"Damage of AP versus APHE rounds in WWII" Topic

I've been researching to determine the damage potential between normal gun AP rounds and APHE rounds with a small HE cavity in the rear of the shell.

What I'm finding is that the APHE round, while having real potential for additional damage by delaying the detonation of the HE after penetration, combat results, and range testing, did not prove this to be the end result.

Making a cavity in the base of the AP round for the HE meant less mass in the round, which resulted in 5-10% less penetration.

A round would need to penetrate about 20% more than the armor thickness for the entire round to penetrate intact into the fighting compartment and for the delayed HE charge in the rear to detonate. Since the HE charge is in the rear of the shell, a partial penetration or the shell breaking up during penetration would have almost no effect.

If you are assured of total penetration, an APHE round is ideal. However, if you need more penetration, a solid AP round is better with 5-10% more penetration.

Diminishing returns of HE filler: By the later stages of World War II, many ordnance designs either used smaller HE fillers or abandoned them altogether. It was determined that a few kilograms of high-velocity metal was so destructive that the effect of a small explosive charge was negligible. A successful penetration by a kinetic energy round alone was often enough to knock a tank out of action. Penetration was more important.

IIRC, the US used solid AP rounds for their guns towards the end of the war. I think the Germans stayed with the APHE because they had no problem penetrating most Allied armor.

My conclusion is that the effect of APHE is negligible, and I will not include it in my damage model. Does anyone have more info or disagree with this conclusion?

Wolfhag

Interesting. Thanks for the share.
So in tank v tank one ia better off using AP rather than APHE. So why did they continue to make and supply them?

Another case of something that was felt to be effective as opposed to what it actually could do.

If one knew you then rather would swap out for more AP or HE. But was it mamdated SOPs that they be used or would individual commanders decide their own load out?

Of course it would depend on the modeling but ive found APHE to be less efffective in electronic games i play.

It does guvw thought to the question. With a limited number of available rounds, we would be carryjng ammo that wad less effective.
However if kne didnt know that was the case did that effect their use?

In a TT game where players have access to information of the game system, the player wouldn't use the APHE but would that be a reflection of what tankers actually did?

This has had me thinking again about having the troops on the table doing things their RL counterparts may have done but are unlikely to do because of player knowledge of the table and/or rules

G6,
Here is what I've found:

American armor-piercing high-explosive (APHE) rounds were discovered to be less effective than solid armor-piercing (AP) rounds during and immediately after World War II. Performance issues led the military to reduce the explosive filler and, in some cases, remove it entirely.

Multiple factors contributed to APHE's subpar performance compared to solid AP projectiles:

Reduced Penetration: For a given caliber, APHE rounds had a lower overall density than solid AP shot because the explosive filler weighed less than the steel or tungsten it replaced. This reduction in mass meant APHE rounds carried less kinetic energy, resulting in less armor penetration.

Sometimes the fuse would go off before the shell fully penetrated or not at all.

Structural Weakness: The cavity carved out for the explosive filler and fuze structurally weakened APHE rounds, making them more prone to shattering on impact with thick or sloped armor.

Poor Fuzing: The base-mounted fuzes on APHE shells, designed to detonate after penetrating the target, were often unreliable in smaller calibers. This meant that even after a successful penetration, the explosive charge might fail to detonate, negating the shell's main advantage.

Better Alternatives: By the late 1950s and early 1960s, tungsten-cored, higher-velocity AP ammunition like APDS (Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot) was more widely used. This newer generation of kinetic penetrators offered superior armor-defeating performance.

Americans primarily preferred and used Armored Piercing (AP) and Armored Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped (APCBC) shells
for their 90mm tank guns, rather than Armor Piercing High Explosive (APHE) rounds. Unlike German and Soviet doctrine, which relied heavily on explosive-filled AP shells, the U.S. favored solid shot rounds for their consistent penetration power.

The primary 90mm round used for anti-tank work was the M82 APCBC, which offered a good balance of penetration and post-penetration effects

The recognition of APHE's drawbacks, combined with these technological advancements, led to its decline as the primary anti-armor weapon. While the explosive filler was meant to maximize damage, the unreliable detonation and reduced penetration often made a solid AP round a more dependable choice for knocking out a tank.

Wolfhag

That has been fascinating and counterintuitive. It had to be better putting some explosive into a shell rather than just chucking a piece of inert metal at armour plate.

It had to be…..

Except when it was not. Great topic to both raise and answer Wolfhag, thanks

First, Wolfhag, very cool and interesting analysis. If I were paying someone to design a WWII artillery game for me, this is exactly the discussion I would want to see from them.

But was it mamdated SOPs that they be used or would individual commanders decide their own load out?

