Author Topic: Reconsider HVAP loads  (Read 2342 times)

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Reconsider HVAP loads
« on: November 10, 2013, 08:52:51 PM »
I'd like HTC to severely reduce the number of HVAP rounds available for soviet tanks. I haven't been able to find anything stating they carried 20 rounds of the stuff. It looked to be more on the order of 5 rounds per tank or so, which is very much more reasonable for what is supposed to be a special purpose round.

I'd also like to see APCR shells for the US M4(76) at the same rate, the M18 at 10rds per vehicle, based on what I can find. I can only find some sources saying the M4's could generally scrounge up a few rounds, and that the bulk went to the TD force, so if anyone could find some more specific numbers, that would be very helpful.

I think it would also be fair to give the Panzer IV F APCR at around 5 rounds per tank, given that it was in service before the decision to reserve tungsten for production tools was made. Since this decision was made in 1943, and the Panzer IV H was in service before existing stocks were used up, it would be fair to give the Panzer IV H APCR at a rate of 3-5rds per vehicle.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #1 on: November 10, 2013, 10:42:04 PM »
I have to say I think this is a bad idea, particularly the Sherman and German tank requests.  The M18 request makes sense.  The Soviet tank request may or may not, depends on HTC's sourcing.

This mostly sounds like somebody upset that the Russian tank is widely used.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Saxman

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9155
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #2 on: November 10, 2013, 11:32:47 PM »
If there's documentation that shows the load mix options on the tanks are wrong, it should be corrected.

Same reason I support the argument to give the B-25H AP rounds, since there's been information turned up that the 25H was given a mix of AP and HE (I believe it was found that the 25s carried 5 AP shells).
Ron White says you can't fix stupid. I beg to differ. Stupid will usually sort itself out, it's just a matter of making sure you're not close enough to become collateral damage.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #3 on: November 11, 2013, 07:51:01 AM »
Per his post Sherman crews "could often scrounge up a few rounds", in other words they weren't supposed to have them so it is basically a field mod.  His request for the Panzer IVs are pretty much the same, particularly the H where he is talking about it being "fair" to give them 3-5 rounds of a discontinued ammo that may or may not have been available to them.

This is essentially a complaint that the Russian tanks are at all useful and a request to remove their HVAP advantage by reducing their capacity to 5 and giving the other tanks 5-10 rounds of HVAP ammo.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline SmokinLoon

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6168
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #4 on: November 11, 2013, 08:28:22 AM »
I'm of the school of thought the basic "main battle tanks" didn't carry much but the typical mix, AND furthermore didn't ever really load up with 100% of either type of ammo.  I don't know what the Soviets actually issued to their tanks for ammo, but me thinks the HVAP we see in AH is a bit much.  I can find with e wee bit of digging the "typical" load out for most US, British, and German tanks, but I'm not so lucky with Soviet and Japanese (not ever looked for Italian).

I wouldn't be sad to see the HVAP reduced on Soviet tanks and the M18 receive a few of the APCR rounds for the M18, especially if those rounds were reserved for TD units once received in theater.  Likewise, those designated TD vehicles would not be able to carry but a few HE shells, I think HTC has hit the nail on the head with their new Jagd panzers and their ammo loadouts. The Firefly should be adjusted as well, it was not an HE based vehicle. 
Proud grandson of the late Lt. Col. Darrell M. "Bud" Gray, USAF (ret.), B24D pilot, 5th BG/72nd BS. 28 combat missions within the "slot", PTO.

Offline lyric1

  • Skinner Team
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10687
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #5 on: November 11, 2013, 12:31:51 PM »
I'd like HTC to severely reduce the number of HVAP rounds available for soviet tanks. I haven't been able to find anything stating they carried 20 rounds of the stuff. It looked to be more on the order of 5 rounds per tank or so, which is very much more reasonable for what is supposed to be a special purpose round.

I'd also like to see APCR shells for the US M4(76) at the same rate, the M18 at 10rds per vehicle, based on what I can find. I can only find some sources saying the M4's could generally scrounge up a few rounds, and that the bulk went to the TD force, so if anyone could find some more specific numbers, that would be very helpful.

I think it would also be fair to give the Panzer IV F APCR at around 5 rounds per tank, given that it was in service before the decision to reserve tungsten for production tools was made. Since this decision was made in 1943, and the Panzer IV H was in service before existing stocks were used up, it would be fair to give the Panzer IV H APCR at a rate of 3-5rds per vehicle.

You are somewhat correct on Russian T-34's.

The standard load outs were mostly HE rounds & a few armour piercing & 5 HVAP rounds on the 76's & 4 HVAP on the 85's. However this paragraph from a Russian book from this man Alexei Isaev Artem Drabkin who was in T-34's during WWII. Also mentions the standard load outs carried confirms your numbers on HVAP. However the crews determined by the mission requirements as to what they would actually carry though. So I would say HTC has taken the option of optional load outs as required by the mission.

