Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Voidhunger

Panther tank damage model

Recommended Posts

every single time when Im hit into the side armor, my tank explodes.

all the enemy tanks can survive shots to the sides (smoking engines, fires..etc), not in Panther.

Even when the enemy penetrates my front armor Panther explodes.

From the Panther release i was only one time damaged, when my front armor was penetrated and gunner killed. Only once!  

All other penetrations were explosions.

Dont tell me that every single time there is catastrophic explosion from the ammo racks.

Even the Cologne Panther survived 3 point blank shots from the 90mm gun to the side and some of the crew managed to escape.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is most likely something off somewhere, especially because T-34s 76mm can penetrate you from 1200m frontally...

 

I'd say wait a bit, they might change some things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, VSN_Razor said:

There is most likely something off somewhere, especially because T-34s 76mm can penetrate you from 1200m frontally...

Yep, I hate that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC from the US testing the panther only lit on fire about 80% of the time from somewhere around 2.5ish penetrating hits (after 2.5 hits it had that 80% chance of being on fire at that point) so exploding after a single hot every time sounds excessive. I also saw your earlier post about issues with side hits from AT guns. From the looks of that even the side hits those guns were getting were at excessive angles. I suspect there's some weird glitch going on. I'll have to run some testing this weekend to see if I can reproduce the issues.

 

Also a T-34 penetrating the front of a panther from 1200 m sounds pretty wrong! This isn't some prototype T-34 with a 120 rhinemetal gun shooting at you is it? 😁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to WWII Ballistic: Armor & Gunnery the highest penetration performance of the 76.2mm L41.5 gun firing the BR-350B at a V0 of 655 m/s was 89mm @ point blank versus a 90° rolled homogeneous armour plate of 240 brinell hardness.

 

So based on this the Panther should be impervious from the front.

 

 

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

every single time when Im hit into the side armor, my tank explodes.

all the enemy tanks can survive shots to the sides (smoking engines, fires..etc), not in Panther.

Even when the enemy penetrates my front armor Panther explodes.

From the Panther release i was only one time damaged, when my front armor was penetrated and gunner killed. Only once!  

All other penetrations were explosions.

Dont tell me that every single time there is catastrophic explosion from the ammo racks.

Even the Cologne Panther survived 3 point blank shots from the 90mm gun to the side and some of the crew managed to escape.

 

 

 

Please take in count that side armour of Panther is only 40 mm. Also, it have very thin (16mm) under-caterpillar shelf which can be easily penetrated by fragments from HE shells when they exploder under the shelf.

 

Next one - there are shells and petrol tanks everywhere in Panther. Also, there are shells under this caterpillar shell. So yes, any penetration in to the side of Panther is very critical.

image_2020_02_07T07_57_48_163Z.thumb.png.75116c6c4bff71d2eed25a691a6e9855.png

 

Other tanks have much more localized "explosive" internals. This why in other tanks penetration is not causing explosion so oftenly.

image_2020_02_07T08_12_22_605Z.thumb.png.9f722fdacab36ad1c27c87c745713c6b.png

image_2020_02_07T08_19_14_947Z.thumb.png.de5af1a77a97f221382f86c9b755f661.png

image_2020_02_07T08_40_48_533Z.thumb.png.bcee1bc2dd163d034333444e7a5fda71.png

 

This why Panther sometimes called as "First Main Battle Tank on service in the world":

- Powerfull main gun,

- High velocity,

- Strong frontal armour with weaker armour from other sides ("All or nothing" concept like on Battleships).

 

So Panther is very differ from Tiger in this term - you allways got to be awared that enemy is infront of you - than you can supress him with high guarantie.

 

PS

An illustration of troubles of holding even 75mm HE cose-up hits by 16mm horizontal armouring:

3269862_original.thumb.jpg.85a46b23b6d2f3a2d1a47a650728a6a3.jpg

 

Even Tiger 26mm caterpillar shelf sometimes have had troubles to hold up close-up hit of 75mm HE shell.

 

155.thumb.jpg.04f3b456e695378cfea2f78ef58d8b5f.jpg

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Han said:

 

Please take in count that side armour of Panther is only 40 mm. Also, it have very thin (16mm) under-caterpillar shelf which can be easily nenetrated by fragments from HE shells when they exploder under the shelf.