This question moves into the domain that I am very familar with – procuerment.

So, while Wolfhag's discussion was great to read, I did not find it surprising. The SOP you are looking for is a TO&E and a TM. The high-level process to get a commander (say, an O-6) in the field ordnance is:

requirement -> tech spec (TM, TO&E) -> contract -> order -> production -> delivery

In WWII Aberdeen Proving Ground did the tech verification prior to developing the TM and TO&E. We have a much more robust process for verification now, and in WWII they were under time pressure.

Basically, the field commander would have to wait until sufficient reports on field effectiveness circulated back to the second step of the process and that propigated into changed orders and production.

I read this decades ago, but it does a good job at telling you more than you would ever want to know about that part of the topic:

PDF link

There is also political/social pressure on the process and legitimate risk balancing.

"If we stop production early or rewicker the contract and ramp up production of something else, a number of people are going to lose their jobs, a number of investors (upon whom we rely for funding the industrial base we use) will lose money, and we will lose a lot of money already invested in building out that infrastructure, and the increased investment risk will drive up prices for everything in the future. It doesn't do what we wanted, but is it really signifcantly less effective enough to disrupt all that?"

This borders on the sunk cost fallacy, but puts that discussion into the light of actual considerations (not just we already paid some money that we will lose), what's usually called "total operational cost".

Thanks guys,

In WWII there was a lot of financial, corporate, financial and political pressure to get weapon systems into the field. Bid low, get the contract and make your money on add-ons, tech support, replacements, etc.

The same problem occurs today with high tech weapons systems, large scale software and new product development. It's not cost effective to wait until something is 100% complete and effective. Let your customer and user community do the final testing for you and pay for the fixes.

HE rounds are not supposed to knock out a Panther tank, except when they do:

HE from a Sherman 75mm.

US Bazooka in WWII and M72 LAW:
The original bazooka round had a very narrow and pointed nose cone. Makes sense right? Except they found out it ricocheted too much so they put on blunt one on it to solve the problem. When the M72 LAW came out it too had a sharp narrow nose cone. In 1968 nine of them hit a PT-76 at Lang Vei having no effect. Part of the problem may have been the tropical climate on the components.

Then there was the US Navy torpedo detonator problem. They needed something sensitive enough to trigger at an angle. However, it was too delicate and failed when hitting at 90 degrees which were most of the shots taken.

Multiple turrets on a tank made perfect sense too. So did the Marine T20 shoulder fired 60mm mortar. There are dozens of other examples throughout history.

The Panther A model is a good example.

20 feet from a Russian 152mm HE round outside Bakhmut 2023:

This guy was 20 feet away from the impact. It threw him 20 feet, got a slight concussion, couldn't breath for 30 seconds, thought he was dying. He got hit by one piece of shrapnel that shattered his helmet and split is scalp open. I met him 2 weeks after it happened and his eyes were still bloodshot. He was not medivacked.

It appears almost all of the 152mm rounds in Ukraine have a delay fuse which is great against buildings, cellars and bunkers but not troops in the open on soft ground.

Hole in the roof of a building in Bakhmut from a Russian 120mm mortar:

Partial detonation:

Here he is in the same building:

The markings on the mortar said it was manufactured in 1977.

Russian mortar rounds:
The plus (+) or minus (-) markings on Russian and other Soviet-era mortar shells refer to the propellant charges used to control the mortar's range. These symbols indicate a variation in the propellant's burn rate or weight, which in turn affects the shell's speed and trajectory.
A mortar round's range is adjusted by attaching or removing propellant increments, which are typically small, horseshoe-shaped bags of propellant. The markings are used to inform the artillery crew about these propellant charges:

A (+) marking indicates a stronger or heavier charge, which will increase the mortar's range.
A (-) marking indicates a weaker or lighter charge, which will decrease the mortar's range.

The NK rounds are even worse.

By using different combinations of these charges, crews can fine-tune the distance a shell travels to hit a target. This allows for greater flexibility in engaging both near and far targets with a single mortar system.

However, it may be because the quality control is poor and the + and – markings show how under or over the real weight is to make adjustments. That's what Westerners have told me.

He told me that in January 2023 the 6 mile drive from his safehouse to Bakhmut was under indirect fire most of the way. The 152 rounds just threw dirt and the mortar rounds while the gunners lead was good the rounds always landed short or long. He did that commute for about 6 months.

The building in Bakhmut where he was a Spec Ops ISR Drone and FO team leader was hit by a 1500kg glide bomb that was a dud or else it would have taken down the entire building.

He was wounded four times as a Marine SigInt in the GWOT and went through three sets of body armor. His recent MRI showed small shrapnel in his back, shoulder, both arms and right leg.

