After Stalingrad what could Germany do to hold off the USSR as long as possible?

[McPherson]

Why should a 37mm HESH kill a T-34, the one of 50mm a KV, and the one of 75mm an IS-2?

Not enough explosive squashed to produce a powerful enough shock wave concentrated in the strike area through the armor plate to produce the shatter effect desired?

Especially if the Brinell value is of a casting that resists cracking and flaking and brittleness? Mid-war Shermans were notorious for that kind of cast armor resistance as the Americans knew of the Munroe effect. You need a squash down of at least 100mm in diameter when spread out at impact to make sure of detonation effect at 230-270 Brinell cast or RHA steel approximately 70mm+ thick. Hence the Italians used squash-head in their 7.5 cm howitzer-armed semoventes.

Later they increased the bore size to deal with allied armor with thicker hides... ultimately 10.5 cm howitzer fired HESH rounds.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Why should a 37mm HESH kill a T-34, the one of 50mm a KV, and the one of 75mm an IS-2?

From what I've read sloped armor actually enhances the effect of HESH shells and a rough figure to estimate the effectiveness of HESH is they can 'penetrate' 130% of their caliber. So a 37mm HESH shell can 'penetrate' 48.1mm of armor, which is more than the thickness of the T-34's armor. Plus Soviet armor was usually not particularly well made or welded, so spalled badly even from non-penetrating hits, which means HESH will do some serious damage.

Not enough explosive squashed to produce a powerful enough shock wave concentrated in the strike area through the armor plate to produce the shatter effect desired?

Especially if the Brinell value is of a casting that resists cracking and flaking and brittleness? Mid-war Shermans were notorious for that kind of cast armor resistance as the Americans knew of the Munroe effect. You need a squash down of at least 100mm in diameter when spread out at impact to make sure of detonation effect at 230-270 Brinell cast or RHA steel approximately 70mm+ thick. Hence the Italians used squash-head in their 7.5 cm howitzer-armed semoventes.

Later they increased the bore size to deal with allied armor with thicker hides... ultimately 10.5 cm howitzer fired HESH rounds.

Not sure why you brought up the Sherman when I was talking about the Soviet tanks.

Regular 75mm AP (PAK or tank gun) smashed through Shermans without any trouble. But as it was even with the improved armor of the Shermans they still did not have spall liners, so HESH would make them spall. RHA was not designed to handle something like HESH and it took composite armor+kevlar spall liners to render them ineffective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_squash_head
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/348021.pdf

The Italian rounds weren't properly designed, so they needed bigger calibers to get the desired effect. Since they were supposed to be HEAT shells and had the nose cavity for it and used a base fuse instead of a nose one the cavity collapsed in on itself and it squashed on the target that way, but because of that cavity there was a lot less explosive charge than a shell designed from the ground up to be HESH type round. They accidentally developed a HESH round without necessarily realizing why it did what it did (at least that is what I can find from the scant info about their design and use online).

 

[McPherson]

From what I've read sloped armor actually enhances the effect of HESH shells and a rough figure to estimate the effectiveness of HESH is they can 'penetrate' 130% of their caliber. So a 37mm HESH shell can 'penetrate' 48.1mm of armor, which is more than the thickness of the T-34's armor. Plus Soviet armor was usually not particularly well made or welded, so spalled badly even from non-penetrating hits, which means HESH will do some serious damage.

One might assume that, but the ACTUAL situation is that a lobbed LV HESH shell thrown from a howitzer presents a less obtuse angle of strike upon impact on the "slanted" armor; meaning it strikes the surface more vertically than a HV shell or slug. The actual plate thickness of a T-34 (assume glacis strike) to be defeated by a HV 5cm bore diameter shell at 700 m/s at 500 meters shot is a practical 75-80mm if the angle of strike is about 40-45 degrees from the vertical. A 3.7 cm bore diameter HESH round assuming 500-600 m/s, same range arriving with a 30-35 degree angle of strike has about 50-55 mm of armor practical to defeat and will FAIL. One needs the spread out base upon detonation to produce a shock wave of at least 1.5X the armor practical thickness to produce internal spall and flaking off the armor to kill the tank. 1.3x does not guarantee anything. That is the minimum at 90 degrees strike. Your HESH round has to be 7.5 cm bore diameter to be sure in the cited example. The same is true for a SHERMAN BTW. Same glacis problem.

 

[tomo pauk]

From what I've read sloped armor actually enhances the effect of HESH shells and a rough figure to estimate the effectiveness of HESH is they can 'penetrate' 130% of their caliber. So a 37mm HESH shell can 'penetrate' 48.1mm of armor, which is more than the thickness of the T-34's armor. Plus Soviet armor was usually not particularly well made or welded, so spalled badly even from non-penetrating hits, which means HESH will do some serious damage.

