Military Ground Vehicles of Your Nation [NO FUN] Mark IX

[Dostanuot Loj]

You see, the British came to two conclusions:
1: The bursting charge was ineffective.
2: A non-bursting projectile penetrated more.

So they said "Why would we put useless HE in a shell to make it penetrate less?" and decided not to.

Was this the determining factor behind the 2pdr's main/only AT round being solid shot, or was this decision postwar?

It was a big part.
By the time more complex rounds (APC, APCBC, etc.) became available, the 2 pounder was obsolete to the point of not bothering with anything else.
What could a 2 pounder APCBC do that a 6 pounder couldn't do better for longer?

[Imperializt Russia]

I should have that info at home. I'll take a look in a few hours when I get off work.

Sorry for the double post.
The answer for your question is 0.00 grams of high explosive. It didn't have any.
That might explain why you can't find anything online.

Ah. Thanks.
Do you know if the 32pdr projectiles were to receive solid AP shot or APHE?

I was under the impression that APCBC was typically APHE with a cap, but that's probably only true in artillery, not guns.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Sorry for the double post.
The answer for your question is 0.00 grams of high explosive. It didn't have any.
That might explain why you can't find anything online.

Ah. Thanks.
Do you know if the 32pdr projectiles were to receive solid AP shot or APHE?

I was under the impression that APCBC was typically APHE with a cap, but that's probably only true in artillery, not guns.

It's only true in the US actually. 32 pounder should not have gotten any APHE type round, but I don't know for sure. I have no numbers on it.

[Schwere Panzer Abteilung 502]

The British and their solid shot weirdness. Always having to do it in a dumb way that no one else does.

You see, the British came to two conclusions:
1: The bursting charge was ineffective.
2: A non-bursting projectile penetrated more.

So they said "Why would we put useless HE in a shell to make it penetrate less?" and decided not to.

Everybody else used HE filled in AP projectiles during WWII. Was British ammunition more effective at killing tanks?

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, the ammunition for the D-5 85mm tank gun supposedly fit 48g of explosive into a 9kg projectile.
Can't see that really doing much.

[Dostanuot Loj]

You see, the British came to two conclusions:
1: The bursting charge was ineffective.
2: A non-bursting projectile penetrated more.

So they said "Why would we put useless HE in a shell to make it penetrate less?" and decided not to.

Everybody else used HE filled in AP projectiles during WWII. Was British ammunition more effective at killing tanks?

We are talking statisticly unimportant numbers here. Like 5% greater or less penetration.

The Brits just decided that it wasn't worth it to create more complex ammunition that was less effective even by so little, that added no benefit.

Although it does add one benefit: you can see the pop when it hits. This is a reason the US kept them so long, because they could more easily identify a hit. Not everybody thinks this is worth the loss in penetration and increase of complexity. And sticking a tracer plug in the base of the round is just as good.

[Novorden]

To quote burning_phoneix on the "War College" reddit:

"The British 2 pounder, 6 pounder and 17 pounder used Solid shot for a variety of reasons:
#1 Lack of increased effect
The British experimented with APHE and found that the HE filler didn't do any more appreciable damage inside the tank than a solid shell bouncing around. Tank interiors are notoriously cramped and a ricocheting hunk of metal can take out several components just fine.
Of course, the British tested this theory back when they were using small 2 pounder 40mm shell so it could be debated how bigger shells like 76 and 90mm compared.
#2 Fusing issues
To get the HE filler to explode, it needed a very accurate fuse so it would explode right after the shell penetrated the armour, not before. This was a difficult technical problem back in those days and many HE fillers simply failed to go off. The aforementioned 2 pounder APHE tests demonstrated this to the British.
#3 Reduced Armour penetrating capability.
The HE filler and the fuse inside the APHE shell made it lighter than a comparable solid shot shell. Basic physics dictates that less mass= less energy= less penetration. The British already didn't think much of the effectiveness of the HE filler in creating more damage so reducing armour piercing capability was seen as a bad trade off.
#4 Small caliber sizes
The British had only three calibers for anti-tank guns in the war (if you discount the 25 pounder, which was an artillery piece pushed into the anti-tank role) 40mm (2 pounder), 57mm (6 pounder) and 76.2mm (17 pounder).
The first two were small calibers that wouldn't benefit too greatly from an HE filler (according to British experience). The 17 pounder shells could feasibly carry an HE filler but for some reason they didn't. I'm not really sure of the reason, it could possibly be due to the fact the gun was rushed into service in the early 1940s and they simply copied the lessons learned from the earlier guns that solid shot= TEH BEST!. Perhaps testing done with the new discarding sabot ammunition convinced the English that solid shot was indeed the way of the future? I have no clue. I'll try to dig SOMETHING up.
#5 Cost/time issues
Considering the fusing issues and the cost of HE filler and fuses, APHE shells were simply more costly and time consuming to produce and Great Britain at the time couldn't be wasteful with materials considering the Luftwaffe was bombing London and the Kriegsmarine prowling around merchant shipping.
I think those are all the reasons. All in all, since nowadays APDS rounds are the main tank killers, you could say the British were ahead of their time in this regard."

[Allanea]

THe Armored Sauna-Laundry Complex has been succeeded by a mobile Shower-Laundry Complex:

http://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/2245205.html <- Armored Shower-Laundry Complex, Ukraine.

[Korva]

excellent

[Dostanuot Loj]

Needs tracked, amphibious version which can be used for amphibious assault.

[Opplandia]

THe Armored Sauna-Laundry Complex has been succeeded by a mobile Shower-Laundry Complex:

http://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/2245205.html <- Armored Shower-Laundry Complex, Ukraine.

that thing just made my day, lol.