This hit his SAPI plate over his heart in A'stan and knocked him on his ass:

He even survived being stupid in Ukraine. He had been at the Zero Line trench for four days in 20 below weather and needed to take a leak. He had run out of bottles so decided to stand up on the edge of the trench to take a pee. Within seconds a Russian tank fired at him from about 2km (you can tell by the sound of a round when it passes by). Knowing that the reload time is about 7 seconds. He knew he had enough time to finish, zip up and jump back into the trench before it could fire again.

Some guys are just lucky. In the 12 months his team was on the front lines in Bakhmut doing drone ops, arty FO, sniper work and punching holes in APCs with a Ukraine 14.5mm Alligator, trench raids and clearing buildings he didn't lose anyone. He attributes it to his mom praying the Rosary every day for his team.

I spent 2 weeks with him in Ukraine with him and his buddies meeting and interviewing Western fighters, touring battlefields and exploring knocked out vehicles.

The Park Hotel we stayed at in Kharkiv was hit by an S300 missile a week after we left.
link

There were about a dozen air raid sirens every day and we watched AA fire (Gephards) on New Years in Odesa when Putin sent over 100 drones.

He's back in the US in the DC area, married with a baby boy, great job, does lectures and is a consultant for the Marines in Quantico.

Wolfhag

Do your rules model rosary prayers?

The danger about highlighting failures in the enemy's design or tactics is that they might just learn from that.

A classic from the 1982 Falklands was the BBC saying that the Argentine Skyhawks were bombing shipping at such low level that there was not time for the bombs to arm once dropped. So they got out their spanners and guess what….?

Do your rules model rosary prayers?

You'll need to pray before the game if you are going to have a chance to understand the rules. <grin>

Interestingly, he did have two members of his team that went to another team (it's very common) and were killed within 2 weeks. He had warned them. I'm not a particularly religious person but I have heard stranger things.

Deadhead,
Then there was the US Senator in WWII that gave a speech bragging that US subs could dive deeper than the Japs thought. They found out and made adjustments.

You could write a book about this type of stuff happening with the US in the VN war.

I think there is enough historical and first person AAR evidence of artillery duds that it is worthwhile modeling in a game.

Wolfhag

Lots of great stuff thank you.

I have not made my points well, though a lot of good info has come from that.

I'll try to do better 😀

If we now know that something, in this case APHE, was less effective in practice than something else that shoild be reflected in the rules.

The challenge that raises for me. Did tankers know they were less effective?

If they did, then why would they have them in their tank when they could instead have more AP or HE

If they, the troops in combat, didn't know from observation that they werent effective, then they would have continued to use them.

Now the issue in the rules/game.

If the rules factor in the data, that the troops in comabt wouldn't know, that something is less effective, then the player in game terms is incentiveised to not use the less effevctive thing. BUT does that reflect what actually happened?

Its part of a broader issue in games. The players have access to more info… which is more accurate, at least in game terms, than the combatants would have.

Its an issue in wargames rpgs etc. The system produces an optimal outcome that the.player will try to use.
The combatants woild make decisions.based on thekr perception, which may or may not align with the data.

It of course can be easier with electronic games. As I said I noted that in games, that APHE were less effective, but I had nkt data on that or whether it was down to the games good modeling or it was just coincidence.

Or in games with umpires etc where the resolution mechanics are hidden from.tbe players.

If they did, then why would they have them in their tank when they could instead have more AP or HE

You are assuming that the crews would have a choice of APHE and plain AP.

However, if the APHE is the only kind of armour piercing shell in production and supply, then there is not much of a choice if you are expecting to encounter enemy armour.

😀 eryeah…. if, that was the case then yes because then there would be no choice. 🫣 and so why would I ask the question.

Also note the word IF in the part you quoted, which means there no assumption or presumption

My understanding is that was not the case… hence my question.

And

The wider application in that games knowledge, especially mechically in the rules, of the player, may not align with the perceptions or belife of the RL counterparts

Here is what I've found:
British forces sometimes modified American-supplied APHE (Armor-Piercing High-Explosive) rounds by removing the HE filler and replacing it with concrete or an inert material to create solid shot. This would give the round enough mass to increase the penetration 5-10%.

This practice stemmed from differences in British and American design philosophies and battlefield experience during World War II:

British Doctrine: The British generally favored solid AP (Armor-Piercing) shot over APHE for anti-tank use. Their testing indicated that the small high-explosive charge in most APHE shells (especially smaller caliber ones like the 2-pounder and 6-pounder) didn't add significant extra damage inside a tank compared to the fragmentation and kinetic energy of a solid shot. They also had issues with the fusing reliability, where the HE would sometimes detonate on impact with the exterior of the armor rather than after penetration.

