German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Slipping a bit off topic, away from WW2, but indulge me: Nowadays, it seems as if the pendulum has swung back. The Abrams and Challengers in the Iraq War seemed impervious to infantry, despite very close range encounters. I think there was a story of one Challenger being hit by 60+ RPGs. Is that just because the Iraqis were badly equipped? Or do even well equipped modern infantry lack the means to threaten todays best tanks?

---

I think Iraqis RPGs were pretty outdated like their tanks too.But it is very hard to destroy a modern battle tank from in front side or back with RPGs.But APC is not a problem.In Finish army we used French Apilas 112mm heavy RPGs,it can penetrate 600mm of steel,so it can destroy most tanks when hitted in right place.The problem with modern battle tanks is that they have reactive armor(explosive charges that detonate when hitted by RPG and deflect the hit)or composite armor(layers of different materials that absorb the hit)or both.We were taught to shoot a modern battle tank at the tracks to stop it and then it can be detonated. or from multiple directions between the tower and the body of the tank.Ofcourse todays infantrys best weapon against battle tanks are antitank missiles.We were introduced the EuroSpike missile system that operates on fire and forget method.Once you lock the target and fire it.It flyes towards the tank and seconds after the hit it swings up and hit´s the tank on the top where its most vulnerable.I think that your original question remains open,because infantry with modern weapons really havent fought against modern battle tanks,and hopefully it wont happen anytime soon. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Slipping a bit off topic, away from WW2, but indulge me: Nowadays, it seems as if the pendulum has swung back. The Abrams and Challengers in the Iraq War seemed impervious to infantry, despite very close range encounters. I think there was a story of one Challenger being hit by 60+ RPGs. Is that just because the Iraqis were badly equipped? Or do even well equipped modern infantry lack the means to threaten todays best tanks?

---

I would guess that a good number of those rounds did not detonate properly on contact. Many of the hits were either duds or did not fuse correctly for maximum armor penetration. Then you would have a few of them shot at the heavy frontal armor of the tanks, where you would most likely not penetrate unless you hit the driver's hatch, the turret ring, or the gun.

From what I've read, modern western tanks with compartmentalized ammunition storage and blowout panels for those compartments are much safer for the crew than earlier tanks, in that if a penetrating hit sets off the ammunition, most of the force of the explosion is vented outside of the tank and thus the crew is not barbequed. Combine this fact with the extremely small penetrator of the HEAT warhead on RPGs (the actual penetrating slug is only maybe an inch in diameter; if you check the armor of a penetrated tank after a HEAT warhead hit, you will see a black star shaped burn mark where the explosive went off, but the hole in the armor will only be a small pencil shaped hole in the middle of that star) and you have a fairly survivable scenario for the tank crewman. You could have a HEAT slug go all the way through the sides of an Abrams and if you are lucky, it will not hit anything vital. Then again, you could get unlucky and it could go right through your head, but that's your chances.

The actual side and rear armor of modern tanks is actually no better than and even worse in some cases than WW2 tanks, as the need to heavily armor the front from the more lethal antitank weapons leaves less mass to distribute elsewhere. It's just the fact that without setting off ammunition or some other sympathetic explosion within the tank, the small metal slug of an RPG's HEAT warhead isn't really that lethal unless it happens to actually pass right through you.

So no, modern tanks are not impervious IMO to infantry antitank weapons. They are only largely impervious from the front, but the actual destructiveness of the HEAT warheads is not that high even when you do penetrate (which is fairly easily accomplished from the side, rear, top) without setting off something else stored within the tank.

That's my take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

But what was the soldiers' consideration on artillery? I have never read or heard of tankers saying "Man... There was only one thing that really scared me, and that was when they opened up with their artillery on us." But I have heard them say they feared the Panzerfaust/schrek or AT guns in general.

---

Thats because the tankers often can outrun the artillery fire. Its also one of the main battle drills practiced today - reaction to Artillery Fire. Button the hatch and move out.

Yeah I saw that footage of an M1A1/2 knocked out by the Iraqis. It was far from destroyed. It was merely burning a little down in the low chassis and had no smoke billowing from it.
It had been knocked out obviously, but I think it wouldn't take long before it was operational again.

To truly kill a modern MBT with an outdated RPG seems to be near impossible, or depend a whole lot on luck. Right now I think one would haev to settle on 'just' knocking it out.

