Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

Hi Cross

Unlike a AP shell the thicker the armour the -smaller- the hole a HEAT round makes, so at -maximum- penetration the hole is tiny and the effect becomes the same as lighting a match in the tank. Hoggs "effective" penetrations would be the thickness of armour the weapon can penetrate and still have enough punch to destroy the vehicle. Though the oft quoted maximum penetration is greater than Hoggs effective penetration, at the maximum penetration value the effect on the tanks interior becomes negligable as the HEAT round uses up all its energy 'drilling' the hole.
For example from your reference
http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html
Note from test "e" that after the bazooka round penetrated only 50mm of armour the hole has already decreased to the size of a pencil, 1/4 inch.

Even though a bazooka or panzershreck operator may be 'feeling' tense he can still follow his training and gently squeeze the trigger to get of an 'accurate' shot. A PIAT operator can't do this he has to 'fight' the stiff trigger.
The recoil from a bazooka or panzershreck is due to the rocket exhaust hitting the protective sheild. As this cannot happen until the round is clear of the launch tube it doesnt effect accuracy. As the PIAT's heavy recoil is caused by having to overcome the bombs inertia it does affect the weapons accuracy.

The PIAT also has a much shorter 'barrel' PIAT it is in fact a spigot mortar, normally not an accurate weapon.

PIAT is mentioned as more 'effective' in your reference because it fires multiple munition types not because it is more accurate or has better penetration values.

As regards Panzershreck (in)accuraccy the same reference you quote goes on to decribe how accurrate they may have been. So juries out on that one I guess.

Also of interest,
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_6.htm#p127
"The 1st Battalion refused to panic and set to work with bazookas against the flanks of the blinded tanks. One of the panzers was crippled, but the crew ompartment proved impervious to bazooka rounds (perhaps this was a Tiger)"
Apparently bazooka couldnt penetrate tiger side armour, this makes sense as Tiger side armour is 80cm coinciding with Ian Hoggs penetration value for bazooka.
So Ive got to say I think the current in game values look OK except for the penetration values. By all accounts Bazooka was reasonably accurate and panzershreck is after all a copy.
Best Regards Chuck.

Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

FWIW, WWII HEAT appears to have been very erratic performers.

First of all, the technology and the principles involved were not very well understood at the time, so warheads were rather crude, technologywise.

Secondly, wartime manufacturing standards were not high and HEAT warheads need precision manufacturing to work properly. The German Army returned hundreds of thousands of Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust warheads because they did not meet standards.

Thirdly, and partly as a function of the above two issues, WWII HEAT seems to have been extremely sensitive to any form of obstruction and really needed a perpendicular hit to do any serious damage. If it hit at angle, it might just bounce off, fail to detonate or just not make much of an impact. Bazookas failing against T34s might be explained by this, as would a known incident where several Panzerfaust hits on an M10 tank destroyer failed to do any damage.
Hitting a tool, luggage, exhaust pipe or similar would like damage the object, but also completely destroy the penetrative capabilities of the HEAT warhead.

Of course, with the low velocity and aerodynamically challenged warheads, accuary would be feeble and contribution to the above issues by rounds hitting at angles, sideways and whatnot.

With this in mind, it is probably a useless excercise to try to extrapolate actual penetration performance from battlefield stories and reports. The only real measure of performance is probably the static tests, which eliminate most of the issues mentioned. But it also by its very nature exaggerates actual performance.

cbo

Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

:banghead



If I were inclined to find amusement in all this I would but I don't but let's look as some of the "documented" evidence supplied so far and I have NO intention of getting further involved with this beyond this post

Chucky has used the 'The Encyclopedia of Infantry Weapons of World War II' quote for these weapons before. He got it from LINK (Jan 13, 2004 ( look at post 7 of 10 ) which is now just about 5 years old. I doubt he even owns the damn book. And his "set to work with bazookas against the flanks of the blinded tanks" quote is word for word what he posted last year and it's always tiresome to read the same thing over and over in a crusade to make a "point".

