|
|
Forums - Research / WW2 |
This WW2 forum is intended for asking and discussing reference or historical related issues pertaining to WW2 (1939-1945) subjects. |
| Topics | 3396 |
| Messages | 15175 |
|
|
| Subject: | Penetration vs. Stand Off |  |
| Date: | Mar 10, 2006 |
| From: | Kurt Laughlin | |
I looked in vain for a graph similar to that shown in Ogorkiewicz' "The Technology of Tanks" on the 'net. This graph - based on science :-) - shows that first generation shaped charges reached optimal penetration at 2 to 3 cone diameters (CD). As can be seen from the munition cross-sections on the following pages:
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/105mm-hollow-charge.html
http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt_faustpatrone/index.html
the stand off on German weapons was barely 1 cone diameter. Thus, devices that increased the stand off of these weapons increased their performance. In fact, it was only when the stand off was above 4 or so CDs that the performance fell below the nominal value.
As further proof of their non-optimal performance, WW II weapons typically had penetrations on the order of 1.5 - 2 cone diameters, while a properly placed charge of the same technology can easily exceed 4 CDs.
Now given these figures, we can judge that the 100mm claimed penetration for the early 57mm bazooka is probably not too far off the mark (it had a longer standoff than German weapons), certainly 1 CD (~60mm) could be assured. One must ask then: "Why - if schurzen was created to defeat shaped charge munitions of which the American bazooka was the obvious threat - did they put schurzen only below the sponson fender line where it protected 40mm/0-deg hull plates but not the much larger upper hull (40mm/40-deg) or turret sides (45mm/25-deg)? Even if one looks at the equivalent horizontal thicknesses (*) the value is still less than 60mm and certainly capable of penetration.
One could also ask why, if the shaped charge theory is true, why mesh was not used from the outset, or even some other form that would be lighter and more conserving of strategic materials, such as 15mm plywood with a 1mm steel sheath on one side to prevent "punch through".
In fact, if one is going to rely on personal experience and supposition rather than documentary evidence to reach conclusions, these questions HAVE to be answered or the argument becomes one of choosing the logic to support a particular conclusion while ignoring the same argument when it produces an undesirable result.
(*) Actually of dubious value because the slow speed of the bazooka rocket meant that it would travel in a high arc and hit sloped armor closer to normal.
KL |
| |
|
|
 | How effective WAS shurzen? - Ken Miller - Mar 3, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 3, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - frank forster - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Jari Lievonen - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - frank forster - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Eric Scurlock - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Re: It wasn't... - Carl Dembrowski - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Adam Weber - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Viet Nam experience different - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 5, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Juan Contreras - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - David Manning - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Re: How effective WAS shurzen? - Alan Eaton - Mar 4, 2006 |
| . . . Why go with "Thoma Schild" or mesh screens? - Steve Campbell - Mar 5, 2006 |
| . . . Close and personal - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 5, 2006 |
| . . . . . . Re: Close and personal - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 7, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: Close and personal - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Close and personal - Paul Roberts - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . round & rifles - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: round & rifles - Paul Roberts - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . HEAT or AT Rifle? - Frank Forster - Mar 5, 2006 |
| . . . . . . AT Rifle! - Paul Roberts - Mar 6, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . Re: AT Rifle! - frank forster - Mar 7, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . Remember the question - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 7, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Remember the question - Bill Goodrich - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: Remember the question - frank forster - Mar 10, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . for Paul and Kurt - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: for Paul and Kurt - Paul Roberts - Mar 8, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more about - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 9, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: more about - Paul Roberts - Mar 10, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Penetration vs. Stand Off - Kurt Laughlin - Mar 10, 2006 |
| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Re: more about - Janusz Smolinski - Mar 13, 2006 |
|
|
