Question About Armor Penetration Figures

Can't sleep so thought I would write a little.

Seadog,

Yep, that whole blind'em and then sneak around on the flank or go for a track sounds pretty good, but it was a lot harder, and a lot more dangerous than people seem to think. These guys weren't dumb, they usually parked the tank somewhere where they were very difficult to flank or if you tried they were protected by something else that could kill you.
Besides, by the time they made themselves known, you had already lost one or two tanks. Of course, if the air op or recon spotted them first, it was a different story entirely. Call arty, call the air force.

Nope, if can't avoid the engagment, you fired what you had, if it didn't work, you got the hell out of there, if you could. Remember, the terrain and weather conditions frequently forced armor to stay on the roads, and often the guy in front couldn't back up because of the guys behind him. You fired WP or whatever was loaded followed by WP or maybe if your gunner was really good and conditions were right, tried a ricochet. Usually the crews of the first tank or two just took casualties, and the ones behind took care of the Tiger or whatever it was. Later in the war, you might sic a 90mm M36 on the Tiger, Panther, TD, etc. while the others kept him busy. (Love that big 90mm!) An armored command would be able to call for artillery fire almost immediately from a little further back in the column, and give the Tiger a reason to move or if you were lucky actually knock it out. You could also get the air liaison to call for a couple of fighters to try and take him out, but that was hit or miss since there might not be any fighters available or they might mistake who they were supposed to bomb (actually this was pretty rare because the liaison made damn sure the wing-wipers knew where their target was, and it was not him!) or they might not hit the target.

OK, time to try to get some shut-eye. I hope what I wrote makes some sense.

Five-Zero-Nan

 

You try that trick in Combat Mission and find a new meaning for toast

In fact, everybody that comes up to me with a novel tactic gets a free session of Combat Mission. It never works as the owner intended

 

What trick are you talking about?

Five-Zero-Nan

 

Well. the ones you described.

Combat Mission is a computer game, the very best simulation of man-to-man, vehicle-to-vehicle combat I ever seen. It forced me to severely reappraised a lot I took for granted. You make one mistake, one small mistake in judging a ground fold, and the surviving part of your command will be running to the rear!

I never had a wargame teaching me anyhing, but this one is different.

Battlefront.com Home of Superior War and Strategy Games

 

Za,

I was describing actual combat. And everything I described is accurate.

I know computer games can be fun, but take it from me you can't learn anything about real combat playing them.

Five-Zero-Nan

 

Oh, but do try Combat Mission and tell me later about it. You'll be surprised.

And I certainly am not the ordinary teenager who knows nothing more than what he sees in his first-person-shooter, ask around here

Your scenario above is such a chain of ifs, suppositions and assumptions, that in the real world the probability of failure would be almost certain. I shan't go in detail now, but for instance when you smoke your target it can shift 20 metres to the side and voilá, smoke no more...

So the best is a good simulation to try theories, as we have no access to reality... Simulations can be rather serious things by themselves yes.

 

The scenario I mentioned was far fetched. Especially since tanks rarely do anything alone. If I saw a Tiger or Panther anywhere near, I would get off a WP and head for the hills. I dang sure would make sure that I had all the odds on my side. If I saw any enemy tank by his lonesome, my first instinct would be to look for more tanks, soldiers, or ATWs because I would know it was a trap. Of course, traps can work both ways, but only a fool gets too cute or tricky.

 

Sensible, ins't it? CM works that way.

 

Doing PØP (Panser Ødeleggelse Patruljer) Tank Killing Patrols, there is an easy drill. Stop, Blind, Blow.

We did much training on this since our friendly eastern neighbour had (and has) a humongous ammount of AFV and APCs.

However they are not indestructible.
To do so we should STOP them by knocking the treads or engine.
BLIND them by using smoke.
And finally BLOW them up using explosives/AT weaponry.

What Za is pointing at is that all this fancy training is rubbish if the enemy is not loyal to your plan.

Certainly no fun to try this against a regiment of Armour. Or in open spaces

 

Interesting aside from the mighty David Fletcher that relates to obliquity, both vertical & horizontal. It's part of a reference to a 'sober' discussion paper by a Colonel FW Gordon-hall (of whom Fletcher says "what that officer said on tank design deserved to be taken seriously") on the relative advantages of sloped or vertical armour, and tank design generally. After some interesting stuff on the ideal shape being a sphere, and the relative disadvantages of sloped armour being a larger surface area and thus associated greater weight, he goes on to say this, more specifically on obliquity :

Just thought it was a helpful piece when considering angles of shot in the real world rather than what all those penetration tables might appear to indicate to the "folks on the Internet" and their "widespread misconceptions" that triggered Five-zero beginning this thread.

Cheers,
Adam.

 

As a wise master once said: