30mm HE armor penetration?

[adam12]

First of all, killing infantry is not the sole purpose, it is a purpose, of that round.

 

My belief is that HE rounds are only in the TOE for killing infantry and destroying their cover (bunker/building).

 

It is good for any soft or lightly armored target.

 

AP much better imo.

 

Some very soft targets (trucks with canvas roofs) would be hurt by shrapnel just as much as a direct hit.

 

Improved trucks are protected from shrapnel so a direct hit is required for both HE and AP.

 

AP will destroy whatever it penetrates and penetrates more than HE.

 

HE will not always destroy what it penetrates.

 

There is an argument against single shot AP in that it can go through some APCs and not hit anything critical. Burst fire resolves that.

 

Is it too easy to kill armored units with HE rounds in the simulator? Possibly: but mainly if we consider only literally killing them. Whether it's too easy or too hard to achieve mission kills is a different matter, and as mentioned one that the simulator cannot (currently) fully simulate.

 

No qualms with HE, like I said, I just think AP is the better choice.

Edited October 10, 2011 by adam12

[adam12]

Basically, my opinion is that for something like a Bradley it might be a bit too easy to kill the Bradley with HE, but it is also "too hard" to mission kill it. So, in my own opinion, it's a fair balance for where things are right now. Similar principles apply to Abrams and so on. It might be possible to kill them with that gun, but it requires attack parameters and amounts of ammunition that are such that you really won't be doing it much. Even against T-55's I generally consider the gun a desperation move. I've used it on purpose less times than I have fingers on one hand, and those times it's been because I absolutely had to: I was out of other weapons and that thing was headed for my friendlies - and my FARP was too far away.

 

So well, yes, not 100% correct, but a good balance (one error helping the player, another acting against the player) considering the limitations of the engine used with DCS:BS.

 

That all sounds reasonable, I'm pretty happy with it.

[EtherealN]

AP will destroy whatever it penetrates and penetrates more than HE.

 

Not true. An AP round striking a tyre might flatten it - but the truck is otherwise unharmed. An HE round striking the same location might take the wheel off it's axis and render the vehicle immobile, cause braking fluid leaks, etcetera. Also, an AP round is more likely to ricochette where the HE might detonate. Further, an AP round entering a windshield might fly through the cabin and lodge itself somewhere in the cargo, for no great effect - the HE round with it's delayed fuze (i think it's 15 milliseconds) might explode in the cabin, killing the crew. An AP round travelling through the cargo compartment of a munitions transport might end up in the packing filler, doing no harm beyond a hole, whereas the HE might explode amongst the explosive cargo.

 

I've heard stories of UN APC crews coming under attack in Bosnia where AP rounds travelled through the passenger compartment for no grave injuries, where an HE round with delayed fuze would have burst inside a tight compartment filled with troops and probably maimed at least a few of them... (Some crews also took the habit of keeping a hatch open at all times, since they knew an HE round penetrating and blowing up inside the compartment might be able to kill them all just with the pressure of the explosion if they are buttoned up.) That said, I haven't actually sat in an IFV for ages, and never as crew, so I'm not an expert on them.

 

And, it should be noted - that was not only burst fire, it was a full-fledged ambush. After a minutes long engagement where the crew were unable to fire back, the result was a vehicle that was able to retreat with some casualties but no deaths. (One crewman even had a round pass through his headset!)

 

AP has it's uses: it's for those targets where the HE cannot penetrate the target. Obviously, the mentioned modeling difficulties are a bit on the generous side for HE against IFV's and APC's, but if you know the armor of the vehicle is such that the HE can penetrate there is no reason to use AP, which includes infantry, trucks, and some (not all) IFV's and APC's.

Edited October 10, 2011 by EtherealN

[159th_Viper]

AP much better imo.....

 

For the purposes of the SIM at present - Incorrect: HEI is far more effective.

 

 

AP will destroy whatever it penetrates and penetrates more than HE.

 

HE will not always destroy what it penetrates......