Do we have actual data on HESH performance in 1940s?

 

[McPherson]

Do we have actual data on HESH performance in 1940s?

More than you ever wanted to know about Italian and FRENCH ordnance of all types as encountered by the American army in WWII. Artillery projectiles for the Italians is in Chapter 3. (Page 62 and go forward for high explosive and hollow charge or MUNROE EFFECT H/E which is what Effecto Pronto really is.).

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Do we have actual data on HESH performance in 1940s?

I'm sure in the Italian archives the info is there, but I don't have access to it.
As to British data, same problem, they haven't posted things online I could find from that period. It exists somewhere, but so far I can't find it. There are however reports from the 1960s and onwards about it, as I posted already:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/348021.pdf

One might assume that, but the ACTUAL situation is that a lobbed LV HESH shell thrown from a howitzer presents a less obtuse angle of strike upon impact on the "slanted" armor; meaning it strikes the surface more vertically than a HV shell or slug. The actual plate thickness of a T-34 (assume glacis strike) to be defeated by a HV 5cm bore diameter shell at 700 m/s at 500 meters shot is a practical 75-80mm if the angle of strike is about 40-45 degrees from the vertical. A 3.7 cm bore diameter HESH round assuming 500-600 m/s, same range arriving with a 30-35 degree angle of strike has about 50-55 mm of armor practical to defeat and will FAIL. One needs the spread out base upon detonation to produce a shock wave of at least 1.5X the armor practical thickness to produce internal spall and flaking off the armor to kill the tank. 1.3x does not guarantee anything. That is the minimum at 90 degrees strike. Your HESH round has to be 7.5 cm bore diameter to be sure in the cited example. The same is true for a SHERMAN BTW. Same glacis problem.

That would be an incorrect assumption, striking at an angle helps disperse the HE content over a wider area, which enhances the effect based on the reports I've read about it.
The 'lobbed' shells impacting on sloped armor are more beneficial for HEAT shells, which had a hard time fuzing properly when striking at an oblique angle, but for HESH since it squashes and spreads out impacting at a sloped angle helps and doesn't negatively impact the base fuze, which contacts the plastic explosive 'play-dough' rather than the armor.

Part of the problem you're assuming about the impact on Soviet armor is the problem with their armor and weld quality, which was quite poor for most of the war in part due to wartime choice to reduce quality to increase output. So while theoretically an impact on 50mm thick armor (only a small part of T-34 armor) should defeat 37mm HESH in reality it would likely cause spalling anyway and defeat the armor due to the poor weld and armor quality. It just won't be as bad as when striking 45mm thick armor, but still enough to disable the crew.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistori...ch_of_an_issue_was_spalling_in_wwiiera_tanks/

Some Soviet-produced armor plate displayed similar hardness characteristics to German plate, and was sometimes noted as being prone to spalling.

The Red Army's failures during the initial period of the war allowed the enemy to capture a number of mineral-rich regions of Ukraine and Belorussia. As a result of the Soviets having lost control of these regions, a complicated situation developed in the plants that manufactured the armor for their tanks. Because these factories had recieved insufficient quantities of some of the smelted metals required to ensure the necessary toughness of armor, the armor plate they produced turned out to be somewhat brittle in its composition - and, of course, there were negative consequences on the battlefield.

The T-34s assembled with this defective armor arrived as equipment for units of 45th Brigade, 4th Tank Corps, in June 1942. They were brand-new tanks, just off the assembly line, still bearing factory paint.

The brittle-armored tanks of the brigade fought their first battle in the defense of Voronezh the month following their delivery. It was a fierce engagement with the enemy. Almost immediately the unit commander had begun to receive radio messages with strange contents. Despite the failure of enemy shells to penetrate the T-34 tanks' armor, crew members were being wounded inside their turrets, primarily in the exposed areas of the body- the hands and arms, the face, and, in the case of some commander-gunners, the eyes.

With the first lull in the battle, the Soviet troops began to investigate these mysterious wounds. It soon became clear to them that the steep slope angle of the T-34 turret's exterior surfaces was allowing enemy solid-shot rounds generally to ricochet when they struck that area. But when such a round did indeed hit the turret's outer wall, pieces of the tank's armor itself flew off the inner wall at extremely high velocities- a rate that seemed to vary according to the kinetic energy of round at the monemt of impact. In general, if the enemy round struck on the left side of the tank, the commander-gunner- whose crew position was closest to the left inner wall of the turret- was being injured by the fragmenting armor of the vehicle wall. If the round hit on the right side, the armor spalling was striking the loader, whose crew position was on that side. The size of the fragments ranged from microscopic to several millimeters in diameter.

