killing tank crews with small arms fire

[thyge]

the killing of tank crews with small arms fire, seems wery unrealistic, especially if the firer is several hexes away, on the other hand flamers seems to do nothing against tanks, seems wrong

[Lone Wolf]

Originally posted by Oleksandr:

Hello everyone
To alleviate all the heated discussions here - we have heard a lot of feedback on MG being able to deal 1 damage vs 30 mm armor, and we agree that it is not very realistic. So, we fine tuned that a little bit. Right now, in our internal build, MG no longer can damage armored units with 30 armor or more. They can still do limited damage to unit with lower armor values - or if they can somehow lower that value, for example by attacking from elevated position, so that fire is partially counted vs top armor that is weaker, and so on.
So, do not worry - the MGs would not be wrecking tanks in the game at release, and the dev team sees and listens to your feedback!

Thank you for your response. I love the demo and I surely will love the game when it releases. Looking forward to it!

[thyge]

Originally posted by Oleksandr:

Hello everyone
To alleviate all the heated discussions here - we have heard a lot of feedback on MG being able to deal 1 damage vs 30 mm armor, and we agree that it is not very realistic. So, we fine tuned that a little bit. Right now, in our internal build, MG no longer can damage armored units with 30 armor or more. They can still do limited damage to unit with lower armor values - or if they can somehow lower that value, for example by attacking from elevated position, so that fire is partially counted vs top armor that is weaker, and so on.
So, do not worry - the MGs would not be wrecking tanks in the game at release, and the dev team sees and listens to your feedback!

thx. love it

[juliencormier74]

Originally posted by Oleksandr:

Hello everyone
To alleviate all the heated discussions here - we have heard a lot of feedback on MG being able to deal 1 damage vs 30 mm armor, and we agree that it is not very realistic. So, we fine tuned that a little bit. Right now, in our internal build, MG no longer can damage armored units with 30 armor or more. They can still do limited damage to unit with lower armor values - or if they can somehow lower that value, for example by attacking from elevated position, so that fire is partially counted vs top armor that is weaker, and so on.
So, do not worry - the MGs would not be wrecking tanks in the game at release, and the dev team sees and listens to your feedback!

Yes thank you.

[mrmagma]

For interest, I found a manual of the Czechoslovak Army published by the Ministry of National Defence in 1938, before the Munich betrayal. The Czechoslovak army, after mobilization in September 1938, by the way, more powerful and with better tanks than the U.S. ground army at the time, was preparing for an attack by the armies of the Third Reich, building many strongholds, trenches and fortifications. The description with pictures of the procedures and different types of trenches for soldiers and military vehicles is in Czech. A table about the resistance of materials against gunfire is given in item number 94.

Table of resistance of building materials to shots from rifles and machine guns of normal calibre (at a distance of 100 m). As a reminder - submachine guns (MP 40 or PPŠ 41 Shpagin, Sten Gun, Thompson) used pistol ammunition, machine guns (for example, the famous and copied Czechoslovak ZB model 26 and others based on it like the British BREN used rifle ammunition).

Type of material versus minimum protective thickness:

- soil or sand, loose and uncompacted 0.50 m
- compacted 0.45 m
- soil with roots 0.40 m
- sand or soil in bags 0,35 m
- sand with gravel 0,25 m
- layered turf or wet marshy-peaty soil 0,50 m
- weathered rock or large stones 0.35 m
- compact rock 0.15 m
- fallen snow not compacted 4.00 m
- frozen snow 2.00 m
- compacted snow 2.50 m
- rye or straw sheaves (sg. a sheaf) 5.00 m
- softwood (fir) 1.40 m
- hardwood (oak) 0.65 m
- brick wall 0.20 m
- normal concrete 0.15 m
- steel reinforced concrete 0.10 m

Metals - the specified thicknesses in mm can also protect against shooting at distances of less than 100 m:

- iron 20 mm
- steel 14 mm
- special steel (armour) 8 mm.

The effect of the projectiles.