PS. You will have to translate it.

http://artofwar.ru/d/denxtankista/text_0020.shtml



 

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2013, 12:42:10 PM »
So it seems that Tank-Ace's request has merit as an either/or thing.

Either reduce the T-34's HVAP load to 5 and keep the other tanks as they are, other than the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F, or retain the higher load of HVAP for the T-34s and give 5 rounds to the Sherman and Panzer IV H along with the 10 rounds for the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F.

He should get to keep his cake or eat it, but not both.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline wpeters

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #7 on: November 11, 2013, 01:18:42 PM »


Either reduce the T-34's HVAP load to 5 and keep the other tanks as they are, other than the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F, or retain the higher load of HVAP for the T-34s and give 5 rounds to the Sherman and Panzer IV H along with the 10 rounds for the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F.




+1
LtCondor
          The Damned
Fighter pilots are either high, or in the process of getting high.🙊
The difference between Dweebs and non dweebs... Dweebs have kills

Offline FLOOB

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3058
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #8 on: November 11, 2013, 01:28:03 PM »
Didn't the ostwind and nimrod carry a few ap rounds?
“Montana seems to me to be what a small boy would think Texas is like from hearing Texans” - John Steinbeck

Offline wpeters

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1647
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #9 on: November 11, 2013, 01:30:09 PM »
You are somewhat correct on Russian T-34's.

The standard load outs were mostly HE rounds & a few armour piercing & 5 HVAP rounds on the 76's & 4 HVAP on the 85's. However this paragraph from a Russian book from this man Alexei Isaev Artem Drabkin who was in T-34's during WWII. Also mentions the standard load outs carried confirms your numbers on HVAP. However the crews determined by the mission requirements as to what they would actually carry though. So I would say HTC has taken the option of optional load outs as required by the mission.

PS. You will have to translate it.

http://artofwar.ru/d/denxtankista/text_0020.shtml


 

  Weaponry. According to the "Guide Service" the first task of 76.2-mm tank gun F-34 was "The destruction of tanks and other mechanized means of the enemy" (FOOTNOTE: 76-mm tank gun upgraded arr. 1940 (F-34) and 76-mm tank gun mod. 1941 (ZIS-5). Moscow: Military Publishing, 1943, p.3). Veterans tankers unanimously called enemy tanks as the main and most serious opponent. In the initial period of the war T-34 crews were confident to fight any German tanks, rightly believing that the powerful gun and reliable armor protection will ensure success in battle. The appearance on the battlefield, "Tiger" and "Panther" has changed the situation reversed. Now the German tanks were "long arm" that allows to fight without worrying about the disguise, "Using the fact that we have a 76-mm cannon that can take on the forehead of their armor with only 500 meters, they were standing in the open" (Iron) . Even piercing shells to 76-mm guns are not allowed in the duel benefits such as pierced only 90 mm of homogeneous armor at a distance of 500 meters while the frontal armor Pz.VIH "Tiger" has a thickness of 102 mm. The transition to 85-mm cannon immediately changed the situation, allowing the Soviet tank crews to fight the new German tanks at ranges of more than a kilometer, "Well, when there was a T-34-85, then it was possible to go one on one" (Iron). The powerful 85-mm gun crews allowed the T-34 to fight with his old acquaintances at a distance Pz.IV 1200 - 1300 m example of such a battle on the Sandomierz bridgehead in the summer of 1944, we can find in the memoirs Zheleznova. The first T-34 tanks with 85-mm gun D-5T rolled off the assembly plant Љ112 "Red Sormovo" in January 1944 to begin mass production of T-34-85, this time with 85-mm gun ZIS-S-53, was laid in March 1944, when the first tanks of a new type have been built on the flagship Soviet tank of times of war, Љ183 factory in Nizhny Tagil.
  The only inconvenience that caused the introduction into service 85-mm gun was the need to watch closely to long barrel does not touch the ground over the potholes of the road or the battlefield, "the T-34-85 - a long barrel. Metra four or more. Slightest ditch , short barreled ground and pecked a little lacking. shot, the barrel as the anchor breaks, does not tear it, and so pushes. As a lily of the valley, rose disclosed in different directions. Usually 3 - 4, and that's because they are wrapped, and all trunk out of order "(Rodkin). Full length of the barrel 85-mm tank gun mod. 1944 was more than four meters, 4645 mm. The emergence of 85-mm guns and unexpected way affected the defeat of the tank, he ceased to explode with the breakdown of the tower: "The property is a T-34-85, they [gun shots] do not detonate, explode them one by one, and completely not. Old T-34 -76 there if one shell exploded, then detonates all combat pack. shells exploding "(Rodkin). This is to some extent increased the chances of the crew members, "Thirty" for survival and photos and newsreels of the war faded picture, sometimes flickering on the frame 1941 - 43 years. - T-34 lying next to a tank or upside down after falling back on a tank turret.
  If the German tanks were the most dangerous enemy "tridchatchetverok" then do the T-34 was an effective means of destruction weapons and manpower that hampers their infantry. Most of the tankers, the memories of which are given in the book, have to their credit, at best, a few armored vehicles of the enemy, but the number of people shot out of a cannon and machine gun enemy infantry in the hundreds of people. Ammunition of the T-34 consisted mainly of high-explosive shells. Regular ammunition "tridchatchetverki" with the tower-"nut" in 1942 - 44 years. consisted of 100 shots, including 75 high-explosive and armor-25 (with the advent of sub-caliber ammunition from the 25 units were equipped with 4 pieces piercing shells). Regular ammunition of the T-34-85 provided 36 high-explosive rounds, 14 armor-piercing and 5. The balance between armor-piercing and high-explosive shells in many ways reflects the conditions in which fought "Thirty" during the attack. Under heavy artillery fire tankers in most cases have little time for the firing range and shot on the run and short stops, relying on the masses of the enemy shots or shoot a few rounds.
LtCondor
          The Damned
Fighter pilots are either high, or in the process of getting high.🙊
The difference between Dweebs and non dweebs... Dweebs have kills

