Panzer Command: Ostfront is the latest in a new series of 3D turn-based tactical wargames which include single battles, multi-battle operations and full war campaigns with realistic units, tactics and terrain and an informative and practical interface. Including a full Map Editor, 60+ Scenarios, 10 Campaigns and a very long list of improvements, this is the ultimate Panzer Command release for the Eastern Front!
ORIGINAL: dazoline II
Is this direct or indirect fire?
I wonder how much the kinetic energy would differ between the two for an HE round.
I think it is suppose to represent indirect. But from the text it seems like it was a static test with the shell at rest in contact with the armor.
I think the test is a bit optimistic as indirect HE impacts at an angle and the fuse could delay a tiny bit and the shell ricochet before it goes off. But PCO does have it possible to get these high penetrations once in a while.
I'm not debating as I don't really know, but what are the odds of a top turret hit causing destruction from a 120mm mortar shell? During a barrage I could understand and expect some sort of track and/or gun damage over a period of time, but in this example that never happened? Even with a direct hit some sort of engine damage may be probablr, but a top turret penetration? How much armor does a Panther have there anyways?
I believe we show the Panther with 2mm of armor for the top turret location.
thanks
rick
Then that would be incorrect - it should be, as Ron stated, 16mm.
I very much doubt that a 120mm mortar bomb could penetrate a Panthers turret roof - maybe it went down through an open hatch - or even that the concussive power would be enough to cause serious structural damage.
sorry about that, I think we are showing it as 2cm not 1.6cm.
Did a bit of digging through my notes and found some more interesting tidbits...
From the British War Office reports:
WO 291/399 Casualties to Churchill tanks in 25-pdr concentrations.
A trial conducted in 1943 tested proposed new tactics, whereby Churchills would advance though concentrations of friendly 25-pdr fire, by twice driving a squadron of Churchills through live artillery fire. It is concluded that the worst that can happen to a Churchill in these circumstances is immobilisation. The effect of a 25-pdr round exploding on a Churchill is described thus:
"There is no adverse effect on the crew from a 25 pdr direct hit. Fragments cannot penetrate the tank, and the blast is not at all uncomfortable."
It seems British tankers were a little tougher than one would imagine, in light of only 17mm top armor for the Churchill.
WO 291/1321 The accuracy of predicted fire.
"It is estimated that broadly speaking an A.G.R.A. firing at 12,000 yds with all guns concentrated will deliver about 2/3rds of the shot not very far from uniformly into an area 200 yds by 200 yds, the remainder being scattered rather thinly beyond these limits."
If one generously assumes, say a 4x6m foot print for a tank, and a round needing to land within 5m to have a chance to damage the target, then that means a 14x16m vulnerable area - or 224 m^2 out of 40,000 m^2, which is ~.5% to keep it simple, or 1 in 200 chance of an artillery round landing in the vulnerable area of a tank. If we need an actual strike, then the probability becomes approximately 20/40,000, or 1 in 2000 rounds - .05%, would actually strike a tank in the beaten zone. So from the British War office data, and a bit of math, the chance of an actual hit on a tank by artillery is extremely remote. The "effect" of a round acting adversely is less clear, ie communications, optics etc.
From: Jentz Thomas L Panzer Truppen Vol 2. p.189, 190, 202.
June 6 - August 7 1944
110 tanks examined:
53 - AP shot
8 - Hollow charge
9 - Artillery, HE
1 - Mine
7 - Aircraft RP
3 - Aircraft cannon.
7 - Destroyed by crew
4 - Abandoned
18 - Uknown cause
August 8 - August 31 1944
223 Tanks examined:
24 - AP shot
1 - Hollow charge
4 - Artillery, HE
7 - Aircraft RP
1 - Aircraft Cannon
2 - Aircraft bomb
108 - Destroyed by crew
63 - Abandoned
13 - Uknown cause
December 17 1944 - January 16 1945
57 Tanks examined:
18 - AP Shot
3 - Artillery HE
1 - Aircraft bom
3 - Possibly by Aircraft
13 - Demolished
11 - Abandoned
8 - Uknown causes
So if you discount the Crew Destroyed/Abandoned in the August timeframe and calculate the Artillery effectiveness you come up with results remarkably similar to WO 291/1321 - The accuracy of predicted fire.
There are other reports, like the one conducted by the 21st Army Group, ETO(I don't have a source - just notes). They examined the cause of damage of some 333 tanks (Shermans, Crommwells, Fireflys, Comets, Stuarts and Challengers). Damage was defined as: (abbreviated) the tank of concern could no longer participate in the action at hand (so damage really includes out right kills, mobility kills, and other assorted mechanical damage). The following causes and associated percentage for each cause included: AP Shot 41%, Shaped Charge 35%, Anti-Tank Mine 21%, HE Shell 3%. Only 3% for HE shell, including mobility and other mechanical damage! Though that may be put down to the limited use of German artillery. Another German report from early 1944 states that about 9% of Soviet tanks destroyed on the Eastern Front from January to April 1944 fell to mines and artillery, not very significant either considering the context.