 

No - have a look at the following figures (approximate amount of rounds to destroy vehicles) at minimum safe effective Range of Engagement and tracks :

 

Vulcan: HE - 20/AP - 40

 

LTVP-7: HE - 25/AP - 60

 

M113: HE - 25/AP -30

 

M2A2: HE - 30/AP - Cannot be destroyed: Quit firing at 100 rounds

 

M978: HE - 20/AP - 20

 

M818: HE - 10/AP -10

 

M109: HE - 10/AP - Cannot be destroyed: Quit firing at 100 rounds

 

M270: HE - 15/AP -20

 

[ATTACH]57351[/ATTACH]

 

[ATTACH]57352[/ATTACH]

 

I have disregarded Infantry as it's irrelevant for the purposes of discussing HE/AP effectiveness as just about anything as capable of elimimating said infantry.

 

In conclusion and as is illustrated above, for the purposes of the SIM, not only is HE not useless, it is in fact currently on average better by far than AP.

[adam12]

Haven't looked at the tracks yet but sounds interesting.

 

(How do you know when they are killed? I notice always some delay after the rounds hit before the vehicle shows any animation of explosion.)

 

I'm not sure why this is but maybe we could find something on the net that would explain. My instincts tell me that's not a bug but it doesn't line up with what I understand about real 30mm HE.

 

It appears AP is going through but not damaging the vehicle, but then why are some vehicles able to be killed with HE and not AP? (That must be a bug?)

 

Very strange!

 

at minimum safe effective Range of Engagement

 

Is the AP round a sabot type?

 

Next time I get a chance to play I'll shoot some AP at different ranges at the targets you couldn't kill and post the results, if you don't get to it first.

Edited October 10, 2011 by adam12

[EtherealN]

Minimum safe range: range where they will not fire back. (I think is what he means).

 

And the tracks is a reference to the track files he linked, where you can see the engagement in detail.

[159th_Viper]

Minimum safe range: range where they will not fire back. (I think is what he means).

 

Correct - any closer and the M2 surgically removes one's dentures with a TUA........:music_whistling:

 

That said, one could just as easily evade at that range - test however conducted in an Auto-Hover with no possibility of evasion.

[EtherealN]

REgarding rounds and explosions: they'll often start smoking before the explosion. Might be hard to see in some cases, but as soon as you see the smoke, you know they're going to blow.

 

EDIT: And on the note of not being able to kill with AP - well, he stopped firing at 100 rounds. Remember that HE does damage (though might be little) with any hit that lands close, while AP's have to hit dead-on to do anything. Think of it like being an absolutely terrible rifle shot - you might then be better off using a shotgun than a rifle, since any "miss" with the rifle will do nothing, but the shotgun ensures you at least do SOMETHING with each round fired. A single pellet is better than nothing, after all.

 

Obviously, that aspect is a bit more dodgy IRL, since an explosion nearby might not be "good enough" to do anything noticeable IRL, but in-game, due to how the simulation has to operate, it might be that HE always does something, however small, as long as the round lands within explosion radius of the target. I'm unsure about how damage modeling handles armor "penetratin" for explosions.

Edited October 10, 2011 by EtherealN

[isoul]

They're probably talking about armored vests. Full 7.62x54 can penetrate up to a level 3 vest with trauma plate. Even the lightest BDRM can stop full 7.62 rounds....

 

Actually they were talking about light armored vehicles (not necessarily APCs or IFVs) but surely they weren't referring to armored vests.

 

The 7.62x51 AP round fired from the HK G3 rifle can penetrate 7mm of steel at a range of 500m (or 1/4 of an inch at 550m). The standard round can penetrate up to 4mm at the same range. I don't see why the 30mm HE round can't penetrate at least the thin parts of a M113.

 

EDIT : Changed the 20mm to 30mm after EtherealN mention it (sry I was confused)

Edited October 13, 2011 by isoul

[EtherealN]

isoul: 30mm. :P

[159th_Viper]

...The 7.62x51 AP round fired from the HK G3 rifle can penetrate 7mm of steel at a range of 500m (or 1/4 of an inch at 550m). The standard round can penetrate up to 4mm at the same range. I don't see why the 20mm HE round can't penetrate at least the thin parts of a M113.

 

In addition, SLAP rounds utilized are inter-alia the 7.62 M948 with the M60 MG and the .50cal M903 with the M2 HMG.

 

M948 did not work well at all and M903 SLAP is preferred:

 

 

Range of 1500 meters against 3/4" High Hard Armor (HHA) and can penetrate 34 mm of hardened armor at 500 meters.

 

Sooooo.........I'm assuming Shipunov is more than likely as capable, if not more so, of bringing home the bacon so to speak.

[Isegrim]

Discussion Discussion Discussion.

