Focus on the T-34 76
- Thread starter [TW]schneidzekk
- Start date
[RO]Wilsonam said:No such thing - they detonate as close to impact as possible. The only "delay" is a problem in the fusing mechanism of the odd millsecond.
As another aside, it has since been shown that bursting charges served no purpose as far as penetration goes...
I am sorry Wilson, but I have to disagree with you. What you are referring to are very specific kinds of APHE, there were indeed shells that were expressly designed to penetrate the tank and then explode, saying there is "no such thing" is simply not correct.
The following is quoted from The Guns 1939-1945 by Ian V. Hogg, a British Artillery man from the war and one of the most trusted experts on armaments the world-over, with large-caliber weapons being his specialty, such as AT guns:
"When war broke out in 1939, there were but two types of projectile available for anti-tank use - the Armour Piercing shot, and the AP Shell."
He goes on:
"They are both hard steel projectiles with a hard and sharp tip...Once having pierced, the shot would bounce about inside and do no end of damage by sheer kinetic energy, plus the odd splinters of metal knocked off the target by the shot's passage through the armour plate. The shell (emphasis added) penetrated the same way, but the action of striking the plate initiated the fuze. This carried a slight delay element, allowing the shell to pass through the plate into the tank, and then the fuze would detonate the explosive to shatter the shell and give a greater lethal effect."
Further:
"Finally, there was the engineering problem problem of attaching the fuze in such a fashion that it would not be knocked out of the shell by impact and thus not be there to start the detonation when the time came. All these problems had been met with years before in designing shells for Naval and Coast Defense guns to attack armoured ships, and the British point of view was that the difficulties were not worth the results in such small calibres."
He also gives accompanying illustrations showing the fuze arrangement for an AP shell designed to pentrate with delayed explosion, when I have time I can scan them in.
EDIT: Okay, here you are:
Notice that it is not impact fuzed, as Wilson was describing. The fuse is fitted to the base in order to allow for penetration of the plate without exploding prematurely.
BTW, not only did the Germans use APHE, as BooBoo stated, but the Russians were known for using HE in their tank guns to a large extent. This was one of the reasons for the Russian tank guns of larger caliber having similar penetrative performance to German guns of lower caliber.
For example, everyone always talks about the 85mm gun in the T-34/85 not having as high of penetration values as would be expected. One of the reasons for this was that in most circumstances the Russians favored AP shells with a considerable HE charge. While this made them more destructive upon penetrating, it decreased overall projectile weight (owing to lesser amount of solid metal) and thus penetration at range. So, a 75mm shot from a L/48 gun in a Panzer IV pentrated at range just as good, if not better than, an 85mm shell from a S-53.
Same story with the SU-152 and SU-122. These large caliber guns fired large HE shells, so their penetrative performance, while still high, was less than you would expect. The same large shell was also fired by the JS-2 tank's 122mm main gun.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Put were these used in tank guns? Or just regimental and coastal artillery?
For example, according to the Russian Battlefield site, HEAT rounds were used in their 76.2 mm regimental guns, but not in the 76.2 mm F-34 guns of the T34's. Presumably other rounds were interchangeable.
For example, according to the Russian Battlefield site, HEAT rounds were used in their 76.2 mm regimental guns, but not in the 76.2 mm F-34 guns of the T34's. Presumably other rounds were interchangeable.
Upvote
0
In addition to what I said above, the Russians, as well as the Germans, did not favor HEAT shells in their tank guns because they discovered that the centrifugal force of the spinning shell negated much of the effect of the gaseous stream from the charge.
Upvote
0
[RO]Wilsonam said:
Make that "cowering".
yeah, yeah, too obvious, its four in the night here
Upvote
0
![[TW]Wilsonam](/data/avatars/s/0/10.jpg?1568638684){kind=avatar}
Its going to be one of those days isn't it ?
Ok - "No such thing"... in use by German or Soviet tank crews during the war. What you are referring to are large-calibre rounds fired from heavy artillery...
Yes, the I/SU-152 used a large HE round. It also fired the BR540 and BR540B AP rounds from its ML-20 cannon. They were lower velocity, but obviously HEAVY. Similarly the IS-2 fires the BR471 and BR471B AP rounds. However, none of these were designed to burst IN the tank.
Now, just to confuse, I've gone off through my references and now I do find a reference to Soviet rounds being designed to carry the HE charge into the tank. Bugger. When I've got a bit more time, I'll go back to the Russian/Soviet sources for yet another look. Same source also states that most nations had problems with such fuses, which may lead to the confusion! Now I've got a headache... who started this bloody discussion anyway?
