Bullet Penetration

[<*>Nora The Martyr]

On the topic Bullet Penetration,

1. How is this modeled?

2. Does the weapon/bullet have an affect?

I'm wondering how TW is determining what is pierce-able and what isn't.

Discuss...

[LogisticEarth]

I'm wondering this also, because in the demo video of the grain elevator, I think they showed an enemy getting shot through a wall near a doorway. The only problem was that the wall appeared to be 4 inches of concrete, and the gun (if I recall correctly) was a MP-40 firing 9mm.

[FlyXwire]

What I liked about it was the post penetration effect.

Not because of the gore, but because it might indicate the possibility of having more immersive and functional *pariticle* effects......dust, fragments, smoke, flame, etc. (depending of course on what round type and size that's doing the penetrating).

This is the suppresses that impresses.

[Apos]

I'd add question about AP and APHE shell penetration.

Will we be able to penetrate a building wall with AP and hit tank behind that w/o destroying wall but only making a small hole?

It's really badass feature in Men Of War game.

YouTube - Top 10 most badass ways to kill someone in MoW

0:15

[Nimsky]

Originally Posted by LogisticEarth

I'm wondering this also, because in the demo video of the grain elevator, I think they showed an enemy getting shot through a wall near a doorway. The only problem was that the wall appeared to be 4 inches of concrete, and the gun (if I recall correctly) was a MP-40 firing 9mm.

I noticed that too. I guess they added a penetration value to most of the walls so there was a higher chance of it happening in the demos. But I'm sure they'll give most of the material in-game proper penetration values according to each caliber.

[Innociv]

I hope bullets will fragment after penetrating most surfaces, becoming like shrapnel and doing very little damage.

I was put off seeing an mp40 fire through concrete to kill in like one or two shots.

[FlyXwire]

Originally Posted by Innociv

I was put off seeing an mp40 fire through concrete to kill in like one or two shots.

Btw, I sure couldn't tell if it was a concrete wall from the video.

(to be sure, shoot first, ask questions later)

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Originally Posted by LemoN

Only possible with AP shells.
APHE are, as the name suggests, Armour Piercing High Explosive, IE. they have a contact-delay fuse which let's the shell explode after it has penetrated something hard enough to trigger it.

AFAIK no Russian or German tank used pure AP slugs.

To be picky, both armies also used APCR rounds - which are solid. Interestingly, German (and British) reports comment on how infrequently the bursting charges actually worked - probably more to do with the round shattering on penetration/perforation.

On the OP's question: penetration of materials will take into account such variables as the material being penetrated, thickness, velocity and type of round...

[Atomskytten]

Originally Posted by [TW]Wilsonam

To be picky, both armies also used APCR rounds - which are solid. Interestingly, German (and British) reports comment on how infrequently the bursting charges actually worked - probably more to do with the round shattering on penetration/perforation.

On the OP's question: penetration of materials will take into account such variables as the material being penetrated, thickness, velocity and type of round...

Will the bullets be able to penetrate more than one player or will they stop after hitting?

[<*>Nora The Martyr]

Thanks for the clarification Wilsonam.

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Originally Posted by LemoN

Regarding the fuses, I guess one factor simply is that it was quite hard to make fuses durable enough so they withstand a 700-1200m/s impact without a significant failure rate. But I guess that was acceptable as the primary use for an AP round is to penetrate tanks and the small HE charge (19g in case of the KwK40 APCBCHE round) is rather insignificant compared to the overall results of a full penetration.

After all, just look at how many aircraft bombs and artillery shells still lie unexploded in the ground.

No-one really bothered to do the research on the failure of the bursting charges - APHE was effectively obsolete by the end of the war anyway, being replaced with the fore-runners of the modern long-rod penetrators - APCR/HVAP and APDS from the British. Trust the Brits to invent the best, of course

[LogisticEarth]

Originally Posted by LemoN

Watch this please.

(Youtube: Concealment vs. Cover stuff)

Watch the M40 and M240G to see what 7.62x51 can do.

Very informative, however they didn't test anything against a poured concrete wall. Both cinderblock and brick are fairly fragile compared to concrete, especially reinforced or structural-grade concrete. I'm really skeptical that a 9mm would go through such a wall. A 7.62x54r might, however it would probably fragment and loose it's effectiveness a short distance thereafter.

[Peter.Steele]

Originally Posted by LemoN

Only possible with AP shells.
APHE are, as the name suggests, Armour Piercing High Explosive, IE. they have a contact-delay fuse which let's the shell explode after it has penetrated something hard enough to trigger it.

AFAIK no Russian or German tank used pure AP slugs.

There were quite a few, actually. PzGr.40 & 43, to start with. Germans dropped them toward the end of the war due to lack of tungsten. For the Soviets, any round whose designation ends in "P" or "SP" was a solid AP round, e.g., the 85mm BR-365P, 76mm BR-350P, 45mm BR-240SP, 57mm UBR-271SP, etc.

[Peter.Steele]

Originally Posted by LemoN

As already mentioned, I excluded APCR rounds for obvious reasons.
They were incredibly rare (you were lucky if you would find 2-3 per tank) and were reserved for special occasions, like taking on an IS2 with a KwK40 or trying to kill a Tiger with the 57mm or taking on an KV1 with a pak 38.

Eh, I hadn't read to the end of the thread when I posted that. Also, you weren't really clear on that point in your original post.

[Unus Offa, Unus Nex]

Originally Posted by [TW]Wilsonam

To be picky, both armies also used APCR rounds - which are solid. Interestingly, German (and British) reports comment on how infrequently the bursting charges actually worked - probably more to do with the round shattering on penetration/perforation.

