Spaced Armor
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Spaced Armor
American tankers would call them 'footballs' because of the trajectory. If I had to guess, that GI is using a Panzerfaust 30. The later Panzerfaust 100 only had about 60 M/s velocity. At close range, it was 'accurate' especially against taller AFV like shermans or T34/85. Most hits were good enough to get some result. The concussive effect of that HE has behind armor effects as well as the shaped charge. Firing at the max range, against a moving AFV, must have been a luck fest.
Lobbing in like that reduces sloped armors effects BTW.
I disagree with the whole 'disposable' LATW. From a logistics viewpoint, shipping those long weapons is not efficient. It would have been better to have a reloadable method like the RPG.
Lobbing in like that reduces sloped armors effects BTW.
I disagree with the whole 'disposable' LATW. From a logistics viewpoint, shipping those long weapons is not efficient. It would have been better to have a reloadable method like the RPG.
-
- Member
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
- Location: central Europe
Re: Spaced Armor
From german 1944 research on HEAT warheads:
The ideal standoff distance was partially determined by the liner geometry of the warhead.
Two examples. Penetration given in mm (notice that only depth of penetration into the armor plate was measured, not behind plate effects). Tests were conducted under static conditions (no degrading spin effect)
The warhead dealt with here was the 6.6cm Schießbecher Panzergranate HL and improvements of the liner considered over the introduced staright liner geometry. This was a large, 66mm anti tank, HEAT rifle grenade (6,6cm HlGr.43), officially credited with a reliable penetration of 150mm at 60° (90°= perpendicular to the plate) under conditions of spin, the improved flask shaped, liner geometry would yield different stand off characteristics and a finer jet articulation, allowing the rifle grenade to penetrate aprox. 180mm of armor plate under spinned conditions and ~240mm in static conditions (compared to a mean of 210mm static for 6.6cm Hl Gr43).
Some of this rare munition has been encountered at Kummersdorf recently.
http://www.eeoda.de/2008/0811_FB1_6,6cm_HlGr-43.pdf
The ideal standoff distance was partially determined by the liner geometry of the warhead.
Two examples. Penetration given in mm (notice that only depth of penetration into the armor plate was measured, not behind plate effects). Tests were conducted under static conditions (no degrading spin effect)
The warhead dealt with here was the 6.6cm Schießbecher Panzergranate HL and improvements of the liner considered over the introduced staright liner geometry. This was a large, 66mm anti tank, HEAT rifle grenade (6,6cm HlGr.43), officially credited with a reliable penetration of 150mm at 60° (90°= perpendicular to the plate) under conditions of spin, the improved flask shaped, liner geometry would yield different stand off characteristics and a finer jet articulation, allowing the rifle grenade to penetrate aprox. 180mm of armor plate under spinned conditions and ~240mm in static conditions (compared to a mean of 210mm static for 6.6cm Hl Gr43).
Some of this rare munition has been encountered at Kummersdorf recently.
http://www.eeoda.de/2008/0811_FB1_6,6cm_HlGr-43.pdf
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Spaced Armor
Interesting. It can get that performance with that small a diameter and a steel liner??
Is this a true rifle grenade or some dedicated launcher? Or both? The picture seems to show a cartridge...
Is this a true rifle grenade or some dedicated launcher? Or both? The picture seems to show a cartridge...
-
- Member
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
- Location: central Europe
Re: Spaced Armor
Yes, that´s one of the reason why many became convinced during 1943/44 that the evolution of HEAT warheads will eventually make thick armor obsolete. HEAT is far less affected by high obliquity, too. The document I have at hand:
indicates rifle grenade, which make use of "schiessbecher".Bericht Nr. 146
"Untersuchungen an der 6,6cm Schiessbecher Panzergranate zur Steigerung der panzerbrechenden Wirkung" (Berlin), dated 18th of oct. 1944
-
- Member
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 05 Dec 2016, 12:02
- Location: 'Sydney
Re: Spaced Armor
The superfluous, overly-technical data stated by some commenters is just intellectual masturbation and these people surely know that at least half the people on these forums will not understand the nomenclature and specialized jargon of thermodynamics, various branches of physics, and other specialised related subjects.
Commenters ought to judge their audience (which if they are academics, ought to have heard of the rhetorical triangle or situation) and answer with consideration and understanding that many people won't grasp verbiage.
Basically, those on here who are physicists, engineers, mathematicians and the like need to consider their audience and not use these forums to show off their knowledge on topics unnecessarily.
Spaced armour or 'Schurtzen' would have produced various degrees of effectiveness and ineffectiveness depending on all the various contributing factors.