 

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=71071

 

If watching my Track sorry got wrong trim mode on.:megalol:

 

But can somebody tell me how to Destroy a T55 With The Gun i have tryed it with both ammunition types from all angels (Top> Rear> Side> Back) with rearming of the gun from 50 meters Distance.:huh::joystick: Did Nothing:huh:

Edited October 10, 2011 by Isegrim

[159th_Viper]

But can somebody tell me how to Destroy a T55 With The Gun....

 

Aaahhh.....T-55 NATO designation 'TR - Walker'. Yeah, at present immune to the 30mm it would seem.

[adam12]

REgarding rounds and explosions: they'll often start smoking before the explosion. Might be hard to see in some cases, but as soon as you see the smoke, you know they're going to blow.

 

EDIT: And on the note of not being able to kill with AP - well, he stopped firing at 100 rounds. Remember that HE does damage (though might be little) with any hit that lands close, while AP's have to hit dead-on to do anything. Think of it like being an absolutely terrible rifle shot - you might then be better off using a shotgun than a rifle, since any "miss" with the rifle will do nothing, but the shotgun ensures you at least do SOMETHING with each round fired. A single pellet is better than nothing, after all.

 

Obviously, that aspect is a bit more dodgy IRL, since an explosion nearby might not be "good enough" to do anything noticeable IRL, but in-game, due to how the simulation has to operate, it might be that HE always does something, however small, as long as the round lands within explosion radius of the target. I'm unsure about how damage modeling handles armor "penetratin" for explosions.

 

Good to know

[adam12]

Watched your tracks, thanks.

 

I don't see any frag-kills from the HE. Each kill comes from a direct hit. Is that correct?

 

Very surprising! I had no idea they could mission-kill a Bradley in the sim. What level of damage are they supposed to be doing? Do they have to knock out the optics and/or the cannon on the Bradley before it will show a death animation?

 

The first time you said Minimum Safe Distance I thought you meant to avoid frag or something along those lines. I didn't realize you meant vs. return fire from the targets.

 

I can see now why the AP didn't do much against the Bradley for example. No questions on AP.

 

On armor - how many zones does a vehicle have in the sim? I assume 3 horizontal (front/sides/rear) and then the vertical (roof)?

[StarHopper]

Actually, AP should be better against the APC's. HE is only going to crater the armor a little on M113 and such. Also, knock out sensors, periscopes, etc. I don't know if it would be enough to damage tracks if you got in a shot to the side. API on the other hand is going to be like a thick arrow going through a slab of cheese. Your going to get crew kills, track hits, damage to the turret, engine kill, etc. I had this problem in Arma 2 / Ace 2 before. My M2A1 took on a BMP-3 with HE and barely did any damage to it. I flipped to APIT, and punched 5 rounds through the mid body. Got crew kills, with the driver puching out and running for his life. Went in to the BMP-3 later and found the gunner and commander dead. 25mm bullet is a hell of a way to go!

ACE 2 guys did a great job with armor in Arma 2. It used to be just hit points, now you've got penetration, RHA values for armor and rounds at range, etc. Makes it pretty really realistic.

 

As for penetration on the HE, I think the thing that is most obvious is how thick is the shell, and what is it made of. Energy and mass will be lower than that of an API of course. Is it HEAP with a thick steel head, low amount of explosive. Or does it have a lot of explosive, and a thin aluminum shell? If its the later, your not going to get much penetration at all, if any, as its just going to squash against the armor and explode. Then you would have to see how much explosive and what would be the crater / crush damage against the armor.

Edited October 13, 2011 by StarHopper

[Jaximus Decimus]

Well, if it's HEI it would have a thin to medium shell made of a hard metal alloy. Aluminum doesn't fragment very well and its light weight wouldn't give the individual pieces of shrapnel very much killing power past a few meters. An ideal fragmenting shell is going to be made from a medium density metal that is very hard.

 

It should still pretty much splatter against armor.

[Isegrim]

In the Topic link i Postet are also Youtubevideos where you can have a look what happens When 35 mm HE Ammunition from a Gepard Impact to an HS 30 LAV. That was a Test to show how usefull this ammunition type seems to LAVs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%BCtzenpanzer_Lang_HS.30

 

I Think it Shows very well what happens to an M113 ....it will not look better.

 

That means you can see how easy the Fragments from the Exploding shells go through the 30-60 mm steel. Cause those Fragments are Faster than any Bullet from a Gun.

