Artillery Bug

[dfire]

Video is self-explanatory

 

[Sudden]

Seems to be turned off.

[lovewing]

I cant believe someone would bother you like that with a blenheim

This playerbase is toxic

Edited January 16, 2023 by lovewing

[TEX64]

?? not getting it.  The gunner is looking at the open sight.  If there is a concern re the lack of penetration from the HE shell . . . .

 

Page 16 of the 105mm Howitzer Guide:  "Anti-Tank Shells  - Currently, the howitzers do NOT have modeled antiarmor (AP or HEAT) shells.  It has not yet been determined if the towed howitzers will have that capability in the future. "

[delems]

Seems to me, 105mm of HE hitting a tank at close range should do some damage......?

Like knock the crew out at least?

Edited January 16, 2023 by delems

[jwilly]

11 minutes ago, delems said:

Seems to me, 105mm of HE hitting a tank at close range should do some damage......?

Like knock the crew out at least?

1. The range makes little difference. The shell detonates shortly after its nose fuze makes contract, so the mechanical force applied to the armor due to the mass and velocity of the shell and the deceleration of its forward motion is minimal before the shell explodes.

2. If the tank crew is fully buttoned up, the blast-overpressure outside the tank is very minimally communicated to the inside. An HE shell too small to break the armor or toss the tank around, detonating against that armor, won't seriously harm the crew inside. It'll sound to them as if someone hit the armor with a large hammer. Kind of a loud dull thud.

It might damage optics, the aerial and any externally attached equipment and gear, though. And, if the commander or other crew are unbuttoned, they might be injured either by the blast or by fragments.

3. My understanding is that a 152mm / 155mm-class shell may fracture armor in the 25mm thickness range, and propel chunks of that armor inward. A 75mm / 88mm-class shell may have the same effect on armor in the 8 to 12mm thickness range. A 100mm / 105mm / 120mm-class shell may have the same effect on armor in the 15 to 20mm thickness range.

[delems]

Guess my knowledge is different from yours then.

A 75mm+ HE shell hitting a tank would knock the crew senseless.

But, haven't ever been in a tank, or experienced 75mm+ HE blasts around me, guess I don't really know.

[TEX64]

That HE shell explodes upon immediate impact and for our game, the shell has NO armor penetration at this time.  Thin-skinned vehicles like trucks yes, wheels, tracks are a yes, too.  It is how our shells are modeled.

[vongters]

1 hour ago, TEX64 said:

That HE shell explodes upon immediate impact and for our game, the shell has NO armor penetration at this time.  Thin-skinned vehicles like trucks yes, wheels, tracks are a yes, too.  It is how our shells are modeled.

But does this also apply to tanks? Because I can guarantee you that the churchill CS easily destroys a tiger with the HE ammo. Tried it in the intermission and @daokoth1 killed me with that sometime.

Edited January 16, 2023 by vongters

[B2K]

2 hours ago, vongters said:

But does this also apply to tanks? Because I can guarantee you that the churchill CS easily destroys a tiger with the HE ammo. Tried it in the intermission and @daokoth1 killed me with that sometime.

Two completely different things. 

[OLDZEKE]

On all but thin skinned vehicles a HE hit is a uncontained external explosion or simply put a airburst. The projectile case will shred into many small projectiles (shrapnel).

A explosion creates a pressure wave, hot gasses expanding that if contained or constrained will build as pressure.

With a uncontained explosion/air burst, per ammo round, the only containment happens within the projectile itself. Once the projectile casing breaks up the pressure escapes in all directions. As it's moving very fast it compresses the air but it's not a directed compression. 

Compression also is dependent on what is being compressed. Gases, air, compress pretty easily whereas liquids and solids don't.

For a external explosion to affect the crew inside of a tank through compression or concussion the pressure has to have a easy unrestricted way to rapidly enter the tank or be of a large enough volume to rapidly move the tank causing the crew to be jostled inside with enough force to cause injury from hitting the interior. 

A 105mm projectile weighs around 9 pounds. I don't think a 9 pound thin skinned projectile exploding on the outer armor of a 50 ton tank has the energy potential to move that tank with enough force to cause injury to the crew.

[Mosizlak]

Scotsman probably explained this in detail when he was still here.   You could probably search his posts and find it. 

[jwilly]

3 hours ago, B2K said:

Two completely different things. 

?

[foe2]

15 minutes ago, jwilly said:

?

one fires HE the CS tanks can fire HESH.

[OLDZEKE]

6 hours ago, vongters said:

But does this also apply to tanks? Because I can guarantee you that the churchill CS easily destroys a tiger with the HE ammo. Tried it in the intermission and @daokoth1 killed me with that sometime.