It must be said that the Germans were exceptional engineers and must have known that spaced armour would AT THE VERY LEAST reduce the impact of the mid to late war specialised rounds whether coming from anti-tank infantry or AFV's.
The Wehrmacht itself was forced to engage in anti-tank infantry tactics due to the ineffectiveness of their armour in Russia.
I understand that things like Zimmerit and spaced armour were abandoned late not because they were ineffective, but because the tanks that were being produced (post-Pz III and IV) had sufficient armour protection, along with Zimmerit coating becoming time-consuming and costly.
Commenters ought to judge their audience (which if they are academics, ought to have heard of the rhetorical triangle or situation) and answer with consideration and understanding that many people won't grasp verbiage.
Basically, those on here who are physicists, engineers, mathematicians and the like need to consider their audience and not use these forums to show off their knowledge on topics unnecessarily.
Spaced armour or 'Schurtzen' would have produced various degrees of effectiveness and ineffectiveness depending on all the various contributing factors.
It must be said that the Germans were exceptional engineers and must have known that spaced armour would AT THE VERY LEAST reduce the impact of the mid to late war specialised rounds whether coming from anti-tank infantry or AFV's.
The Wehrmacht itself was forced to engage in anti-tank infantry tactics due to the ineffectiveness of their armour in Russia.
I understand that things like Zimmerit and spaced armour were abandoned late not because they were ineffective, but because the tanks that were being produced (post-Pz III and IV) had sufficient armour protection, along with Zimmerit coating becoming time-consuming and costly.
-
- Member
- Posts: 1441
- Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
- Location: Canada
Re: Spaced Armor
Entschuldigung wrote:The superfluous, overly-technical data stated by some commenters is just intellectual masturbation and these people surely know that at least half the people on these forums will not understand the nomenclature and specialized jargon of thermodynamics, various branches of physics, and other specialised related subjects.
Commenters ought to judge their audience (which if they are academics, ought to have heard of the rhetorical triangle or situation) and answer with consideration and understanding that many people won't grasp verbiage.
.
No one is forcing you to read the thread !
Even by your own words the other half of the forum are interested . So let them continue? Or are you a moderator and are going to lock up the thread?
- Christian Ankerstjerne
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 14028
- Joined: 10 Mar 2002, 15:07
- Location: Denmark
- Contact:
Re: Spaced Armor
Let's keep the focus on the subject!
This forum has no requirements for posts to be understandable at a specific level of education, nor does it have any requirement for members to be able to make themself understood at such a level. If a member does not understand specific technical aspects of what is being written, they are of course welcome to ask for clarification. Since clarifications are not mandatory on the part of the member making the original post, such requests are much more likely to be accommodated if they are presented in a manner that is not derogatory against said member.
This forum has no requirements for posts to be understandable at a specific level of education, nor does it have any requirement for members to be able to make themself understood at such a level. If a member does not understand specific technical aspects of what is being written, they are of course welcome to ask for clarification. Since clarifications are not mandatory on the part of the member making the original post, such requests are much more likely to be accommodated if they are presented in a manner that is not derogatory against said member.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Spaced Armor
critical mass wrote:Yes, that´s one of the reason why many became convinced during 1943/44 that the evolution of HEAT warheads will eventually make thick armor obsolete. HEAT is far less affected by high obliquity, too. The document I have at hand:indicates rifle grenade, which make use of "schiessbecher".Bericht Nr. 146
"Untersuchungen an der 6,6cm Schiessbecher Panzergranate zur Steigerung der panzerbrechenden Wirkung" (Berlin), dated 18th of oct. 1944
The text refers to a '6,6 cm PzB', which I take to be an 'antitank rifle' of sorts. look at the picture, it shows a cartridge. That is, it is not a muzzle loaded piece of ammunition. Perhaps it was envisioned that a low velocity dedicated weapon was to fire this projectile also? It sort of reminds me of a M79 grenade launcher round. I am speaking about the image on the right.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Spaced Armor
Well, that would be a misunderstanding. Zimmerit was a defense against magnetic close-assault antitank weapons. The Germans were the only ones that made these expensive (dangerous) weapons. No tank had sufficient armor to protect against these, so you are incorrect on that count also.Entschuldigung wrote:
I understand that things like Zimmerit and spaced armour were abandoned late not because they were ineffective, but because the tanks that were being produced (post-Pz III and IV) had sufficient armour protection, along with Zimmerit coating becoming time-consuming and costly.
The Germans used shuerzen till the end of the war. Even on the Panther tank. So, you are mistaken on that count also. It's initial use was to defeat antitank rifle rounds and pre-detonate HE rounds. It just so happened to provide protection against hollow charge weapons.
