Tank explosion

[Sergentpolo]

About the story of the wittmann Tiger, I've learnt his tank has been destroy by an english plane (Hawker Typhoon). Then a french saw that and took a photo. It's probably right because the rockets of a Typhoon are very powerful. The pilot died in the same day. We'll never know...

 

[RiccardoTheBeAst]

Thx a lot for the infos

EDIT: @ Unus

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

About the story of the wittmann Tiger, I've learnt his tank has been destroy by an english plane (Hawker Typhoon). Then a french saw that and took a photo. It's probably right because the rockets of a Typhoon are very powerful. The pilot died in the same day. We'll never know...

Oh no... not this one again... lol

To the best of my knowledge, 3 claimants to that one:

1. A rocket-firing Typhoon - apparently unlikely, as the tank appeared to have been destroyed by an internal explosion, not external HE.

2. A Canadian armored unit (forgotten which one) moving down the south side of the Falaise road, catching Wittman's Tiger platoon from the left flank.

3. Joe Ekins in the gunner's seat of the British 2nd Northants Yeomanry Sherman Firefly. He got 3 confirmed Tiger kills in that action, which was his first - and his last. Forever a mystery why his commanders took him out of action.

And it will probably never be known who got Wittman...

 

[SCandChives]

One question Wilsonam, if a tank is moving and is hit, let's say he killed the driver at fullspeed, will the tank stop immediately or will it keep going?
Same for a shot that sets the tank on fire, the tank will keep moving right?

I'm just worried about tanks stopping immediately after being hit to blow up. A tank going fullspeed shouldn't stop to blow up, but rather blow up going full speed and then slowing down as a wreck.

also, I hate to be an annoying addition to the forum inquisition here, TWI, but I have a question:

How long will downed tanks remain "down"? I recall a rather akward moment in ROOst involving using a burning tank for cover....until it suddenly dissapeared leaving me vulnerable in the middle of the enemy feild, crouching with a satchel. Lets just say that didn't go well

I want to know about these too, I think we all do

 

[kainhall]

lets see.....

we will never know the guys who killed bin laden.....
we will never know the why the guy was pulled off the front.....

but..... this thread is still active????

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Really guys, this is not about how Wittmann died (which most likely was from a regular Sherman shot to the side btw ), this is about the regularity of tanks exploding or catching fire immediately after a penetrating hit.

All evidence points towards that most tanks hit by guns of 75mm in caliber and higher tended to either catch fire or explode almost instantaneously if the penetrating projectile featured a bursting charge. German StuG & Tiger crews note that T-34's hit by their guns almost always lit up in flames right away after the first successful hit, whilst others violently exploded with the turrets coming off.

Interestingly if you read the accounts of German tankers operating in the West, explosions are rarely mentioned, instead the western Allied tanks were observed as more prone to easily catching fire upon being hit. (Ronson anyone?)

It would be interesting to read Russian tank crew accounts and learn of their observations when they successfully managed to penetrate an enemy tank.

 

[Mormegil]

All evidence points towards that most tanks hit by guns of 75mm in caliber and higher tended to either catch fire or explode almost instantaneously if the penetrating projectile featured a bursting charge. German StuG & Tiger crews note that T-34's hit by their guns almost always lit up in flames right away after the first successful hit, whilst others violently exploded with the turrets coming off.

Could be confirmation bias. They mention the first successful hit caused a flame up. Possible that wasn't the first successful hit, only the first one they noted due to the obviousness of flames. They could have very well hit and killed the tank already with no tell-tale signs.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Could be confirmation bias. They mention the first successful hit caused a flame up. Possible that wasn't the first successful hit, only the first one they noted due to the obviousness of flames. They could have very well hit and killed the tank already with no tell-tale signs.

Having seen tanks being hit by AP shells myself I highly doubt that, seeing as a rather bright flash usually follows a direct hit, something you can't miss. The German tank crews don't seem to have been in doubt atleast, always carefully observing the round during its flight and noting where the round struck, so as to be able to make the correct adjustments for a follow up. If a hit was scored then there wasn't any doubt, a short bright flash could be observed on the target, the commander or gunner would call out "Treffer!", and if the round had penetrated the target it would usually burn or explode immediately afterwards.