?Ok - "No such thing"... in use by German or Soviet tank crews during the war. What you are referring to are large-calibre rounds fired from heavy artillery...
Yes, the I/SU-152 used a large HE round. It also fired the BR540 and BR540B AP rounds from its ML-20 cannon. They were lower velocity, but obviously HEAVY. Similarly the IS-2 fires the BR471 and BR471B AP rounds. However, none of these were designed to burst IN the tank.
Now, just to confuse, I've gone off through my references and now I do find a reference to Soviet rounds being designed to carry the HE charge into the tank. Bugger. When I've got a bit more time, I'll go back to the Russian/Soviet sources for yet another look. Same source also states that most nations had problems with such fuses, which may lead to the confusion! Now I've got a headache... who started this bloody discussion anyway
?
Upvote
0
Actually I am not just referring to large caliber rounds.
Heavy artillery? By definiton heavy arty doesn't make AT work their business....when I was referring to the SU-152 I didn't mean they fired the delayed APHE, I was just using the 152 mm's main ammunition as an example of the Russian penchant for HE. Actually, when you consider the 152mm was just a requistioned field piece than your statemtn and mine conicide.
However, the main point was that I am positive there were APHE rounds developed for a variety of calibers, not just the large ones.
And as I said, the Russians were particularly fond of using HE charges in their tank rounds.
Probably the source of the confusion is that you are British Wilson
LOL I don't mean that the way you might think I do, I am just joking around the fact that the Brits didn't like the concept of APHE and so they stuck with shot pretty much the entire war
Heavy artillery? By definiton heavy arty doesn't make AT work their business....when I was referring to the SU-152 I didn't mean they fired the delayed APHE, I was just using the 152 mm's main ammunition as an example of the Russian penchant for HE. Actually, when you consider the 152mm was just a requistioned field piece than your statemtn and mine conicide.
However, the main point was that I am positive there were APHE rounds developed for a variety of calibers, not just the large ones.
And as I said, the Russians were particularly fond of using HE charges in their tank rounds.
Probably the source of the confusion is that you are British Wilson
LOL I don't mean that the way you might think I do, I am just joking around the fact that the Brits didn't like the concept of APHE and so they stuck with shot pretty much the entire war
Upvote
0
Treadheads: They're everywhere, and thats a good thing, you want them on you're team becuase they can hit stufftotenkopf44 said:
Upvote
0
I figured there would be an update today since it's the middle of the week and they said there would be 2 updates a week from now on
Upvote
0
Tomorrow is feb 1, Thats when I'm expecting it.Sleby said:I figured there would be an update today since it's the middle of the week and they said there would be 2 updates a week from now on
Since we've been told repeatedly that there will be tons of updates during feb.
Upvote
0
It's the first of feb in nz...
Man don't tank drivers get mad only being able to see through that little slit? I get pissed off when im playin WW2 online
How are you supposed to follow the infantry? Sneaky gits.
Man don't tank drivers get mad only being able to see through that little slit? I get pissed off when im playin WW2 online
How are you supposed to follow the infantry? Sneaky gits.
Upvote
0
Sleby said:It's the first of feb in nz...
Man don't tank drivers get mad only being able to see through that little slit? I get pissed off when im playin WW2 online
How are you supposed to follow the infantry? Sneaky gits.
With good teamwork, a commander out of the cupola can direct the driver, or the driver can unbutton. That's if you're trying to follow friendly infantry.
If you're talking about enemy infantry, better hope you got some friendly infantry around to support you and hope the Devs put in a panoramic periscope view.
Upvote
0
Yeah, really I thought this was fairly common knowledge.
They call it APHE for a reason. If it detonated on contact on the outside of the plate there wouldn't be much sense in firing it at tanks would there? As I quoted from Hogg, the problem of piercing plate and detonating after penetrating was an old one that had been dealt with when designing shells to pierce the thick armored hulls of the Dreadnoughts and armored cruisers in the late 19th century.
Granted, like Wilson said, a bursting charge would not have much effect, but this would be in small calibers. For example the 37mm German APHE round for the Pak 36 and fitted in the first run of Panzer IIIs only had 1/2 ounce of PETN (that's the same stuff you put in blasting caps for detonating larger explosives BTW), so there would probably not be much difference, and Hogg also states this in his book, from being hit with that or a 37mm solid shot.