Offline kvuo75

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3003
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #10 on: November 11, 2013, 01:34:04 PM »
  As a lily of the valley, rose disclosed in different directions.


that's beautiful.
kvuo75

Kill the manned ack.

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #11 on: November 11, 2013, 02:49:11 PM »
So it seems that Tank-Ace's request has merit as an either/or thing.

Either reduce the T-34's HVAP load to 5 and keep the other tanks as they are, other than the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F, or retain the higher load of HVAP for the T-34s and give 5 rounds to the Sherman and Panzer IV H along with the 10 rounds for the M18 and perhaps the Panzer IV F.

He should get to keep his cake or eat it, but not both.

Either/or is fine, but if just like to point out that, at least with the Panzer IV H, it would not be a field mod. The H model came into service prior to the introduction of the APCR rounds. The biggest reason for giving it fewer rounds is that they the Panzerjäger units had to priority, and then the F's and early G's due to the weaker gun.

If we left the T-34 's keep their current loadouts, one could also make a case for giving the Panther, and perhaps even the King Tiger and Jagdpanther a round or two.

However I do see your point about the M4.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"

Offline 715

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1835
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #12 on: November 11, 2013, 02:58:17 PM »
So Tank-Ace you feel the German tanks should rightfully be invincible and that people who drive Russian tanks should play their proper role as useless targets for you to vaporize?  Can you kindly explain why I would pay $14.95 a month to be a hopeless target for you?

Tanks did not carry much HVAP because their main purpose was tasks (like infantry support) other than engaging other tanks.  In AH there is no infantry to support so there is less need for HE and more room for something useful, i.e. HVAP.  In other words the historical load out was controlled by need, not necessarily scarcity.  So historical accounts of what was typical are not sufficient to limit a load out, you need historical accounts of scarcity, i.e. that the HVAP was hard to manufacture or contained rare materials.  Was Tungsten Carbide that rare?

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23048
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #13 on: November 11, 2013, 03:12:15 PM »
Was Tungsten Carbide that rare?
Not sure about for the Russians, but for the Germans it was.
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline Tank-Ace

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5298
Re: Reconsider HVAP loads
« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2013, 03:20:50 PM »
So Tank-Ace you feel the German tanks should rightfully be invincible and that people who drive Russian tanks should play their proper role as useless targets for you to vaporize?  Can you kindly explain why I would pay $14.95 a month to be a hopeless target for you?

Tanks did not carry much HVAP because their main purpose was tasks (like infantry support) other than engaging other tanks.  In AH there is no infantry to support so there is less need for HE and more room for something useful, i.e. HVAP.  In other words the historical load out was controlled by need, not necessarily scarcity.  So historical accounts of what was typical are not sufficient to limit a load out, you need historical accounts of scarcity, i.e. that the HVAP was hard to manufacture or contained rare materials.  Was Tungsten Carbide that rare?

I'm not asking for anything German but the Panzer IV's to have APCR, I'm saying that it's not necessarily an either-or thing.

And I'll just say that if you're going up against a Panther or anything larger, you already are a helpless target. APCR won't change that.

And if you think 3-5 rounds for the Panzer IV H will make you helpless, you've got no business in tanks.
You started this thread and it was obviously about your want and desire in spite of your use of 'we' and Google.

"Once more unto the breach"