6 replies to this topic

[Dan Lewis]

I ran a 1956 scenario recently with Sherman M50, AMX13, IS-3m, T34-85, SD100. All of them had the option of more using APCBC shells with higher armor penetration. 

 

I would think that after WWII, the use of APCBC would be common, but that's just a guess. Why would anyone buy/manufacture inferior ammunication given a choice, unless theirs a large cost difference. APCBC is not listed as the default ammo so trying to figure out, should I be using APCBC in the the 1956 war? 

[Kenny Noe]

The history of ammunition development is very interesting and involved.  As the Cold War started and hung over the West and East, Armor and Ammo began a pendulum swing with manufactures trying best each other.  I have invested a significant amount of time (over 15 yrs) and research into this for Post-Korea data to refine stats in Mein Panzer.

 

My research has lead me to understand that countries who purchase/trade/given weapon systems from sponsoring countries tend to not get the best of the best.  This is especially true wrt tanks.  Typically, old war stocks of ammunition are discounted and the receiving country either doesn't care/understand the quality difference they are happy to get them.  (100mm BR412 AP rounds were found in Iraq in 2003!  These are WWII era ammunition.)  This attitude can and will change depending on a specific country.  Thus you have to research the time period, what types of ammunition are available, who is receiving the ammunition, and other circumstances (geopolitics).  Sounds like a lot and it is, but I'm a stickler for the best details I can get.

 

In the 1950 the US had an arms embargo on sales of military equipment to countries in the Middle East.   Not so true with France, although the US Administration tried to influence France arms sales.  So high quality ammo may or may not be available.  The Soviet Union wanted to counter Western influence and therefore bartered arms sales with Egypt (primarily cotton).  The Soviets were notorious in sending "new" systems to third world countries.  In fact, most of the military equipment sent to Egypt was made in Czechoslovakia which made equipment licensed from the Soviets.  Documentation reviled after 1991 showed blueprints and specifications were slightly altered.  This is not earth shattering news.  Most countries (including the US) that sell systems abroad have restrictions or limitations put on exported systems.

 

So it's plausible that the Sherman, IS-3M, T-34-85 and SD-100 (SD-100 is the Czech designation for the Soviet SU-100) had the "normal" AP shells but may have had "special" APCBC ammo as well.   This is based on my research.

 

All this said, there is nothing preventing you doing your research or from using APCBC for all your scenarios.

[Dan Lewis]

Thanks Kenny, I had considered that whether the Egyptions would opt for more expensive shells given the  choice and yeah, If I was Russian and getting rid of my old WWII tanks to Egypt, I'd be trying to get rid of my WWII ammo as well. And of course in 1956 Israel, no telling what ammo they bought or aquired. It's all supposition. I ran my scenario with WWII shells on Russian tanks and APCBC on the Israeli side. Isreal couldn't deal with IS-3M tanks but had no trouble with others. 

 

planning to run same scenario, maybe I'll just use upgraded shells for both sides for the hell of it

[Mark 1]

I don't claim any particular expertise on the subject of metallurgy and projectile dynamics, but ...

 

From my readings on the subject, I would not conclude that APCBC = superior anti-armor performance. I have seen multiple wargaming rulebooks that elevate APCBC to some form of wonder-weapon projectile, but those (to my observation) have all been UK-based publishers, and I think they reflect a bias which arises from the British experience in WW2 that does not match German, Russian or American experiences.

 

The British experience:  The 2pdr was perfectly capable of killing Panzers in France.  Then in the desert it became an iffy proposition. Why?  German armor got thicker, and it was face-hardened, and even though the 2pdr had the kinetic energy to penetrate, it shattered and failed. They came up with APCBC, and it was better. In their 6pdr it was a lot better.  In the 17pdr, it happened to be the right mix for sloped armor (ie: Panther) even though it had been worked up for 35-50mm face hardened plate of Pz III and IV.  So the Brits love their APCBC. But it is really not very special -- by the end of the war almost all medium caliber guns were using APCBC ammunition, even if it was not always labelled as such.

 

If one were to read only British wargame rules, it would be easy to believe that APCBC was some form of British secret weapon. It was not. It was  useful. It was also relatively common by 1945. Certainly widespread by the 1950s for full-caliber AP rounds, except in high caliber guns (122mm, 150/152/155mm) where basic ogival or ogival APC was usually good enough due to its ability to shatter plate almost regardless of slope when it overmatches (ie: projectile diameter exceeds plate thickness).

Premium rounds by the 1950s would have been sub-caliber penetrators -- US HVAP, British APDS, and Russian Arrowhead (for smaller than 100mm). Despite the labels, US "AP", Russian "APBC" or "APHE" for 100mm would almost certainly have been APCBC with a shoulder-nosed penetrator and HE filler if dissected and examined.

