Western armor gets creamed by hand-held rockets

[westwall]

I don't know where you are getting your figures, but according to the official German penetration tables, at 1,000 meters the Panzergranite 39 could penetrate 72mm and the tungsten cored Panzergranite 40 penetrate 69mm. You might be looking at the KWK40 L/70 from the Panther. The maximum armor on the Panzer IV was 50mm on the hull front, turret front and mantlet and 30mm anywhere else. That was easily penetrated by any round from the M-3 gun at 1,000 yards and with M-61 APC at 1,500 yards.
The Sherman's glacis plate was originally 50.8 mm (2.00 in) thick.[100][102] and angled at 56 degrees from the vertical, providing an effective thickness of 90.8 mm that means a Panzer IV could only penetrate the frontal armor of a Sherman at 500 meters or less. If the Sherman had the later 47-degree hull front, it was the equivalent of 93mm and the Panzer IV could only penetrate it at less than 100 meters.

For a tank that was "always going to lose vs dedicated tanks" it killed a lot of German tanks.

The figures I was quoting are from US ordnance testing. They wanted to confirm actual performance vs calculated.

They tested pretty much every AT gun out there. Very, very rarely does actual performance equal the calculated estimates.

 

[westwall]

That single T-34 seems to have been a KV-1 instead and the crew was so blind that the Germans were able to move an 88mm Flak 18 within a hundred meters of it to destroy it. And the German combat forces were going right around it, but they needed the crossroads it was sitting on for supply forces. A hell of a lot of T-34s were destroyed by Panzer 38Ts with 37mm guns and Panzer IIIs with short and long 50mm guns.

No, the KV-1 was ANOTHER battle! The T-34 was disabled by a Stug III (which the T-34 also disabled), so while the T-34 couldn't move, its gun was still operational.

 

[westwall]

That single T-34 seems to have been a KV-1 instead and the crew was so blind that the Germans were able to move an 88mm Flak 18 within a hundred meters of it to destroy it. And the German combat forces were going right around it, but they needed the crossroads it was sitting on for supply forces. A hell of a lot of T-34s were destroyed by Panzer 38Ts with 37mm guns and Panzer IIIs with short and long 50mm guns.

I can't think of a single T-34 knocked out by a Czech tank. On the other hand, there are tons of pictures of Czech tanks with their armor shattered by a single hit from a 34.

Here is a website that has a table of actual penetration values taken from the US ordnance testing.

Thought you might like it!

Penetration Tank Ammunition > WW2 Weapons

Penetration Tank Ammunition > Penetrability of tank ammunition in the Second World War (Part II): Problems of calculated values for armor-piercing shells

www.ww2-weapons.com

 

[AZrailwhale]

The figures I was quoting are from US ordnance testing. They wanted to confirm actual performance vs calculated.

They tested pretty much every AT gun out there. Very, very rarely does actual performance equal the calculated estimates.

The German figures are from official German testing. The US figures are from US testing. The armor is accepted figures. Panzer IVs had no effective slope to their armor so penetration would actually be better that the tables show because the US tests were against plates set at thirty degree angles.

 

[westwall]

The German figures are from official German testing. The US figures are from US testing. The armor is accepted figures. Panzer IVs had no effective slope to their armor so penetration would actually be better that the tables show because the US tests were against plates set at thirty degree angles.

Yes, and the hardness levels were different too, as was the type of armor plating used.

 

[Esdraelon]

Today, big is just an easier target. Aircraft carriers, take note.

Anyone who thinks they'll send 3K U.S. sailors to the bottom without an answer that is totally off the charts, is just deluding themselves. Sink a carrier, very possibly lose a PORT.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Anyone who thinks they'll send 3K U.S. sailors to the bottom without an answer that is totally off the charts, is just deluding themselves. Sink a carrier, very possibly lose a PORT.

A CVN is a Capital ship. The US went to war with Spain over the sinking of the Second Class Battleship Maine. China or Russia MIGHT get away with sinking an attack sub. But not a carrier or ballistic missile sub.

 

[westwall]

A CVN is a Capital ship. The US went to war with Spain over the sinking of the Second Class Battleship Maine. China or Russia MIGHT get away with sinking an attack sub. But not a carrier or ballistic missile sub.

That was a very different time, with a notoriously beligerent people.

Our government is weak and feckless.

 

[AZrailwhale]

That was a very different time, with a notoriously beligerent people.

Our government is weak and feckless.

But the US population isn’t going to accept the sinking of a multi-billion dollar carrier. Even Biden couldn’t justify not responding militarily to that.

 

[toobfreak]

The M1A2 is nearly impervious to missiles.

I believe they use a special depleted uranium armor plating that is designed to create an equal counterforce stopping the incoming enemy kinetic impact. No weapon is dense dense enough to penetrate depleted uranium.

 

[Mushroom]

C-Wiz, is great, but it is getting old. We need a new system.

We do. CIWS is simply the last line of defense.

There is SM2 missiles, and the RAM. In addition to any aircraft in the air if there is a carrier involved.

 

[Mushroom]

Missile technology has outpaced armor and defensive countermeasures.

Not really. We simply do not "build them like we used to".

That was the very reason the Iowa class battleships were brought back into service. Then and now, their armor was so thick that there were no missiles that could penetrate them. Those things were designed to take the pounding of a one ton armor piercing shell, missiles are only designed to penetrate a few inches at most.

And with 12-17" of hardened armor plating, no Russian or Chinese missile developed could harm them, short of a nuke.

Myself, I have long advocated a return of a modernized Alaska class Battlecruiser. With 9-13" of armor, once again there is no missile made that could do serious damage to one.

