Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
Sign in to follow this  
Walter_Sobchak

Tank Myths

Recommended Posts

Myth: During WWII, American tanks weren't supposed to fight enemy tanks. That's what TDs were for.

Chieftain rejogged my memory of this in his little video on the history of TDs.

This one always gets me. McNair gets a lot of press here, but even if people aren't privy to the facts that the turret front plate on the Sherman was removable so they could use the 75 mm gun, a 105 mm howitzer, or an ordnance similar to the 3" antitank gun; or that weapons suites considered for the Sherman included the British 6-pounder antitank gun or even dual 37 mms (used by the infantry as antitank guns); or that work on what would become the 76 mm gun began as soon as it was realized the 3" antitank gun wouldn't fit in the turret, just look at what the US was actually fielding. The medium tank M2 and the light tanks M2A4-M5 were armed with a 37 mm antitank gun, and though the medium tank M3 did have a 75 mm gun that could fire decent HE as well as comfortably take on most tanks, when the designers couldn't put that gun in a turret they kept a turret anyway and armed it with a 37 mm antitank gun. And the first WW2-era attempt at a heavy tank? BOTH 3" and 37 mm antitank guns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one always gets me. McNair gets a lot of press here, but even if people aren't privy to the facts that the turret front plate on the Sherman was removable so they could use the 75 mm gun, a 105 mm howitzer, or an ordnance similar to the 3" antitank gun; or that weapons suites considered for the Sherman included the British 6-pounder antitank gun or even dual 37 mms (used by the infantry as antitank guns); or that work on what would become the 76 mm gun began as soon as it was realized the 3" antitank gun wouldn't fit in the turret, just look at what the US was actually fielding. The medium tank M2 and the light tanks M2A4-M5 were armed with a 37 mm antitank gun, and though the medium tank M3 did have a 75 mm gun that could fire decent HE as well as comfortably take on most tanks, when the designers couldn't put that gun in a turret they kept a turret anyway and armed it with a 37 mm antitank gun. And the first WW2-era attempt at a heavy tank? BOTH 3" and 37 mm antitank guns...

You might almost think the armor board was a little worried about enemy... wait for it... tanks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HEAT penetrates due to chemical energy. It doesn't. It penetrates due to kinetic energy.

 

While HEAT does use chemical energy to propel the kinetic energy penetrator, so does every single AP cartridge. A HEAT round just has it at two points, to propel the shell and to propel the kinetic energy penetrator. Whereas with almost all AP shells the shell and penetrator are one and the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This one always gets me. McNair gets a lot of press here, but even if people aren't privy to the facts that the turret front plate on the Sherman was removable so they could use the 75 mm gun, a 105 mm howitzer, or an ordnance similar to the 3" antitank gun; or that weapons suites considered for the Sherman included the British 6-pounder antitank gun or even dual 37 mms (used by the infantry as antitank guns); or that work on what would become the 76 mm gun began as soon as it was realized the 3" antitank gun wouldn't fit in the turret, just look at what the US was actually fielding. The medium tank M2 and the light tanks M2A4-M5 were armed with a 37 mm antitank gun, and though the medium tank M3 did have a 75 mm gun that could fire decent HE as well as comfortably take on most tanks, when the designers couldn't put that gun in a turret they kept a turret anyway and armed it with a 37 mm antitank gun. And the first WW2-era attempt at a heavy tank? BOTH 3" and 37 mm antitank guns...

Glad SOMEBODY has some sense.

Many people let words do their talking for them, so as soon as you label the US tanks as "not antitank weapons", then thought ceases.

This is also a major tactic in the political arena, and a very powerful one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad SOMEBODY has some sense.

Many people let words do their talking for them, so as soon as you label the US tanks as "not antitank weapons", then thought ceases.

This is also a major tactic in the political arena, and a very powerful one.

That and simple 'if not A, then B' dualism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HEAT penetrates due to chemical energy. It doesn't. It penetrates due to kinetic energy.

 

While HEAT does use chemical energy to propel the kinetic energy penetrator, so does every single AP cartridge. A HEAT round just has it at two points, to propel the shell and to propel the kinetic energy penetrator. Whereas with almost all AP shells the shell and penetrator are one and the same.