[Novorden]

Does anyone have anything on diesel fuel being used as "armour"? As i remember reading an article about it but currently can't find it.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's discussed in Technology of Tanks. It has a mass efficiency over steel of a factor 3, presumably only against HEAT warheads. Merkava uses diesel sacs as part of its armour scheme according to same.

[Novorden]

I am currently wondering about fuel tank placement in my tank destroyer.

The tank it is based on had all its fuel in the engine compartment, however with the removal of the turret there is a lot more room in the crew compartment, so it makes sense to fill this unused space with something useful like a fuel tank. The issue is that the frontal fuel tank alone can carry ~650 L of fuel matching the total capacity of most other WW2 medium tanks, in addition to the existing tanks. What i am wondering is:

1 - Is there any point having a WW2 vehicle with probably over 1000 L of fuel in the first place, when most had 500-700 L?
2 - Is a diesel fuel tank in the crew compartment going to be a safety issue, or with the aforementioned armour properties is it a good idea to have it there.
3 - If i remove it what can i do with all the free space.

[Imperializt Russia]

You could use the frontal tank as a "ferry range" tank, like strap-on drums for Soviet tanks, or the door tanks in early BMPs.
Troops will eventually decide whether or not they want it, and fill it with sand if they don't.

650L is a lot though.

[The Kievan People]

There really isn't anything else that would go there. If there was no fuel tank it would probably just be empty.

[New Visegrad]

I am currently wondering about fuel tank placement in my tank destroyer.

(Image)

The tank it is based on had all its fuel in the engine compartment, however with the removal of the turret there is a lot more room in the crew compartment, so it makes sense to fill this unused space with something useful like a fuel tank. The issue is that the frontal fuel tank alone can carry ~650 L of fuel matching the total capacity of most other WW2 medium tanks, in addition to the existing tanks. What i am wondering is:

1 - Is there any point having a WW2 vehicle with probably over 1000 L of fuel in the first place, when most had 500-700 L?
2 - Is a diesel fuel tank in the crew compartment going to be a safety issue, or with the aforementioned armour properties is it a good idea to have it there.
3 - If i remove it what can i do with all the free space.

If you're worried about having too much fuel (!?) it probably wouldn't hurt to make the tank a little smaller. The guys in the front seats would probably appreciate the legroom.

[Imperializt Russia]

I suppose a good question would be, what was originally in that space in the turreted model?

[Korva]

3 - If i remove it what can i do with all the free space.

bow mgs

water tank

extra MG ammo

[Antarticaria]

3 - If i remove it what can i do with all the free space.

bow mgs

water tank

extra MG ammo

Food.. Can never have too much food. Until the crew rat f---s them all for the treats.

[Novorden]

I suppose a good question would be, what was originally in that space in the turreted model?

I refuse to change the length of the vehicle as it would necessitate a redraw of the suspension/tracks...

[bow mgs
water tank
extra MG ammo

I am probably going to have an MG for the driver above the fuel tank, and add a load of 'under floor' storage for everything else.

The only thing i may need more of is 80mm ammo as it currently carries 52 rounds:
24 rounds in two ready racks next to loader
12 rounds in storage bin under the gun
16 rounds in two under floor areas.

[Purpelia]

I can't help but think that anything, absolutely anything other than a tank of flammable liquid would be better suited for placement under the exact spot where your tank is most likely to be hit and penetrated. I'd much rather just box it off and make it free storage space for what ever belongings the crew has.

[Imperializt Russia]

As I asked of the lad who 3D modelled a series of heavy, medium tanks and tank destroyers - why have a casemate tank that carries precisely the same gun as the turreted vehicle?
The primary advantage of the casemate design is that you are not restricted on gun size by the turret ring diameter, because you've dispensed with it.

The obvious example being, again, the SU-85 being upgunned to the 100mm gun series once the T-34 got a turret ring that could take the 85mm gun series.

[Purpelia]

As I asked of the lad who 3D modelled a series of heavy, medium tanks and tank destroyers - why have a casemate tank that carries precisely the same gun as the turreted vehicle?
The primary advantage of the casemate design is that you are not restricted on gun size by the turret ring diameter, because you've dispensed with it.

The obvious example being, again, the SU-85 being upgunned to the 100mm gun series once the T-34 got a turret ring that could take the 85mm gun series.

There could be any number of reason, not all of which have their root in an actual advantage. Like for example maybe he has an anal tank destroyer branch that is dead set on using their TD's as self propelled AT guns. Move to position, dig in, wait for weeks, fire. And they don't want turreted vehicles because they don't want their crews "playing tank". Weirder stuff has happened back in that age. Everyone was experimenting after all.

[Novorden]

As I asked of the lad who 3D modelled a series of heavy, medium tanks and tank destroyers - why have a casemate tank that carries precisely the same gun as the turreted vehicle?
The primary advantage of the casemate design is that you are not restricted on gun size by the turret ring diameter, because you've dispensed with it.

The obvious example being, again, the SU-85 being upgunned to the 100mm gun series once the T-34 got a turret ring that could take the 85mm gun series.

They are also cheaper and easier to produce than a turreted vehicle.

I can't help but think that anything, absolutely anything other than a tank of flammable liquid would be better suited for placement under the exact spot where your tank is most likely to be hit and penetrated. I'd much rather just box it off and make it free storage space for what ever belongings the crew has.

Well it's diesel so it's less likely to ignite and as mentioned may even provide some level of armour, plus the fact that's it's behind +100mm of armour (LOS) at 45 degrees making it resistant to the tigers 88mm APCBC round at around 500m.