Sherman with odd projectile damage

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by Brian Rogers, Apr 8, 2019.

  1. Brian Rogers

    Brian Rogers Member

  2. Dave55

    Dave55 Atlanta, USA Patron

    I'm guessing two HEAT rounds that were duds. But what are the odds of two duds hitting so close together? Maybe testing on a range? All just guesses.
     
  3. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

  4. idler

    idler GeneralList

    It's odd how both charges have left what looks like an indented ring with an almost untouched centre. Almost like the charge was a ring.
     
  5. m kenny

    m kenny Senior Member

  6. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Anyone got a picture of Hafthohlladung damage?
    hafthohl.jpg Capture.JPG
     
  7. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Where's the tank, Brian?
    Somebody might already have confirmed the damage.
     
  8. Brian Rogers

    Brian Rogers Member

    It’s at the museum behind Omaha beach
     
  9. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    It's an M32, yes?
    Often had interesting postwar lives. Useful things.
     
  10. Brian Rogers

    Brian Rogers Member

    I haven’t found one like the one on the Sherman, but a fantastic resource. Thank you.
     
  11. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

  12. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Leaning towards 'someone strapped some charges to it, sometime'.

    Do you mind if I share your pic with some Engineers on Twatter?
     
  13. Brian Rogers

    Brian Rogers Member

  14. Brian Rogers

    Brian Rogers Member

    No problems
     
  15. idler

    idler GeneralList

    On the M32: hollow charges without the liners? I'd still expect a bit of a thump in the middle but the casing would cause the splash, and it might be reasonable to expect a concentration of splash round the rim?

    As for the Tiger, I look at the starred/spoked marks and I think 'antitank mine' placed as a charge. Possibly even just cast charges from a mine - if any were made like that - as there's no splash.They are worryingly precise, though.
     
  16. Brian Rogers

    Brian Rogers Member

    Thank you, so excuse my ignorance but do you think this was battlefield damage?
    I’m just a dumb cavalryman so not sure what hollow charges without liners are?
     
  17. idler

    idler GeneralList

    The liners in hollow charges are a soft metal that melts/vaporises when the charge is detonated. Because it's detonated from the apex of the cone (look at the Hafthohlladung pic), the liner collapses in on itself from the top. If the charge detonates evenly down the cone the liner is blown into the middle of the cone and forwards as a superhot jet which then burns its way through the armour of the target.

    Without a liner it's 'only' a focused shock wave which might simply dent thicker armour.

    The question then becomes why would you have a hollow charge without a liner? There were shaped charges designed for demolition work but I believe these had liners as well...

    The charge over the edge of the hull suggests they were fired rather than placed.

    And I'm only thinking aloud - I could be wrong!
     
  18. Brian Rogers

    Brian Rogers Member

    Alles klar, thank you for the explanation.
    However it still doesn’t explain what was fired at this tank.
    A panzerfaust would have left a hole and wouldn’t have left the large perforated circle and the surround shrapnel damage and no AT round that I can think of would do that.
     
  19. Bin There

    Bin There Member

    The outer ring looks similar to the one in this photo, although this one shows penetrating damage.

    [​IMG]

    In the accompany description it was attributed to a hollow charge impact.

    [​IMG]

    Given the lack of penetration in Brian's photo it appears the hits in on his tanks were dud fuzes and detonated through simple impact rather than by fuze train. That would explain the absence of the typical penetration, as the liner would have been crushed by the time the detonation occurred, and the detonation proceeding from front to rear through the charge rather than the normal rear to front.

    The range of engagement (50 yards) indicates a hand held AT weapon. I'd have to go back and measure the ring size and compare it to the warheads of various German bang sticks before making a guess as to which weapon was used.

    It appears quite a number of hits were made on this tank. Thinking it's possible it was used as a test target in the field by Allied forces to examine German weapons' effectiveness?
     
    Dave55 and von Poop like this.
  20. Bin There

    Bin There Member

    Just to follow up.

    The Tank Casualty Survey's description of the photo indicates the penetrations is about 50mm, and based on that it looks like the warhead impact ring is about three times that diameter. The Panzerfaust 30, 60 and 100 all had 150mm warheads, but only the 30 was in production by the time of the Normandy landings (I'm assuming a tank in a Normandy museum was knocked out during the Normandy campaign, but that may not be correct).

    There are four other penetration points, three on the chassis and one on the turret. Three of them show partial warhead ring impacts, and these are smaller diameters, likely indicating they were Faustpatrones (with a 100mm diameter warhead). The fourth penetration is larger and is probably a third hit by a Panzerfaust 30.

    It's the six bangstick hits in this small area that makes me think this vehicle was used as a field test target. As I recall, the Tank Casualty Study had a comment in it that very few tanks suffered multiple hollow charge penetrations in combat as the engagement range was necessarily so short enemy gunners could not hang around for multiple shots.

    Just my opinion . . .

    It's a great pic, Brian. Thanks!
     
    Ian Holloway likes this.

Share This Page