Fusing for HE rounds has been a problem going back to the Civil War. The British Naval HE rounds had a real problem in WWI.

American Doctrine: US forces used APHE rounds (like the M61 APCBC for the 75mm gun) as standard, believing the HE filler enhanced the post-penetration effect.

Modification: The British modification was a field improvisation to improve the reliability and penetration performance of the American rounds, making them behave more like their preferred solid shot. A solid shot, being denser, could penetrate slightly more armor than an APHE shell of the same size.

Ultimately, British tests in the 1950s confirmed that kinetic energy projectiles caused enough damage to knock out a tank if they penetrated, reinforcing their preference for solid shot and leading to the widespread adoption of APDS (Armor-Piercing Discarding Sabot) ammunition.

The explosive filler in the US APHE round (66 grams) was about 10% of a normal HE round filler. Which makes sense that an AP without filler would give about 10% more penetration because of the additional mass.

A US WWII hand grenade had about 55 grams of filler. Personally, I would not want a grenade going off inside the fighting compartment of a tank.

It seems that in 1942 British crews in the field or rear area could make a decision to use the APHE round or unscrew the rear cap and replace the filler.

Sources:
link

Regarding game info: I think it would depend in the scenario date. Early war, France 1941 and early North Africa it appears they did not discover the problem. After that, it appears there was no technical difficulty for field modifications.

I'll leave it at for now.

Wolfhag

A US WWII hand grenade had about 55 grams of filler. Personally, I would not want a grenade going off inside the fighting compartment of a tank.

I certainly would not like to be inside a tank where hand grenade goes BOOM.

However, wouldn't the fragmentation effect of the thick-walled AP shell be inferior compared to that of the thinner-walled hand grenade, especially one of pineapple type? That said, the pressure effect inside the tight confines of a tank could be quite nasty.

On another note, didn't the Germans design an anti-tank rifle round containing a tiny tear gas pellet?

Thanks.
So a tank wouldnr carry a mix of AP and APHE?

Did US crews do the filed mods with aphe? If not I wonder why? Did they not perceive the less effectiveness of the rounds? I can understand if they only carried APHE then they not having a comparison, but then why did the bits?

Alao given the widespread debelopmwn4 of field modifications ans etc that it wasnt tried? 🤷

Again im interested genrally in perception vs the actuality

In the eaely 70s my dad was incolved in armiur pentration tesrsnuajng mwdieval type bows and arrows. These were the first test ans made more jntersring as they were done with The Royal Armamenrs Reseaech and Development Establishment. Part of their work was developing and improving anti armour rounds and better tank armour. And one of the Boffins was a history need aao had started looking at archery vs medieval armour.

While doing tests they observed that past a certain angle of the armour the heads would skid off. Dad said that in ome accounts ir was soad you would put a little beeswax on the pit to give punches.the Boffin scoffed as he said the it couldn't do anyone at the speeds they were being shot at. But it did help. He then remebred ans gave dad, which still have, a cutaway WW2 German AP round. Its a tungsten core in a sabot with an aluminium nose cone, the aluminum serving the same purpose as the bees wax on the arrow.

Anyway.
In game terms im always intersted in find. Ways for the figures on the table to "act" in the way their Ral counterparts would have rather than the 200 foot general we are would choose them too with the info we have and in knowing the rules etc.

As regards the Brits versus US practices, it is worth keeping in mind that at the time US military first faced German armour in North Africa, the Brits had 2.5 years of battlefield experience against German and Italian armour in the European and North African theatres.

British military leadership may have certain reputation for being conservative, but during WWII the British military and armament industry seemed quite willing to learn lessons from the battlefield and to adapt their designs and practices.

US military was also capable of learning, but when they landed in North Africa they came with some unrealistic expectations about modern warfare that would need to be unlearned first.

Sure. Im aware of all that.

However my question and point is at the level of the troops in contact. Tankers. The platoon or company. The levers we are playing in the game.
The level were individuals are trying to up armour their tanks with part of track or logs etc.

Where a crew are deciding the load out. Where they are deciding which round to use, if they have a choice, or they are removing a charge from APHE qnd replace ot with cement etc.

Where a crew are deciding the load out. Where they are deciding which round to use, if they have a choice, or they are removing a charge from APHE qnd replace ot with cement etc.

The figure below shows an APHE round with the plug unscrewed. You can see notches in it where anyone could take a spanner wrench and screw it off. While a crew could do it, most likely it was done by the ordnance people at the Company level or higher.