Also, the British considered it such a waste of effort in the lower calibers that they used solid shot exclusively. The thing was though, even when they moved beyond using small calibers (e.g. 2 pounders), they still remained faithful to the shot alone, and then later of course the APDS, and finally, at the end of the war, the first HESH rounds.
However, moving up to 75mm or greater, an APHE would do considerable damage.
Here is an interesting little snippet I found Googling around on the subject, http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ge_at_tank/
It is taken from an Allied intelligence report specifically on what the Germans were using as ammunition in their AT and tank guns:
"The Germans seem to be losing interest in a combination armor-piercing, high-explosive shell, now that substantial thicknesses of armor have to be dealt with. During the past year they have been improving the anti-armor performance of armor-piercing projectiles: first, by reducing the high-explosive capacity of the heavier armor-piercing shells and, second, by continuing to develop high-velocity, armor-piercing shot with a tungsten carbide core. What this amounts to is that the Germans are employing shot for attacks against thick armor, while retaining, for every weapon, high-explosive shells to be used in attacks against "thin-skinned" targets."
As you can see, the Germans were, by the time of this intelligence report anyway (May 1943), begining to move away from APHE, and towards shot, due to thicker Allied armor. The result would be that by the later years of the war, solid AP shot was used pretty much exclusively, so this is probably where some of the confusion stems with people concluding that APHE was not really used, or effective.
It was however, and we can see by the date, relatively late in the war. And of course, as I briefly touched on earlier, the Russians remained firm believers in APHE all the way up to the end of the war. I don't know why, but Russian armored doctrine must have saw it as being more beneficial to sacrifice penetrative capability for the destructive potential HE offered, not to mention it's dual-purpose.
Note, I am NOT saying the Russians didn't use shot, or carry more APHE than shot, but many Russians tank rounds carried large, or at least relatively large, HE charges compared to the Germans.
They call it APHE for a reason. If it detonated on contact on the outside of the plate there wouldn't be much sense in firing it at tanks would there? As I quoted from Hogg, the problem of piercing plate and detonating after penetrating was an old one that had been dealt with when designing shells to pierce the thick armored hulls of the Dreadnoughts and armored cruisers in the late 19th century.
Granted, like Wilson said, a bursting charge would not have much effect, but this would be in small calibers. For example the 37mm German APHE round for the Pak 36 and fitted in the first run of Panzer IIIs only had 1/2 ounce of PETN (that's the same stuff you put in blasting caps for detonating larger explosives BTW), so there would probably not be much difference, and Hogg also states this in his book, from being hit with that or a 37mm solid shot.
Also, the British considered it such a waste of effort in the lower calibers that they used solid shot exclusively. The thing was though, even when they moved beyond using small calibers (e.g. 2 pounders), they still remained faithful to the shot alone, and then later of course the APDS, and finally, at the end of the war, the first HESH rounds.
However, moving up to 75mm or greater, an APHE would do considerable damage.
Here is an interesting little snippet I found Googling around on the subject, http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ge_at_tank/
It is taken from an Allied intelligence report specifically on what the Germans were using as ammunition in their AT and tank guns:
"The Germans seem to be losing interest in a combination armor-piercing, high-explosive shell, now that substantial thicknesses of armor have to be dealt with. During the past year they have been improving the anti-armor performance of armor-piercing projectiles: first, by reducing the high-explosive capacity of the heavier armor-piercing shells and, second, by continuing to develop high-velocity, armor-piercing shot with a tungsten carbide core. What this amounts to is that the Germans are employing shot for attacks against thick armor, while retaining, for every weapon, high-explosive shells to be used in attacks against "thin-skinned" targets."
As you can see, the Germans were, by the time of this intelligence report anyway (May 1943), begining to move away from APHE, and towards shot, due to thicker Allied armor. The result would be that by the later years of the war, solid AP shot was used pretty much exclusively, so this is probably where some of the confusion stems with people concluding that APHE was not really used, or effective.
It was however, and we can see by the date, relatively late in the war. And of course, as I briefly touched on earlier, the Russians remained firm believers in APHE all the way up to the end of the war. I don't know why, but Russian armored doctrine must have saw it as being more beneficial to sacrifice penetrative capability for the destructive potential HE offered, not to mention it's dual-purpose.
Note, I am NOT saying the Russians didn't use shot, or carry more APHE than shot, but many Russians tank rounds carried large, or at least relatively large, HE charges compared to the Germans.
Last edited:
Upvote
0