 

Next one - there are shells and tanks everywhere in Panther. Also, there are shells under this caterpillar shell. So yes, any penetration in to the side of Panther is very critical.

image_2020_02_07T07_57_48_163Z.thumb.png.75116c6c4bff71d2eed25a691a6e9855.png

 

Other tanks have much more localized "explosive" internals. This why in other tanks penetration is not causing explosion so oftenly.

image_2020_02_07T08_12_22_605Z.thumb.png.9f722fdacab36ad1c27c87c745713c6b.png

image_2020_02_07T08_19_14_947Z.thumb.png.de5af1a77a97f221382f86c9b755f661.png

image_2020_02_07T08_40_48_533Z.thumb.png.bcee1bc2dd163d034333444e7a5fda71.png

 

This why Panther sometimes called as "First Main Battle Tank on service in the world":

- Powerfull main gun,

- High velocity,

- Strong frontal armour with weaker armour from other sides ("All or nothing" concept like on Battleships).

 

So Panther is very differ from Tiger in this term - you allways got to be awared that enemy is infront of you - than you can supress him with high guarantie.

 

Thanks Han, Im now looking again into Thomas L. Jentz book about Panther tank and all reports from the Panzer- regiments says that the Panther was prone to catch fires, but not a single word about catastrophic explosions.

 

"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. Howewer the sides of the Panther were penetrated at ranges exceeding 1000m. The 76mm antitank and tanks 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 possible due to the large amount of propellent in the ammunition that is carried"

 

"The frontal armor is sufficient, but not the the 40mm thick side armor which was cleanly penetrated. This caused very many total writes off, since Panthers burnt out when the ammunition or fuel ignited"

 

"the new hatch design caused problems, especially for the driver and radio operator. When hit, the hatch cover jams and cant be opened. If the Panther was to catch on fire, in many cases the driver and radio operator couldnt evacuate. In action crew dont close the hatches and accept the loss of protection so they can still quickly evacuate if a fire occurs"

 

So please let it burn, but not explode so often.

 

 

Edit:

Also the frontal armor penetrations from the enemy 76mm guns are due to the armor spalling/weakening? or the rounds are deflected by the the gun mantlet to the roof? or its a bug?

Edited by Voidhunger
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Han said:

"explosive" internals.

I'd rather say "fire-dangerous internal".

Not always hitting fuel tanks or even cartridges leads to immidiate explosion.

Even more so if we talk about secondary impacts (AP- and HE-fragments)

Edited by Lofte
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, VSN_Razor said:

There is most likely something off somewhere, especially because T-34s 76mm can penetrate you from 1200m frontally...

Most people I've seen on MP aren't closing their driver's visor with Win+C, which makes that area VERY and I mean VERY fragile, to the point, when with visor open small caliber rounds can penetrate it if they happen to hit this area. When I closed my visor I was basically impenetrable even after multiple shots

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also those catastrophic explosions with turrets blown off were in reality very rare for every tank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Cacodemon96 said:

Most people I've seen on MP aren't closing their driver's visor with Win+C, which makes that area VERY and I mean VERY fragile, to the point, when with visor open small caliber rounds can penetrate it if they happen to hit this area. When I closed my visor I was basically impenetrable even after multiple shots

 

I always close the hatches when in an engagement.

 

And my Panther once got nocked out by a shot into the middle - upper part of the mantlet from far distance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Han said:

 

Please take in count that side armour of Panther is only 40 mm. Also, it have very thin (16mm) under-caterpillar shelf which can be easily penetrated by fragments from HE shells when they exploder under the shelf.

 

Next one - there are shells and petrol tanks everywhere in Panther. Also, there are shells under this caterpillar shell. So yes, any penetration in to the side of Panther is very critical.

image_2020_02_07T07_57_48_163Z.thumb.png.75116c6c4bff71d2eed25a691a6e9855.png

 

Other tanks have much more localized "explosive" internals. This why in other tanks penetration is not causing explosion so oftenly.

image_2020_02_07T08_12_22_605Z.thumb.png.9f722fdacab36ad1c27c87c745713c6b.png

image_2020_02_07T08_19_14_947Z.thumb.png.de5af1a77a97f221382f86c9b755f661.png

image_2020_02_07T08_40_48_533Z.thumb.png.bcee1bc2dd163d034333444e7a5fda71.png

 

This why Panther sometimes called as "First Main Battle Tank on service in the world":

- Powerfull main gun,

- High velocity,

- Strong frontal armour with weaker armour from other sides ("All or nothing" concept like on Battleships).