I just find it interesting that since the insurgetns seems to have lots of RPGs that we don't hear of "American tank knocked out" in the media, since a general jounalist or corrospondent knows no difference between an MBT or IFV.
I know the Bradley is rather thinly skinned, so obviously it must have effective support elements (reactive armour).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Slipping a bit off topic, away from WW2, but indulge me: Nowadays, it seems as if the pendulum has swung back. The Abrams and Challengers in the Iraq War seemed impervious to infantry, despite very close range encounters. I think there was a story of one Challenger being hit by 60+ RPGs. Is that just because the Iraqis were badly equipped? Or do even well equipped modern infantry lack the means to threaten todays best tanks?

---

With most Tanks today (Abrams, Challengers, and from what I have read the upgrades on the T-80 and the new russian tank) most Infantry carried shoulder fired anti-tank rockets especially the RPG are no good being fired at the front and side armor of the vechicle. Its best used like the scenerio of firing the .303 into the sprocket to get a mobility kill. Or to get a rear shot at the vehicle to get an engine kill which prevents the tank from doing much of anything once the batteries go. But even that is a hard thing to accomplish when tanks move in at least pairs or with an IFV along with them.

Several Infantry Anti-Tank missles however are of danger to even the MBT of today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Yeah I saw that footage of an M1A1/2 knocked out by the Iraqis. It was far from destroyed. It was merely burning a little down in the low chassis and had no smoke billowing from it.
It had been knocked out obviously, but I think it wouldn't take long before it was operational again.

To truly kill a modern MBT with an outdated RPG seems to be near impossible, or depend a whole lot on luck. Right now I think one would haev to settle on 'just' knocking it out.

I just find it interesting that since the insurgetns seems to have lots of RPGs that we don't hear of "American tank knocked out" in the media, since a general jounalist or corrospondent knows no difference between an MBT or IFV.
I know the Bradley is rather thinly skinned, so obviously it must have effective support elements (reactive armour).

---

I thought Bradleys havent been used in the cities that much at all because of its vulnerability.When i looked TV material of attack on Fallujah i saw good old Abrams supporting infantry all the time.It is intresting because i thought the M1A2 didnt even have HE rounds but only APCR and HEAT.But i saw with my own eyes from the TV screen Abrams shooting at a house,with its main gun. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

With most Tanks today (Abrams, Challengers, and from what I have read the upgrades on the T-80 and the new russian tank) most Infantry carried shoulder fired anti-tank rockets especially the RPG are no good being fired at the front and side armor of the vechicle. Its best used like the scenerio of firing the .303 into the sprocket to get a mobility kill. Or to get a rear shot at the vehicle to get an engine kill which prevents the tank from doing much of anything once the batteries go. But even that is a hard thing to accomplish when tanks move in at least pairs or with an IFV along with them.

Several Infantry Anti-Tank missles however are of danger to even the MBT of today.

---

It helps if you are in a forest where heavy MBT can move only on the roads. ~;)
Just make myself clear when i talk about the RPG i talk about rocket propelled grenades in general,not the Russian RPG series. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

I thought Bradleys havent been used in the cities that much at all because of its vulnerability.When i looked TV material of attack on Fallujah i saw good old Abrams supporting infantry all the time.It is intresting because i thought the M1A2 didnt even have HE rounds but only APCR and HEAT.But i saw with my own eyes from the TV screen Abrams shooting at a house,with its main gun. :shrug:

---

I haev heard that it does have 'special' rounds of HESH (High Explosive *something* *something*) and HEP (High Explosive Plastic), but they are in general not used as the tank is supposed to fight other tanks, or use its MGs on softer targets. Perhaps there has been shipped a good number of those round to Iraq? But they are not part of the usual loadout of 20 Sabot and 20 HEAT.

Anyway, when I was winding down over at .com, a very nice guy went to Iraq (army logistics officer). He told that they had a bad practice of running through the local town with their Humvees and Bradleys to get some insurgets to shoot at them. He found the whole idea just a bit flawed. ~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I haev heard that it does have 'special' rounds of HESH (High Explosive *something* *something*) and HEP (High Explosive Plastic), but they are in general not used as the tank is supposed to fight other tanks, or use its MGs on softer targets. Perhaps there has been shipped a good number of those round to Iraq? But they are not part of the usual loadout of 20 Sabot and 20 HEAT.