 

It uses a combination of both chemical and kinetic energy actually.

HEAT shells use a copper liner, which is a cheap but extremely effective conductor.

 

Combine the copper jet's extreme heat and extreme speed and you get the perfect weapon to cut through steel. 

 

But then of course people take it the other way and say it 'melts' the armor, which is also not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It uses a combination of both chemical and kinetic energy actually.

HEAT shells use a copper liner, which is a cheap but extremely effective conductor.

 

Combine the copper jet's extreme heat and extreme speed and you get the perfect weapon to cut through steel. 

 

But then of course people take it the other way and say it 'melts' the armor, which is also not true.

No, this isn't how it works at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It uses a combination of both chemical and kinetic energy actually.

HEAT shells use a copper liner, which is a cheap but extremely effective conductor.

 

Combine the copper jet's extreme heat and extreme speed and you get the perfect weapon to cut through steel. 

 

But then of course people take it the other way and say it 'melts' the armor, which is also not true.

No, absolutely not.

 

The only thing related to thermal energy during hydrodynamic penetration is the impact flash, nothing else.

 

It's still being debated whether or not the jet is actually melted or not. Which doesn't even matter since hydrodynamic penetration does not depend on thermal energy even in the slightest. With hydrodynamic penetration the only thing that has a significant effect on the penetration distance is density. Even the strength of the materials are not always relevant. Yes, they have an effect on penetration, but on very high impact velocities the penetrator strength is assumed to be 0.

 

And no, velocity doesn't matter when you're above the hydrodynamic limit of the materials involved.

 

As a matter of fact, an accurate calculation for the penetration depth of a hydrodynamic penetrator is simply p=L*sqrt(ρpt). Which is to say: Penetration depth = Length of penetrator multiplied by the square root of the penetrator density divided by the target density.

 

Source: "Armour; Materials, Theory and Design" by Paul J. Hazell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay then I stand corrected. 

This is a good attitude.

 

edit: and because tone is hard, let me clarify: I really mean this in an unironic sense. Being able to take input and correct your misconceptions is a rare trait, and you should be commended for doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or have firsthand ,and documentable experience and docs.

 

The brief "bleed" time I had on the Littlefield Jumbo was immensely educational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My "favorite" myths abut tanks:

 

1) Leopard-2AV main  armour was worse then XM1 :-)

2) Leopard-2A4 was inferior in armour protection in compare to M1 and M1IP

3) T-72B was poor protected in compare to western tanks

4) T-80U was poor protected in compare to western tanks

The favorite one:

5) T-72B and T-80B and T-80U and T-64 have therible "Ronson quality" survivialibity on battelfield after hit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is German tank inferiority in France a myth, overblown, or real?

 

Pz II, 38t, Pz I, (and heavier) Pz III, are more mobile (in terms of fuel range) than their French counterparts?

 

Why does the Pz III get such a bad rep in wehraboo circles?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

French tanks were good when considering armor, weapons and engine. 

But, the rest was very poor. Bad organisation, bad logistic, no radio...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2016 at 12:02 PM, Mighty_Zuk said:

 

It uses a combination of both chemical and kinetic energy actually.

HEAT shells use a copper liner, which is a cheap but extremely effective conductor.

 

Combine the copper jet's extreme heat and extreme speed and you get the perfect weapon to cut through steel. 

 

But then of course people take it the other way and say it 'melts' the armor, which is also not true.

 

A 2013 study by Uhlig and Hummer showed that the outer part of a modern copper-based HEAT jet, in-flight, had a measurable temperature of ~800°C, though more dated experiments at getting temp readings in-flight showed lower numbers (~550°C). 800°C is still far from the melting point of copper (~1100°C) and given the short amount of time a HEAT jet stays in the air before striking its target, it's even more worthless against steel (for reference - depending on their respective grades, stainless steel alloys melt somewhere between 1,375°C and 1,530°C) . As Bronezhilet said, heat (the HEAT acronym really caused a lot of misunderstandings here) has nothing to do with the armor-penetration mechanism of a shaped charge.

 

The HEAT jet simply a semi-liquid spike made from a very dense material (copper, lanthanum or any other alloy thereof), violently compressed by a chemical explosion and made to travel at hypersonic speeds in one very specific, narrow direction. The rest is just pure physical pressure.