 

So Panther is very differ from Tiger in this term - you allways got to be awared that enemy is infront of you - than you can supress him with high guarantie.

 

PS

An illustration of troubles of holding even 75mm HE cose-up hits by 16mm horizontal armouring:

3269862_original.thumb.jpg.85a46b23b6d2f3a2d1a47a650728a6a3.jpg

 

Even Tiger 26mm caterpillar shelf sometimes have had troubles to hold up close-up hit of 75mm HE shell.

 

155.thumb.jpg.04f3b456e695378cfea2f78ef58d8b5f.jpg

Thanks for the information! I didnt know about the caterpillar shelf thickness on these tanks. While the US did run testing on burn rates of Panther tanks, i dont think that testing included the possibility of those kinds of hits. This really shows the complexity and detail required for a proper sim like IL-2!

 

Also, i guess it only makes sense that the panther should see burn rates similar to non-wet-stowage M4 Shermans (and frankly most other tanks with thin side armor) due to the ammo stowage above the tracks ("side sponsons" in some terminology). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it should look like in Cologne Panther. It started to burn, some of the crew escape and after a while ammo started to detonate and the tank burned out. No catastrophic explosions and turrets blown off. At least not so often.

From my playing only once i was unable to bail out from my tank after front penetration. Every other time it was complete loss of the entire crew. To saw this in the real life i will stay away from the Panther miles away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Han said:

Even Tiger 26mm caterpillar shelf sometimes have had troubles to hold up close-up hit of 75mm HE shell.

 

155.thumb.jpg.04f3b456e695378cfea2f78ef58d8b5f.jpg

 

Question then is if this would set off the ammunition? 

 

As the cologne Panther incident shows the Panther wasn't just going to light up immediately with even direct hits to the ammo by atleast solid shot AP.

Edited by Panthera
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Panther or any tank for that matter shouldn't explode from a single hit most of the time, they would burn out but not just spectacularly explode.

The tank battle in Calogne is a good example of this, the panther was hit multiple times by a 90mm gun from a Pershing yet it didn't explode. It did however burn out from the ammo/fuel catching fire.

 

Explosions could certainly happen but it wasn't common and certainly not just because a round hits the ammo/fuel. Explosions usually occurs once the tank caught fire and the ammo started to cook off.

 

 

Also, Panther shouldn't be penned from the front at any range from the T-34, KV1 or Sherman as far as I'm aware. Exceptions to this are maybe the cupola or maybe a bounce into a more vulnerable area if thats even modeled.

 

That being said, you shouldn't expect to survive shot to the side (or any penetration for that matter), your crew is likely to get killed and the tank is likely to start to burn. Even if you do survive your tank is likely going to be too damaged to continue the fight effectively, if at all.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should ofcourse keep in mind that the Panther was hit by solid shot AP, and not an APCBC with a bursting charge, such a round could conceivably make the ammo explode. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tank somewhat infamous for exploding was the T-34, which held the fuel tanks in the sides of the chassis. Half empty tanks contained an explosive air-fuel mix, which could lead to T-34's literally blowing up after a penetrating hit. Compared to other causes of loss, still a rare thing to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought diesel fuel in T-34 was an advantage.? 

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the fuel type was the issue, sounded to me as if the issue was the poor fuel tank installation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JtD said:

I don't think the fuel type was the issue, sounded to me as if the issue was the poor fuel tank installation.

 

The Germans used AP shells with a bursting charge inside, I imagine that's probably a big part of the reason why Russian tanks blew up alot upon penetration. 

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2020 at 7:29 PM, Panthera said:

Should ofcourse keep in mind that the Panther was hit by solid shot AP, and not an APCBC with a bursting charge, such a round could conceivably make the ammo explode. 

It really wouldn't. Most of the energy in APHE is used to break up the metal shot.

Also, the US 90mm would of most likely been firing M82 APCHE

 

Quote

 

  On 2/8/2020 at 8:13 AM, JtD said:

I don't think the fuel type was the issue, sounded to me as if the issue was the poor fuel tank installation.

 

The Germans used AP shells with a bursting charge inside, I imagine that's probably a big part of the reason why Russian tanks blew up alot upon penetration. 

