Author Topic: Rockets, HT please...  (Read 1519 times)

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Rockets, HT please...
« on: September 21, 2006, 01:52:15 AM »
Could you just tell me if the PB1 on the FW190F8 are modeled using the HEAT warhead and is strike angle factored into it?

Thanks

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2006, 06:16:24 AM »
bump ;)

I would like to see an answer to this as well.

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2006, 06:21:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Reynolds
bump ;)

I would like to see an answer to this as well.


3 things I know about the AH version of the rocket...

1. it's pretty useless against the T34 from just about all angles, I still get kills on them but never a true "kill" just when someone else destroys them.  Which makes me think strike angle is computed in, due to the t34s crazy slopes.

2. Only place I have killed a tiger outright is in the front side skirt at a very shallow angle, less than 15deg, coming in from either side at about 90deg.  Which I am not sure the actual PB1 could penetrate through the side skirt and the armor behind the road wheels.

3.  For just a HEAT round it seems to do alot of area damage.  Which if you are not up on HEAT rounds they work like this.  There is a small shaped charge shaped like a V if the round is standing upright.  Inside this shaped charge is the penetrator formed out of a metal of some sort (some used copper, steel, or even lead).  When this round hits a target the explosives fire and force the penetrator form into a super heated and very high velocity jet of the molten metal.  Then it just forces / cooks its way into the vehicle doing a good bit of damage ;)
     The point of number 3 is that you dont need alot of explosive to get a great deal of penetrating power.  The TOW missile only uses 7 lbs of charge to penetrate over 800mm of armor.  Even near misses will take out most of the lighter skinned vehicles/boats in here even though the panzershreck only had a explosive wieght of 1.03Kg.  Where as the US 5" rocket used 2.9Kg of explosive for comparison.


Just would like to know how AH models the HEAT rounds in here.

Reynolds looks like HT and company are too busy reading / posting in general to look in here ;)
« Last Edit: September 23, 2006, 07:32:49 PM by zorstorer »

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2006, 01:00:54 AM »
Hey, of all the rockets in the game, which are AV/AG and which are AA?

Offline OOZ662

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7019
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2006, 11:26:04 AM »
The only AA rocket is the WGr21. It's on the 109s and 110s.

HVAR rockets are more suited to hitting objects, but will disable a tank. I killed a Panzer's motor once by firing one rocket off of a flatspinning TBM. :D
A Rook who first flew 09/26/03 at the age of 13, has been a GL in 10+ Scenarios, and was two-time Points and First Annual 68KO Cup winner of the AH Extreme Air Racing League.

Offline Reynolds

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2031
      • http://flyingknights.csmsites.com
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2006, 06:09:13 PM »
Are there any Anti Vehicle rockets modeled? Is the HEAT the only one?

Offline OOZ662

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7019
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #6 on: September 24, 2006, 10:34:41 PM »
The PB1 is the only specific anti-tank rocket, and it isn't all that effective compared to what it could be. (HT decided to use a weak rocket instead of a stronger version that was available.)
A Rook who first flew 09/26/03 at the age of 13, has been a GL in 10+ Scenarios, and was two-time Points and First Annual 68KO Cup winner of the AH Extreme Air Racing League.

Offline Sketch

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
      • http://www.arabian-knights.org
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2006, 04:53:01 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by zorstorer
snip...
There is a small shaped charge shaped like a V if the round is standing upright.  Inside this shaped charge is the penetrator formed out of a metal of some sort (some used copper, steel, or even lead).  When this round hits a target the explosives fire and force the penetrator form into a super heated and very high velocity jet of the molten metal.  Then it just forces / cooks its way into the vehicle doing a good bit of damage ;)
     The point of number 3 is that you dont need alot of explosive to get a great deal of penetrating power.


It is called "The Monroe Effect" (I undertand what your saying because I play with explosives everyday) But for others who may not know...

--->   Charles Edward Munroe was the inventor of "The Monroe Effect" in explosives in 1885. He noted that a high explosive with a cavity facing a target left an indentation. The earliest known reference to the effect appears to be 1792, and there is some indication that mining engineers may have exploited the phenomenon over 150 years ago. The Monroe Effect was rediscovered by Von Neumann in 1911, but no practical applications were developed.

Shaped charges were first developed after World War I to penetrate tanks and other armored equipment. A cylindrical charge that lies flat against the armour and is being initiated in one end gives a directed detonation effect so that a hole is created at the point of contact is Generation I. If that charge is equipped with a conical hole the force of the explosion will be channeled further and increases the chances for a penetration it is Generation II. The most common type of hollow charge munitions is the jet creating hollow charge, also called Hollow Charge Generation III. The other type of hollow charge munition is the projectile creating munition. It is referred to as Genetration IV. Gen I and Gen II (developed during the WW II) are predecessors to Gen III and IV but they are no longer in use in any munitions.

The "shaped charge" was introduced to warfare as an anti-tank device in World War II after its re-discovery in the late 1930s. In 1935, Henry Mohaupt, a chemical engineer [and a machine gunner in the Swiss Army] established a laboratory in Zurich to develop an effective anti-tank weapon that could be used by infantry soldiers. Henry Mohaupt was the inventor of the lined shaped charge. Other accounts mention earlier work by R.W. Wood of the John Hopkins University Physics Department as the discoverer of the metal liner principle. After the war started, Mohaupt came to the United States, and in October 1940 he took over direction of the bazooka project.

