximum probability of a direct hit, than to try to drop a single enormously powerful bomb within 10-15m of a tank.

 

While a good point the PTAB was a HEAT/shaped charge, it worked on a different principle (maximizing penetration power straight ahead of the device).

 

Yes even 50 kg bombs should be able to take almost any tank when hit directly, a nice way to see this is how much damage high caliber HE rounds did to WW2 tanks:

 

 

This Panther was hit by a Soviet 152mm HE shell (The Soviet SPGs carrying this gun were nicknamed "Beast killer", refering to their ability to destroy the heavier German tanks and tank destroyers). This projectile had around 6 kg of explosives, the SC 50 for example had between 21 and 25 kg of explosives.

Edited March 6, 2017 by SuperEtendard

[unreasonable]

While a good point the PTAB was a HEAT/shaped charge, it worked on a different principle (maximizing penetration power straight ahead of the device).

 

Yes even 50 kg bombs should be able to take almost any tank when hit directly, a nice way to see this is how much damage high caliber HE rounds did to WW2 tanks:

 

 

This Panther was hit by a Soviet 152mm HE shell (The Soviet SPGs carrying this gun were nicknamed "Beast killer", refering to their ability to destroy the heavier German tanks and tank destroyers). This projectile had around 6 kg of explosives, the SC 50 for example had between 21 and 25 kg of explosives.

 

Good photo, interesting thread it comes from too.  But people should keep in mind that was a still a direct hit - as you point out. A 155 mm shell fired directly at a relatively weak point in the armour would still have some penetrative effect, (40kg moving at 350 m/s) thus increasing the effectiveness of the blast. Set off that shell a few feet away from the turret and you might get no effect at all.

 

One thing that is not modeled is the tendency of tank crews just to bail out under intensive air attack - the figures from the Mortain battle posted earlier show a surprising number of abandoned tanks. Perhaps the Soviets were less likely to do this, given their disciplinary and motivational procedures!

[Guest deleted@103832]

Wanna see something funny? 

 

I made SP practice missions duplicating TAW armor columns to experiment with attack approaches, and this happened today. Never saw this one before; usually SC 50s with a hit like this take out KV-1s without a problem. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVP0N3iqkSA&feature=youtu.be

[Finkeren]

Yeah, that seems like a glitch to me. A direct hit like that should (and in my experience usually does) blow the KV away or at the very least destroy its engine, most likely also killing the crew through spalling.

 

Nice bouncing btw.

[Roo5ter]

 155 mm shell fired directly at a relatively weak point in the armour would still have some penetrative effect, (40kg moving at 350 m/s) 

Standard HE doesn't have any sort of penetration increase due to velocity similar to how rounds with shaped charges always have the same penetration regardless of range

[hames123]

The danger with the late war Soviet 152mm SPG was that the HE shell would kill the crew of a German tank with the blast and shockwave, not by actually penetrating the armour(although this happen quite often).

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

The danger with the late war Soviet 152mm SPG was that the HE shell would kill the crew of a German tank with the blast and shockwave, not by actually penetrating the armour(although this happen quite often).

 

Depends on the area hit, the thin 45mm side of the Panther's turret couldn't sustain the explosion and collapsed. When hitting more armored areas like the 100mm front or Tiger turrets, the explosion wouldn't penetrate the armor, but the energy of the explosion was so big that usually the turrets were dislodged (and the crew killed or incapacitated).

 

Here's a quote from a Soviet tanker memories with this vehicle:

 

 

When we went into Vienna, they gave us a battery of heavy JSU-152s, three of them [...] The Germans counterattacked us with several Panthers. The Panther was a heavy tank. I ordered an JSU to move forward and engage the German tanks. "Well, take a shot!" And oh, did it shoot! I must say that the streets in Vienna were narrow, the buildings tall, and many wanted to watch this engagement between a Panther and an JSU. They remained in the street. The JSU let loose and the impact knocked the Panther backward (from the distance of 400-500 meters). Its turret separated from the hull and landed some meters away. But as a result of the shot broken glass fell from above. Vienna had many leaded-in windows and all of these fell on our heads. To this day I blame myself that I did not foresee this! We had so many injured! It was a good thing that we were wearing helmets, but our arms and shoulders were all cut up

From here, very interesting read: http://iremember.ru/en/memoirs/tankers/dmitriy-loza/

Edited March 7, 2017 by SuperEtendard