Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => The Second World War => Topic started by: Bushbaby on 30 September 2017, 11:57:02 AM
-
I would like to know what kind of tank/ direct fire ammunition and caliber that was needed to knock out:
a) a concrete pillbox.
b) a trench or similar dirt/logs entrenchment.
Did you use HE or AP? What caliber? Where did you need to hit (especially regarding a trench that has no real silhouette)?
I hope some of you experts here can help me shed some light on these questions?
-
I guess it depends, most nations reasoned they'd need some sort of 'bunker busting' gun or ammo & built accordingly - but these weren't usually on your main fighting tank but mounted on some variety of SPG or Assault Gun (or, at its extreme, leading to building railway guns). If the target proved beyond the capability of the vehicles standard HE or AP round, the fortification would likely have been bypassed & dealt with by some combination of aerial bombing or artillery (& at the beginning of the war this wold have been fairly likely, given the comparitive weakness of early tank guns).
The StuH 42 is a good example, the proven 105mm LeFH would've been ideal, though the same (or similar weapon) ended up on numerous other vehicles (Grille, Wespe etc). The Brits built with the idea in mind & produced the AVRE Churchill with a 290mm spigot mortar (the 'Flying Dustbin') & A39 Tortoise with a 32pdr in a fixed casement which was supposed to deal with the fortifications of the West Wall (but turned out not to be needed).
So apologies for the round-about way of saying it:
Pillboxes - generally an AP round - but depending on the caliber it could have been HE (if the gun/charge in the round big enough - see AVRE Churchill).
Trenches - generally HE - if fused for airburst (& the gunner a good shot) especially effective - otherwise a ballistic trajectory (like that of a mortar) was better, but usually a tank would hose the trench with MG fire & use HE to suppress the occupiers (the Germans for instance told their crews in early 43 not to bother shooting at emplaced infantry or guns with the 50mm in the Pz III, but to have their Panzergrenadiers attack with far more effective motar fire).
-
Earth/log bunkers don't respond too well to direct hits from 75mm HE on the embrasure, sometimes AP was used to blow a hole or three first. Even 37m worked OK for that in Burma.
Proper concrete bunkers are another matter. AP and HE at the firing slots from within 250m can be effective, but more generally you need some sort of demolition gun to actually blow a big hole in it.
-
Earth/log bunkers don't respond too well to direct hits from 75mm HE on the embrasure, sometimes AP was used to blow a hole or three first. Even 37m worked OK for that in Burma.
Proper concrete bunkers are another matter. AP and HE at the firing slots from within 250m can be effective, but more generally you need some sort of demolition gun to actually blow a big hole in it.
A big enough gun firing AP or HE at the apertures will strongly 'discourage' the occupants however, viz the BuflaK in 1940 (designed as a bunker buster from the start), the M12 in 1944-45 & the 203mm howitzers in Berlin etc. (all pix c/o the internet)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/91/a3/5291a306f35f72d8a4c38dfefe4266ec.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0d/37/9d/0d379d8c42c0f153a98ac15c01bc2808--military-vehicles-luxembourg.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/13RknKC.gif)
-
On D-Day the allies used normal Shermans against bunkers - but from very close range, so that they could hit around or even into the embrasures. This certainly upset the defenders inside the bunker, but had fairly little structural impact on the bunkers.
If you can suppress the defenders in the bunker (or trench) with fire from tanks or SPGs then your own infantry can get close to deal with the defenders.
-
A small enough gun will also do the trick. The Australian Army tackled quite sophisticated earthen bunkers* and the odd concrete version using the 2pdr AP shot of the Matilda tank all through to the war's end 1945.
* Some of which were arguably better fortifications than their concrete equivalents, being constructed from a combination of earth or sometimes concrete filled steel drums, multiple layers of palm trunks and packed earth.
-
At Longues-sur-Mer they used HMS Ajax and Argonaut. Not an entirely efficient method, I'll grant, especially as one of the four German naval guns in those bunkers is still sitting in its mounting as I type this. :)
-
A small enough gun will also do the trick. The Australian Army tackled quite sophisticated earthen bunkers* and the odd concrete version using the 2pdr AP shot of the Matilda tank all through to the war's end 1945.
Not to mention the superb Matilda Frog flamethrower tank!
-
At Longues-sur-Mer they used HMS Ajax and Argonaut. Not an entirely efficient method, I'll grant, especially as one of the four German naval guns in those bunkers is still sitting in its mounting as I type this. :)
I strongly suspect that the survivors were candidates for hearing aids and clean trousers though. Of course that's presuming they weren't already part of some German elite, static, ear nose and throat battalion or stomach, kidney and haemorrhoid regiment.