Explosions seek the path of least resistance. Looking at the cavity and plug, I wonder if the explosion would shatter the rear of the round or just blow out the plug.

But it did help. He then remebred ans gave dad, which still have, a cutaway WW2 German AP round. Its a tungsten core in a sabot with an aluminium nose cone, the aluminum serving the same purpose as the bees wax on the arrow.

I think the soft cap over an AP round does the same function. Absorbing the impact for an APCR round decreases the chance of the tungsten penetrator shattering too.

Wolfhag

Thanks for the picture. Though I got how they work.

Im still unclear on the ratio of rounds at the game level.

Did the Brits Only use AP and converted APHE rounds?

Did the US only use APHE or would a tank have a mix of AP and APHE?

The wider question for me is still am I aligning period perceptions with game mechanics?

Clearly it was thought the APHE was an option. We now know and did they from observation, eventually, that it was less effective.

But if a unit. A tank in this case, would have options, then the questions for me are.
How did they make the choice in combat?
In game terms are the players decisions going to align with that? If the mechanics say that APHE is less effective, the the player won't use it even if it would have been used at the time.

Re the tungsten round yes the tip ylwouldnbit but the aluminium would melt due to kinetic energy but in doing so stopped the core from deflecting beforw it properly started to pentrate.

The aoer slow motion flim they took showed the beeswax doing a similar thing

It was also illustrative in aligning old knowledge and modern data, andni not dismissing something out of bansd. 🙂

link

The round in question. Im not doing well with inserting just a photo.

Another factor to consider with APHE.

Since the HE is in the rear of the round, to be effective the entire shell must penetrate into the fighting compartment and then explode. This means the shell must penetrate about 130% of the armor to be effective.

So it appears APHE penetration and damage are variable. One approach is to roll a D10 for a % of penetration. A normal max penetration of 60mm with the player rolling a 5 on the D10 means 30mm of penetration.

The British tested APHE extensively between the world wars and determined that the high-explosive filler offered minimal increased damage inside a tank compared to a solid Armor-Piercing (AP) shot, while introducing several disadvantages:

Reduced Penetration: The explosive filler and fuse mechanism displaced metal, making the shell lighter than a comparable solid shot and reducing its kinetic energy and penetration capability.

Unreliability: Early fuses were unreliable and often caused the round to detonate prematurely on impact with the exterior armor (or even spaced armor like spare tracks), preventing penetration of the main armor.

Sufficient Damage from Solid Shot: British trials suggested that a solid AP shot, upon penetrating and shattering inside the cramped confines of a tank, created enough lethal shrapnel and damage to the crew and components to effectively knock it out.

So what I'm seeing is that against most tanks side armor APHE would perform quite well most of the time. Against frontal armor not so good.

The British would start the war with AP only. The HE charge was very small in 40mm and 57mm guns.

The US did not move completely away from APHE until after the war, in the post-war years, as more effective technologies like APDS and HEAT rounds became standard.

So if US 75mm AP could not penetrate German Panther frontal armor hitting the side armor of 40mm with APHE might give the amount of over penetration needed to be effective? Maybe that's why they kept it.

I'd expect it would be something you'd determine in the scenario setup.

Wolfhag

The answer to why they would carry APHE is twofold:

1) They didn't know early on. APHE was very effective on against ships in WWI (and WWII). That effectiveness didn't transfer to the land armor fight. Ships were slower, bigger targets, at longer ranges, had fewer obliques, and the APHE shells were also bigger.

2) Once you realize it, you have to move the entire supply chain from tech specs, to orders, to manufacture, to distribution.

In the field, you're getting stuff ordered more than a year ago. If a couple years of fighting gives you a different answer for loadouts, then you change the tech specs and a few months later work on a new order. If you can get the order past "they make APHE in my state, but AP in someone else's" (archetype problem), and "we have 4,000 people producing APHE shells, if we stop, we can move about 50% to an AP facory, but the rest will lose their jobs", and a couple other things, then you get an order in a few more months. Then production, shipping, warzone distribution. A few months after the end of WWII, you get your better distro of shells.

Note: You can always ramp up orders for plain AP quickly. But it (rightfully) costs more. But you can't stop getting APHE shells quickly.

I think Wolfhag had it right in the OP. There is a difference. Is it really a significant difference that affects combat? Do I need to model it for my game?

A few years (well, a couple decades, maybe) Guns and Ammo had an article where they took ACW vintage Springfield and and Endfield rifle and used period techniques to get them up to snuff. Then they gave a few sharpshooters the rifles, but didn't tell them which had the better reputation. The unanimous decision was "They shoot different. One is not really better than then other."

etotheipi,
Thanks for the addition and clarification. Many times I've heard players saying how stupid countries and armies decisions were without understanding the politics, logistics and technical limitations that drove the decision.