92. The penetration of normal bullets from different types of rifles is approximately the same.
Single shots from light and heavy machine guns have the same effect as shots
from a rifle. The greater penetration of machine gun fire in bursts results from the fact that the bullets can hit the same spot in quick succession.
Much greater penetration (up to four times greater, depending on the calibre) is provided by large machine guns of 15 mm and 20 mm calibre, which are fired with armour-piercing projectiles.

93. The thickness of the various materials protecting against rifle fire and partially
from machine guns is approximately as shown in Table 1. Against prolonged machine-gun fire at distances of less than 100 m, the thicknesses indicated should be increased by 50%.

94. Cannon fire has an effect on both width and depth because of the dispersion
of not only entrenchments and trenches, but also of other components of terrain fortification.

https://polni-opevneni.websnadno.cz/g-v-2_part_1.pdf

[Edmon]

Originally posted by mrmagma:

- special steel (armour) 8 mm.

Much greater penetration (up to four times greater, depending on the calibre) is provided by large machine guns of 15 mm and 20 mm calibre, which are fired with armour-piercing projectiles.
https://polni-opevneni.websnadno.cz/g-v-2_part_1.pdf

Firstly,

Thank you for this amazing research document. It is truly very interesting to read.

From what I read of the document via googletranslate. This seems to confirm that light machineguns could readily penetrate up to 12mm of armour and heavier machineguns and/or ones using AP munitions, up to 36mm.

The above assumes specially hardened armour, with flat steel being even weaker.

Thanks for posting it.

[Lone Wolf]

Originally posted by mrmagma:

For interest, I found a manual of the Czechoslovak Army published by the Ministry of National Defence in 1938, before the Munich betrayal. The Czechoslovak army, after mobilization in September 1938, by the way, more powerful and with better tanks than the U.S. ground army at the time, was preparing for an attack by the armies of the Third Reich, building many strongholds, trenches and fortifications. The description with pictures of the procedures and different types of trenches for soldiers and military vehicles is in Czech. A table about the resistance of materials against gunfire is given in item number 94.

Table of resistance of building materials to shots from rifles and machine guns of normal calibre (at a distance of 100 m). As a reminder - submachine guns (MP 40 or PPŠ 41 Shpagin, Sten Gun, Thompson) used pistol ammunition, machine guns (for example, the famous and copied Czechoslovak ZB model 26 and others based on it like the British BREN used rifle ammunition).

Type of material versus minimum protective thickness:

- soil or sand, loose and uncompacted 0.50 m
- compacted 0.45 m
- soil with roots 0.40 m
- sand or soil in bags 0,35 m
- sand with gravel 0,25 m
- layered turf or wet marshy-peaty soil 0,50 m
- weathered rock or large stones 0.35 m
- compact rock 0.15 m
- fallen snow not compacted 4.00 m
- frozen snow 2.00 m
- compacted snow 2.50 m
- rye or straw sheaves (sg. a sheaf) 5.00 m
- softwood (fir) 1.40 m
- hardwood (oak) 0.65 m
- brick wall 0.20 m
- normal concrete 0.15 m
- steel reinforced concrete 0.10 m

Metals - the specified thicknesses in mm can also protect against shooting at distances of less than 100 m:

- iron 20 mm
- steel 14 mm
- special steel (armour) 8 mm.

The effect of the projectiles.

92. The penetration of normal bullets from different types of rifles is approximately the same.
Single shots from light and heavy machine guns have the same effect as shots
from a rifle. The greater penetration of machine gun fire in bursts results from the fact that the bullets can hit the same spot in quick succession.
Much greater penetration (up to four times greater, depending on the calibre) is provided by large machine guns of 15 mm and 20 mm calibre, which are fired with armour-piercing projectiles.

93. The thickness of the various materials protecting against rifle fire and partially
from machine guns is approximately as shown in Table 1. Against prolonged machine-gun fire at distances of less than 100 m, the thicknesses indicated should be increased by 50%.