Cross has already stated that there is a very WIDE gap in "expert" opinion regarding these weapons and they are all over 60 years old ( compare and contrast all the "informed " opinion on the MBT thread about modern weapons performance ! ) If I were more inclined to laughter I'd be laughing all the time reading this stuff

So far, as stated above here's the range of penetration figures for the four weapons under discussion

PIAT--- anywhere from 75mm - 125mm
Bazooka figures were exactly the same with a range of 75mm - 125mm
"Panzershreck PEN was listed from 160-230mm by all sources, except I think one"
"The Panzerfaust was listed from 140-200mm, but the 140mm was for the early 'Klien?' model." ( Yes the 140mm pen is for the Klein)

So somewhere in all that crap is the "truth" and the funny thing is each value was put down by someone claiming to be an "expert"

Since Chuck likes Ian Hogg ( and for anyone who doesn't know who Hogg was he was one of the few people holding the tile of "Master gunner" of the RA and was an assistant instructor of ammunition at Sandhurst. He's dead now so we can't ask him where the data came from ) I have a book written by Hogg and it is actually IN MY HANDS.


ALL QUOTES from ------ "Grenades and Mortars" Ian Hogg January 1974

PIAT: The British Projector Anti-tank. This shoulder fired weapons, using a 3 lb projectile, is capable of a penetration of 4 inches of armour at a range of 50 yards". He has a rather long passage devoted to the joys of cocking the weapons summed up with the line..." The first move was to cock it, a process which probably accounted form more slipped discs and sprained backs than any other wartime evolution.................anyone under 5 foot six inches was laying himself open to injury trying to cock a PIAT. An even more entertaining pastime was trying to cock it lying on your back in a slit trench" and ............." Once you got used to it, and knew how to hold it, wasn't unpleasant to fire, but it was a trifle odd to be able to look up after the bang and see the bomb wobbling slowly through the air until it struck it's target"

Panzerfaust : " The first model issued.....known as the Panzerfaust 30 Klein" .....maximum range of 30 metres.........was a highly effective weapon with a 4 inch diameter warhead which could penetrate 140mm or armour plate. This was replaced by an improved version using a better propellant and a larger (155mm) warhead capable of penetrating 200mm of armour. This also went into production in late 1943 as the panzerfaust 30........... Since the penetration of the '30' was considered to be adequate, further development now concentrated on improving range and accuracy. This led to the "Panzerfaust 60" that went into production in the summer of 1944.......then came the Panzerfaust 100 in November 1944 and the panzerfaust 150 in January 1945 ( only 100,000 being made ). Just for the record we decided a LONG time ago that there would be one panzerfaust modeled in the game otherwise we would run out of unit slots building infantry units as the weapon upgraded and that was when we only had 246 unit slots. It would be equally impossible today with 999

Panzershreck ( Panzerbuchse 54 )........" The principle difference between this and the American model was that the Germans used a small magneto in the pistol grip to develop the firing current, instead of the two torch batteries used in the bazooka but the calibre was larger - 3.5 inches - giving a more powerful warhead. The design of the rocket motor was less efficient leading to a shorter effective range of only 165 yards, so the firer had to be pretty iron-nerved. But the penetration ability was OVER EIGHT INCHES( EMPHASIS MINE ) which meant that any allied tank could be defeated if the operator could pick his point of aim. Officially called the Racketen Panzerbuchse 54 it was finally known by the common soldiery as Ofenrohr or "stovepipe", largely due to it's appearance and the fact that a six-foot flame came out the back when it was fired

Bazooka ( remember------- I'm still quote Ian V Hogg here ) ........." a simple tube which the operator placed on his shoulder and pointed at the target by and equally simple sight. A fin stabilized rocket with a hollow charge warhead was placed into the tail end of the tube and fired electrically. The fuse armed during the rockets flight and on striking the target COULD PIERCE ABOUT FIVE INCHES OF ARMOUR PLATE( EMPHASIS MINE ). The velocity was low - 265 feet per second- AND THE RANGE WAS SHORT - A MAXIMUM OF 600 YARDS- SO IT PAID THE FIRER TO KEEP COOL AND WAIT UNTIL THE TARGET WAS CLOSE BEFORE PRESSING THE TRIGGER ( EMPHASIS MINE ). But with these limitations understood the 2.36 inch bazooka was a highly effective weapon. The story has often been told of the first time it was used in action in the Kasserine Pass battle in North Africa, when a somewhat disgruntled German Officer said he decided to surrender since there seemed little point in attempting to press forward in the face of fire from a 155mm gun"



Now compare and contrast that with the load of info found in all the other posts on this subject and compare it to this info found in the " Complete encyclopaedia of Weapons of World War II" by Chris Bishop