 

 

Germans, Russians and Americans primarily used a form of APHE shell. The German APHE shells would have an even smaller explosive effect inside since they were a much smaller percentage of the total shell weight. Again, most of the explosive energy was to break up the shot after it penetrated the tank for increased shrapnel cone, not act like a handgrenade. One of the big mistakes (or gameplay features depending how you see it) of War Blunder is that APHE acts like a nuke inside with the shell for some reason loosing all momentum and sending shrapnel 360 degrees in all directions when in reality all the shrapnell keeps the remaining velocity of the shell and is pushed outwards from the line of travel in a cone.

 

The reason for fire vs explosion is propellent powders are different from bursting charge in HE shells.

Propellent powders when hit tend to start an intense fire, explosive charges in HE shells tend to explode violently.
 

Quote

G. Ammunition Behavior
 

---

2-49 The impulse required to initiate an explosive reaction in an explosive charge is local in nature. The application of a certain amount of energy through heat or impact at one point or surface of the charge starts the chemical transformation. A resultant transition wave passes through the balance of the charge initiating the reaction as it passes. In high explosives under the influence of a sufficiently powerful initial impulse this wave attains a supersonic velocity which is a characteristic constant for each explosive material of specified density and composition. This is called a detonation wave and its effect is called a detonation. The wave front constitutes a surface of sharp discontinuity in temperature and pressure and upon reaching the boundary between the explosive and the surrounding medium it introduces a shock wave in the latter.

 

In low explosives and also under certain conditions in high explosives, the reaction takes place in way of a transition wave of subsonic velocity such that, at the wave front, rise in pressure and temperature, although steep, is not discontinuous and the disruptive effect is noticeably less for the same weight of explosive. The latter process is an explosive or accelerated combustion in which the period required to consume the charge varies with pressure and temperature. This process is described as a deflagration and is typical of the action of propellants.

 

In addition to the processes of detonationand deflagration, any explosive under certain conditions may decompose at a relatively slow rate which is comparable to combustion or burning in ordinary fuels.

From 
Destroyer Report: Gunfire, Bomb and Kamikaze Damage Including Losses in Action 17 October, 1941 to 15 August, 1945
 

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

It really wouldn't. Most of the energy in APHE is used to break up the metal shot.

Also, the US 90mm would of most likely been firing M82 APCHE

 

With such a containment I'd expect quite a pressure increase inside the target vehicle upon detonation of the bursting charge, and the dispersion of fragments, which indeed would move forward in a cone due to the forward momentum of the projectile, would still be bouncing around inside a very confined space.

 

As for the US 90mm shots at cologne, you might be right that it was firing M82 (we don't know), but with such a powerful gun the thin side armor of the Panther might not have provided enough resistance to set off the fuze for the bursting charge. The US apparently had great difficulty getting their fuzes to work properly in the first place, hence they abandoned the design much like the British at the start of the war.

 

AFAIK only the Germans ever got their momemtum based fuzes to work somewhat reliably, but even they encountered issues when fired from powerful guns vs relatively thin armour, requiring an increasingly thick plate to detonate the more powerful the gun became. 

 

That said reading the memoirs of a StuG commander he explains how the bursting charge inside their Panzergranate ensured that Russian tanks almost always immediately brewed when they were penetrated. So even in the 75mm AP round of the StuG the bursting charge apparently was very effective.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2020 at 11:29 AM, Han said:

Next one - there are shells and petrol tanks everywhere in Panther. Also, there are shells under this caterpillar shell. So yes, any penetration in to the side of Panther is very critical.

image_2020_02_07T07_57_48_163Z.thumb.png.75116c6c4bff71d2eed25a691a6e9855.png

 

I made some tests and fired on grey areas (turret, front part) with russian T-34 76-mm APHE. Panther blows up almost always anyway ...(

Quite other behavior when I use "pure" AP-"blank". IMO looks much more realistic. Explosions happened only when I hit hull in the middle..

Edited by Lofte
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Panthera said:

As for the US 90mm shots at cologne, you might be right that it was firing M82 (we don't know), but with such a powerful gun the thin side armor of the Panther might not have provided enough resistance to set off the fuze for the bursting charge. The US apparently had great difficulty getting their fuzes to work properly in the first place, hence they abandoned the design much like the British at the start of the war.

Though i cant remember the source, I have read that US shells had fusing issues during WWII. The source I had read was mostly talking about premature detonation of M61 and shells for the 75mm gun M3, it might have talked about the same for the 76mm M1 gun, and the 3-inch gun M7's shells but I cant remember. The source mentioned that crews had such problems with the fuses that they started removing them and the explosive filler from the shells. I would expect they likely also had issues with the 90mm shells fuses, or perhaps the habit carried over when the TD units were equipped with the 90mm.