But you can't stop getting APHE shells quickly.
But you can take the explosive and replace it with cement.

So here is the approach I'm taking for determining damage based on shell weight and penetration level:

The shooting player rolls a D20 on the round type row and column of penetration versus armor. The modifier to the D20 roll is based on the weight of the shell in kg and level of penetration. The APC round weights 8kg and the APCR round 6kg. The normal HE (not APHE) value is based on explosive content, not weight.

Results that do not penetrate can cause spalling damage, especially if the armor is brittle or riveted.

Step 6 Example: An APC round penetrates 10mm over the armor. The player rolls a D20 plus 4 for the shell damage value with a result of 12.

In Step 7 a result of 12 results is the crew bailing out.

In this version I'm not using APHE but it could be a special rule.

Wolfhag

Again I appreciate why the APHE underperforms and also the issues of procurement and supply.

My thoughts are around the options ans decisions at the tank crew, platoon etc.

If im clear. Wolfhag your rules dont recognise.APHE as a seperate entity.
Given that
A-the brit crews/platoons/companies (troop or squadron) thought the difference was significant enough to refit the APHE rounds.
B- there seems to be around a 10% difference in performance.ie the APHE needs 10% more pentrarion to deploy the HE. That seems significant enough to be recognised as a negative modifier. And it wasnt capable of effecting the frontal armour at all.

etotheipi
Yes im aware. And it goes in hand with an earlier point is made the discrepancy that can exist between perception and actual performance. Though I'd say in this case and others there is a difference,
The difference (10% ) is more significant then any actual difference in performance (accuracy) between Enfield and Springfield. And even if a soldier, or regiment thought there was a deficiency they couldnt affect a change in line with altering the APHE rounds like the Brits did.

And still I'm puzzling over my original thought.
In what may be a hyperthetical situation. Where 2 rounds were available, and the mechanics of a game recognised a difference, which may not have been known at the time a player wouldn't make a "historical" choice.

APHE was very effective on against ships in WWI (and WWII). That effectiveness didn't transfer to the land armor fight.

Probably one big difference is that the ships are much more spacious inside than the tanks, so you really need that extra BANG to cause sufficient damage inside. Meanwhile, within the claustrophobic tank interior, the penetrating round and pieces of armour bouncing around will cause enough harm.

As for production logistics, it should be much easier to transfer from APHE production to AP production (assuming that both types of projectiles have been in production in parallel). I would assume that the APHE is also much more demanding in terms of person-hours to manufacture.

As for production logistics, it should be much easier to transfer from APHE production to AP production

From an engineering standpoint, this is true. APHE is typically made in the same plants at AP. At a stage of the process, they would divert some shells to a different line. So as far as technology goes, you just stop shunting them there.

This APHE line was a separate "facility" – maybe a different building or a sectioned off part of the main building. It has far different requirements for safety just as the final APHE steps required different, more high-end skills in the people.

So to standup the APHE process, people invested in the additional capability. This tends to get whitewashed as "greedy corporations chasing the dollar." (That is also largely untrue. While many corporations did make a lot of money producing supplies for WWII, they actually lowered profit margins – something they didn't have to do, they did it for the war effort – but made up the slack in volume.) But also, somewhere a bunch of safety, engineering, and ordnance experts uprooted their families and took jobs producing APHE rounds.

For those reasons, and several others, the contract for APHE would have been at least a 12 month variable quantity per month contract (with a minimum), and probably a 24 or 36. There are significant savings in money and god-awful nuisance for the government with the longer contracts.

-----

Think of it this way:

I contracted you to paint up 2.4K 28mm vikings for me, due a year from now. You're going to send me 100 spears and 100 axes per month. The furs are in a palette of 6 muted browns I picked, and the leather and hair needs to match Rus historical records.

You bought some vikings cheap in bulk (good deal!), got the paints, and hired an Eastern European Medieval history expert and five painters based on their ability to do detailed fur in layers. Your price was based on this.

After one month, I come back to you and say, I only want the fur in one shade of flat gray (I expect a discount for this), no more spears, and match the leathers and hair to Icelanders.

Meanwhile, within the claustrophobic tank interior, the penetrating round and pieces of armour bouncing around will cause enough harm.

That appears to be the conclusion of the Brits and US. Also, spalling on the inside increased damage unless the interior armor plate was softer and more ductile like the Sherman. Brittle and riveted armor increase spalling, especially for non penetrating hits.

I have not had a chance to research the German and Russian experience although it should be the same.

refit the APHE rounds
It appears crews in the field could unscrew and take the explosive out. Whether it was sanctioned or not I don't know.