---

Thanks for the info Kraxis.I didnt now about those ammo at all. :bow:
BTW is there any chance that Mannsteins panzers could continue their roaming in Russia anytime soon? ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

Thanks for the info Kraxis.I didnt now about those ammo at all. :bow:
BTW is there any chance that Mannsteins panzers could continue their roaming in Russia anytime soon? ~;)

---

Hey, don't take my word on it. I have only heard about it, I haven't really searched for it, and I can't even remember where I heard it, so we have no reference for reliability.
So it would be very nice if someone who knows stepped in. Anyone in the armoured corps of the US army or German army (same gun, same ammo)?

Manstein won't roll for a few days yet. BI takes my time right now.

The US has an extremely effective anti-tank missile, but I forgot it's name. Maybe someone else will remember it if I describe it, it comes in two components a missile and a targeting computer. It is very large, fairly heavy and quite expensive. But it compensates by allowing the infantryman to fire it at a tank and it will then fly up and strike the top of the tank to avoid the stronger front/sides and rear armor. It can also be set to come in relatively straight at a target if obstacles such as overpasses prevent a top attack. I don't know if it would be capable of destroying an Abrams, but I would bet on it.

Why wouldn't they use the HEAT rounds on "soft" targets such as buildings? Yes it is overkill, but it would seem to have the type of explosive force required to be effective against a house, whereas a SABOT round doesn't seem to have much of a chance of doing anything but making a large hole straight through anything softer than an AFV.

BTW I think when they make an attack against a large insurgent force (for example Fallujah) they send in the marines and army to do some serious housecleaning and generally leave the Bradley's outside the city to create a screen that will be able to stop the insurgents from getting out, it's the theory anyway. I don't know about using Bradley's on patrols, but I remember seeing pictures of them in urban areas.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Hey, don't take my word on it. I have only heard about it, I haven't really searched for it, and I can't even remember where I heard it, so we have no reference for reliability.
So it would be very nice if someone who knows stepped in. Anyone in the armoured corps of the US army or German army (same gun, same ammo)?

Manstein won't roll for a few days yet. BI takes my time right now.

---

So Abrams uses same ammo as Leopard 2? Because its the new main armour of our military.(Got them cheap from Germany). ~D It has HE ammo i think,but im sure some armour expert will tell us.

I believe you are talking about the Javelin. That is one nasty weapon.
I saw footage of a testfire against a T-72. The Javelin literally blew the T-72 to pieces. And I mean pieces! After the explosion the footage stops just as you see the turret drop to the ground and one of the tracks sprawled on the ground and lots of debris flying everywhere. The tank was gone. The cheers from the Javelin-crew was pretty believeable when you see that kind of destruction.
Beat an Abrams? Hell yeah!

The HEAT can indeed be used to open up walls, but its explosive capability is rather weak really. It is a pointed explosion so it doesn't have a lot of concussion that is needed to blow a house to pieces or really lay the smackdown. And it is very expensive.
So if kagemusha could tell us how the results were, then perhaps we can determine the round used.

Yes, the Leopard 2 and the Abrams have the same gun from Rheinmetall, so I assumed that they use the same ammo in general. Just like they did along with the UK with the old 105mm rifle.

Kraxis the Shots that i saw on telly looked like the rounds would have been HEAT or blunt headed ammo because only dust came out from the broken windows when the tank shot in the house, it didnt look like a high explosive round.
But hey what can we tell from few news film clips. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kraxis

It was far from destroyed. It was merely burning a little down in the low chassis and had no smoke billowing from it.
It had been knocked out obviously, but I think it wouldn't take long before it was operational again.

---

Re: Damaged looking Tanks, both then (WW2) and now theirs been things that can blow a tank to pieces, turn it on its side etc etc, but I've always understood that a knocked out tank (once its finished burning - and all the burning is normally on the inside) can be hard to differentiate from a operational tank at distance.

I remember seeing a photo of a French Bis-1(?) (of 1940 Vintage) being used by the Germans that had been hit by a 17pdr AT Gun at Arnhem, and the shell hole was only noticeable because it had been circled in the photo.

During Operation Crusader in the western desert apparently knocked out tanks often caused some confusion as the battle became all messy and the two sides got mixed up, and fought over battlegrounds that had been recently contested by other formations.

All in all I suspect knocked out tanks that look relatively intact aren't just a modern day phenomenon.