Edited by Kataphrakt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2020 at 8:16 PM, Legioneod said:

Also, Panther shouldn't be penned from the front at any range from the T-34, KV1 or Sherman as far as I'm aware. Exceptions to this are maybe the cupola or maybe a bounce into a more vulnerable area if thats even modeled.

 

UP !!! 👍

Panther_tank_with_hit_marks.jpg

Edited by EAF51_Triple1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

 

With such a containment I'd expect quite a pressure increase inside the target vehicle upon detonation of the bursting charge, and the dispersion of fragments, which indeed would move forward in a cone due to the forward momentum of the projectile, would still be bouncing around inside a very confined space.

 

 

The pressure increase is quite irrelevant with such a small amount of explosive charge. The US performed multiple runs with 113 grams of pentolite in the middle of a M113 with 2 sheep inside each test within 1 meter away.

In all 16 sheep exposed to the explosions, none were killed or had any major injuries, all had burst eardrums. A tank especially can't really be considered an confined space, when you are exploding ~60g of explosive that is encased in a steel shell, so no dangerous overpressure takes place.

 

Quote

 

As for the US 90mm shots at cologne, you might be right that it was firing M82 (we don't know), but with such a powerful gun the thin side armor of the Panther might not have provided enough resistance to set off the fuze for the bursting charge. The US apparently had great difficulty getting their fuzes to work properly in the first place, hence they abandoned the design much like the British at the start of the war.

But we do know. US VII Corps which was part of the First US Army engaged in Cologne. Expenditures of First Army regarding ammunition is the following from 23rd Feb to 8th May 1945.
image.png.a9ba37fce9fd769eb83c36b28343a859.png

 

Quote

 

AFAIK only the Germans ever got their momemtum based fuzes to work somewhat reliably, but even they encountered issues when fired from powerful guns vs relatively thin armour, requiring an increasingly thick plate to detonate the more powerful the gun became. 

 

That said reading the memoirs of a StuG commander he explains how the bursting charge inside their Panzergranate ensured that Russian tanks almost always immediately brewed when they were penetrated. So even in the 75mm AP round of the StuG the bursting charge apparently was very effective.


StuG commander can say what he likes, he is probably wrong. Especially when he has nothing to compare to. He probably fired 000s of Pzgr 39, and maybe at best a handful of Pzgr 40, which doesn't have the same fragmentation effect as full bore AP. There are many things in a tank, that when hit can make it brew, in the case of the T-34,  the Hull is lined with ammunition on the sides and on the floor, with floor ammo "protected" by sheet metal covers. That wont be stopping any fragments.

 

Reality is that any advantages of APHE over AP are marginal in a shell that is appropriate to be fired from a tank, and a holdover from naval combat where APHE shells had

A) much larger bursting charge,nearly 20 kg in Bismarcks 15 inch guns, vs 60g in the 88mm

B) much higher mass percentage being explosive, in the case of the 15 inch guns, 2.25%, in the case of the 88mm Pzgr 39 0.55%, so that there is enough energy left to form a pressure front, rather then just have enough energy to break up the shell.

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

A tank especially can't really be considered an confined space, when you are exploding ~60g of explosive that is encased in a steel shell, so no dangerous overpressure takes place.

This is why I think (heavy) bomb explosions next to a tank should be far more lethal to the crew than we have it currently, even if the tank itself receives minor damage. The tank interior should be affected by the pressure shocks (overpressure and vacuum).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

The pressure increase is quite irrelevant with such a small amount of explosive charge. The US performed multiple runs with 113 grams of pentolite in the middle of a M113 with 2 sheep inside each test within 1 meter away.

In all 16 sheep exposed to the explosions, none were killed or had any major injuries, all had burst eardrums. A tank especially can't really be considered an confined space, when you are exploding ~60g of explosive that is encased in a steel shell, so no dangerous overpressure takes place.

 

An M113 is more spacious inside than the typical tank though, and incased explosives are more powerful due to pressure build up than explosives just sitting free. 

 

Also 60 g is actually more than what is in the typical WW2 Mk.2 handgrenade, which was also filled with TNT and not the roughly 70% more powerful Hexogen (W-Salz) used in the PzGr.39 for example. In other words the pressure generated would be equivalent to a handgrenade with a 100 g filler going off inside.

