Jump to content


How Widespread was "Gold Ammo"


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

EmberTheDragoness #1 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 17:52

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6617 battles
  • 589
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

Before I get any hate. Yes, I know.

 

But I was really wondering, APCR, APDS, and HEAT, They all seem pretty effective, HEAT Keeps it's pen at 1 yard or 1000, APCR is a much faster much harder shell (Albit SMaller) And APDS is just a mean round period. How often did the Germans and the Allies Sling that stuff at each other, and how effective were they as compared to APBC, and APBCHE?



jaggetto #2 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 18:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 21770 battles
  • 554
  • [MEDIC] MEDIC
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011

Maybe not hate, but maybe more questions that actual comments of legitimacy. 

 

I presume you are talking about IRL as opposed to in-game?

 

Do we have any historians amongst the group / forums?



NWGIX #3 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 18:15

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 13482 battles
  • 483
  • Member since:
    12-10-2013

From what I heard on the interwebs, German crews were only given 1 or 2 APCR shells because the metal to make them was so scarce during the war.

 

no one lies on the internet



Mythary #4 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 18:33

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12515 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-02-2013

View Postjaggetto, on Jan 28 2015 - 12:03, said:

Maybe not hate, but maybe more questions that actual comments of legitimacy. 

 

I presume you are talking about IRL as opposed to in-game?

 

Do we have any historians amongst the group / forums?

 

This is one of the Historian sections of the forums, where people ask The_Chieftain and others technical questions.

 

The_Chieftain is one of WG's military historians (at least I hope that statement is correct, he is the one in the Inside the Hatch videos and he posts articles on historical documents, etc.). 


Edited by Mythary, Jan 28 2015 - 18:35.


Mythary #5 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 18:39

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 12515 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-02-2013

View PostColeDragonKnight1, on Jan 28 2015 - 11:52, said:

Before I get any hate. Yes, I know.

 

But I was really wondering, APCR, APDS, and HEAT, They all seem pretty effective, HEAT Keeps it's pen at 1 yard or 1000, APCR is a much faster much harder shell (Albit SMaller) And APDS is just a mean round period. How often did the Germans and the Allies Sling that stuff at each other, and how effective were they as compared to APBC, and APBCHE?

 

I did a google search for "apcr shell us in WWII" and one of the results was returned for a similar question asked on a WWII forum.

 

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/30020-apcr-heat-ammunition-usage/



EmberTheDragoness #6 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 18:51

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 6617 battles
  • 589
  • Member since:
    09-11-2011

View Postjaggetto, on Jan 28 2015 - 11:03, said:

Maybe not hate, but maybe more questions that actual comments of legitimacy. 

 

I presume you are talking about IRL as opposed to in-game?

 

Do we have any historians amongst the group / forums?

 

Yeah. I knwo how much it is used in game *glares*

Ecksdeee #7 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 18:54

    Major

  • Players
  • 17291 battles
  • 10,306
  • [WRPCK] WRPCK
  • Member since:
    04-06-2012

View PostColeDragonKnight1, on Jan 28 2015 - 18:51, said:

 

Yeah. I knwo how much it is used in game *glares*

 

Not as much as people think and not as much from uniscums as lower skills brackets. hell alot of higher tier clans don't even fire gold in sh

collimatrix #8 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 18:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 12102 battles
  • 2,792
  • Member since:
    02-01-2011

The interview WG did with the T-34-85 commander mentions a loadout of 8-10 APCR rounds.  IIRC, they were officially supposed to have less than that, but crews tended to hoard the rounds and strip them off of knocked-out tanks.

 

 



HermanBix #9 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 18:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 25563 battles
  • 3,005
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

There could also be some variations in weapon loads with regards to period during war. Example from New Vanguard issue on StuG III. One example the give is of a StuG III Ausf. D captured in North Africa. It had 88 rounds on board with 20 hollow charge Gr.38 HL/A and 35 capped armor piercing K.Gr.rot Pz  rounds.



The_Chieftain #10 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 19:14

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

For the US side, HVAP was quite rare.