I'll make this brief

PIAT........"A form of Spigot mortar that used a powerful central spring to fire it's projectile from a front mounted 'trough'. It was not a popular weapon, but it could kill tanks. All this book says about the PIAT's penetration is ......."it fired a useful grenade that could penetrate any contemporary tanks protection". Useless to the "grognard" types who want exact information but it DOES say that " Pulling the trigger released a powerful spring and this spring enabled the spigot to strike the grenades propelling charge to fire it from the trough. The propelling charge also recocked the main spring ready for a second grenade to be loaded. Range is listed as "combat" 110 yards. Maximum 370 yards

Panzerfaust : No real different info than quoted above except this book says the Panzerfaust 150 never got past the testing stage and was never issued

Panzershreck: Maximum range 165 yards and " The later rockets could penetrate up to 160mm (6.3 in ) of tank armour


Bazooka : Armour penetration 119.4 mm ( 4.7 in ) at 0 degrees. Range : Maximum 650 yards


So what to make of all this conflicting data ??

Well I know that no matter what I do somebody will come along and say it's wrong eventually :rolleyes:

However.

PIAT------- OK as is. Anyone wanting to debate the accuracy is free to do so. I'm free to make up my own mind as to the accuracy of weapon that fires a "bomb wobbling slowly through the air until it struck it's target"

Panzerfaust ------- OK as is

Panzershreck------- FWIW the range for all Panzershreck in the game are 4 hexes EXCEPT Germany. Before the paranoids start pointing fingers it's NOT deliberate it's just a garden variety screw up. In DOS version 7 all were made range 4 but some reason ( I could guess all day and still not be 100 % certain I'm right.perhaps a test was run and the range not reset ?? ) the Windows versions ended up with it set to 6 for Germany and 4 for everyone else and it's been that way ever since . All in all 3 is probably a better range and I've made a note of that. ( Penetration is either 160 or 200 mm. Take your pick of experts. I'll make a note of that as well but I'm inclined to the 200 mm figure. Certainly not the 100mm nonsense. Germany has 20 pen and all the rest have 23 so that will be looked at too and the 23 knocked down to at least 20 for certain

Bazooka. Certainly a lot of people seem to think the range should be reduced even though we have it 1/3 the range often quoted AND we have a penetration figure under both what Hogg is quoted as giving it ( in a real book ) and what Bishop is quoted as giving it so we could already be accused of under cutting it's actual abilities. 4 hexes range, given what is widely published actually seems low even though that might be a bit high for practical purposes in combat. Penetration of 10 is obviously debateable but so is just about everything else. That penetration figure pops up over and over and over

One final note. The hole a HEAT round actually burns through armour is not as important as the jet of superheated gasses that enter the fighting compartment and, I quote a book I read years ago , spreads the crew around the inside of the tank like jam. I challenge anyone to put their hand in front of an acetylene torch then debate whether a 1/4 inch or half inch orifice makes that much of a difference to living flesh

Also note that Hogg says that the bazooka "The fuse armed during the rockets flight " then compare that to the quote about " one officer fired 22 bazooka rounds at about 15 yards range against the rear of the t34 tanks where their armor is weakest, but to no effect" then ask....maybe...... just maybe....... was he was standing too close for the fuse to properly arm or , as Claus noted, the angle of the rear armour may have been just right to deflect the bomb.


Don


:banghead

Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

Also when hole is small (or no hole at all) it often implies a LOT of spalling inside the crew compartment, something WW2 tanks were NOT equipped to deal with...

Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

Hi Chuck,

Despite the small hole made by the Bazooka, they concluded the damage would easily be lethal to the occupants:

Here's the quote:

3. CONCLUSIONS:

The bazooka will penetrate the armor on the side, rear, and side of the turret on the German Mk. V Panther tank. The turret is very effectively penetrated and the blasted particles on the inside most certainly are lethal. The side armor is of less thickness than the turret and can be penetrated more easily.

I recall reading that tiny holes and even non-penetrating rounds (causing spalling inside the crew compartment) could often be lethal/cause casualties. But I think this was regarding AP rounds.

It sounds like Hogg sets the bar a little higher, to the catastrophic penetration range. One of the things I like about SPWW2, is it allows full penetration with no casualties or minor damage, or a round that barely makes it though the armour brews up the tank.