 

So I'm still not so sure that one going off inside a more confined WW2 tank wouldn't cause pressure related injuries other than just burst eardrums, whilst the extra shrapnel generated would increase the lethality overall. (Lung damage has been cited as a common overpressure injury among tank crew casualties)

 

7 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

StuG commander can say what he likes, he is probably wrong.

 

Not sure how you can brush aside actual combat experience that casually, that's not being very objective IMO. 

 

Sounds like you've already made up your mind on the issue.

Edited by Panthera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Panthera said:

 

An M113 is more spacious inside than the typical tank though, and incased explosives are more powerful due to pressure build up than explosives just sitting free. 

 

Also 60 g is actually more than what is in the typical WW2 Mk.2 handgrenade, which was also filled with TNT and not the roughly 70% more powerful Hexogen (W-Salz) used in the PzGr.39 for example. In other words the pressure generated would be equivalent to a handgrenade with a 100 g filler going off inside.

 

So I'm still not so sure that one going off inside a more confined WW2 tank wouldn't cause pressure related injuries other than just burst eardrums, whilst the extra shrapnel generated would increase the lethality overall. (Lung damage has been cited as a common overpressure injury among tank crew casualties)

 

 

Not sure how you can brush aside actual combat experience that casually, that's not being very objective IMO. 

 

Sounds like you've already made up your mind on the issue.

Encased explosives are less powerful because you have to break out of the case, i.e transfer kinetic energy to the case, i.e create fragments, so less energy is left to create a pressure wave

 

 

APHE is not a grenade that goes boom inside a tank it is a small weight of explosives that is 0.5% of the weight of the shell. The energy is all to break it up, not create a wave front. The German stielhandgranate by comparison had 170g of explosives in a 600g package.

 

Some Veterans also believe that 50cal bullets can dismember your arm just by passing close and that every tank they met was a Tiger. This StuG commander believes he could brew up T-34s with one shot nearly every time yet we have allied accounts of Germans tanks and anti tank guns  continuing to shoot at abandoned tanks multiple times until it was in flames which in this case contradicts that APHE was excellent in brewing up a tank.

Veterans aren't necessarily the best source when it comes to technicalities. The British did study effectiveness on AP vs APHE on their own, American and captured German shells and didn't see any major advantage of the miniscule % explosive filler seen in tank shells.

The US evidently saw the same since their next generation of AP shell that started appearing in prototypes from 1945 (M318, M339 and M358) were all solid shot. The Soviets just copied the Germans (overlay cutaway drawings of BR412D, 471D, 367 to pzrgr 39 and they are pretty much exactly the same in scale). This isn't really surprising because, according to US examination of Soviet WW2 era AP, they were barking completely up the wrong tree with improper heat treatment etc.

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

The British did study effectiveness on AP vs APHE on their own, American and captured German shells and didn't see any major advantage of the miniscule % explosive filler seen in tank shells.

 

Is this a test you can reference?

 

9 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

The Soviets just copied the Germans (overlay cutaway drawings of BR412D, 471D, 367 to pzrgr 39 and they are pretty much exactly the same in scale). This isn't really surprising because, according to US examination of Soviet WW2 era AP, they were barking completely up the wrong tree with improper heat treatment etc.

Edited 7 hours ago by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

 

This is incorrect, first of all the Soviets didn't copy the German heat treatment process as they quite simply didn't know about it, such things were closely guarded secrets.  All they could do was copy the physical design, which they did for their latest shells, the BR-412 series, which incidently according to their own testing performed the best and hence they kept using it through to the 60's.

 

Finally according to actual US testing of the latest German 75mm AP shells they were in every way superior to US AP shells of the same caliber (infact they were performing noticably better than what German specs indicated they would) :

kLtBXaP.jpgGXRqlSo.jpg

 

 

First report on armor penetration of German and American armor piercing projectiles & Twenty-fourth report on Ordnance program No. 5886:

 

Dates of test Dec 1944 to Feb 1945

 

Conclusions:
The results of the tests conducted in this program indicate:
A. That the German projectiles had better penetration characterisitcs against homogeneous armor plate than the American Porjectiles.
B. That the German proctiles had less tendency to shatter when fired against homogenous armor plate at high velocities.

 

Recommendations:
It is recommend that the design features, hardness pattern and composition of the German armor piercing projectil;es be studied for purpose of improving American armor piercing ammunition.

 

In other words German heat treatment of AP shot was evidently in advance of what the US were using, something the US ordnance corps wrote several immediate post war reports about as well.