 

EDIT: the only part where heat (lowercase) matters is maybe post-penetration, because it means that whatever is on the other side will be hit by a spray of very dense, fast-moving material...and a hot one at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peasant said:

Is German tank inferiority in France a myth, overblown, or real?

 

Pz II, 38t, Pz I, (and heavier) Pz III, are more mobile (in terms of fuel range) than their French counterparts?

 

Why does the Pz III get such a bad rep in wehraboo circles? 

 

Anyone who thinks a tiger 2 was a good tank is bound to favour the impenetrable-even-after-being-surrounded french white elephants over tanks that could actually win battles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My (so far) favourite tank myths :)

 

1. T-34's maximum production rate during WW2 was higher than Sherman's one.

2. Leopard 1 (but without add-on armor) has higher chances of survival on the battlefield than T-72

3. Anders tank is based on CV90 chassis

4. You can't replace / exchange glass laminate plates in T-72A/M chassis

 

And extending to anti-tank things:

5. AT-3 Sagger exists only in MCLOS version

6. Javelin launcher doesn't have a tripod

7. Spike missile uses only a man-in-the-loop guidance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Peasant said:

Is German tank inferiority in France a myth, overblown, or real?

 

Pz II, 38t, Pz I, (and heavier) Pz III, are more mobile (in terms of fuel range) than their French counterparts?

 

Why does the Pz III get such a bad rep in wehraboo circles?

 

German tanks in France were chiefly light tanks. The PzIII was available only in small numbers because they had one hell of a time getting production ramped up. 

 

As for a bad rap, probably because you can't put a huge fuckoff gun on the chassis. Interestingly enough, the Soviets liked the PzIII. It was popular to use in captured tank units and there were two SPG designs that used it as a chassis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Renegade334 said:

 

A 2013 study by Uhlig and Hummer showed that the outer part of a modern copper-based HEAT jet, in-flight, had a measurable temperature of ~800°C, though more dated experiments at getting temp readings in-flight showed lower numbers (~550°C). 800°C is still far from the melting point of copper (~1100°C) and given the short amount of time a HEAT jet stays in the air before striking its target, it's even more worthless against steel (for reference - depending on their respective grades, stainless steel alloys melt somewhere between 1,375°C and 1,530°C) . As Bronezhilet said, heat (the HEAT acronym really caused a lot of misunderstandings here) has nothing to do with the armor-penetration mechanism of a shaped charge.

 

The HEAT jet simply a semi-liquid spike made from a very dense material (copper, lanthanum or any other alloy thereof), violently compressed by a chemical explosion and made to travel at hypersonic speeds in one very specific, narrow direction. The rest is just pure physical pressure.

 

EDIT: the only part where heat (lowercase) matters is maybe post-penetration, because it means that whatever is on the other side will be hit by a spray of very dense, fast-moving material...and a hot one at that.

When I said what I said, I really should have rephrased better because now I can see how it can sound very wrong. 

Temperature indeed is a non-factor on the penetration power. It's purely kinetic. Unfortunately, my local ammo 'expert' (knows a lot of history, but not a whole lot about how it actually works) claims the HEAT's defeat mechanism is entirely non-kinetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depleted uranium is a terrible material to make ammo and armor out of because it is radioactive and poisons everyone near it ))))) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Lord_James said:

Depleted uranium is a terrible material to make ammo and armor out of because it is radioactive and poisons everyone near it ))))) 

Now, it is a heavy metal and not particularly good for you, especially in dust form. And not something you want to be fucking around with needlessly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

Now, it is a heavy metal and not particularly good for you, especially in dust form. And not something you want to be fucking around with needlessly.

 

 

I was mostly referring to the radioactive part, because something something uranium and radiation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
    • By sevich
      I realize that sandbags provide little to no armor protection, but soldiers still used them on tanks. Would they mitigate the effects of HE warheads, or the blastwave of HEAT warheads?
    • By T___A
      This shall be the general thread for all things soviet tanks. I shall start by posting an article I just wrote for my blog. I would recommend Archive Awarness which is an excellent blog about Soviet tanks and their experiences with other nation's tanks.
×