94. Cannon fire has an effect on both width and depth because of the dispersion
of not only entrenchments and trenches, but also of other components of terrain fortification.

https://polni-opevneni.websnadno.cz/g-v-2_part_1.pdf

Interesting, but these numbers are theoretical. I assume in practice the penetration is way lower, so you can safely say that this thickness will protect you.
I would go for the battle reports in which real penetration values are reported. There are so many different armor and ammunition types that it's almost impossible to safely tell at which point you would get a penetration.
Most MG's didn't use AP ammunition because primarily they were an anti-infantry weapon. So we cannot assume that every MG-Team had AP ammunition for anti-vehicle combat. And you cannot really "melt" armor even if you have prolonged machine-gun fire on one spot (which is hard, as MG's are not very accurate). Only if you use some form of brittle armour. Most steel armour will dent, but noch break away.

[Edmon]

Originally posted by Lone Wolf:

Interesting, but these numbers are theoretical. I assume in practice the penetration is way lower, so you can safely say that this thickness will protect you.
I would go for the battle reports in which real penetration values are reported. There are so many different armor and ammunition types that it's almost impossible to safely tell at which point you would get a penetration.
Most MG's didn't use AP ammunition because primarily they were an anti-infantry weapon. So we cannot assume that every MG-Team had AP ammunition for anti-vehicle combat. And you cannot really "melt" armor even if you have prolonged machine-gun fire on one spot (which is hard, as MG's are not very accurate). Only if you use some form of brittle armour. Most steel armour will dent, but noch break away.

This is a primary source, there is little reason for it to be wrong. It matches British and other research that I've looked at and made my points based on.

It's also just a matter of physics. Even 6mm pen against flat steel is going to leave 4-7mm holes. The energy has to go somewhere. With rates of fire at 500 rounds+ a minute, it's easy to see serious damage being done given time.

You absolutely cannot say that 30mm would protect you for very long, especially on a flat, unangled steel plate like the PzIII had.

I am sure that more primary sources will draw the same conclusions, given enough looking around in the correct languages (I.E. German, French, Russian).

Anyway, the game itself is going to be changed to reflect community expectations and feedback so, it's just a point of academia now really.


Edit just to be clear: Erosive force is simply a matter of the force versus the surface over time. Water can move mountains eventually. A machinegun could, given hours and hours of time and hundreds of thousands of rounds, eventually make a hole in a modern tank. Not realistic in a combat situation, but the point stands - the argument is if real damage would be done in [combat timeframes], not that damage wouldn't be done - it would. The damage would happen with any erosive force.

[mrmagma]

Thank you. I've had a little bit of work with the translation. I'm sure there were errors in the English, for which I must apologize.

I want to mention that this is an official manual of the Ministry of Defence of the Czechoslovak Republic, not some academic discussion of professors. Directly practical instructions for the Czechoslovak army in the field - with specific drawings for the preparation of entrenchments and trenches for soldiers and cannons - here, by the way, is also interesting their preparation (protection of the rear of the unit with a rampart).

Everything has certainly been tested several times in previous conflicts (WWI, the wars against Poland and Hungary at the establishment of the republic, and eventually ballistic tests on firing ranges in the 1920s and 1930s).

Secondly, I don't believe that the conclusion regarding the penetrability of 12mm armour by machine guns is correct. First of all, that steel was certainly common construction steel, tanks always had some kind of armour, so it would be not 12 but 8 mm thickness (which would be enough to resist at 100 m or even shorter).

Another thing to be considered is certainly the lower muzzle velocity of projectiles of infantry weapons, even the large-calibre ones. This is also, by the way, the reason why such a PzKpfw IV. of the first version with a very short gun of 75 mm calibre rarely penetrated an enemy armored panzer, while anti-tank rifles of smaller calibre with a very long gun barrel did.

Finally, I have still found this basic text:

"Classification of armour according to hardness and strength. Thin armour is usually very hard, but at the same time fragile, not so flexible. It is designed mainly against infantry projectiles and shrapnel. Thick armour is usually hard and tough only on the surface due to the disruption of the structure of the incoming projectile. It is typical tank armour."