Incidentally whilst theirs so many tank enthusiasts here is it true that the M1A1 has a smoothbore rather than a rifled gun? And if so why is this apparently wrongheaded innovation advantageous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RabidGibbon

Re: Damaged looking Tanks, both then (WW2) and now theirs been things that can blow a tank to pieces, turn it on its side etc etc, but I've always understood that a knocked out tank (once its finished burning - and all the burning is normally on the inside) can be hard to differentiate from a operational tank at distance.

I remember seeing a photo of a French Bis-1(?) (of 1940 Vintage) being used by the Germans that had been hit by a 17pdr AT Gun at Arnhem, and the shell hole was only noticeable because it had been circled in the photo.

During Operation Crusader in the western desert apparently knocked out tanks often caused some confusion as the battle became all messy and the two sides got mixed up, and fought over battlegrounds that had been recently contested by other formations.

All in all I suspect knocked out tanks that look relatively intact aren't just a modern day phenomenon.

Incidentally whilst theirs so many tank enthusiasts here is it true that the M1A1 has a smoothbore rather than a rifled gun? And if so why is this apparently wrongheaded innovation advantageous?

---

Well, this footage was upclose to the tank, a step closer and the cameraman would have been crawling on it. There was also some footage looking down on it. Only the commander's hatch was open, indicating a slow retreat from the tank, and there was no indication of an internal fire. The desert camo would instantly show burnmarks at this range, and there was nothing.
Besides, I would suspect that with all the rubber, plastic and other flamabe materials that the tank would at least billow lots of smoke. Plastic burns with lots of smoke.

The smoothbore tankgun is superior to the rifled gun because it uses fins to stabilize the shot. This is better because the rotation of the shot causes a weakening of the HEAT shell (its explosion is less focussed). Also the shots can this way be perfectly fitted. Meaning the rifling won't bleed any gasses during the firing. Further in rifled guns the shot is either upbored or the gun underbored, meaning the shot is slightly too big so that it grips the rifling. That is not needed in a smoothbore. And there is more I'm sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Well, this footage was upclose to the tank, a step closer and the cameraman would have been crawling on it. There was also some footage looking down on it. Only the commander's hatch was open, indicating a slow retreat from the tank, and there was no indication of an internal fire. The desert camo would instantly show burnmarks at this range, and there was nothing.
Besides, I would suspect that with all the rubber, plastic and other flamabe materials that the tank would at least billow lots of smoke. Plastic burns with lots of smoke.

The smoothbore tankgun is superior to the rifled gun because it uses fins to stabilize the shot. This is better because the rotation of the shot causes a weakening of the HEAT shell (its explosion is less focussed). Also the shots can this way be perfectly fitted. Meaning the rifling won't bleed any gasses during the firing. Further in rifled guns the shot is either upbored or the gun underbored, meaning the shot is slightly too big so that it grips the rifling. That is not needed in a smoothbore. And there is more I'm sure.

---

you covered it well enough

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

I believe you are talking about the Javelin. That is one nasty weapon.
I saw footage of a testfire against a T-72. The Javelin literally blew the T-72 to pieces. And I mean pieces! After the explosion the footage stops just as you see the turret drop to the ground and one of the tracks sprawled on the ground and lots of debris flying everywhere. The tank was gone. The cheers from the Javelin-crew was pretty believeable when you see that kind of destruction.
Beat an Abrams? Hell yeah!

The HEAT can indeed be used to open up walls, but its explosive capability is rather weak really. It is a pointed explosion so it doesn't have a lot of concussion that is needed to blow a house to pieces or really lay the smackdown. And it is very expensive.
So if kagemusha could tell us how the results were, then perhaps we can determine the round used.

Yes, the Leopard 2 and the Abrams have the same gun from Rheinmetall, so I assumed that they use the same ammo in general. Just like they did along with the UK with the old 105mm rifle.

---

Yeah, thats the one. I saw footage of a test-fire on a T-72 as well, quite an impressive weapon.

I thought the problem with HEAT vs. "soft" targets might be that it is a shaped charge, I didn't really take into account the expense as if I was in a tank and absolutely HAD to take down a building, well I wouldn't be thinking of the money required.

Quote:

---

11. In combat against the antitank guns you may never - even under the protection of strong fire support - allow a single platoon to attack alone. Antitank weapons are not employed singly. Remember - lone tanks in Russia are lost

---

Slightly OT as the conversation has developed, but this very interesting post from German WWII tactical doctrine by Redleg would tend to support my original argument that a larger number of ok to good tanks is a better option for the general than a small number of really excellent tanks.