In what may be a hyperthetical situation. Where 2 rounds were available, and the mechanics of a game recognised a difference, which may not have been known at the time a player wouldn't make a "historical" choice.

I would imagine that could happen. From what I've gotten from researching this I'd save the APHE for side shots. If the penetration value at range is greater than the APHE round diameter it should most likely perform as advertised and not break up the shell. That's my guess.

My game uses a detailed data card like GMT's armor series and old Yaquinto series. There is only so much room on the card. I'll have to come up with a special rule for APHE.

Based on my graphic game example above, use the APC row. If you are firing APCHE roll a D6-2 for additional or less damage.

AP is easier to manufacture as you don't need to drill out a cavity.

Wolfhag

As I say the OP made me consider, layer data that we are using to design games mechanics that are presenting the player information that the people at the time didn't have.
Those differences may have been noted at the tkmenwith experience.
The questionn then is does that affect game play and choices thr player makes relative to the people at the time. Its of course an issue with TT games in general.and as you say, with limited space l, physically, mentally and in time. Working out what we include is a challenge and more so when we are dealing with the information player vs reality.

Those differences may have been noted at the tkmenwith experience.

Doctrine (TM, SOP, TO&E) has a problem – it updates slowly.

Frontline knowledge (folklore) has a problem – your actual, real-world experience is a small sample of the overall performance. The fact that you percieved (filter) that something worked well last Tuesday under the conditions (small sample of DOE) you faced at that time doesn't mean it's an underlying principle. Even if it is, that doesn't mean that you will face similarly amenable condtions next Wednesday.

This is why we use stochaistic elements in wargames. Too much fixed detail = too many assumptions that won't hold.

Is there anyway in your system you could give APHE a wider, asymmetric spread of damage? You seem to use d20 exclusively. Something like d6xd6 keeps <80% of the rolls 20 or less, and the favors the low numbers.

That reps low chance of the sweet spot, but the sweet spot is bonkers.

-----

It looks like the actual doctrinal change for the Brits occurred around '42 – so that't the full loop of early WWII engagements in Africa with good BDA reports making their way back, changes, then resetting contracts.

I don't have any info on it, but I would assume that's a tighter loop for the Nazis and Sovs – the benefit of an authoritative big government is they don't care who it screws to change something.

-----

Is there any data on the Brits doing the change "in the field" as opposed to at the ordnance depot or someplace else behind lines? It's certainly doable, but not particularly safe.

I don't have any info on it, but I would assume that's a tighter loop for the Nazis and Sovs – the benefit of an authoritative big government is they don't care who it screws to change something.

Soviets around 1942 were quite big in streamlining things, especially when it came to production – a lot of which had been hastily transferred beyond the Ural mountains. If they kept producing APHE rounds, they would need to have thought quite highly of them to bother keeping them in production.

German procurement and production policies of the time, on the other hand, were not exactly aimed at optimising things for mass production.

First of all its an interesting history project. However weather it's worth putting in say, my set of rules is a matter of debate. Is it a significant factor within the rules? This may not be quite the same as the real world. We at Maneouver Group use only basic orientation armour guidelines, front side and rear, for hull and turret, well top and bottom but not really for KE rounds. so we ignore angle of penetration which in WW2 was significant so 10% variation is small compared to angle of strike. Now you can start approximating overall typical strike angles but in any 1 situation it may not be valid, like you set up for 90 degree strikes only due to defence design. The average rate would not be applicable so is thre a real advantage to the added complexity given other issues?

Like I said very interesting and facinating but proably given the gross approximation in our rules, to complex for some, it really of achedemic interest. One issue that intrigues me is what proportion of UK ammunition was the US supplied.

I once had an interesting debate about ammunition manufatured in Eygypt compared to UK manufatue. The gent stated Eyption ammunitionbwas significantly more variable.
What is significant in a simple wargame?

Sure 10% is perhaps not significant of itself… in combination with other 10%.

The Brita filling rounds sounds to me tl ne darkly low level.

Doing it reminds me of allied troops in Afghanistan makknb a bigger use of shoulder launched ordinance as they had found that the "normal" means of suppression weren't effective against afghans would had a iterative experience off HMGs etc. The expensive SMW did have an effect at least from their experience and troops on the ground didn't care about cost etc.

As you say. Knowing something hapoend doesn't of itself warrant its inclusion in a rule set, especially in a TT game.

There is still a question around modeling things that were done, into game methods…

But also my original observation/thought, modelling choices that the rules say are less effective but at the time weren't recognised or were even thought to be positive.