Anyway, the decision about the impossibility of penetrating any tank armor by machine gun fire is more than correct. It was not even possible with tanks of the early 1939-40 time period of the WW2.

[VeLiiCe]

i think its pretty easy to show that multiple hits on one spot are devastating for tanks, even if its just Ap from an Mg, took me 2 min of search to confirm it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJIq9HFecU&t=31s
i think this is the best example as this simulation shows what mutliple hits on a tank can do even tough its a btr vs t-72 sidearmor with 45 degrees angled shots. And minding this is a 45 degrees shot you can imagine what armorpiercing mg rounds can do to a nonsloped tank armour that gets hit headon

[Lone Wolf]

Originally posted by VeLiiCe:

i think its pretty easy to show that multiple hits on one spot are devastating for tanks, even if its just Ap from an Mg, took me 2 min of search to confirm it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJIq9HFecU&t=31s
i think this is the best example as this simulation shows what mutliple hits on a tank can do even tough its a btr vs t-72 sidearmor with 45 degrees angled shots. And minding this is a 45 degrees shot you can imagine what armorpiercing mg rounds can do to a nonsloped tank armour that gets hit headon

I know no real reports of MG's that penetrated a tank in second world war. And MG's back than weren't that accurate so hitting the same spot on a tank (that is moving most of the time) is very unlikely.

[VeLiiCe]

Originally posted by Lone Wolf:

Originally posted by VeLiiCe:

i think its pretty easy to show that multiple hits on one spot are devastating for tanks, even if its just Ap from an Mg, took me 2 min of search to confirm it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJIq9HFecU&t=31s
i think this is the best example as this simulation shows what mutliple hits on a tank can do even tough its a btr vs t-72 sidearmor with 45 degrees angled shots. And minding this is a 45 degrees shot you can imagine what armorpiercing mg rounds can do to a nonsloped tank armour that gets hit headon

I know no real reports of MG's that penetrated a tank in second world war. And MG's back than weren't that accurate so hitting the same spot on a tank (that is moving most of the time) is very unlikely.

as edmon already said, 500 rounds per minute has a more than enough chance to hit the same space over and over(especially in relative close range) and even if it were close hits to the already hit places, due to the sheer cinetic energy that it would produce were enough that splinters inside the tank would fly around and injure/kill the crew. this channel has much more simulation vids with non penetrating hits that show how splinters of the armour would fiy through the tank.

[VeLiiCe]

Originally posted by Lone Wolf:

Originally posted by VeLiiCe:

i think its pretty easy to show that multiple hits on one spot are devastating for tanks, even if its just Ap from an Mg, took me 2 min of search to confirm it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJIq9HFecU&t=31s
i think this is the best example as this simulation shows what mutliple hits on a tank can do even tough its a btr vs t-72 sidearmor with 45 degrees angled shots. And minding this is a 45 degrees shot you can imagine what armorpiercing mg rounds can do to a nonsloped tank armour that gets hit headon

I know no real reports of MG's that penetrated a tank in second world war. And MG's back than weren't that accurate so hitting the same spot on a tank (that is moving most of the time) is very unlikely.

And dont forget the most important thing, ww2 tanks mostly had uncovered viewslits for the driver and other personnel, so its likely that a shot can fly through said viewslit, kill the driver, ricochet inside, damage other parts inside that could then fly around as a shrapnel etc.
The only reason why it wasnt done, or extremly rare done is also pretty easy to explain....you make yourself a damn target if you spray with your mg over and over on a tank.

[Lone Wolf]

Originally posted by VeLiiCe:

Originally posted by Lone Wolf:

I know no real reports of MG's that penetrated a tank in second world war. And MG's back than weren't that accurate so hitting the same spot on a tank (that is moving most of the time) is very unlikely.

as edmon already said, 500 rounds per minute has a more than enough chance to hit the same space over and over(especially in relative close range) and even if it were close hits to the already hit places, due to the sheer cinetic energy that it would produce were enough that splinters inside the tank would fly around and injure/kill the crew. this channel has much more simulation vids with non penetrating hits that show how splinters of the armour would fiy through the tank.