Also when they mention succesful hit I am sure they are refering to the first succesful penetration of the target. Also quite a few times no more than 1 round is mentioned as having been expended on the target. So if the enemy tank lit up or exploded after the first round fired at it, then it must also have been the first round that did it in

Anyway the British themselves tested 50mm ammunition fitted with the exact same fuze design as put on the 75 & 88mm AP rounds, and against the same 20mm plates, where they worked flawlessly. The reason for this naturally being that the 20mm plates offered much more resistance to the 50mm AP rounds than the much powerful 75 & 88mm rounds, resulting in a higher deceleration force which would ignite the fuze every time. Just goes to prove that the design worked like a charm, as only the fuzes on the 75 & 88mm shells failed to ignite, and that quite simply because the 20mm plates didnt offer enough resistance to ignite them. Had the plates been 30mm thick, and placed at a distance of 500-1,000 meters away, the BdZ fuzes on the 75 & 88mm shells would've ignited just the same.

The British obviously didn't know this however, otherwise they wouldn't have been firing against 20mm plates at close range.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Btw, remember the unfortunate Capt. Pat Diaz who met Michael Wittmann head on in Normandy. Meeting Wittmann's Tiger head on, he managed to fire two rounds that bounced off the Tiger, before the Tiger had then turned its turret and let loose a single shot on Diaz's tank. And the result: Cpt. Pat was, as he put it himself, litterally blown out the top of the tank.

Cpt. Pat Diaz was interviewed for a history channel show where he told about the story as-well (From 3:35 min):
YouTube - Tiger Attack 4 of 5

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

It's an interesting debate, but you need to be careful about "instant" fire and detonations.

Take a look at British tank losses and crew casualties in Normandy. The average was 1-2 crewmen "permanently lost" for each tank destroyed, which rather ruins the idea of "instant" detonations. All the accounts I've read of crew bailing out indicates there are a few seconds between impact and destruction. The same applies to the Russian experiences I've read.

The implication is that it takes a second or two to ignite ammo stores, which will then result in either the HE warheads exploding (resulting in flying turrets etc) or the propellant igniting in AP rounds (resulting in those monster jets of flame, as in the famous Panther in Cologne). Propellant burns, HE, well, explodes

In terms of your own observations (Unus) - be careful about comparing the visibility of modern (long rod) rounds, where the penetrator ablates and generates huge amounts of heat as it penetrates, in comparison to older AP rounds, which most often penetrated by plugging. The latter may cause a flash of sparks, but nothing like the heat of a modern round ablating...

 

[Jackboots]

2. A Canadian armored unit (forgotten which one) moving down the south side of the Falaise road, catching Wittman's Tiger platoon from the left flank.

It was the The Sherbrooke Fusiliers Regiment.


Jackboots

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

It's an interesting debate, but you need to be careful about "instant" fire and detonations.

Take a look at British tank losses and crew casualties in Normandy. The average was 1-2 crewmen "permanently lost" for each tank destroyed, which rather ruins the idea of "instant" detonations.

Well, like I said, on the western front German tank crews observed pretty much just flame ups from struck Allied tanks, and very rarely explosions. It was apparently a very different deal on the eastern front though, where the mention of enemy tanks exploding immediately after having been hit are common.

All the accounts I've read of crew bailing out indicates there are a few seconds between impact and destruction. The same applies to the Russian experiences I've read.

Well, obviously, if you read the experience of crews who had time to bail out then that's what you're going to hear. Problem is that the poor chaps who's tank blew to pieces within just a few seconds of having been hit never got the chance to tell their story

The implication is that it takes a second or two to ignite ammo stores, which will then result in either the HE warheads exploding (resulting in flying turrets etc) or the propellant igniting in AP rounds (resulting in those monster jets of flame, as in the famous Panther in Cologne). Propellant burns, HE, well, explodes

No objection there, all well and true, except if the tank in question gets hit by a round with an effective bursting charge, then the time it takes from the hit to the ignition of the internal stores obviously goes down dramatically.

Also let's not forget the deadly effects of overpressure a bursting charge will inflict if it goes off inside the confined space of a tank, where the opening or closing of hatches suddenly becomes a large factor. Heck the effects were severe enough in a buttoned up tank hit by solid shots without any form of bursting charge.

In terms of your own observations (Unus) - be careful about comparing the visibility of modern (long rod) rounds, where the penetrator ablates and generates huge amounts of heat as it penetrates, in comparison to older AP rounds, which most often penetrated by plugging. The latter may cause a flash of sparks, but nothing like the heat of a modern round ablating...

AFAIK ablation occurs right down to velocities of around 300 m/s, so I'd still expect a bright flash, maybe not as bright as with the modern APFSDS-T rounds, but still bright enough to be easily observed. Apart from this I remember reading that a small cloud of "smoke/dust" appeared after a hit - could be a mixture of metal & dust particles, the bursting charge going off, or tracer remains etc etc.