Assuming that the tanks are at least comparable. Judging from the few armoured encounters there were around Basra even five T55's are not a match for one Challenger 2. But that is comparing technologies that are 40 years apart.

The ultimate test of your proposition never happened.

Had the Red Army tried the Fulda gap with its thousands of t-72s and t-80s against the newly deployed Abrams, Chal-1 and Leopards, then we'd have seen the answer -- at least until the tac nukes were brought in.

For offensive operations, numbers help. Blitzkreig requires strategic shock and a larger number of mobile tanks can create that more quickly. If they are weak tanks, however, combat with reserve formations will NOT go as planned, so they do have to be comparable.

On the defensive, number are somewhat less important. Devastating firepower is key, as is the armoring to shrug off artillery barrages and the like in the opening stages of an assault.

What a far ranging and interesting discussion.

Seamus

The ultimate test of your proposition never happened.

Had the Red Army tried the Fulda gap with its thousands of t-72s and t-80s against the newly deployed Abrams, Chal-1 and Leopards, then we'd have seen the answer -- at least until the tac nukes were brought in.

For offensive operations, numbers help. Blitzkreig requires strategic shock and a larger number of mobile tanks can create that more quickly. If they are weak tanks, however, combat with reserve formations will NOT go as planned, so they do have to be comparable.

On the defensive, number are somewhat less important. Devastating firepower is key, as is the armoring to shrug off artillery barrages and the like in the opening stages of an assault.

What a far ranging and interesting discussion.

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

For offensive operations, numbers help. Blitzkreig requires strategic shock and a larger number of mobile tanks can create that more quickly. Seamus

---

Seamus,
I am uncertain about your statement. For Blitz you need speed and some combat power. If you have 1,000 weak tanks instead of 150 strong ones won't that slow your movements. I mean you have to use the same streets and must supply much more fuel etc. On the other hand you can attack into more directions, so the confusion is bigger. ~:confused:

Franc:

I'm suggesting that, for blitz ops, numbers help. 1k weak tanks would suck, but so would only 150 excellent ones. What you need is 5-6 hundred good ones. If you can afford 1k excellent ones, than by all means....

Seamus

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

I thought the problem with HEAT vs. "soft" targets might be that it is a shaped charge, I didn't really take into account the expense as if I was in a tank and absolutely HAD to take down a building, well I wouldn't be thinking of the money required.

---

Well I did mention that... I just called it a pointed explosion, but a pointed explosion is what a shaped charge does. Think of it as a strong straight punch where the HE is a slow and not so hard hook.

Of course if I had the choice between sabot and HEAT and had to demolish the building, HEAT would be my selection. Though a better choice would likely be the M2 .50 cal on top as its rounsd generally punch through normal brick, mudbrick and concrete walls. 1000 rounds and the house would fall apart.

I was researching tanks, at school of all places, but I checked Wikipedia for HEP and HESH rounds and it stated that they were both the same, a shaped plastic charge.

The HEAT round would be sooo much quicker.... Well if it is loaded already.

BTW Kraxis I did know it was a shaped charge, and had thought it was the reason why HEAT was not an ideal selection, and what you said confirmed that.

dO YOU GUYS NOW WHAT COUNTRY IN eUROPE has most artillery.This is off topic but i just want to ask.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

dO YOU GUYS NOW WHAT COUNTRY IN eUROPE has most artillery.This is off topic but i just want to ask.

---

Russia still has the most Artillery in Europe I believe.

Edit: Up until 1990 the United States had the most Artillery in Europe other then the USSR that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Russia still has the most Artillery in Europe I believe.

Edit: Up until 1990 the United States had the most Artillery in Europe other then the USSR that is.

---

Oh sorry Redleg but i should rephase my sebtence- What EU country has most artillery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kagemusha

Oh sorry Redleg but i should rephase my sebtence- What EU country has most artillery?

---

Probably the UK, they're the only ones with a serious, deployable military. But hey, who knows?

DA

I'd guess Germany - it historically has had the largest army of the Western European countries, by virtue of being in the frontline of the Cold War and the size of its population & economy. The UK has a deployable military, but a smallish army - a lot of our defence spending goes on the navy.

