Question on AP rounds...

[GBS]

Does artilary ever expend AP ammo. I have never seen this. Even when ordered to bombard an armour column it seems to just use its HE ammo. What is the difference anyway. (no spell check)

[JeF]

Arty expand AP rounds when they fire direct to armor, never in indirect fire AFAIK.
So yes it happens, but rarely.

Regards,

JeF.

[Mehring]

As Above, given that to have the desired effect an AP round has to strike an armoured target and with high velocity, bombardment would not be the place to employ AP rounds. However, hits or near misses with HE can cause chunks of armour to fly off the vehicles' interior- spall, I think it's called- and injure the crew. Also tracks/wheels are particularly vulnerable to HE.

The Commonwealth often had to use their 25 pounders as AT guns, however, and with AP ammunition they weren't bad at all, better than a 2 pounder, any day, in terms of range and armour penetration values. The 25 pounder was actually an "88" though it lacked the long barrel of the famous German guns and consequently also their high velocity and flat trajectory characteristics. The Aussies had their own version of the 25 pounder too, though from memory it was not as effective as the UK model.

[Arjuna]

As JeF says they will only expend AP when firing direct at armour units. All indiriect fire is HE.

[TinyPirate]

ORIGINAL: Mehring
The Commonwealth often had to use their 25 pounders as AT guns, however, and with AP ammunition they weren't bad at all, better than a 2 pounder, any day, in terms of range and armour penetration values. The 25 pounder was actually an "88" though it lacked the long barrel of the famous German guns and consequently also their high velocity and flat trajectory characteristics.

Was it in "Guns of War" that there's a description of 25lber's being used this way, over nigh-open sights? I seem to recall the effect was German tanks "exploding"! [X(]

[06 Maestro]

If an HE round can hit a tank, that tank is most likely dead. Regardless of penetration, the crew would be subject to such a concussion that their brains would be mush. A hit from a bombardment, the the tank would be a candidate for the scrap yard-if it could even be dragged. The chance of being hit from bombardment is very,very, very, slim. That is not to say it would be fun-you can feel the heat and slight concussion from near misses from the inside of an M60 series (US tank)-WW2 tanks must have been somewhat less comfortable. Direct fire HE is much more capable of hitting the target, but is still a secondary choice to the right stuff-AT ammo. Many HE rounds are not capable of penetrating the frontal armor of a tank, or even causing "spalling". There is also the added problem of the degree of front slope which can deflect a slow moving HE round (and AT rounds). I have no doubt that many tanks were taken out by field arty, but the truth is, those poor tankers that were, were just flat out unlucky.

Any AT round that penetrates, will cause spalling. If the round was a 50mm, there would be a hole about 50mm on the outside of the turret/wherever, and a hole of perhaps 100mm (angles, velocity variables)-could be much bigger. All that metal that used to be in the hole is now in a thousand pieces, flying around the inside of the tank at a thousand miles an hour, crippling men, components, and possibly setting ammo off. Of course, if the ammo goes, there is no need to see if a medic will do any good-or have mechanics salvage the wreck.

So, what I'm saying is that; to fire HE ammo at tanks is nearly a total waste, however, if that is all that is left, they (arty unit) should be able to fire it on direct fire. Also, generally speaking, if an F.A. unit is in a direct fire situation with an armor unit, the arty boys are in the wrong spot-to put it mildly. I was an armor officer for about 10 years, I can tell you that it is a tank company commanders dream to find an arty unit come within engagement range-payback time times over. BTW, for us Yanks, armour is armor.

[Arjuna]

Medium arty ( 150+ ) could often cause a lot of damage to AFVs, if they could catch them in their bombardment zone. The heavier shell coming down from high angle could penetrate most WW2 tank top armour - so a direct hit was required for that. But many a near miss disabled tracks. Field arty ( 105s ) was less effective but still could throw tank tracks and disable a tank with a direct hit. As 06 Maestro says, it is rare but they did happen. Most AFVs under bombardment, button up and this reduces their ability to sight enemy and friendlies and reduces their overall situational awareness. Tankers do not like being bombarded. [:)]
 
At Arnhem the British 25pdrs deployed north-west of the rail bridge destroyed every German armoured assault that was launched across the open ground there. That was with direct open sight fire.

[06 Maestro]

In '43 the Red Army adopted a tactic of massed heavy arty on heavy German tank assaults-apparently with some good effect.  Even Tiger crews didn't like heavy arty raining on them.  I imagine that when the Russians talk about "massed", they mean massed.
 
Operating "buttuned up" does indeed degrade an amored unit ability to operate at peak efficiency.  Oddly,the Russian SOP was to operate buttuned up-as do/did the Arab Army's.  The Israely IDF tankers operate hatch open.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

At Arnhem the British 25pdrs deployed north-west of the rail bridge destroyed every German armoured assault that was launched across the open ground there. That was with direct open sight fire.

Hrm, i don't know if i remember correctly here, but weren't these assaults conducted just using AFV's, some ARVs (Pumas) and (if at all) the Char B tanks? The 25 pdrs would have surely left a mark there [:D].

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

The Israely IDF tankers operate hatch open.

Well, they didn't seem to do that during the last operation in Lebanon [:D]. I've seen quite some footage, all tanks i've seen in there operated with hatch down, while they had to dance with RPG fire from multiple directions and foes using Iranian AT rockets here and there.

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: 06 Maestro

The Israely IDF tankers operate hatch open.

Well, they didn't seem to do that during the last operation in Lebanon [:D]. I've seen quite some footage, all tanks i've seen in there operated with hatch down, while they had to dance with RPG fire from multiple directions and foes using Iranian AT rockets here and there.

With the way that operation turned out, I'm not very surprised to hear about this.

[James Sterrett]

Israel had a lot of problems in Lebanon. A few papers on the Lebanon conflict, if you're interested:
 
Lessons of the Israeli-Hezbollah War (Cordesman) http://www.csis.org/component/option,com_csis_pubs/task,view/id,4384/type,1/
 
We were Caught Unprepared: The 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli War, (CSI/Matt Matthews)
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/download/csipubs/matthewsOP26.pdf
 
Most of CSI's materials are available on line in any event: 
 
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/csi.asp

[06 Maestro]

James Sterrett


Thanks fore those links-I will be spending some time there.