"HEAT and Tigers" Topic

""Experience using HEAT ammunition in the 305th Howitzer Artillery Regiment in the summer of 1944

The regiment only used HEAT in the summer of 1944 on August 30th near the city of Gorodisk, when engaging enemy tanks.

The optimal distance to fire HEAT is 400-600 meters. At 500 meters the front armour of a T-6 (Tiger) tank can be penetrated. At a range of 600 meters and more the front armour cannot be penetrated. If the turret is hit, it becomes jammed and the tank becomes unable to fight. The side armour of the T-6 tank can be penetrated from up to 800 meters, in this case the angle of impact needs to be large. At a range of 1000 meters it is only possible to fight Tiger tanks by firing at the tracks and the armament of the tank (the track can be destroyed at a range of up to 1200 meters). Firing at the Tiger's armour from over 1000 meters away is ineffective…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Why would range affect the penetration ability of a HEAT round?

Sounds like someone doesn't know how different ammo types work.

Glup!.

Amicalement
Armand

Maybe the trajectory has an impact? The HEAT rounds will fly in a parabolic arc. The warhead has to strike fairly perpendicularly or it won't form an effective jet.

Also – they are slow flying rounds, so it would be difficult to score a hit at longer ranges. Just hypothesizing here.

Too often we get our data from games and rule sets. I am very guilty of this myself.

The normal ballistics impact angle shouldn't make that much of a difference. It may have something to do with the fusing velocity. Or even a unstable shell wobble.

Thanks!.

Amicalement
Armand

HEAT rounds generally IIRC have a small probe at the tip of the warhead. That must hit directly to detonate the explosive charge inside the warhead. Something like as Skarper said …

Let us also keep in mind that this is a front-line artillery unit reporting their experiences, not a well constructed range test-firing.

We do not see, from the report, how many "T6" tanks (ie: Tigers) were engaged and hit at each of the ranges described. And a front-line unit might well have no working understanding of how HEAT works.

Consider if they had managed to engage only half-a-dozen Tigers, and only hit the tanks two or three times. Their reporting of what range the rounds did or didn't penetrate, may in fact be nothing more than a random distribution of fuze functions or stand-off object obstructions.

But the confirmation bias, caused by accumulated experience with other AP ammo, causes the unit to attribute the case(s) of failed penetration to the range, rather than to hitting the tow-hook or wheel rim or some such.

Humans are notoriously poor data gathering tools, being far too prone to jump to their own conclusions based on very limited observations, and then biasing all further observations based on their pre-conceived explanations. This is why eye witness testimony is generally considered to be one of the least reliable forms of data in any scientific examination.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Excellent points Mark 1.

Mark, an insightfull analysis. Thankyou

Very true Mark. It was a combat situation not an organized test on the firing range.

E.g. Like some have mentioned before, many times any German Panzer was IDed as a Tiger. Of course if it shooting at you, guess at that instant it does not really matter. Return fire and or get to cover, etc.

Mark 1 + 1….

Amicalement
Armand

Humans are notoriously poor data gathering tools, being far too prone to jump to their own conclusions based on very limited observations, and then biasing all further observations based on their pre-conceived explanations. This is why eye witness testimony is generally considered to be one of the least reliable forms of data in any scientific examination.

This is one of the biggest problems when doing research for game design. In addition to different nationalities using a different definition for the same thing. When a "leading authority" gets it wrong and for decades he is used as the "source" it is hard to get an agreement with what the real facts are.

Wolfhag

That was from the Tank Archives. The range issue was due to the low velicity guns used.

Clue is right there in the initial post.
Howitzer artillery regiment.

The range issue was due to the low velicity guns used.

Martin -

I could easily understand if the report in the link suggested that the unit found the effective range to be 400-600 meters due to the difficulty of hitting tank-sized targets beyond that range (a factor that would be heavily influenced by low velocity).

But the report clearly asserts that the limitation was in achieving penetrations, not in achieving hits. In fact the unit concludes aiming only at specific parts of the tank beyond 1,000 meters, a statement that clearly contradicts any suggestion that they felt the rounds were not usefully accurate beyond 600 meters.

Instead the unit report asserts that penetrations could not be achieved beyond this range. This is what drives the questioning early in the thread, and my own belief (not proven, just a hypothesis) that maybe no one in the reporting unit understood the mechanisms of HEAT penetration, and with a very small sample of hits to judge jumped to a conclusion based on their assumptions rather than on a useful amount of data.

Are you suggesting that there is another factor we have not considered, that would cause HEAT penetration to vary with range at low velocities?

Inquiring minds want to know …

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

IIRC the US WWII designed 105mm Howitzer[forget the nomenclature, M- ?] had a HEAT round. In the Korean War it was initially the only weapon that could probably take out North Korean T34/85s.

I think that the variable stand-off distances and poor fusing from high angle hits are a factor in HEAT penetration effectiveness.

Here is an example from a test. The numbers across the top is the standoff distance. The penetration seems to be from more modern HEAT warheads and not WWII rounds.

I think most WWII HEAT warheads could expect penetration of 1.5 – 2.0 times the warhead diameter, depending on the material used for the cone.

Wolfhag

Yes, the range would affect the angle of strike, which could affect the penetration.

Legion,
The WWII 105mm M67 HEAT round was listed as penetrating about 120mm of armor. However, the T-34/85 turret does not look like a good spot for a HEAT round to hit because of angled and rounded surfaces.

Wolfhag

My understanding is the soviet arty were supposed to use he at short range. At longer ranges the shell would be striking at a worse angle.

This explains why Bruce Quarrie's WW2 western front rules gave PIATs worse performance at long range. The only basis I could think of was that the low-velocity crossbow-bolt-type missile might fail to explode in the optimal direction if given a bit of elevation to get it to reach the range. I didn't realise the same might apply to much larger rounds.

Would the spin of the shell dissipate the hollow charge effect more at longer ranges, or would this make no difference?

Tank Archives recently posted another HEAT test.
link
This shows some affects on Panzerfaust penetrations.

I would expect less dissipation of the jet with less rotation. But, there probably would not be much loss in rotation at under 1000m.

Thanks Wolf, like I said it could probably take out a T34/85. And was a better choice than the 75 in the M24. In the initial battles of the Korean War. The US had very few effective AT weapons.

Yes as I mentioned referring the sloped, angled, rounded armor on any AFV – "HEAT rounds generally IIRC have a small probe at the tip of the warhead. That must hit directly to detonate the explosive charge inside the warhead."

However is appears the USAF did KO a number of T34/85s.