I don't know how reliable this site is, but it seems to back up my hunch:

http://www.militaryfactory.com/count...?country_id=12

You're all forgetting what HEAT rounds cause. It's spall folks. Although a HEAT round would probably cause a small hole, it would make the inside surface of the wall come apart just as readily as a HESH shell due to the spall effect. In fact, most HEAT rounds depend on that to kill armored vehicles and other hard surfaces.

And FYI, a way to increase the flexibility of HEAT shells is to wrap notched wire around the explosive within in order to greatly increase the amount of shrapnel produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

You're all forgetting what HEAT rounds cause. It's spall folks. Although a HEAT round would probably cause a small hole, it would make the inside surface of the wall come apart just as readily as a HESH shell due to the spall effect. In fact, most HEAT rounds depend on that to kill armored vehicles and other hard surfaces.

And FYI, a way to increase the flexibility of HEAT shells is to wrap notched wire around the explosive within in order to greatly increase the amount of shrapnel produced.

---

It is interesting that the thicker the armour the better both the sabot and the HEAT are at knocking the enemy tank out (to an extent of course).
If the armour was 20mm both would just pass right through with little damage, but 200mm and we will see a lot of debris getting knocked off from the armour on the inside when they penetrate it, just like wood really.

I do not doubt that a HEAT round can be used effectively, but it still lacks the concussive effects (unless you are quite close by) of the HE and HESH. Also, buildings often have rooms that are far more open than a tankturret, meaning the spall and debris knocked off will be flying in a nice shallow cone inwards of the room. In a tank that isn't too bad as it would be knocked back from the far wall, creating a wide zone of destruction. In a house the wall might be too far away for a proper coverage, besides most soldies hunker down near the outer wall and not in the rear. Thus the initial spread would not cover enough space. Neither would the HE or HESH or any other similar round, but their concussive effects would simply knock the life out of every man in the building, at least knock them down. Also, the latter types of ammo are more likely to actually destroy the building.
Lastly the HEAT is contact, the others can be set to delayed action, meaning they can pass through the wall, then explode on the inside. That would be a nasty situation for the poor sods in the building.

So what I'm tryingto say is that the HEAT can do the job, but it is expensive and not very costeffective. I still say I would remote control the .50 cal.

HESH? Delayed action? Er... no.

Anyway, most HEAT shells these days have more high explosive than they previously did, making them much more effective against infantry, especially since they can be detonated with a proximity fuse (allowing them to pass into rooms and soft targets) before blowing up.

About cost effectiveness, it's REALLY cost effective to manufacture HE, HESH, HEAT and KE shells all at the same time. And also, given the small number of rounds that tanks store, would you really want to stock 4-5 kinds of specialist rounds instead of 2 relatively general purpose rounds?

Well seeing as SABOT rounds are extremely specialized.... Yeah I would want to carry them, as to 4-5 types of ammo, not really.

Bet the .50 cal or an infantry launched RPG (LAWS or something similar) would do the job though.

:book: I have a source that a Tiger (I) tank took 30.000 manhours to build, costed 250,000 Reichsmark. This is the same that the US needed to build a B29.
Does anybody has similar figures of other WW2 tanks?

I don't have any sources, but recall reading that the Germans could make 3-4 tank destroyers for the cost of one tank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

HESH? Delayed action? Er... no.

Anyway, most HEAT shells these days have more high explosive than they previously did, making them much more effective against infantry, especially since they can be detonated with a proximity fuse (allowing them to pass into rooms and soft targets) before blowing up.

About cost effectiveness, it's REALLY cost effective to manufacture HE, HESH, HEAT and KE shells all at the same time. And also, given the small number of rounds that tanks store, would you really want to stock 4-5 kinds of specialist rounds instead of 2 relatively general purpose rounds?

---

Since the entire point of the HESH/HEP is to splatter out on the concrete walls of a bunker or armour of a tank I would definately say it is already delayed. And walls in normal buldings aren't too thick, allowing the HESH to beat through first.

Didn't know HEAT rounds could be delayed. That of course will help it a whole lot. But if it can be delayed (which I can't believe would be good against armour) why can't HESH?

About mixing rounds... Well given that there is just about no enemy armour or reinforced positions to fight I find that the Sabot is pretty much useless. Would I rather carry a HEAT/HESH combination in Iraq? You bet! The Sabot could be discarded all the way home to the stores.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

I don't have any sources, but recall reading that the Germans could make 3-4 tank destroyers for the cost of one tank.