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

AFAIK ablation occurs right down to velocities of around 300 m/s, so I'd still expect a bright flash, maybe not as bright as with the modern APFSDS-T rounds, but still bright enough to be easily observed. Apart from this I remember reading that a small cloud of "smoke/dust" appeared after a hit - could be a mixture of metal & dust particles, the bursting charge going off, or tracer remains etc etc.

No, old-style AP rounds don't ablate. If a round with a bursting charge did, there wouldn't be any bursting charge. As I said, they primarily functioned through plugging, which is a MUCH lower energy failure of the armor. As I said, sparks yes, "flare", unlikely. Crews certainly talk about sparks...

 

[SCandChives]

It's an interesting debate, but you need to be careful about "instant" fire and detonations.

Take a look at British tank losses and crew casualties in Normandy. The average was 1-2 crewmen "permanently lost" for each tank destroyed, which rather ruins the idea of "instant" detonations.

That's a rather cold way of putting it isn't it?

This is a very interesting debate. If such things are ingame what will they look like? Turret flying into the air and possibly landing on someone, crushing them?

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

No, old-style AP rounds don't ablate. If a round with a bursting charge did, there wouldn't be any bursting charge. As I said, they primarily functioned through plugging, which is a MUCH lower energy failure of the armor. As I said, sparks yes, "flare", unlikely. Crews certainly talk about sparks...

Must be sparks giving off the lightshow then, and the smoke being a mixture of metal & dust particles and/or tracer remains. Hits were definitely easily discerned from misses according to what I've read so far, a bright flash (apparently sparks) being observed.

Just out of curiousity I went back and watched the famous Cologne video where a Panther gets ambushed by Pershing and takes several direct hits. Each hit creates a a very bright flash and a sea of sparks similar to what I've seen with the modern rounds, so I'd say my statement stands.

 

[Mormegil]

Interestingly if you read the accounts of German tankers operating in the West, explosions are rarely mentioned, instead the western Allied tanks were observed as more prone to easily catching fire upon being hit. (Ronson anyone?)

Could have a lot to do with whether the rounds are stored in the turret or on the floor.

I just watched "Ground War" on PBS where they mentioned some tank with the innovation of not storing rounds in the turret for survivability - I can't remember which one (you can watch it online, it's the 2nd episode of the series).

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Could have a lot to do with whether the rounds are stored in the turret or on the floor.

I just watched "Ground War" on PBS where they mentioned some tank with the innovation of not storing rounds in the turret for survivability - I can't remember which one (you can watch it online, it's the 2nd episode of the series).

No so much, it was more about how the rounds stored were protected, location was pretty much irrelevant if they were ignited. The US were the first to do something about this by introducing the so called 'wet storage', where each round was surrounded by water bladders. This would've no doubt helped reduce the risk of fires, albeit not removed it.

 

[Mormegil]

No so much, it was more about how the rounds stored were protected, location was pretty much irrelevant if they were ignited. The US were the first to do something about this by introducing the so called 'wet storage', where each round was surrounded by water bladders. This would've no doubt helped reduce the risk of fires, albeit not removed it.

Sure it would be irrelevant if ignited, but a direct hit, or even being hit by fragments could make a difference on where they're stowed. I would think rounds stored in the floor would be less likely to be hit, while rounds in the turret, the most visible part of the tank would be more likely to be hit (assuming penetration).

 

[[TW]Wilsonam]

Must be sparks giving off the lightshow then, and the smoke being a mixture of metal & dust particles and/or tracer remains. Hits were definitely easily discerned from misses according to what I've read so far, a bright flash (apparently sparks) being observed.

Just out of curiousity I went back and watched the famous Cologne video where a Panther gets ambushed by Pershing and takes several direct hits. Each hit creates a a very bright flash and a sea of sparks similar to what I've seen with the modern rounds, so I'd say my statement stands.

Yeah, interesting... I just re-watched that old favorite again. The second round hit (looks like right at the base of the turret) is more than just some sparks. I'm guessing that shot didn't penetrate, but I can't be sure. It also shows how bright (and therefore visible) the tracer in the base of the 90mm round is. We may yet have to tweak the hit effects

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

Sure it would be irrelevant if ignited, but a direct hit, or even being hit by fragments could make a difference on where they're stowed. I would think rounds stored in the floor would be less likely to be hit, while rounds in the turret, the most visible part of the tank would be more likely to be hit (assuming penetration).

Well the floor aint exactly too deep on a tank so, that would be difficult. Unless you create a false floor, but even then it would probably just as easily be in risk of getting hit. The water bladder solution was the best one at the time.