Your name, in German, means 'excuse me'....funny.
-
- Member
- Posts: 2615
- Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
- Location: Colorado
Re: Spaced Armor
I would assume they are talking about this version?Mobius wrote:Speaking of HEAT grenades.
http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/germa ... anate.html
-
- Member
- Posts: 740
- Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
- Location: central Europe
Re: Spaced Armor
Yes the drawing shows a cartridge but this is only the reproduction of a drawing for the 6.6cm PzBGr, which the authors believed to be related to the objects they found on the proovin ground. There is, however, no evidence for a cartridge on any of the specimen they found.The text refers to a '6,6 cm PzB', which I take to be an 'antitank rifle' of sorts. look at the picture, it shows a cartridge.
Re: Spaced Armor
It is important to note that the Panzerfaust (30 gross, 60 and 100) had a 150 mm warhead the US Bazooka by comparison is only 60 mm therefore the resulting denotation and damage to the target should be fairly large in comparison.Yoozername wrote: Not exactly a tiny hole...
No, the Panzerfaust in the video has to be a 60 or 100 due to the weapon's iron sights which are of the later type.Yoozername wrote:If I had to guess, that GI is using a Panzerfaust 30.
The Panzerfaust 30 would look like this:
Panzerfaust 60 or 100 would look like this:
The Panzerfaust was supposed to be accurate up to its name's cited optimal range IE Panzerfaust 30 to 30 meters, Panzerfaust 60 to 60 meters & Panzerfaust 100 to 100 meters. Something like ~80-90% (going from memory) of hits were achieved on targets at the ranges listed above for those particular weapons.Yoozername wrote:At close range, it was 'accurate'
As far as spaced armor plate vs HEAT rounds I wonder if the size differences (as stated above),liners, bad fuses (bazooka & piat were fairly notorious), or the low grade explosive compounds used in the piat bombs played a larger role than they are given credit for in this debate.
Re: Spaced Armor
I am Shure they did, the stand off distance for the smaller Bazooka warhead, should of been especially relevant given the "space" between the outer skirt on the Panzer IV and STUG/P III for example, is such that it would degrade the "JET" thus degrading the weapons effectiveness, the larger warheads of the Panzerfaust and to a lesser extant the Panzerschreck would not of been effected by this, if they actually had to of contended with something similar.
Also angle of impact seams to of been as important as a normal HV AP projectile, particularly for the smaller "bazooka" warhead again given that unless an optimal impact angle was achieved the warhead would either fail to detonate or the "JET" would simply "gouge" at the armor. Again this given the comparatively enormous war head on the panzerfaust would not of been as much of an issue, The size of the warhead its self, I mean the weight of the explosive filling is also significantly larger between the panzerfaust and the bazooka, and the HEAT rifle grenades, the later afik did not fly in a straight line but were also "lobed" onto the target. My understanding is that one did not shoulder the rifle when firing one of these but the weapon was placed but fist onto the ground and the HEAT grenade "willed" onto the target.
Panzerfaust (typical): 0.8 kilograms (1.8 lb) of a 50:50 mixture of TNT and hexogen explosives, and had armour penetration of 200 millimetres
Bazooka: The M6A3 was capable of penetrating 3.5–4 inches (89–102 mm) of armor plate (caliber 60mm)
SEE ALSO: viewtopic.php?t=178697
Also angle of impact seams to of been as important as a normal HV AP projectile, particularly for the smaller "bazooka" warhead again given that unless an optimal impact angle was achieved the warhead would either fail to detonate or the "JET" would simply "gouge" at the armor. Again this given the comparatively enormous war head on the panzerfaust would not of been as much of an issue, The size of the warhead its self, I mean the weight of the explosive filling is also significantly larger between the panzerfaust and the bazooka, and the HEAT rifle grenades, the later afik did not fly in a straight line but were also "lobed" onto the target. My understanding is that one did not shoulder the rifle when firing one of these but the weapon was placed but fist onto the ground and the HEAT grenade "willed" onto the target.
Panzerfaust (typical): 0.8 kilograms (1.8 lb) of a 50:50 mixture of TNT and hexogen explosives, and had armour penetration of 200 millimetres
Bazooka: The M6A3 was capable of penetrating 3.5–4 inches (89–102 mm) of armor plate (caliber 60mm)
SEE ALSO: viewtopic.php?t=178697
Re: Spaced Armor
Interesting, another thing to consider is that the schützen/side skirt plates were installed on ~10 deg downward slope the idea being small caliber rounds would deflect down into the ground.Brady wrote:Also angle of impact seams to of been as important as a normal HV AP projectile,