 |
|
Looking for some information ... - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Campaign Series (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Looking for some information ... (/showthread.php?tid=61236) |
Looking for some information ... - RADO - 03-03-2012 I have been looking for some WW2 ammunition specs for quite sometime now and have been completely unable to find it, so I figured that if it is available, surely someone here on the CS forum could help me out. As we all know, there were a number of different types of ammunition available to tank commanders. They had standard AP & HE, but also had APDS, APBC, and some HEAT, & so on and so forth. Just how effective certain guns were against a particular type, and and what range was largely affected by which ammo was available and/or being used. What I have been unable to find out is if there was a standard compliment of the varying types of ammo. For example: the German Panther had an ammunition stowage of 79 rounds. OK, how many of each type were "normally" carried? The T-34/76 had an ammunition stowage of 77 rounds. Again, how many of each type were "normal". I know there was a real shortage of tungsten in Germany during the war, so it appears that APDS might be something that was not as prevelant in the German army as one might hope, but I just don't know. This information becomes important to me at least because I read on one occasion such & such tank failed to penetrate and knock out an enemy tank, while on another occasion the enemy tank was defeated at a significant range. If anyone can help me out on this, it would be greatly appreciated. RE: Looking for some information ... - Scud - 03-03-2012 Found this for Tigers (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-03.htm): The Tiger I carried 92 rounds of ammunition, although it is known that experienced crews frequently broke the regulations, by storing more than that. The recommended and most usual mix was 50 percent APCBC (Pzgr.39) and 50 percent HE (Sprenggranaten - high explosive shells). A few rounds of the rare (due to the shortage of tungsten carbide) APCR (Pzgr.40) ammunition might be carried for use against the heaviest armored Russian tanks and tank destroyers. The Gr.39 HL (Hohlgranate) based on the hollow charge principle (HEAT), was less accurate and much less destructive than the APCBC rounds, but could be carried in place of the HE rounds and used either to combat armor or as effective high explosive ammunition against soft targets. I did a google search for "Tiger Tank Ammunition Carried". I have a feeling a "standard" will vary from tank to tank and time/place of deployment, but I'm certainly no expert. Happy to do a little research for you if you tell me specifics. Dave RE: Looking for some information ... - RADO - 03-03-2012 (03-03-2012, 08:00 AM)Scud Wrote: Found this for Tigers (http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1-03.htm): Thanks Dave, that article was interesting, even if I question some of the technical claims the author makes! When he makes the statement of, "The other reason was the fact that at that time, armor penetration was mainly a function of thickness to diameter (T/d) ratio". I nearly laughed my ass off! That is quite incorrect; there is more to it. Then he quotes, "You can angle the armor any way you want, and beyond a certain point of shot overmatching plate, the obliquity will cease to be relevant". The gent is seemingly quoting Robert Livingston, but it appears the information came from here: http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm and while the author quotes this information, it appears the source is a website. IMHO, he should read a bit of R.M. Ogorkiewicz. But that is neither here nor there and is not what I'm after. The information given, listing a 50-50 mix might be the best we can get. My dream information was a chart listing tank by nationality, showing ammunition stowage and typical mix of types of rounds, with the year of introduction and availability of each type. Seems that information may be lost to history, and that's a shame! Thanks so much for the input! RE: Looking for some information ... - Kool Kat - 03-03-2012 Hey Greg:  I have this volume in my World War 2 book collection that has useful and detailed information on German tanks. Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two: A complete illustrated directory of German battle tanks, armoured cars, self-propelled guns and semi-tracked vehicles, 1933-1945 by Peter Chamberlain and Hilary Doyle It's available from Amazon.com (used) for approx. $50.00 (US). Follow the link HERE. RE: Looking for some information ... - RADO - 03-04-2012 (03-03-2012, 10:10 PM)Kool Kat Wrote: Hey Greg: Thanks for the info. Hoping to get the information "electronically". RE: Looking for some information ... - Larry Reese - 03-04-2012 In action, for both German and Russian AFVs the load out would vary considerably, especially once the "start line" had been crossed. They would take what they can get and the supply train would ship the most commonly used round in predominante numbers. This also varied considerably by year due to changes in availability, quantity in production, etc... As you appear to be (like me) somewhat of an armor/penetration science buff, you are already aware that trying to understand why two particular hits had dramatically different results even though fired from the same weapons, same angles, range, etc..., the number of variables are very high and can almost never be properly quantified even if we know the exact composition of the rounds being used. In the German case especially, despite high efforts at quality control, the high portion of slave labor used in the war industries (along with a host of other factors) often resulted in erratic propellant mixes, etc..., particularly the later in the war you get. While Soviet quality control varied for other reasons, this too would have an impact on "standardized" combat performance. I still think the tests done by the US Army at the Aberdeen proving grounds using large quantites of period ammunition for almost every major weapon in the war are the absolute best performance figures as the testing procedures were all standardized, conducted on the same range, and without "top 1 percent" ammo load outs. These tests used to piss a lot of folks at Lead Eaters off years ago, because they can't be refuted and tend to show that supposedly vaunted guns aren't all that special. It's pretty easy to build a gun with great penetration (it's simple math); the thing that makes it a killer (and something to be feared by your opponents) is the optics and gun laying system. Not as macho and some of the black uniform fetishist crowd would like, but then, reality usually isn't. But I ramble yet again.... LR RE: Looking for some information ... - RADO - 03-04-2012 (03-04-2012, 03:25 PM)Larry Reese Wrote: In action, for both German and Russian AFVs the load out would vary considerably, especially once the "start line" had been crossed. They would take what they can get and the supply train would ship the most commonly used round in predominante numbers. This also varied considerably by year due to changes in availability, quantity in production, etc... As you appear to be (like me) somewhat of an armor/penetration science buff, you are already aware that trying to understand why two particular hits had dramatically different results even though fired from the same weapons, same angles, range, etc..., the number of variables are very high and can almost never be properly quantified even if we know the exact composition of the rounds being used. In the German case especially, despite high efforts at quality control, the high portion of slave labor used in the war industries (along with a host of other factors) often resulted in erratic propellant mixes, etc..., particularly the later in the war you get. While Soviet quality control varied for other reasons, this too would have an impact on "standardized" combat performance. I still think the tests done by the US Army at the Aberdeen proving grounds using large quantites of period ammunition for almost every major weapon in the war are the absolute best performance figures as the testing procedures were all standardized, conducted on the same range, and without "top 1 percent" ammo load outs. These tests used to piss a lot of folks at Lead Eaters off years ago, because they can't be refuted and tend to show that supposedly vaunted guns aren't all that special. It's pretty easy to build a gun with great penetration (it's simple math); the thing that makes it a killer (and something to be feared by your opponents) is the optics and gun laying system. Not as macho and some of the black uniform fetishist crowd would like, but then, reality usually isn't. Great input Larry, & yes, I'm one of those weapons & armor effectivness buffs. As you point out, the number one issue to getting a kill is being able to hit the target! Doesn't make any difference what gun you have it you cannot hit. In simple layman's language, the probability of a kill (Pk) is the probability of a hit (Ph), times the probability of penetrating the armor if you get a hit (Pp), times the probability of inflicting lethal damage if you penetrate the armor (Pl). If all three of these items were some 90%, then even in the best of situations, Pk is in the 70% range. Take your hit probability down to 20% and Pk becomes very low! (Like shooting at the flank of a Stuart going 30 mph across country in the desert). The APDS ammo was not available until 1944 so primarily we are dealing with standard AP, APBC, APCR, & HEAT ammo. Of course, HEAT weapon penetration is an entirely different affair from the other ammo types. Still, it would be nice to be able to find out what standard compliments were for each nation. Perhaps there was no standard & that's why we can't find it.  |
){kind=link}