On the OP's question: penetration of materials will take into account such variables as the material being penetrated, thickness, velocity and type of round...

It was almost exclusive to the Western front however, and the reasons were/are rather simple:

1. The average US & British tank was not only more thinly armoured than its' Soviet counterpart, the armour itself was also softer, albeit often more durable, and almost never facehardened.

In other words; In the West, upon impact with the softer armour of US & British tanks, the German fuzes often didn't experience the necessary deceleration force needed in order for them to actuate. In the East the opposite was true, where the harder (yet also more brittle) Soviet armour more frequently provided the necessary initial shock deceleration force for the fuzes to function.

The "flaw", if you can call it that, was that German engineers had designed their fuzes (along with their projectile nose caps) with optimum performance against face hardened armour in mind, which they had expected the Allies to use a lot of. The Allies didn't adopt face hardened armour in any major quantity however, the western Allies instead relying heavily on soft cast steels and the Russians mostly on harder yet more brittle variations of both cast & rolled homogenous armour.

2. The engagement ranges in the west tended to be a lot shorter than in the east, and since the fuzes worked on the simple principles of gravity, the closer the target was, the higher the chance was that the fuze would fail to ignite the bursting charge.



The end result was that whilst the German bursting charges reportedly worked great on the eastern front, a large number of failures to ignite were noted in the west for the larger caliber guns (7.5cm & 8.8cm etc.).

On average however the 7.5cm & 8.8cm BdZ fuzes required atleast a plate thickness of 30mm of RHA angled at 30 deg to actuate at ranges from 500-1,000 m. The further away you were from the target, the higher the chance of a successful post penetration ignition, and vice versa.

The 8.8cm KwK43 was reportedly one of the guns with which the BdZ fuzes hardly ever worked in the west, and when you consider the muzzle velocity of this gun it becomes clear why. The KwK43 fired a 10.4 kg APCBC shell at just over 1,000 m/s, and at 3,000 m it still hadn't slowed down to the 773 m/s muzzle velocity of the older 8.8cm KwK36, despite using the very same fuze.

So whilst the KwK36 would need to hit an armoured target approx. 30mm thick at a range of 500 to 1,000 meters in order for the BdZ fuze to function, the KwK43 would have to engage that same target at a whopping 3.5 to 4 km away to achieve the same! It is therefore little wonder why so many fuzes failed to function in the west, and in the end, as a natural response, a lot of PanzerGranaten delivered to units in the west ended up so without any fuzes screwed into the base.

[Spindle]

Originally Posted by Unus Offa, Unus Nex

It was almost exclusive to the Western front however, and the reasons were/are rather simple:

1. The average US & British tank was not only more thinly armoured than its' Soviet counterpart, the armour itself was also softer, albeit often more durable, and almost never facehardened.

In other words; In the West, upon impact with the softer armour of US & British tanks, the German fuzes often didn't experience the necessary deceleration force needed in order for them to actuate. In the East the opposite was true, where the harder (yet also more brittle) Soviet armour more frequently provided the necessary initial shock deceleration force for the fuzes to function.

The "flaw", if you can call it that, was that German engineers had designed their fuzes (along with their projectile nose caps) with optimum performance against face hardened armour in mind, which they had expected the Allies to use a lot of. The Allies didn't adopt face hardened armour in any major quantity however, the western Allies instead relying heavily on soft cast steels and the Russians mostly on harder yet more brittle variations of both cast & rolled homogenous armour.

2. The engagement ranges in the west tended to be a lot shorter than in the east, and since the fuzes worked on the simple principles of gravity, the closer the target was, the higher the chance was that the fuze would fail to ignite the bursting charge.



The end result was that whilst the German bursting charges reportedly worked great on the eastern front, a large number of failures to ignite were noted in the west for the larger caliber guns (7.5cm & 8.8cm etc.).

On average however the 7.5cm & 8.8cm BdZ fuzes required atleast a plate thickness of 30mm of RHA angled at 30 deg to actuate at ranges from 500-1,000 m. The further away you were from the target, the higher the chance of a successful post penetration ignition, and vice versa.

The 8.8cm KwK43 was reportedly one of the guns with which the BdZ fuzes hardly ever worked in the west, and when you consider the muzzle velocity of this gun it becomes clear why. The KwK43 fired a 10.4 kg APCBC shell at just over 1,000 m/s, and at 3,000 m it still hadn't slowed down to the 773 m/s muzzle velocity of the older 8.8cm KwK36, despite using the very same fuze.

So whilst the KwK36 would need to hit an armoured target approx. 30mm thick at a range of 500 to 1,000 meters in order for the BdZ fuze to function, the KwK43 would have to engage that same target at a whopping 3.5 to 4 km away to achieve the same! It is therefore little wonder why so many fuzes failed to function in the west, and in the end, as a natural response, a lot of PanzerGranaten delivered to units in the west ended up so without any fuzes screwed into the base.

Lol replying to a 1-2 year old thread? xD

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Originally Posted by Spindle

Lol replying to a 1-2 year old thread? xD

He was considering his words very carefully

[And he's probably quite correct, by the way...]

[tixhal]

Originally Posted by Spindle

Lol replying to a 1-2 year old thread? xD

i'd rather say: lol, very informative post! i always enjoy reading stuff about the technological side of war even if this post is old, the information is new to me and i appreciate it!

[Unus Offa, Unus Nex]

Actually I didn't realize that this was an old thread until after I had replied, which I only did because for some odd reason the thread appeared as the newest as I entered the Ideas & Suggestion subforum yesterday. Server error I guess ?

Anyway, the information is now there atleast.

[orlok_tzar]

hello all

Is "spall" modelled? and as to the concrete wall shot, could spalling occour there and be lethal?

Rgds

LoK