 

Or so I am given to understand. Happy to be educated further on the subject.

 

-Mark

 

[Kenny Noe]

Mark,

 

You make my point for me.   Ammo technology (like armor technology) evolves.  Thus the line of succession from regular AP shot all the way up through APFSDS (DU).  To also included the APHE variants.  In the WWII Era AP was the majority  ammo used and the base APOV stat.   Newly developed ammo (HVAP, APC, APCBC, etc...) was given in the databook (Other OV stat) because it was somewhat available and to give the player options for their scenarios.

 

The same ammo (type and caliber) might not work in same gun size.  An example that comes to mind.   There is an 125mm APFSDS Russian round that is fired from the MT-12 Rapira AT gun but cannot be fired from any Russian 125mm tank gun.  The projectile is the same but the cartridge is different.  The ATG cartridge is longer has more propellant (thus better estimated pen) but that cartridge won't fit in a tank carousel for the auto loader.  The tank round (same projectile shorter cartridge) has a weaker estimated pen.

 

For me and my desire to make MP better than the "British" rules, these nuances need to be understood.  So more in-depth research especially on specific ammo type, timeline on availability, and specific gun could be done.

 

I'm by no means an Armorer expert, just years of reading and reading and reading.

[Mark 1]

A couple points about the categorization of AP rounds are demonstrated in this video:


(Not sure if the forum will accept the YouTube link. May return to edit in some screen caps from it if the link does not post properly.)

Added on edit:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know our discussion here does not revolve around M26E4 Super Pershing armor. But it does consider 100mm Soviet AP ammunition.  Of note in this video - the round, a Soviet 100mm BR-412D, is often described at APBC or APHE (depending on the listing).  If you look at the cross section as presented, you'll observe that it is in fact a APCBC-HE projectile (it has: a ballistic cap, a penetrator-protecting cap, an ogival nosed penetrator, and an HE filler with base detonator).

 

In the video one can see the ballistic cap sheered away immediately, the penetrating cap keeping the round mostly intact as it passes through the first (stand-off) plate, the ogival nose giving good bite into the sloped main plate even as it begins to loose integrity, and the round making an incomplete penetration of the main plate.  Perhaps an interesting note, as the simulation does not include detonation of the bursting charge, is that if this round did detonate it would prove the added value of HE filler.  A solid penetrator achieving this level of partial penetration would put the vehicle and crew at risk (the spalling would be quite dangerous), but the vehicle would surely be a total loss if the round detonated with it's nose protruding into the turret (near stored ammunition). 

 

As I understand it, Soviet 100mm full-caliber AP progressed through 3 major versions.

BR-412:  Pointed nose. Technically an APHE round.

BR-412B:  Blunt nose with pointed ballistic cap. Technically an APBC-HE round.

BR-412D:  Ogival nose, penetrator cap, ballistic cap. Technically an APCBC-HE round.

 

I can not say with any certainty which ones came into service when.  I have seen information that BR-412B was in production by early 1945 (some sources indicate as early as January), but no info on when it was issued to the troops. I have no information on when BR-412D came into production or when it was issued, or how widely.

 

Of interest, perhaps, is that BR-412B is still in service and/or offered by some sources. I have a current datasheet from a Romanian ammunition supplier listing it as an AP-T round (no mention of APBC or APHE, just AP-T), and offering it along with HE and APFSDS ammunition. I mention this for two reasons:

1)  How a round gets labelled is often someone's short-hand for their own convenience.  Be careful about believing when the label is APHE or AP or APBC or whatever. It may, or may not, be the technically correct label.
2)  The BR-412B round (APBC-HE) is still in service and reasonably popular because (hold on to your hat) it penetrates MORE armor than the -412D round (APCBC-HE). But ... this is true if the plate is cast or RHA at 0 degrees with hardness not more than about 260 or 280 BHN. If the plate is high-hardness or face-hardened, or sloped at 30 degrees or more, or has spaced armor in front if it, then the BR-412D would be the better choice.  This is why I suggest that a simple assumption that APCBC = better may be too simplistic. However, it's all a pretty complicated mix to put into a single table and single die-roll.

[Peter M. Skaar]

An interesting topic.  And.... how much detail does a person really want in a game.  For me, the end result is what counts if it is reasonably accurate.  I know there are those out there that want ALL that information crammed into their games where the process is the thing and calculations and combat takes a while to resolve.

One of the reasons I play Mein Panzer over other, more involved and crunchy rules sets, is that combat is usually resolved easily on a couple of simple, single die rolls.  Did I hit it?  If so, did I kill it?  In the end, those are the questions the real world combatants have to deal with.

Thanks very much, Kenny and Mark 1 for your insights here.  Mark, you are always a fount of very interesting information.