In January, 1945, Ramsey C. Armstrong founded Well Explosives Company, Inc. in Fort Worth, Texas. He decided to pursue perforating technology related to the bazooka, an anti-tank device based on the shaped charge concept. Armstrong contacted Mohaupt in Washington, DC, where he was then working for the Navy, and in October of 1946, Mohaupt and his wife made the long drive from Washington to Fort Worth.

--->  High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) Armor Piercing Shaped Charge
Armor piercing shells comprise a special type of anti-tank ammunition which is provided with a hollow charge warhead. In principle, a hollow charge comprises an outer casing, a metal cone and an explosive. When the explosive detonates, the metal cone is squeezed together and a metal jet is formed which, with great force, penetrates even very thick and hard armor. Due to its good effect in armored targets, the hollow charges have long constituted a serious threat to armored vehicles.

The High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) rounds take a cone-shaped shaped charge warhead to targets. This shaped charge warhead, with its inherent blast and fragmentation capability, also provides additional weapon defeat capability. A copper shaped charge liner and wave shaper are contained within the warhead.

A sophisticated heavy two-stage shaped-charge warhead is capable of piercing armor of equivalent to 900mm thickness. A triple-shaped charge warhead offers 50mm more penetration. The RPG-7 grenade, with a shaped-charge warhead, has very good armor penetration (330 mm), capable of defeating most types of armored vehicles. Even a small 440 gram shaped-charge explosive is extremely destructive, and can penetrates more than 14 inches (35.6 cm) of armor. The M77 submunition's antimateriel capability is provided through a shaped charge with a built-in standoff, which can penetrate up to four inches of armor. The smaller artillery-delivered M46 submissions have a shaped charge warhead that penetrates 2.75 inches of homogeneous armor.

Here is a newer version of what it looks like inside:


Taken from here: Shaped Charge Link
And here: Photo
~Sketch~//~Arabian Knights~
Sketch's Gunsight Collection 2008
Sketchworks Arabian Knights Soundpack
~Oderint Dum Metuant~

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2006, 07:50:53 PM »
Thanks sketch, didn't know if i was getting it across well enough ;)

Great write up by the way!!

Offline zorstorer

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 950
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2006, 11:02:30 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by OOZ662
The PB1 is the only specific anti-tank rocket, and it isn't all that effective compared to what it could be. (HT decided to use a weak rocket instead of a stronger version that was available.)


CC the PB2 would be a beast of a rocket ;)

Offline Sketch

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
      • http://www.arabian-knights.org
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #10 on: September 26, 2006, 04:21:06 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by zorstorer
Thanks sketch, didn't know if i was getting it across well enough ;)

Great write up by the way!!


Welcome! Your post was good but I am sure alot of people would start scratching thier heads and get lost in it.  Alot of people don't understand explosives and how they work.  I still laugh when someone tells me that a 500lb. 'would not' blast a Tiger.....:rofl
~Sketch~//~Arabian Knights~
Sketch's Gunsight Collection 2008
Sketchworks Arabian Knights Soundpack
~Oderint Dum Metuant~

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #11 on: September 26, 2006, 08:51:11 AM »
Saw a Mk82 (500lb bomb) direct hit an M-60 hulk.  Once the smoke cleared, small pile of metal left.  The turret went up in the air about 50 feet.

Offline Sketch

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1351
      • http://www.arabian-knights.org
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #12 on: September 26, 2006, 03:19:56 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Stoney74
Saw a Mk82 (500lb bomb) direct hit an M-60 hulk.  Once the smoke cleared, small pile of metal left.  The turret went up in the air about 50 feet.


I saw a F4U at a Ordnance Expo drop an Inert 500-lber and it dropped about 3 ft. short of an old deuce and a half.... it flipped it.  The velocity of those things coming down is crazy... and then you figure into the facts of them being loaded with anywhere from 200-500 lbs of explosives, yeah they make a nice hole.  I have also seen the footage of drops while I was in Iraq and Qatar and the targets they hit.  Pretty cool stuff...:aok

BTW: To anyone who didn't know. A Mk82 has a  192 pounds of exploisves in them and only cost about $270.00 a piece. :D
« Last Edit: September 26, 2006, 03:23:16 PM by Sketch »
~Sketch~//~Arabian Knights~
Sketch's Gunsight Collection 2008
Sketchworks Arabian Knights Soundpack
~Oderint Dum Metuant~

Offline Viking

  • Personal Non Grata
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2867
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #13 on: September 26, 2006, 04:05:10 PM »
I think the PB1 modeled in AH2 is the version with the 81mm mortar shell warhead. The version with the Panzerschreck warhead is not modeled. The 81mm mortar version was used primarily against lightly armored vehicles and other soft targets.

Offline Stoney74

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1439
Rockets, HT please...
« Reply #14 on: September 26, 2006, 04:36:43 PM »
Well, I guess I should admit that on the M-60 hulk, we were watching F-18's work it over.  I'd expect a bit more velocity on the bomb :).  I remembered another incident at Camp Lejeune when a M198 (indirect fire)hit a tank hulk directly (155mm shell, 98?lbs of explosive).  This was similarly spectacular, but the chassis and hull remained pretty much intact (looking through binos).  But, the turret spent a good two seconds in the air, flipping turret over barrel as it went up and back down.  The only thing AH doesn't model is the effect on the humans inside the tank.  I've been in a tiger, had a 1000lb bomb land next to me, and nothing happen.  In real life, the tank may still be operable (maybe...), but not the crew.  I would imagine they'd be too busy cleaning their shorts and taking something for the headache to worry about crewing the vehicle...at least for some time.  Suppressive effects are real, and golden bb's do exist, even for those vaunted tanks...