Having held a PIAT and pulled the (uncocked) trigger, my sense is that I could tug on the trigger and the PIAT wouldn't move; because a loaded PIAT weighs from 35 to almost 40 pounds. But now we are delving into the inane...

BTW, the Panzershreck weighed just over 30 pounds (loaded) and was almost 6 ft long, yet the PIAT has the reputation of being 'unwieldy'; perhaps the Tommies just complained more ;)


I'm not claiming the PIAT was 'accurate'. But it easily 'held it's own' against the weapons of the day.

Here's the quote in context, let it speak for itself:

Nevertheless, the PIAT proved to be more effective than her American (Bazooka series) and German (Panzerfaust series) counterparts, with the PIAT sporting a grenade capable of defeating contemporary armor of the time and a launcher capable of launching multiple munition types.

Here's what the site says:

The Panzerschrecks were initially less successful than Panzerfausts because Panzerschreck gunners - trusting in the impressive size of the Panzerschreck - tended to open fire at larger ranges of around 100m (330 ft.), which was also necessified by the relative cumbersomeness of the large Panzerschreck which was a hindrance when retreating into cover after the shot. Panzerfausts were easier to handle and usually shot from a distance of 30m (100 ft.) after which the soldier quite easily could get under cover again.

At early trials, out of 12 Panzerschreck rounds fired at a static T-34 at a range of 100m only 3 hit the target.

There is still some controversy around the range of this weapon. Sources give figures for anything from 150m to 1,000m as range: The Panzerschreck's technical data call for a theoretical engagement range of 700m (!), practical engagement ranges are usually cited with 400m for static targets and 100 to 230m for moving targets. Then again, an army report on the fighting around Posen dated March 1st 1945 emphasizes the effectiveness of the Panzerschreck and states that static targets such as AT gun and infantry emplacements had been successfully attacked at ranges up to 1000m (!). Engagement procedures called for the Panzerschreck teams to open fire against attacking (oncoming) tanks at 180-150m. Laterally moving tanks were to be attacked at a range of 120m. These later figures of course take into account the fact that fire should only be opened (and hence the chance of detection and counter fire) when a high chance of hit probability is given.

The technical theoretical range of 700m, is just that, 'theory'.

The supposed 'army report' from March 1945 of successfully attacking an AT gun emplacement at 1000 yards is hilarious; and reflects the hyperbolic propaganda by portions of the German army at that point in the war. It would be quitea few years before a rocket could be aimed at a gun emplacement at 1000 yards.

The quote's consensus:

The Panzershreck could engage moving targets between 120-180m. Stationary targets at 400m. Which is what I've been saying.

The PIAT could engage stationary targets at 350m, moving targets at 100m.

This seems to back up my suspicion that the Bazooka had less pentrating ability than the PIAT. The PIAT was credited with a number of Tiger 'kills'.

cheers,
Cross

Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

My last post was delayed, as I walked away with my browser open, so I posted before seeing the last couple of posts...Sorry.

Agree :)
(Based on lowered range of the panzershreck, which makes things more fair)


Agree. I understood that the Panzerfaust represented was a composite and thought it was done well.

I'd be happy with a panzershreck range of 150 with pen of 20 or 23 (In WW2 does it make a difference :) ).

The Bazooka penetration was tough to nail down. A pen of 10 is right in the middle of the range and you can't argue with that.

The range was also tough. I'll defer to your better judgement.


Good Point. Didn't think of that. :doh:

At least we found the Panzershreck range disparity as a result of this thread. So some good came out of it...

cheers,
Cross

ps. Don, don't be so hard on your head. This thread was fun.:D

Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

I would suggest the way "keep ranges and downgrade the accuracy", as those weapons were not used only against tanks, but also against fortifications or even just enemy troops in cover, where pinpoint accuracy wasn't all that important.

Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

I would suggest the reverse have all set to fire at mid range to stop it being gamey.
Also saves you setting op fire for all troops to restrict armour range or purposely moving to a short range position. Most RPG type weapons have very limited ammo so I dont want them wasting a shot at extreme range. You dont fire WW2 tanks at range do you & they have lots of ammo.

Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

Heck no matter the outcome interesting debate anyhow!! :D

Bob out:D

Re: Infantry AT Weapons
 

I am curious about the usage of "HE kill" value for HEAT-based AT weapon. Do they have any use?