1st, all the unknown causes could be artillery strikes. They most assuredly aren't but we don't know that for sure. They usually don't list more than one cause in those studies either. Of the 41% in the ETO knocked out by AP how many were immobilized by artillery fire first? Cause of death AP shot, reason - the tank was immobilized by fire first. There really is no way of knowing the answers to those questions without talking to the crewmen themselves.
2nd, a bunch of guys told to drive through a barrage that we "are sure nothing will happen to you" in is completely different from driving through one that you know nothing about. The 25lber isn't what the Germans used. They used mainly 105mm. But the point is well made with mortars. In Carius' book "Tigers in the Mud" he talks about the mortars hitting the engine deck and immobilizing them. Which I could see happening considering the angle of the incoming fire.
3rd, in game terms you don't have to destroy a vehicle to have it show as being destroyed in the game. All that has to happen in game terms is that the tank be hit enough to abandon it.
This is a game and we do abstract some things. Some things more than others. PCO employs cumulative damage factors. In other words the more time an AFV gets hit they start to detract from crew morale, etc...
Having said all that, there is a reason to take a look at the artillery resolution against tanks. We don't want the artillery to clean the entire map of any and everything with 81mm mortars. This has been a very interesting subject. Thanks for your contribution to it.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
Or all the unknown causes could be due to rocket firing Typhoons or Thunderbolts - whichever axe you want to grind
I would take Carius with a grain of salt personally, though I will have to look into that, if the book is handy. I recall also in Jentz's book on the Panther, Guderian states in a report after Kursk that the Panther is all but invulnerable to artillery fire, save a few buckled plates... which is patently false, I'm sure you would agree!
Yes, every report has a bias. Just as every book does. The fun part, for me, is trying to figure out where the truth lies in all the data. If I can get information from both sides then I attribute the truth as laying quietly between the two.
As to Carius, he's a non-repentant Nazi. The book has a lot of Nazi fan boy stuff in it. You have to look close to find much of value from him. Still, it's his story and he can tell it how he wants. He got me to buy it and read it so I guess he got what he wanted.
Good Hunting.
MR
The most expensive thing in the world is free time.
Founder of HSG scenario design group for Combat Mission.
Panzer Command Ostfront Development Team.
Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm Development Team.
The destroyed by crew, abandoned and unknown numbers are too high to make these figures worth a discussion about a game. Without knowing why the tank was destroyed by crew, abandoned, unknown, we could guess it is because of arty fire and make up a huge number. That would be silly.
Conflict of Heroes "Most games are like checkers or chess and some have dice and cards involved too. This game plays like checkers but you think like chess and the dice and cards can change everything in real time."
ORIGINAL: Ron
trial conducted in 1943 tested proposed new tactics, whereby Churchills would advance though concentrations of friendly 25-pdr fire, by twice driving a squadron of Churchills through live artillery fire. It is concluded that the worst that can happen to a Churchill in these circumstances is immobilisation. The effect of a 25-pdr round exploding on a Churchill is described thus:
"There is no adverse effect on the crew from a 25 pdr direct hit. Fragments cannot penetrate the tank, and the blast is not at all uncomfortable."[/i]
It seems British tankers were a little tougher than one would imagine, in light of only 17mm top armor for the Churchill.
We generally assume the HE will strike at an angle of 45° or more. So your 17mm would give at least 24mm of protection from the vertical. Coincidentally the same value is shown in that article’s table as the static penetration of the 25 pdr.
Shell strike penetrations are usually described in terms of a 'fair hit'. A hit on the middle of an armored plate not near an edge or previous hit. But real life isn't fair so tanks could be ko'd by unfair or lucky hits. Driving through artillery would be risky for any tank.
The destroyed by crew, abandoned and unknown numbers are too high to make these figures worth a discussion about a game. Without knowing why the tank was destroyed by crew, abandoned, unknown, we could guess it is because of arty fire and make up a huge number. That would be silly.
So what would be worth discussing then if not the actual data from the field? What is the game based on?
You are right, you don't know why the crew abandoned or destroyed the vehicle, or why the experts determined an unknown reason, however they did definitively say the cause where they could and that is something to go on don't you think? To ignore that would be silly.
ORIGINAL: Mobius
We generally assume the HE will strike at an angle of 45° or more. So your 17mm would give at least 24mm of protection from the vertical. Coincidentally the same value is shown in that article’s table as the static penetration of the 25 pdr.
