sachel charge damage to tanks. -1 reply

Please wait...

czech speacial forces

I pretend I'm cooler than AzH

50 XP

3rd September 2005

0 Uploads

3,369 Posts

0 Threads

#1 12 years ago

i do not think that sachel charges should kill a tank. only immobilize it. because armor protected agenst simply explosions. this is why HE rounds didnt kill tanks. also look at saving provate ryan. the explosives just blew off the tracks. i just want to point this out because it might become bf2 at which people charge tanks with some explosives in their hand and the charges are suicidal which reduces realism.




130th Erich

from 130th

50 XP

23rd February 2005

0 Uploads

271 Posts

0 Threads

#2 12 years ago

Satchels do damage to tanks in FH?????

ahahha Just kidding lame joke sorry

You have a point and it is probally a good idea.




Carroarmato-P40

Believe, Obey, Fight!

50 XP

12th July 2005

0 Uploads

131 Posts

0 Threads

#3 12 years ago

Well I think satchel charges should destroy a pzkfw I or II. :D




Jetro

There's a satchel on your tank

50 XP

6th December 2004

0 Uploads

1,473 Posts

0 Threads

#4 12 years ago

Well In bf2 they're using a block of C4 high explosive. That'll punch through some pretty strong stuff.

Even in WWII they were using these satchels to destroy thick stone brigdes. These were high energy explosives, more than heat(incindeary) devices.




Admiral Donutz VIP Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,261 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#5 12 years ago
czech speacial forcesi do not think that sachel charges should kill a tank. only immobilize it. because armor protected agenst simply explosions. this is why HE rounds didnt kill tanks. also look at saving provate ryan. the explosives just blew off the tracks. i just want to point this out because it might become bf2 at which people charge tanks with some explosives in their hand and the charges are suicidal which reduces realism.

Movies are not a source for historical accuracy. :lol:

Regardless scatchels should indeed immobilize the tank by breaking it's track or blowing (damaging) up the engine compartment, FH1 (I must day the BF1942 engine) never allowed this to work properly but in FH2 who knows?




Hanley

Checkmate King Two

50 XP

9th November 2005

0 Uploads

96 Posts

0 Threads

#6 12 years ago

[COLOR=black]Satchels would be ineffective against the armor of a tank in that it would just force the explosion outward. Satchels would only be really effective on the tracks of a tank or on the engine compartment.[/COLOR] [COLOR=black] [/COLOR] [COLOR=black]There were tests done on the M1 Abrams with blocks of C4, and it could withstand having a block of C4 blown up on its side because the blast just went away from the tank, but as I stated, placing one on the tracks or the engine compartment would be detrimental to the tank's crew and their tank's performance.[/COLOR]




silian

40 years of the Ford Escort!

50 XP

9th October 2004

0 Uploads

1,678 Posts

0 Threads

#7 12 years ago

How about a concussion effect for the crew of a tank so when a tank is hit by a shell or an explosion occurs nearby (arty, mines, satchels and bombs) the vision of the driver, hull gunner etc. is blurred for a couple of seconds?




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

3rd September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#8 12 years ago
silianHow about a concussion effect for the crew of a tank so when a tank is hit by a shell or an explosion occurs nearby (arty, mines, satchels and bombs) the vision of the driver, hull gunner etc. is blurred for a couple of seconds?

There is a neat idea, shooting a tank with a sufficient large enough HE shell should result in a severe bf2ish shell-shock effects, for ALL crew members, and this should last more then just a few seconds.




Seth_Soldier

"Mort aux cons !"

50 XP

22nd December 2003

0 Uploads

883 Posts

0 Threads

#9 12 years ago

isn't the is2 which was able to kill crews without penetrate the tank (kt perhaps) ? (or something like that, but i know it has existed in some case that the shock was very terrible)




Tas

Serious business brigade

50 XP

3rd September 2004

0 Uploads

7,275 Posts

0 Threads

#10 12 years ago
Seth_Soldierisn't the is2 which was able to kill crews without penetrate the tank (kt perhaps) ? (or something like that, but i know it has existed in some case that the shock was very terrible)

No, that was due to spalling. Spalling is when the force exerted on the outside of the armor was strong enough to cause metal on the inside of the tank to shatter and shred the crew into little pieces. It happened with all tanks with poor armor quality.. and the KT had such armor, i dont think the Tiger had that problem, at least not the earlier ones.

Asuming no spalling occured, the crew should still have to cope with some shell shock, if the HE shell was strong enough... right?