 

[McPherson]

That would be an incorrect assumption, striking at an angle helps disperse the HE content over a wider area, which enhances the effect based on the reports I've read about it.
The 'lobbed' shells impacting on sloped armor are more beneficial for HEAT shells, which had a hard time fuzing properly when striking at an oblique angle, but for HESH since it squashes and spreads out impacting at a sloped angle helps and doesn't negatively impact the base fuze, which contacts the plastic explosive 'play-dough' rather than the armor.

Since the Effecto Pronto shells are not true squash head but true MUNROE effectors, you would be the one in error. Read the data I supplied, please.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Since the Effecto Pronto shells are not true squash head but true MUNROE effectors, you would be the one in error. Read the data I supplied, please.

It was designed as a HEAT shell, which I've repeatedly said in this thread already, not sure how you missed that, but the base fuze version functioned as a HESH shell because of the fact that the base fuze meant that they squashed on target and did not form an jet of fire, which can only happen with a nose fuze detonating the shell at a distance so it could actually form.

 

[McPherson]

It was designed as a HEAT shell, which I've repeatedly said in this thread already, not sure how you missed that, but the base fuze version functioned as a HESH shell because of the fact that the base fuze meant that they squashed on target and did not form an jet of fire, which can only happen with a nose fuze detonating the shell at a distance so it could actually form.

If you will look at the diagram of the various Italian shells, you see a SETBACK with a steel hemisphere on the inside face of the cavity and then the explosive charge behind it. THAT is not a squash head. It is a HEAT round. Primitive conversion of the conventional HE shell to be sure, but definitely MUNROE effect; not true squash head.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If you will look at the diagram of the various Italian shells, you see a SETBACK with a steel hemisphere on the inside face of the cavity and then the explosive charge behind it. THAT is not a squash head. It is a HEAT round. Primitive conversion of the conventional HE shell to be sure, but definitely MUNROE effect; not true squash head.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? That is exactly what I said. It functions as a squash head round because of the base fuse, not the intended construction:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Warthunder/comments/a0zz34/gaijin_has_not_mentioned_the_italian_effetto/

They were the first generation Italian HEAT shells, which had a fatal flaw; while normal HEAT has a fuse in the nose, to give the shell its necessary stand-off distance (crucial to allow the HEAT penetrator to form), E.P. shells had a base fuse, like APHE shells do.

 

[McPherson]

I do not have a reading problem. Look at your own diagram and read the text descriptions in the US publication and then look at your diagram again and mentally picture its function as described. You will see that the detonation wave (base initiated) travels to the inner wall of the cavity and that the spacer offset has no time to squash. YOUR OWN DIAGRAM STATES THIS.

The E.P. or Effetto Pronto shells are kind of an Italian oddity, and something which makes the Italian GF tree stand out compared to the other ground trees.

They were the first generation Italian HEAT shells, which had a fatal flaw; while normal HEAT has a fuse in the nose, to give the shell its necessary stand-off distance (crucial to allow the HEAT penetrator to form), E.P. shells had a base fuse, like APHE shells do.

Despite this flaw, however, they surprisingly still worked - acting like HESH instead of HEAT.

The updated E.P.S. or Effetto Pronto Speciale, HEAT shells fixed the issues with E.P. by using German HEAT fuses, with a fuse in the nose of the shell.

The Italian 47mm, 75mm, and 90mm, to name a few, get E.P. shells. The only gun that I'm sure doesn't get E.P. is the 105mm on the Bassotto, which is because it was developed after E.P.S. had become standard and there was no reason to give it a "malfunctioning" E.P. HEAT shell.

Even your own quoted source did not get it right.

The diagram shows the PIAT with a nose fuse, but THAT is a standoff sensor that drives an initiator DOWN through the central thimble to the base igniter charge below the main driver charge, which in turn forces the formation of the jet (or slug, because the plastoid formed has the properties of GLASS as it drives through armor). That is kind of how the EP actually worked, because the Italian base fuse went off on impact as an inertia hammer. The offset was not so much a happy accident as an educated guess. The Italians knew what they were doing. If they got a squash head, it was an ACCIDENT due to factors like deceleration times and face presents.

 

[FBKampfer]

Ignoring overall outcome for Germany, and just hurting the Soviets any manner possible?

Immediately after Manstein's backhand blow, begin fortification of Panther Wotan.

It will be breached, and this must be accepted. Secondary and tertiary lines must be established 50 and 100km behind the main lines. They will also be breached, but that's okay, they just need to buy time.

After Panther-Wotan is sufficiently fortified, begin preparing your next stronghold on the Vistula, and in the Carpathians. Powerful mobile groups will need to in place to counter breakthroughs near Lvov in Poland, and Galati in Romania, and will need the most extensive heavy construction, but the riverine and mountain passes should not be neglected either.

After both lines are sufficiently fortified, construction on your third stronghold along the Oder, and down to the Australian Alps. This will be your shortest and last line of defense. Fortification should ideally extend 100km by the time occupation of the position is necessary, but time constraints may make this infeasible.