My interst there is because im intersted in having units not be automatically follow the players will based on player knowldge

Back to the effects of APHE, I am left wondering if they would have practical difference when penetrating the engine compartment, compared to regular AP. Would the small explosive charge increase the chances of starting a fuel fire?

The US 75mm APHE round had about 60 grams of HE TNT filler, about the same amount as a US WWII had grenade. The German 88mm Pzgr 39 APHE had about 60 grams of RDX which is about 1.5x TNT. The US 75mm M48 HE round had about 650 grams.

Here is what I can do for the US 75mm APHE damage variable:

The APHE Shell Damage Value added to the D20 roll is 50% of the APC if not over penetrating. If over penetrating it gets an additional D6 to the SDV. The German 88 might get a D10 roll because of greater RDX effect.

The APHE penetration is 90% rounded down of the APC penetration.

I can fit that into the data card without adding another row. I can't find any field trials or first person AARs on APHE effectiveness for the Americans.

The Germans and Russian seem to have had the same problems with APHE but did not make any changes like the US did during the war. Some sources state the AP round was the main round for the US, not the APHE. We now the Brits preferred APC too.

To make it simple I'm thinking of having the US and GB use APC and the Germans and Russian APHE. That should simplify it and I won't have to make drastic changes to the data card.

UshCha,
If you are doing post WWII vehicles and ammo I don't thin APHE would come into play except maybe during the AIW using WWII weapons.

Additional playable details on penetration and armor variables are in Bird && Livingstons "WWII Ballistic & Armor" book which I highly recommend. It covers penetration of AP and APC versus face hardened armor too which would be relevant in N. African and East Front.

Griefbringer,
We think the historical issue is the HE charge is very unreliable but when it does work it's quite a BANG!

It would most likely be very effective piercing the side armor of the engine compartment because the armor is thin. It appears the thicker the armor the less effective the HE charge is.

If the German 88mm APHE round penetrates about 135mm at 500m. The Sherman hull and turret armor is about 90mm. This would guarantee an over penetration out to about 1500m. If that is the case, the HE charge in the AP round would be working pretty well. So the 88mm APHE over penetration damage would be a D20 + 10 for the round weight SDV + D10 for the HE charge variable effect.

The German 75mm Pzgr APHE shell had a filler of only 18 grams of RDX. This would mean the cavity was only about 1/3 of the US M61 APHE making the shell less prone to breaking up during penetration. It would achieve an over penetration at 500m or less against the Sherman frontal armor. I'd guess the HE variable damage would be a D3 or maybe just a +1 at 11 to 20 > armor and a +2 for over penetration.

I think I can get this to work. Thanks guys.

Wolfhag

Is there anyway in your system you could give APHE a wider, asymmetric spread of damage? You seem to use d20 exclusively. Something like d6xd6 keeps <80% of the rolls 20 or less, and the favors the low numbers

I use a D20 for the shooting, hit location, ricochet and APCR shatter gap chance, and damage. I use a D6 for the Action Timing to execute an order.

Wolfhag

I have no interest whatsoever in wargaming (not true, I just do not have the patience and attention span, I love the modelling for any era and really enjoy the work of others here) but this discussion continues to be so interesting and authoritative.

It has been touched on above. But did cement layering, wooden logs, tracks off other tanks all over the glacis, thin metal plates over Sherman direct vision ports, really make any difference worth the weight against other AFVs main guns? I do not mean the kid with a Panzerfaust or the Imperial suicide guy with a bomb on the end of a pole (both of which I do accept were maybe the greatest risk by 1945)

Best message thread in a while.

It must be as, to quote "1,738,908 hits since 19 Oct 2008
©1994-2025 Bill Armintrout" proving it is popular.

deadhead,
These are some good questions that I think warrant starting another thread on. I'd be glad to contribute.

Thanks,
Wolfhag

In terms of gaming, the only thing that matters is the final effect.

So if you fire several HE rounds at my tank, and I can hear my tank being hit regularly, will it scare me enough to pull out and take my toy somewhere else? Will it make me think – mistakenly – that we need to abandon the tank?

So if I'm in an Elefant / Ferdinand and it gets a bit stuck in the mud, and my infantry depart because they are taking 81mm mortar fire [which has no effect on my supertank] what do I do? Can I leave with the infantry and abandon the tank? My reason was "I went to get a recovery vehicle".

In memoirs, one reads about all sorts of odd things in terms of crew reactions to being under fire.

So in most of my rules, I'm just looking for the effect of the game's shooting mechanic. It may be a morale check, it may be actual damage, it may be something else.

That's all that matters in game terms, because that's all that matters in reality, also.

Stalkey and Co,
In your system, how do you determine the damage result?

Wolfhag