Armor in Battle

[Old Gamer]

Dear All

I just wanted to make everyone aware of a new publication that the US Army Center for Military History (http://www.history.army.mil) has released. “Armor In Battle” Special Edition for the Armored Force 75th Anniversary. I haven’t competed reading the publication yet but have enjoyed the detailed description of the various armor actions including the early pre WWII maneuvers the Army executed to evaluate the use of Armored Forces. It is really amazing how the Army went from combat cars in 1939 to the M4 Sherman in a very short time. How we went from a small peace time army with very little equipment to an Army that could take on and win against the Germans, Italians and Japanese. I have made it to the Korean War so far and there are several battles described that could be used to create scenarios or mini campaigns. The pictures of the early Army equipment is very interesting. Take a look at the publication it is free to down load. There are many other publications on the site that also provide good ideas for scenarios and through discussion of what happened as the Allies Fought the Axis.

Old Gamer

[jivemi]

A treasure trove. Thanks a bunch for posting this. Cheers!

[jivemi]

Sorry for the double post, but from page 110 of the pdf:

"We had no armor piercing ammunition so I know a high explosive shell will crack a Mark IV...Our 105-mm gun is good against tanks. I watched one gun hit three tanks coming in a big mass of tanks, approximately thirty tanks, and with high explosive ammunition he collapsed three of them like taking shoeboxes and shoving them flat."

Does this make any sense or did the tanker who wrote this know what kind of ammo the 105s were firing? Later the account says, "Stukas with 500 pound bombs really don't hurt the tanks unless there is a direct hit, except for the dust," so maybe those 105s were firing HEAT, not conventional HE.

[jp10]

From the description I think it is referencing the weaker side armor found on most MKIV models. Russian sources mention the same effects with 122mm HE. Rather than a Winsp style penetration, the armor plates were 'buckled' or 'bashed' by the explosive force, dislodging the running gear and breaking the welds in the lower hull.
Like the mentioned Stuka reference it had to be a direct hit on armor, not a near impact.
IDNK if there was a 'Quick' or 'Delay' setting involved. In my experience, HE Delay, generally was a 1/10th of a second and would allow a little more penetration before detonation. We used to drop HE Delay on entrenched targets to bury the round a bit before detonation to 'cave in' fighting positions rather than a ground burst with more shrapnel.

[jivemi]

Thanks. That does makes sense, since the PzKw IV had side armor of 3cm, rear of 2cm, and top only 1cm, while the US 105mm howitzer had penetration of 3cm. So the 105s may well have crushed the IVs like shoeboxes with top hits. Interesting, no?