Shell strike penetrations are usually described in terms of a 'fair hit'. A hit on the middle of an armored plate not near an edge or previous hit. But real life isn't fair so tanks could be ko'd by unfair or lucky hits. Driving through artillery would be risky for any tank.
Actually I am not sure the assumption HE will strike at 45° is true at all, where did you get that? I was under the assumption the angle of descent is much steeper than the angle of departure from ballistics reading.
ORIGINAL: Mobius
We generally assume the HE will strike at an angle of 45° or more. So your 17mm would give at least 24mm of protection from the vertical. Coincidentally the same value is shown in that article’s table as the static penetration of the 25 pdr.
Shell strike penetrations are usually described in terms of a 'fair hit'. A hit on the middle of an armored plate not near an edge or previous hit. But real life isn't fair so tanks could be ko'd by unfair or lucky hits. Driving through artillery would be risky for any tank.
Actually I am not sure the assumption HE will strike at 45° is true at all, where did you get that? I was under the assumption the angle of descent is much steeper than the angle of departure from ballistics reading.
I got if from studying the ballistics of naval gunnery. Indeed at the maximum range the decent angle is more like 47 - 55°. But the maximum range is rarely used as the shell dispersion is great. The US technical manuals like TM 9 1907 shows the HE fragmentation patterns of shells at 30° and below. I expect that to be more likely than 45 or more.
BTW firing a 25pdr at 12,000 yds seems to be around its maximum range so the dispersion is greatest. Going by 200yds x 200yds for an average area may be skewed from normal.
My ballistics computer gets 9302yds from the late model gun firing the normal HE shell @43° -impact angle @58°59.4'. I don't know the ballistic coefficient of the late type shell.
Naval fire would have more in common with direct fire ballistics, since most naval guns(unless small caliber) have a more flat trajectory and are not capable of high angle fire. The dispersion of naval fire would be much greater also.
I am not sure where the WO 291/1321 report got the 200 x 200 yards, because artillery has a much greater dispersion in the direction of fire versus lateral dispersion.
Naval fire would have more in common with direct fire ballistics, since most naval guns(unless small caliber) have a more flat trajectory and are not capable of high angle fire. The dispersion of naval fire would be much greater also.
The ballistics would be the same. Naval gunnery is basically direct area fire. It is more accurate than a normal artillery battery as in many cases all the guns are fired electrically at once by a single director. But they land in an area like area fire.
ORIGINAL: Ron
I am not sure where the WO 291/1321 report got the 200 x 200 yards, because artillery has a much greater dispersion in the direction of fire versus lateral dispersion.
True. This is an illustration of the impact area of naval gunnery fire and the area is just like closed sheaf area fire.
That dispersion chart is standard in any artillery manual I have read. It doesn't tell you anything about the actual dispersion distances. No, I don't think the ballistics for flat trajectory fire is the same as for high angle fire.
Anyways I would like to see another example of artillery resolution against armor after it has been taken a look at.
So was I........[&o] .........but what has that got to do with your link not working?
MR
I probably had a limited bandwidth on some free site. I'll try to make a copy next time it appears and put in on my site and have a link to it. It's is only a 3 page pdf and I should have copied for my own records anyways.
One of the factors not mentioned is the fuze setting. A 120mm mortar can be set for SQ (superquick or nearly instantaneous) or delay. If a mortar round goes off on the top of a turret of a tank set on SQ, the blast and fragments go off to the sides. Perhaps the antenna and vision devices on top might get wrecked. But the force is not directed downward. If the round is on delay, then the actual mass and velocity of the round might hope to split/break through the top armor before detonating.
Any moratr round landing on the engine deck of the tank has better prospects. Carius mentions that mortars holed the radiators of Tigers since they were sitting in a static defense. Since radiators are copper or aluminum, and the rear decking does expose the engine area itself, it certainly would be a pain to fix. The Tigers could still move in short leaps and get off the line to fix the radiators. A 120mm round set on delay and breaking through the engine deck would spell disaster.
I have read of Soviet 120mm immobilizing Stugs as an example of near misses.
There is a good 'artillery vs armor' story at the 3AD website regarding a tanker who is about to mount his tank. He is speaking with a young GI and then gets up and mounts into the turret when a large HE shell strikes just outside the turret on the white star. The HE/fragments takes the GI's head off outside the tank and the tanker gets knocked out while inside. He regains his senses and checks out the tank. The artillery shell had just made the star look like it was sand-blasted. The effects of the shell, evidently on SQ, went to the sides. The tanker said the tank was running perfect before the hit and after had a miss that made the engine unreliable. They missed the next battle (luckily since it was an ambush) and the repair guys ended up replacing the whole engine since they couldn't troubleshoot the problem. The tanker had a concussion and wasn't even medavaced.