---

No, it was 2 tanks for every 3 turretless tanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

No, it was 2 tanks for every 3 turretless tanks.

---

That sounds much more plausible, but I am certain I remembered what I read correctly (although what I read might have been wrong). I'll try to dig out the source - although I think it might have been an article about the Swedish S-tank written in a military magazine in the 1970s and I am not sure I kept it.

I suppose 3:1 might be correct if we were comparing something like a hetzer (sp?) or budget tank destroyer with a 75mm gun to a Panther or Tiger. But I agree on a more like for like comparison (Jagdpanther to Panther) 3:2 sounds more plausible. I am pretty sure my source did not specify the models used in the comparison.

A Stug compared to a Tiger might be 3:1. I had a link somewhere that listed cost in Reichsmark for several tanks but as always I cant find it right now.


CBR

Any comparison with Shermans or T34 or Josef Stalin?

Here's some data on WW2 tanks costs:

http://www.panzerworld.net/prices.html

And on the Stug:

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:z...tug+cost&hl=en

My cursory reading is that it is just the Tiger that was excessively expensive. The Panther looks like a good buy, while the lower Stug does not seem worth losing the turret.

I'm not sure if we can trust the exchange rates, but if we can, the Sherman also does not seem that much cheaper than the Panther either.

So basically there is not much of a quantity-quality trade-off excluding the Tiger.

Great link :bow:
Yes, I will buy Panthers too!

Well, what was the conversionrate to $? Also if I'm not mistaken Germany was poorer, meaning a generally lower cost of everything.

But yeah the Panther certainly does look good on the price. And the Panzer IV quiet bad comparably. Add some 20000 R.marks and you will more or less get the price of the fully loaded Panther.

But I was surprised at the high cost of Kar 98k and MP40, while the MP44 (Stg44) is quite low. It has always been heralded as revolutionary and COSTLY! But it is hardly more expensive than the MP40 which was considered cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christian Ankerstjerne

While the exchange rate between USD and Reichmark changed during the war, the level was around USD 0.4-0.5 for one Reichmark.

---

But it could be really hard to compare US and German costs. You could look at manhours. But the US probably were probably better at reducing labour input - more automation etc. I read that each year of the war, the labour cost of producing liberty ships halved - the Americans learnt how to organise production much more efficiently over time.

Well the Stug is around 80% cost of a Panzer III and has same gun as an IV plus lower signature which makes it better in defensive operations so I wouldnt say it wasnt worth it.

Edit: oh and remember Panther cost is without weapon. The Tiger cost 50K more fully equipped so that could be maybe 40K extra on the Panther.


CBR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CBR

Well the Stug is around 80% cost of a Panzer III and has same gun as an IV plus lower signature which makes it better in defensive operations so I wouldnt say it wasnt worth it.

Edit: oh and remember Panther cost is without weapon. The Tiger cost 50K more fully equipped so that could be maybe 40K extra on the Panther.


CBR

---

Agreed on the StuG.

But the Tiger costed 299,000 compared to the 117,000 of the weaponless Panther. Now a Panther had a 7,5 cm Kw.K.42 L/70 costing 12,000 and two MG34 costing 327. Add to that various other stuff and I will say that 20,000 is a fair, and perhaps even too high figure.
The Tiger gun is not listed, but so isn't the radio. But if we look at the 88mm L71, then we can perhaps glean how much the L53 costed. I doubt that it would be much cheaper given it was the first generation convertion from the AA piece (it wasn't as effective yet), while the L71 was a perfected and designed weapon for the Tiger II.

Well one thing is the actual gun another thing is the work spent on adding it to the turret etc. Thats not gonna be a simple thing and will cost some manhours. Look at the cost for III and IV and the radio can not have been that expensive.


CBR

HESH cannot be delayed due to its very mechanism of operation (It has to flatten out against what it hits), if the HESH beats through, then it would just hit an inside wall, or maybe simply go all the way through and fail to flatten out. HESH could potentially be delayed by a proxy fuse inside the shell though, althouhg you're better off just using HE or HEAT for that purpose. Also, not all future wars will be in places where there is no armored presence, or no structures of extreme strength (i'd keep sabots around, just so I can penetrate the armor of heavily armored AT pillboxes or very heavily reinforced houses.)

re the costs, this is relevant if money is the limiting factor in production. If something else is the limiting factor the costs won't help us in the quality vs quantity issue. SA hints at this in his reference to automation (eg production line techniques) If a Panther requires a large input from skilled craftsmen to make, and they are in short supply, whereas a Sherman can be assembed with semi-skilled labour, then you are going to get more Shermans than Panthers. Or, if steel is the limiting factor, a 30 ton Sherman is going to be easier to produce than a 60 ton Tiger.