Field armies are to make fighting withdrawals to the next defensive line once the current position becomes eminently untenable. Counter-attacks should be limited only for the purposes of closing small breaches, recapturing fortification, and rescue of troops in danger of isolation and destruction.

Survival of corps and higher formations as cohesive forces is paramount, and any sacrifice must be made to achieve this. Strategic retreat, even if abandoning extensive works and equipment, is preferable to destruction of a formation.


Herresgruppe Afrika must be withdrawn immediately. Panzer formations are to withdraw to France for a strategic reserve, and training of new units.

Panzer-lehr must never be used as a field unit.

Infantry and air components of Herresgruppe Afrika will bolster Italian defense in the Mediterranean.


Once the PAW 800 is conceived, throw as much money at it as you need. But your army needs mobility and longer range than the Panzershrecks.

Heavy tank destroyers, including the Jagdpanther, should be cut in favor of light waffentragers, and half-track mounted weapons.

Armor on the Panzer IV needs to be updated. Remove the stepped plating, and form a contiguous sloped glacis plate.

For the love of God, beef up the Panther's drive train.

Only Bf 109's, Fw 190's, ju 52s, and Ju-188's should be built. Any lines not capable of subassembly or construction for these modes should be converted to any possible war production.

Copy the God damn magnetron.



Killing Soviets is your number one goal. Germany did a hell of a job OTL, just stretch it out as long as possible or until Instant Sunshine comes into play. Whichever comes first.

 

[marathag]

construction on your third stronghold along the Oder, and down to the Australian Alps. This will be your shortest and last line of defense.

That line won't be very short

Now.ona more serious note, the stepped glacis was a good thing for the MIII and Mk IV, as that allowed easy acces to the final drive and brakes.
For the Panther, you had to remove the turret to get access

 

[thaddeus]

my understanding the Wespe with 105mm gun proved successful? not sure how many guns could be given over to SPGs but the loss of functioning weapons to breakneck retreats should be among top priorities?

 

[marathag]

my understanding the Wespe with 105mm gun proved successful? not sure how many guns could be given over to SPGs but the loss of functioning weapons to breakneck retreats should be among top priorities?

Any self propelled Arty is a good thing

 

[McPherson]

Any self propelled Arty is a good thing

Gadgets don't really make up for the loss of trained infantry who know how to kill tanks. Most German tank kills against the Red army were infantry tank hunter teams. The key method the Russians used to stop that, was not tanks, but mortars fire support.

Yeah, shocked the hell out of me, too.

1941, about 35,000 mortars made.

1943, about 350,000 mortars made.

Got to be a reason.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Gadgets don't really make up for the loss of trained infantry who know how to kill tanks. Most German tank kills against the Red army were infantry tank hunter teams.

Source?

my understanding the Wespe with 105mm gun proved successful? not sure how many guns could be given over to SPGs but the loss of functioning weapons to breakneck retreats should be among top priorities?

By what metric? It certainly had advantages, but had some drawbacks as well. Namely that tanks weren't necessarily the most mechanically reliable, so if the chassis went down for maintenance the gun was out of commission and therefore unavailable, while towed guns could simply be hooked to another truck (generally easier to service, repair, and build) or prime mover (again cheaper and lighter than a Pz II chassis).

The key method the Russians used to stop that, was not tanks, but mortars fire support.

Yeah, shocked the hell out of me, too.

1941, about 35,000 mortars made.

1943, about 350,000 mortars made.

Got to be a reason.

Mortars were cheaper, easier to make, much more portable, easier to train people to use effectively, didn't really require nearly as much complicated/complex signals equipment to use, was easier to hide, and more much disposable. Especially if you're in direct support of tanks to suppress enemy AT guns or infantry mortars are a lot easier to get close to the front and fire from direct observation without being obvious for enemy return fire.

 

[McPherson]

Source?

Artillery production.

Mortars were cheaper, easier to make, much more portable, easier to train people to use effectively, didn't really require nearly as much complicated/complex signals equipment to use, was easier to hide, and more much disposable. Especially if you're in direct support of tanks to suppress enemy AT guns or infantry mortars are a lot easier to get close to the front and fire from direct observation without being obvious for enemy return fire.

Hmm. Mortars require some Kentucky windage experience, especially if they are smoothbore. It takes some practice.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Artillery production.
.

HAHAHAHA. Ok, so no sources about the question I asked.

 

[McPherson]

HAHAHAHA. Ok, so no sources about the question I ask.

HAHAHAHA. Ok, so no sources about the question I ask.

Ahm, the Soviet documentary gives the numbers. WATCH it again. That would be where you get the 350,000 mortars, I remembered. IOW, when I TELL you something, I can usually find the source eventually from where I remembered it.