 

US issues with heat treatment of AP shot also showed itself during the introduction of the 76mm tank gun which was initially touted as being the recipe for reliably fighting the German heavy tanks, yet in practice it was found that the 76mm AP shells would shatter against German armour of the same thickness that US testing at home had suggested it should've easily defeated, a problem later traced as being due to the noses of their AP shells being too soft.

 

There's even a rather recent study on the matter from the US army's Munitions Engineering Technology Center:

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1045347.pdf

 

Most of these things are also discussed in Livingston & Bird's book.

Edited by Panthera
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what Hans is saying is we need a Ferdinand, Jagdpanther or a Jagdtiger to engage the T-34's a 1 km  😀

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Some Veterans also believe that 50cal bullets can dismember your arm just by passing close and that every tank they met was a Tiger. This StuG commander believes he could brew up T-34s with one shot nearly every time yet we have allied accounts of Germans tanks and anti tank guns  continuing to shoot at abandoned tanks multiple times until it was in flames which in this case contradicts that APHE was excellent in brewing up a tank.

This is why one needs to be careful when examining WWII sources. Reports from people in the field are rarely dependable for technical purposes as the typical grunt does not have a degree in statistics, nor engineering. If any field report is treated as correct until it is proven incorrect we would believe the hundreds of reports of US tankers destroying "Tigers" with 75mm gunned M4s, or we'd believe the German sources stating that no tanks were lost, then suddenly later stating that an infantry platoon destroyed hundreds of tanks! (due to the quirks of Germany reporting tank "losses" when the tank was unrecoverable). We might also believe Cooper's assertions that the M4 was named the "Sherman" as some "Union Conspiracy." 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Panthera said:

 

 

British examination of burned out tanks
 

Spoiler

image.png.8ca365d9e89e02ed6ec5057c9a353f4a.png

 

Of note is that the British did not use APHE shells, infact they removed the HE filler for every M61 APC-HE they recieved from the Americans, yet it clearly shows that the design of the tank is far more important then whether an AP round has an miniscule percentage of explosive filler or not.  Pz IV is more likely to brew up being shot at by British Shermans firing AP rounds then Shermans beimg shot at by exclusively APHE rounds.

Now in the Document CASUALTIES IN BURNING AND NOT BURNING TANKS shows us fatalities in burning tanks, and fatalities in non burning tanks
 

Spoiler

image.png.c5964d541a454cfb7151a0f36bf94991.png


75mm AP has  16g of explosive, 88mm has 60g. 88mm has 3.75x more explosive mass and 2.5x more percentage mass of the total shell, yet in the case the tank is not set on fire, there is no difference in the casualty rates between 75mm APHE and 88mm APHE (12% vs 13%). There is a large difference in the case of the tank burning up, which can be surmised that the 88mm was more effective at causing ammunition to set on fire quickly in  such a way that the crew cannot escape the tank, is this because its a larger APHE round, or because it is a larger round overall?

 

I specified M318 which were the next generation of US shells that were AP shells with no cap and no HE filler. The performance of the T33 (prototype/low rate production predecessor) had a much better effectiveness when tested against the Panther, the M82 bouncing at point blank range, the T33 series being able to punch through out to 1000yds. This due to the heat treatment processs improving the hardness from initially 61 Rockwell C to 63.5 Rc in the T33E7. Another improvement is that for some reason, the penetrator of M61, M62, M82 has a rounded nose and not a point. This is counterproductive and the Germans and the British and later the Americans and Russians have the penetrator end in a point

The WW2 era APHE (M61, M62, M82) had a much lower Rc of 56. Pzgr 39 for the 75mm had 61.5 Rc and for the 88mm had 59.5

 

Spoiler

ckgX5cx.jpg5AbVEPI.png



Rockwell C of Soviet WW2 era shells tested in the US is 46 to 53 Rc, but only 1 shell of each caliber of 45 to 85mm was tested, and such could suggest a high variability. The post war Pzgr 39 copies were most certainly treated to have a higher nose hardness

Edited by =362nd_FS=RoflSeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

Of note is that the British did not use APHE shells, infact they removed the HE filler for every M61 APC-HE they recieved from the Americans, yet it clearly shows that the design of the tank is far more important then whether an AP round has an miniscule percentage of explosive filler or not.  Pz IV is more likely to brew up being shot at by British Shermans firing AP rounds then Shermans beimg shot at by exclusively APHE rounds.