Interesting figures though. It shows in cost terms at least there's no reason to suppose a bad tamk is cheaper than a good one (the fact that we think it might be is our war game prejudices coming out I suspect...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

HESH cannot be delayed due to its very mechanism of operation (It has to flatten out against what it hits), if the HESH beats through, then it would just hit an inside wall, or maybe simply go all the way through and fail to flatten out. HESH could potentially be delayed by a proxy fuse inside the shell though, althouhg you're better off just using HE or HEAT for that purpose. Also, not all future wars will be in places where there is no armored presence, or no structures of extreme strength (i'd keep sabots around, just so I can penetrate the armor of heavily armored AT pillboxes or very heavily reinforced houses.)

---

Fair enough...

Of course the HE would be the best weapon against infantry in the open (though in protected positions) and in buildings. The fact that artillery caused the majority of all casualties in WWII makes a good cause for that.
But my point was for the rounds actually made for the Rheinmetall 120mm gun on the M1A1, and I have heard about the HESH being made for the gun, so I assumed that the American army had some of them too. Haven't heard about HE though.
And I was talking purely from an Iraq-case. How many tanks and bunkers are left in the hand of what can be termed as enemy forces? In Iraq there is no need for the Sabot, so again I assumed that they were perhaps being swapped for the HESH, since it is better than it against infantry and buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Since the entire point of the HESH/HEP is to splatter out on the concrete walls of a bunker or armour of a tank I would definately say it is already delayed. And walls in normal buldings aren't too thick, allowing the HESH to beat through first.

Didn't know HEAT rounds could be delayed. That of course will help it a whole lot. But if it can be delayed (which I can't believe would be good against armour) why can't HESH?

---

Well, I would imagine the HESH isn't any use with a delayed fuse as it's destructive effects are gained through the plastic explosive inside spreading out over the surface it impacts. If you delay the charge, which is generally used to allow rounds to penetrate buildings and detonate on the inside, it's not going to be able to spread out properly, and, as it's not a high KE round, I'm not certain it would get through the armor/wall anyway.

Does anyone use HESH anymore, anyway? I thought it was all discarding sabot KE and HEAT rounds for anti-tank stuff, and HE for anti-infantry. HESH just isn't as effective against armor as the KE and heat rounds-although it is good against bunkers.

Argh... As I said the Sabot and HEAT are the principal rounds (generally the only carried) while I have heard of HESH for the Rheinmetall 120mm. I figured it was there for use against buildings.

My entire point of bringing up the HESH was because I supposed it was better against buildings, and that the American tanks in Iraq seems to support their infantry in action in cities. Sabots simply aren't worth much when there is no armour around. And HEATs are expensive (comparably), and perhaps not as good, though that can really be discussed.

Here's one swift way to defeat HESH. Put sandbags on the outside of bunkers with a thick layer of spacing/padding. The round will hit the sandbags and not transmit its shockwaves to the concrete beneath. HEAT would penetrate the sandbags to the concrete beneath. Also remember that houses and rubble can be fortified and turned into quasi bunkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemonArchangel

You're all forgetting what HEAT rounds cause. It's spall folks. Although a HEAT round would probably cause a small hole, it would make the inside surface of the wall come apart just as readily as a HESH shell due to the spall effect.

---

The spall caused by a similarly sized HESH round on a nonspaced armor is MUCH greater than a HEAT round, as spalling is the whole modus operandi of HESH....

We forgot one important thing when we did the cost comparison of German tanks vs. Sherman or T34. That is the cost and the resources spend for the development of the systems.

There are lot systems that are very complex and then only built in a very small number, like the Ferdinand "Elefant".

Similar things at the Luftwaffe were you do not only have the Me262 as an advanced fighter but also planes like the Komet or the Volksjäger.

These 'high technology' programs seem to me like a waste of capacities. This may be one reason why some important new systems (like the Me262) came only in small numbers and too late.