 

In Reality AP Amunition is only used against Hard Targets like Main Battle Tanks.

 

But AP and HE will do serious Damage to all type of Armored Vehicles.:smilewink:

[StarHopper]

Need the link to the video. And 30mm API can only penetrate 80 - 90mm (kinetic value) RHA.

[Isegrim]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=71071&page=2 :smilewink:

 

 

And Thats 35 mm HE-T

[StarHopper]

Sorry, but you really can't tell anything by those videos. All you see is flashes from the rounds exploding against the armor. I don't think the HE would do much in itself to the armor. It would all depend on if the head had enough strength (steel) and energy to get through the armor.

 

So far, the best information I can find says 20mm HEI will pierce around 12mm RHA @ 100 meters range ( Probably the M61 cannon on the F16, etc. ). So, you can kind of infer from there. M113 usually has about 30mm RHA. Newer vehicles like the BMP-3 have about 60mm RHA on the frontal arc.

 

From everything I can find so far, the head looks like it is made of simple aluminum, and except for the one quote above, it does not appear that the round was made to pierce anything more than the lightest armor, and mostly is for use against un-armored, anti-material. I think the HEAP concept of heavy steel round with a small amount of HE was abandoned after WWII, as armor got much better and thicker.

Edited October 20, 2011 by StarHopper

[isoul]

...

 

So far, the best information I can find says 20mm HEI will pierce around 12mm RHA @ 100 meters range ( Probably the M61 cannon on the F16, etc. ). So, you can kind of infer from there. M113 usually has about 30mm RHA. Newer vehicles like the BMP-3 have about 60mm RHA on the frontal arc.

 

...

 

Hmmm, when the simple 7.62 round pierces 4mm of steel how come the 20mm just pierces just 12mm? Don't get for granted that the closer the range the best performance in piercing you get.

 

For example the highest piercing power, for a G3 rifle, can be achieved when the target is at 500-550m. Although the rifle's "effective range" is 400m the best results are at 500m and not at closer distances.

 

I can't explain you why is that, since I lack so specialized ballistics knowledge, but what I am writing here is what I know from my training during military service.

[Bushmanni]

Impact speed is important in it's own as it determines how an object will deform upon impact. If the impact speed is high enough most materials will crack instead of bending. This is why composite armor is usually rated for certain impact velocity instead of impact energy or momentum. Even a small and light weight bullet will penetrate if it just has enough speed to shatter the armor instead of bending it. In a case of concrete vs. bullet the concrete will shatter the bullet and it will not penetrate if the impact speed is too high. When you decrease impact speed enough the bullet will stay in one piece.

 

Not all materials behave like this as copper for example. Shaped charge is lined with copper for reason instead of iron or lead as copper is the heaviest affordable metal that will turn into liquid like state upon detonation. Iron or lead would just turn into dust and hence not be very effective penetrators. Gold would be the ultimate material to be used in shaped charges as it's denser than copper but behaves similarly but of course no one is that rich to shoot their enemies with actual gold plated ammunition.

[sobek]

If the impact speed is high enough most materials will crack instead of bending. This is why composite armor is usually rated for certain impact velocity instead of impact energy or momentum.

 

I highly doubt that. If that were so, then why don't tank mines use small lightweight projectiles instead of inflicting concussive damage on the crew? I think it's plain energy density that matters, the more energy you can focus on a small area, the more material you can get to melt/sublimate.

[Jaximus Decimus]

I highly doubt that. If that were so, then why don't tank mines use small lightweight projectiles instead of inflicting concussive damage on the crew? I think it's plain energy density that matters, the more energy you can focus on a small area, the more material you can get to melt/sublimate.

 

Bushmanni is absolutely right. The reason they don't use small lightweight projectiles in anti-tank mines is just a matter of damage. Sure, you can get a small lightweight projectile to pierce the armor, but that would be like sticking a needle in an elephant. It's just not going to do enough damage to stop the elephant.

 

I have a background in small arm ballistics and I can say with certainty that standard FMJ bullets have poor penetration at close range because of bullet failure. If the bullet is traveling too fast it will just shatter when it hits its target. If you give the bullet enough time to slow down, a few hundred yards, it can penetrate without breaking up.

 

Now, sure, the physics get a lot different when you start talking about shape charges and depleted uranium discarding sabots fired at extremely high velocity, but as far as standard projectile weapons go, this holds true.