Churchill CS tank has 5 HEAT rounds in the loadout. Those do kill tanks.

[jwilly]

58 minutes ago, foe2 said:

one fires HE the CS tanks can fire HESH.

HESH, as a principle, was first consciously invented by the British during WWII, but my understanding is that the first British use was in special recoilless rifle shells that were fielded on a trial basis in late 1944. Some time thereafter there may have been a HESH shell for the short, large-caliber AVRE tank-mortar. I'm not aware that HESH shells were fielded for other, "regular" guns before the end of WWII. The British originally regarded HESH shells as being specialized for concrete demolition...not for anti-tank use.

The Italians may have inadvertently taken advantage of the HESH principle earlier with their 1943 Effetto Pronto Speciale shell, intended to be an improvement to their late 1941 Effetto Pronto (HEAT) shell, but at least one batch of which had a softer-than-intended explosive fill and a very slow base fuze, resulting in the shell not functioning as HEAT and instead having a HESH-type effect.

[vongters]

22 minutes ago, OLDZEKE said:

Churchill CS tank has 5 HEAT rounds in the loadout. Those do kill tanks.

We used HE to kill tigers without any doubt 

[jwilly]

20 minutes ago, OLDZEKE said:

Churchill CS tank has 5 HEAT rounds in the loadout. Those do kill tanks.

Definitely late war. Some sources say mid or Fall 1943, others mid 1944.

And supposedly the lateral accuracy was 100 yards at 2000 yards. Not too good.

[lovewing]

lol guys...

I may be wrong since there is no audio on the tank's client but it appears that:

the bug is that the round passes thru the target as if it has noClip enabled. It doesnt impact the tank at all. It only appears to hit the tank a couple times because it hits the ground or hits the edge of veh barn. Splash killed the commander.

There are 2 possibilities that need to be tested:

A) from 100m away, will it impact the tank?

if it does impact the tank at 100m then we can assume the bug is that the rounds do not clip vehicles until they travel X distance.

B ) if it noClips at 100m, then it may be that the rounds noClip thru vehicles regardless of range OR it has to travel further range (would have to be tested)

Edited January 17, 2023 by lovewing

[Kilemall]

Howitzers are low velocity so you aren’t going to get big effects direct fire.  However the shell size itself can have kinetic effects, think shotgun shell.  The premium example would be the SU-152.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-152

 

The other part is the 105s probably should be able to drop on thin 15mm.  Would take a full battery and real coordination.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Kilemall

[lovewing]

all this talk about penetration data when the rounds are not even hitting the tank. They phase through the tank as if it isnt there

[B2K]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:12 PM, jwilly said:

?

? What?  Ballistically HE from arty is very different than HE from tanks or other direct fire weapons.  

Angles are different, speed is different, explosive weights are different, fragmentation patterns are different, etc.

[jwilly]

24 minutes ago, B2K said:

? What?  Ballistically HE from arty is very different than HE from tanks or other direct fire weapons.  

Angles are different, speed is different, explosive weights are different, fragmentation patterns are different, etc.

(1) Indirect-fired artillery HE hits usually-thinner top armor.

Direct-fired CS-tank HE shells, or direct-fired towed or SP HE artillery shells, normally hit frontal or side armor, which was usually thicker. 

155mm-and-larger US artillery regularly got tank/assault gun kills during the Bulge when defending US infantry called down final protective fire just in front of their positions as a German attack was closing on them.

German 10.5cm towed howitzers got many penetration-kills using AP shells against the Matilda attack at Arras in 1940, but got only a few mobility damages and no kills using HE shells.

British 18 and 25 pounders in the 1940 defensive ring around Dunkirk had no AP and could not stop German tanks with HE, so finally switched to direct-firing inert HE shells with the shipping plugs in place of the nose fuses, and got at least one kill that way by knocking a PzKpfW IV turret off its bearings.

(2) Actually, CS-tank HE shells were very similar to equivalent-caliber artillery shells. Similar muzzle velocity, similar explosive weight, similar shell wall thickness (in both cases, relatively thin due to the non-need for the shell to be able to withstand the much greater acceleration of a high velocity gun). Essentially identical fragmentation patterns and fragment counts if the compared shells had the same arrival geometry.

There was a very substantial difference between all of these parameters for high velocity tank guns...even for their lesser-velocity HE shells...and artillery pieces, or CS-tank guns which amounted to short artillery-type howitzers mounted in turrets, or even low velocity tank guns.

As you know, the Sherman 75 had much more effective HE shells than the Sherman 76 or the Firefly, for instance.

But the Matilda and Churchill CS tanks, and the cruiser-tank CS versions as well, all fired artillery-like shells. So not much difference from artillery HE at all.