Most of the armor of tanks don't splinter, they dent. The type of armor is very important, as is the ammunition. For a standard Vickers MG of the british army there was no chance to deal real damage to a tank (except a few which had very thin armor). They weren't meant for that. They could fight against Halftracks with their 7-15mm armor, but even that could not easily be penetrated.

If an MG could penetrate a tanks armor, there would be real reports of concentrated fire on enemy tanks.

[VeLiiCe]

Originally posted by Lone Wolf:

Originally posted by VeLiiCe:

as edmon already said, 500 rounds per minute has a more than enough chance to hit the same space over and over(especially in relative close range) and even if it were close hits to the already hit places, due to the sheer cinetic energy that it would produce were enough that splinters inside the tank would fly around and injure/kill the crew. this channel has much more simulation vids with non penetrating hits that show how splinters of the armour would fiy through the tank.

Most of the armor of tanks don't splinter, they dent. The type of armor is very important, as is the ammunition. For a standard Vickers MG of the british army there was no chance to deal real damage to a tank (except a few which had very thin armor). They weren't meant for that. They could fight against Halftracks with their 7-15mm armor, but even that could not easily be penetrated.

If an MG could penetrate a tanks armor, there would be real reports of concentrated fire on enemy tanks.

i never said anything about penetration, but the effect of multiple hits at one place, and you do realize that tanks were painted inside? this stuff will splinter off and do a splash effect which can kill/injure the crew. You can even try that yourself, buy a metalsheet paint one side and then hit the metalsheet on the other side with a hammer, you will see the paint fly off because of the force that travels through the metalsheet.
Saturation fire of a full Battalion sized infantry element (400 - 600 Soldiers) of all weapon types (Small arms, Machine guns, 40mm Grenades, Mortars, AT4s etc.) is a tactic the US Army teaches even today for destruction of hard targets. They're throwing thousands and thousands of rounds. The amount of fire would definitely quickly immobilize and destroy Tanks or IFVs.

And if you were researching a bit more, you would have found some pictures, especially the one of the abrams tank that got penetrated at the rearside with mg fire, which then caused an engine fire(in ww2 that would have meant death for the crew)

[Lone Wolf]

Originally posted by VeLiiCe:

Originally posted by Lone Wolf:

Most of the armor of tanks don't splinter, they dent. The type of armor is very important, as is the ammunition. For a standard Vickers MG of the british army there was no chance to deal real damage to a tank (except a few which had very thin armor). They weren't meant for that. They could fight against Halftracks with their 7-15mm armor, but even that could not easily be penetrated.

If an MG could penetrate a tanks armor, there would be real reports of concentrated fire on enemy tanks.

i never said anything about penetration, but the effect of multiple hits at one place, and you do realize that tanks were painted inside? this stuff will splinter off and do a splash effect which can kill/injure the crew. You can even try that yourself, buy a metalsheet paint one side and then hit the metalsheet on the other side with a hammer, you will see the paint fly off because of the force that travels through the metalsheet.
Saturation fire of a full Battalion sized infantry element (400 - 600 Soldiers) of all weapon types (Small arms, Machine guns, 40mm Grenades, Mortars, AT4s etc.) is a tactic the US Army teaches even today for destruction of hard targets. They're throwing thousands and thousands of rounds. The amount of fire would definitely quickly immobilize and destroy Tanks or IFVs.

And if you were researching a bit more, you would have found some pictures, especially the one of the abrams tank that got penetrated at the rearside with mg fire, which then caused an engine fire(in ww2 that would have meant death for the crew)

You're saying that the paint inside a tank can kill the crew? Beside the fact that most tanks didn't have a painted inside, even if the paint come flying off, they will certainly not kill the crew, with veeeeeeery little chance maybe injuring. And that is only, when a big calibre is hitting the armor and not penetrating.
We are talking about second world war, why do you bring examples of modern times where the technology is far superior?