We simply do not built ships with thick steel hulls anymore.

 

[westwall]

We do. CIWS is simply the last line of defense.

There is SM2 missiles, and the RAM. In addition to any aircraft in the air if there is a carrier involved.

Much better would be to adopt the British Sea Wolf. It too is old, but extremely capable.

 

[westwall]

Not really. We simply do not "build them like we used to".

That was the very reason the Iowa class battleships were brought back into service. Then and now, their armor was so thick that there were no missiles that could penetrate them. Those things were designed to take the pounding of a one ton armor piercing shell, missiles are only designed to penetrate a few inches at most.

And with 12-17" of hardened armor plating, no Russian or Chinese missile developed could harm them, short of a nuke.

Myself, I have long advocated a return of a modernized Alaska class Battlecruiser. With 9-13" of armor, once again there is no missile made that could do serious damage to one.

We simply do not built ships with thick steel hulls anymore.

Yup. I would take the Alaska class, remove the rear turret, replace it with a short flight deck and troop quarters, and then you would have a REAL littoral combat ship. With its 12" guns it could provide immediate direct fire support to troops on the ground, that it would actually have embarked.

 

[Mushroom]

Yup. I would take the Alaska class, remove the rear turret, replace it with a short flight deck and troop quarters, and then you would have a REAL littoral combat ship.

Actually, a rather pointless thing to do. The best role of these would be as a flagship with the Amphibious groups. And they would have more than enough space for any Marines, as well as many more aircraft and helicopters (including the Osprey).

But removing the rear turret and putting in more missiles was actually considered during the Iowa rebuilds. In a new ship, simply use two triple mounts in the front, and a mix of missiles in a rear deck launcher, including Harpoon, Tomahawk, and SM2.

One of the biggest problems with our modern amphibious groups is that they have almost no fire support weapons, and very little in defensive capability.

 

[westwall]

Actually, a rather pointless thing to do. The best role of these would be as a flagship with the Amphibious groups. And they would have more than enough space for any Marines, as well as many more aircraft and helicopters (including the Osprey).

But removing the rear turret and putting in more missiles was actually considered during the Iowa rebuilds. In a new ship, simply use two triple mounts in the front, and a mix of missiles in a rear deck launcher, including Harpoon, Tomahawk, and SM2.

One of the biggest problems with our modern amphibious groups is that they have almost no fire support weapons, and very little in defensive capability.

There were several plans proposed. The most radical would have been to remove the superstructure aft of the rear funnel. Turn the the front third into a hangar, and the rear two thirds into a short angled ski jump flight deck for Harriers. They would have still mounted Tomahawk and Harpoons on the upper superstructure, just not as many as on the proposal you mention. I disagree with you as regards a flagship though. That is a job best suited for carriers.

The battlecruiser, on the other hand, can sail in close enough for its guns to reach the enemy, but is impervious to anything the enemy has that can reach it. As you say, any of the anti ship missiles will merely scrape the paint and make a loud "bong" sound.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

.....that's what they said about bombers before WW2--you won't need infantry or a navy--the bomber will win the war --they were wrong

Wings Flutter and Make a Lot of Noise

In Vietnam, the infantry was used as bait to draw fire and thereby locate the enemy, which was supposed to be then wiped out by air power and artillery. But they'd shoot at us and run away before the bombs and napalm had a chance to make a difference.

Tired of this, my Colonel on Operation Tuscaloosa purposely walked us into an ambush and refused to call in air strikes, making the VC think they had knocked out our communications. So they stayed put. Only when the Marines had the enemy force stuck and surrounded did the Colonel call in airstrikes and wiped them out, which was the only time and the only way bombing was effective over there.

 

[Mushroom]

I disagree with you as regards a flagship though. That is a job best suited for carriers.

I did specifically state for an Amphibious Group, not a Carrier Task Force.

While the carriers are highly defended by multiple destroyers and cruisers (as well as subs), our amphibious groups normally only have at most 2 destroyers in addition to the defenses on the ships themselves. In other words, largely sitting ducks in case they are ever attacked. But adding an armored cruiser into the mix would go a long ways in ensuring their survival if that was to happen.

 

[westwall]

I did specifically state for an Amphibious Group, not a Carrier Task Force.

While the carriers are highly defended by multiple destroyers and cruisers (as well as subs), our amphibious groups normally only have at most 2 destroyers in addition to the defenses on the ships themselves. In other words, largely sitting ducks in case they are ever attacked. But adding an armored cruiser into the mix would go a long ways in ensuring their survival if that was to happen.

I know you did. I read your post. I just disagree with it. I like the idea of a single warship sailing in and either absorbing, or destroying everything the enemy force sends at it. Granted, this is only a tactic that can work with countries without a submarine force, but you could sail one of these warships into pretty much any hostile area, and they will come through it fine.

 

[Mushroom]

Granted, this is only a tactic that can work with countries without a submarine force, but you could sail one of these warships into pretty much any hostile area, and they will come through it fine.

No, not really. As it would be a sitting duck.

The LCS was always a stupid idea, and most of us that looked at the development of it laughed when it was first proposed. The "Little Crappy Ship" was always a boat in search of a mission that simply did not exist.

But for defense of an amphibious group and providing shore bombardment in the event that amphibious group is needed is a real mission, and one that our amphibious groups do not have any kind of support for. Want to seam one of these by itself and think it can not be touched? Well, the Germans and Japanese both thought that as they sent their "Supper Battleships" by themselves into harms way. And we all know how those turned out.

They turned into really nice artificial reefs. The same thing would happen to this if that was tried.