During the interwar period the US invested a lot of time looking into this, specifically adjusting their tank armor to reduce the spalling caused by penetrating and non-penetrating hits. If you have over-hardened armor you end up with vastly more spalling than an equivalent strength of softer armor. US WWII Armor has to get to about -40 degrees before spalling and cracking like German armor did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason the British removed the filler from US AP shells was as mentioned earlier because they had serious troubles getting the fuzes to work reliably. Infact testing in May 44 revealed US fuzes to have a worrying tendency of igniting prematurely, breaking up the shell before they could penetrate (German use of Face Hardened armour seems to have exacerbated this) Hence a recommendation to remove the fuzes on any rounds recieved until this issue could be resolved was issued the same month. 

 

In other words the British decision to switch to solid shot had nothing to do with any findings in regards to the behind armour effects of AP shells with a bursting charge vs solid shot. It was all down purely to serious issues with the fuzes. 

 

Meanwhile the Germans seem to have experienced the reverse problem, i.e. getting their fuzes to reliably ignite in the first place when fired through their biggest guns vs the relatively lightly armoured allied tanks in the west. The Germans apparently hadn't predicted the use of the relatively soft armour for the Sherman tank, a measure taken by US industry with the intention of lowering the amount of lethal spalling generated if the armour was penetrated. The Germans had designed their fuzes to work optimally against harder armour, and as a result the soft and relatively thin armour protection of the Sherman often allowed German AP shot to sail right through without providing enough of a decelerating force to ignite the fuze. Ironically in the end this prompted the the Germans to mimic the British and in the west issue Panzergranate either with an inert filler, or sometimes even without a filler or fuze, as explained in an immediate post war interview of German army ordnance personnel. (In the east the fuzes apparently worked reliably, which is attributed to the harder armour used on Soviet tanks) 

 

In other words getting these fuzes to work reliably was a real pain in the butt, but when they did work as intended the results were apparently dramatic enough in nature to warrant their use as std. 

5 hours ago, =362nd_FS=RoflSeal said:

British examination of burned out tanks
 

  Hide contents

image.png.8ca365d9e89e02ed6ec5057c9a353f4a.png

 

Of note is that the British did not use APHE shells, infact they removed the HE filler for every M61 APC-HE they recieved from the Americans, yet it clearly shows that the design of the tank is far more important then whether an AP round has an miniscule percentage of explosive filler or not.  Pz IV is more likely to brew up being shot at by British Shermans firing AP rounds then Shermans beimg shot at by exclusively APHE rounds.

  Reveal hidden contents

image.png.c5964d541a454cfb7151a0f36bf94991.png

 

  Reveal hidden contents

ckgX5cx.jpg5AbVEPI.png

 

These are not surveys meant to find out the difference between AP shells with a burster and solid shot though. Hence we cannot use them to draw any conclusions on that subject, esp. since we're talking about different tanks being shot by different rounds, i.e. no direct side by side comparison of shell vs solid shot against the same target. These tanks were also being surveyed well after the fact that they were knocked out, and by personnel who werent even there to witness it. 

 

Also as mentioned above the Germans encountered issues with their fuzes vs the soft armour of the Sherman, which is likely to have caused a great many German AP shells that penetrated a Sherman to act merely like solid shot and never explode. In the end it was evidently happening frequently enough that the Germans abandoned the burster in the west altogether. 

 

Finally US adoption of wet storage no doubt also reduced the risk of fires dramatically. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Panthera said:

The Germans had designed their fuzes to work optimally against harder armour, and as a result the soft and relatively thin armour protection of the Sherman often allowed German AP shot to sail right through without providing enough of a decelerating force to ignite the fuze.

If you're talking about the 8,8 gun, then yes. If you're talking the 7,5 guns then no. Remember that the resistance of the frontal armor on an M4 is still greater than that of a Pz IV. If the 7,5 guns are supposed to deal with tanks having equivalent armor protection to the Pz IV, and work against the Pz IV's armor, but not the M4's armor, then the problem is specific to a fuse which is incapable of triggering without High-hardeness armor, and not necessarily due to over penetration. As we can see, fusing is rather difficult to get right as the US and Germany had issues with proper fusing. If the shells fused fine against a T-34 (having similar effective armor thickness to an M4), then it would be consistent because German AFV Rolled plate (@80mm) had hardness of around 308 BHN, Soviet being ~340 BHN, and US being ~250 BHN. 

Edited by Kataphrakt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...