-
Reading "D-day through German eyes Volume 1 and 2" In Normandy bombs containing powdered white Phosphorous were often used . the powder blew in through the slits and ignited. Often dropped by fighter bombers coming in low to try and skim the bomb into the front of the bunker
-
One of the Centaurs on the beaches of Normandy expended all it's 95mm ammo on a bunker without effect.
-
Thank you! Your answers have been most helpful!
-
British solution to the Westwall
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GOM9w_hxLFw/WHqLpyJBSpI/AAAAAAAABwA/ssqzYaAjPCcewqioBnZJk8kIoLTCZaWogCEw/s1600/JTFM%2B-%2BTortoise%2B-%2BJopek%2B-%2BWeb%2BVersion-%2B%25282%2529.jpg)
US solution
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-xpImm4goBeI/VxolCLMX8wI/AAAAAAAAmSo/FDOfCodS5vQu_rGXZSr7uuhwieC9oIWcwCLcB/s1600/IMG_8748.JPG)
-
Dear Rich,
They look fantastic.
Pleadse can you explain what they are and how big the guns are?
I think the top one is a Tortoise but I know very little about these weapons.
Thanks
Mick
-
Top one is indeed a Tortoise, it's got a 32pdr high veolcity gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tortoise_heavy_assault_tank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_32-pounder
The lower one is the T-28 Super Heavy Tank Also known as the T-95 Motor Gun Carriage it has a 105mm high velocity gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/105_mm_gun_T5E1
The idea of both was to be able to take on the Westwall directly with enough armour to take hits from 88s
The war ended before either saw combat thought the T-28 was trialled for deployment in Korea
(https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjD7rGUn6zXAhWGDxoKHWD_D30QjBwIBA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fworldoftanks.com%2Fdcont%2Ffb%2Fimagesforarticles%2Fchieftains_hatch%2Frandompics%2Ft28sumaprep.jpg&psig=AOvVaw1rmZuxWrzFAb3u5jOHFlQj&ust=1510136534314138)
I mastered the 1/56 versions for Die Waffenkammer and the Tortoise is rather nicely painted by Jacob Lots
-
Rich
Thank-you very much for the Information.
I do remember your project to make the master of the Tortoise. Your skills are very impressive.
Mick
-
I just did a quick look at the top tortoise link. the weight was 78 long tons. each being 2,240 pounds =
174,720 pounds? how in the world could this thing move, never mind maneuver?
-
Trucks until near the front then very slowly...
(http://i.imgur.com/lZiGRmb.jpg)
-
Very slowly.... until they reached a bridge or a waterway in need of a bridge.
'Wot's class 60 mean Alf?'
-
lol Yep, I think they would have been used as strategic weapons used for planned attacks only against specific targets.
I don't think they'd get far without a lot of logistical support!
-
They had at least given some thought to ground pressure, as it seems to have double width tracks.
But bearing in mind this is still around 1/3rd the weight of a Maus, just think how monstrous it would have been if fielded.
In both cases it feels that the effort to get the monster tank to the point of attack, would probably have been better spent in getting more artillery and ammunition there, instead.
-
The T-28 has double tracks, the outer tracks come off!
For some reason they decided to go with heavy assault tanks. No idea if they were being seriously contemplated but the USSR were also working on massive tanks too. The pinnacle being the IS-7.
Something triggered these massive beasts but whether they were just some sort of international willy waving exercise or a genuine military need will probably never be known for sure.
I suspect the latter really but fuelled by the likes of the Tiger II and Jagdtiger and the IS-2 and IS-3 which must have scared the crap out of the western allies with when it appeared!
No doubt they would have had little real impact with so few of them and so few real targets and the massive effort needed to move them into position.
But the writing was on the wall - the main battle tanks were on the way: the Centurion which is still soldiering on!
-
Something triggered these massive beasts but whether they were just some sort of international willy waving exercise or a genuine military need will probably never be known for sure.
I suspect it was the drive to get ever bigger guns, and thicker armour on a mobile hull. The problem was engines and drive trains couldn't keep up, so performance was awful.
Modern tanks are around the weight of the Tortoise, and have all the benefits of modern materials to reduce weight of components, and have much better engines. So there may be some point where the weight just gets to much for tracks to support at a practical level.
-
Horses arses limit the size of tanks.
A tank needs to fit in the railway loading gauge or be forever limited as to where it can get.
Railway tunnels were based on the width of a standard roadway which was based on a roman cart.
A roman cart was the width of two horses arses.
(Same is true of the space shuttle solid boosters)
the only reason I can think of why they went for heavy assault guns is direct fire, otherwise the easy answer is artillery as suggested above!