Russian Anti-AT measures -1 reply

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

explamster

Flying Ace

50 XP

12th November 2003

0 Uploads

138 Posts

0 Threads

#1 14 years ago

I have come across photographs of T-34s with wires, mattress springs etc. mounted on the side of the vehicles and I understand that they were to destry AT shells before they hit the armor. They created larges, scorched circles on the sides of the armor. Could the wires exist and be removed by German saboteurs, or could the scorch marks exist? Must know.




explamster

Flying Ace

50 XP

12th November 2003

0 Uploads

138 Posts

0 Threads

#2 14 years ago

Do Panzerfaust shells qualify as HEAT?

I wasn't trying to sound professional saying Anti-AT. It got the point across, that's what matters.




explamster

Flying Ace

50 XP

12th November 2003

0 Uploads

138 Posts

0 Threads

#3 14 years ago

You've read my Engineer Epiphany thread. You know of my idea to include wire cutters. What if Axis engineers confronting Russian tanks in Stalingrad etc. used these clippy thingies to disable the wires, opening the tanks up to destruction?




explamster

Flying Ace

50 XP

12th November 2003

0 Uploads

138 Posts

0 Threads

#4 14 years ago

no, I mean the anti HEAT round wires. Disable those wires.




BAM

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

3,415 Posts

0 Threads

#5 14 years ago
KillorLiveHuh?

he means that you should cut of the Wires that protect the T34 from Heat,PFZ ....




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#6 14 years ago

The point of a shaped charge is the blast is focused into itself to produce a brief but very hot tongue of flame that can melt through any steel.

BUT

For a shaped charge to work effectively the flat end has to be against the surface it is trying to cut. By adding armored skirts, bedsprings, or other stuff to the tank you cause the shaped charge to detonate far enough away that the flame tongue dissapates before it hits the armor so instead of cutting the now unfocused blast has scattered to the point of leaving just a scorch mark.

The skirts and screens and stuff had to be strong enough not to get knocked off of a moving tank. This is not normally the kind of stuff you can just casually walk up and remove. On the german tank skirts those armored skirts were hevy and would usually require more than one or two people to remove. The Russian stuff was usually welded to the hull so bring a hacksaw and cutting torch to remove it. Not the casual sneak in and remove items.

EDIT: IIRC the reason you dont see alot of armored skirts nowadays is becuse someone invented tandem charge warheads. First warhead blew hole in armored skirt. Second warhead went through the hole and struck the tanks armor. The skirting now had the oppisote effect of now helping to contain the explosive force of the warhead so that it penetrated even better

But Tandem charge warheads are expensive and used to be very tricky to make and sue with good effect.




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#7 14 years ago
KillorLiveI would like very much to see armored skirts added to M2's, M1's, and Stryker's. The protection they add for the price they cost is insane. There's no reason NOT to use them. Oh, the M1 IIRC has composite armor, so HEAT won't damage an M1 very much. IIRC, of course. I don't know for sure. I do know that we've lost several M1's in Iraq from RPGs, well, not lost, but they were disabled.

For the average weapon seen nowadays armored skirts would be a good addition since it woll defeat most RPG's.

Also IIRC the Abrahms doesnt have Chobham armor in non critical areas like lower side hull

EDIT; On another forum I frequent we have been hotly discussing what knocked out a tank in Iraq. The tank took a golden BB through the lower side hull, went throught the gunners(or loaders?) chair just missing the gunner and hit sime small but critical piece of equipment that was needed to run th tank. Tank had to be towed back but was repaired within a few hours. No one can figure out what hit teh Abrams. The projectile punched a pencil sized hole through the lower hull with enough force to melt the edges of the hole. Judging from WW2 photos I have seen and the photos of the damage to the Abrams I am betting on someone testing out a new Hyper velocity round for a A/T rifle. Imagine what a 14.5mm PTRS could do with modern propellants. metallurgy, and penetrators.




BlitzPig_Machine

Addicted to GF

50 XP

1st October 2003

0 Uploads

182 Posts

0 Threads

#8 14 years ago

The M1 uses Chobum on the turret (front and sides) and hull (front and a DU layer).

Now, let's talk about HEAT. The way Chobum, or any composite type armor works, is to create a series of layers of differing thicknesses with spaces in between (also prevents spall). Now, think of the chemical penetrator (that's what HEAT is, super-heated copper formed into a molten projectile) as a liquid (and it behaves as such)...it hits the first layer, and flows...if the second layers is more dense than it is able to penetrate it will begin to dissipate and "flow"...so Chobum is GOOD against HEAT.

BUT this doesn't mean the tank is invulnerable. As HEAT rounds get more advanced and get better at penetrating different materials they can, in fact, defeat the M1's front turret. Here's the math...the front turret armor is something like 400mm thick. There's a multiplyer for angle and Chobum and it comes out to be about 1200mm effective. That's pretty impressive. BUT modern (read 1990's on) heavy AT missiles (there are a couple Russian ones like AT-12 (?) Sniper which is capable of penetrating 1200mm, TOWs can penetrate that 800+ w/ a 28lb warhead, the AGM-65 has a 300 lb warhead (penetration can easily assumed to be greater)...and those are HEAT warheads. The point is that nothings invulnerable...

HOWEVER, while it is difficult to kill an M1 from the front, it's an ENTIRELY different story from the sides...and back. The nice thing about the M1 is that even if you kill the tank (it's not invulnerable AT ALL...no tank is) between the Halon and ammo storage system the crew has a very good chance of getting out alive.

Anyway...more on point are thos bedsprings attached to T-34s and such. Do they work? Maybe...maybe not. Certainly it may work. Anybody have information on wether it did or not?

And Killor actually had a good point. Barb wire. Guess what...a tank can roll through one strand...maybe. Double strand? No. Triple? Forget it. Oh, it's not a wall...but the stuff WRAPS around the road wheels, drive sprockets, torsion bars, suspension arms...ugh. Had a 5 ton roll over a strand once...took ALL night to cut that stuff off.




Kämpfer

I take what n0e says way too seriously

50 XP

27th April 2003

0 Uploads

2,394 Posts

0 Threads

#9 14 years ago

BlitzPig_MachineAnyway...more on point are thos bedsprings attached to T-34s and such. Do they work? Maybe...maybe not. Certainly it may work. Anybody have information on wether it did or not?

And Killor actually had a good point. Barb wire. Guess what...a tank can roll through one strand...maybe. Double strand? No. Triple? Forget it. Oh, it's not a wall...but the stuff WRAPS around the road wheels, drive sprockets, torsion bars, suspension arms...ugh. Had a 5 ton roll over a strand once...took ALL night to cut that stuff off.

I have heard they did work, but the problem is that is nearly impossible to code into game. Be a great addition though!




AussieZaitsev

Revenge was here.

50 XP

14th December 2003

0 Uploads

1,970 Posts

0 Threads

#10 14 years ago

it is known that russians but inner spring mattresses on the most exposed/weakest part of thier armour (usually thier turret) to make the charge of the panzer faust explode before it penetrated. this is only documented to of hapaneded during the battle for Seelow Heights and Berlin




  • 1
  • 2