German Tanks in WW2 - the wrong conception

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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). It has HE ammo i think,but im sure some armour expert will tell us.

[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.

[Kagemusha]

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.

[RabidGibbon]

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?

[Kraxis]

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.

[Redleg]

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

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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.

[English assassin]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

[Franconicus]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

[Kraxis]

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.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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

[Redleg]

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.

[Kagemusha]

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?

[Del Arroyo]

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

[econ21]

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

[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.

[Kraxis]

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.

[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?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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.

[Franconicus]

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?

[econ21]

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

[Kraxis]

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.

[Kraxis]

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.

[econ21]

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.