The figures are about half-way down this article, for 76mm/3". http://worldoftanks....n-armor-part-2/

 

The saving grace is that German targets requiring the use of HVAP ammo were so rare that the rare rounds tended not to be too ungodly short.



blackfalconjc #11 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 20:19

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7675 battles
  • 1,996
  • [GTO] GTO
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

US tank doctrine during WW2 also was quite keen on avoiding head-to-head slugging matches with enemy armor. In fact, tanks like the M4 Sherman's most useful rounds were often considered HE as this was far more reliable in taking on soft skinned target (which were plentiful), versus armored targets, which by '45 were becoming increasingly rare. Tanks such as the M4 Sherman were expected to function as "Infantry support" vehicles, while the actual tank hunting was to be done by the Tank Destroyer forces which often were relegated to the role of infantry support as well. (although the M18 Hellcat is accounted as having up to a 5:1 kill/death ratio, mostly due to strongly employing speed and stealth to deliver flanking shots against enemy targets.)

 

Also, World of Tanks focuses pretty exclusively on Armor Vs. Armor combat, which actually happened quite rarely during the war, East Africa, Normandy, Holland, the Battle of the Bulge and Kursk being some of major exceptions... Things like artillery, dive bombers, mines, bazookas, heavy bombers, AT guns, and even mechanical breakdown all contributed to vehicle losses on the front, quite possibly far more than any enemy AFV. It's worth remembering this as we look at load out's in game versus real life, as infantry support vehicle's rounds counts would be WAY different than ones in game as the only thing you can encounter in this game that can kill you is an hostile enemy player, a slightly less hostile team member, or physics (jumping off a cliff or drowning)



The_Chieftain #12 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 21:56

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

Quote

while the actual tank hunting was to be done by the Tank Destroyer forces

 

Before I go to the effort of linking to the usual array of various documents when I see statements along these lines, might I ask you to show where this is supported in the doctrine of the period?



155mm_Royalty #13 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 22:01

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 32140 battles
  • 958
  • Member since:
    05-27-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 28 2015 - 10:56, said:

Quote

while the actual tank hunting was to be done by the Tank Destroyer forces

 

Before I go to the effort of linking to the usual array of various documents when I see statements along these lines, might I ask you to find where this is supported in the doctrine of the period?

oh oh it's about to get educational for someone.



JeyJ13 #14 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 22:07

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 23157 battles
  • 67
  • [SRTD] SRTD
  • Member since:
    10-06-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 28 2015 - 20:56, said:

Quote

while the actual tank hunting was to be done by the Tank Destroyer forces

 

Before I go to the effort of linking to the usual array of various documents when I see statements along these lines, might I ask you to show where this is supported in the doctrine of the period?

 

Unless I totally misread the piece about tank doctrine and took it out of context: http://worldoftanks....failure/?page=1

 

And that is my only source, but I was too lazy to look for anything else.


Edited by JeyJ13, Jan 28 2015 - 22:10.


The_Chieftain #15 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 22:22

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011

View PostJeyJ13, on Jan 28 2015 - 21:07, said:

 

Unless I totally misread the piece about tank doctrine and took it out of context: http://worldoftanks....failure/?page=1

 

And that is my only source, but I was too lazy to look for anything else.

 

Yes, I wrote that article. It does not support your contention.

 

One of the things that gets drilled into you in OCS is “Show me the regs.”  Armored Force doctrine was laid out in FM 17-10, it’s available online in PDF format. Next time someone comes back to you with the statement that “American tanks weren’t supposed to fight other tanks”, give them the link to the FM, and ask them to show you where, in the written doctrine signed and approved by General Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army on behalf of the Secretary of War with force of direct order, it says that tanks were not to fight other tanks.

 

Tank destroyers were doctrinally a purely defensive/reactionary concept, with only minor modifications permitted in the 1944 revision


Edited by The_Chieftain, Jan 28 2015 - 22:28.


JeyJ13 #16 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 22:30

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 23157 battles
  • 67
  • [SRTD] SRTD
  • Member since:
    10-06-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 28 2015 - 21:22, said:

 

Yes, I wrote that article. It does not support your contention.

 

One of the things that gets drilled into you in OCS is “Show me the regs.”  Armored Force doctrine was laid out in FM 17-10, it’s available online in PDF format. Next time someone comes back to you with the statement that “American tanks weren’t supposed to fight other tanks”, give them the link to the FM, and ask them to show you where, in the written doctrine signed and approved by General Marshall, Chief of Staff of the Army on behalf of the Secretary of War with force of direct order, it says that tanks were not to fight other tanks.

 

Well, your articles are the majority of how I get information on topics like this. I know that I personally can't even pretend that I actually know anything about military doctrine beyond some very basic knowledge.

The_Chieftain #17 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 22:33

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 14373 battles
  • 9,929
  • [WGA] WGA
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
No worries. My initial response was directed at Blackfalcon anyway :)

Audie_L_Murphy #18 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 22:36

    Major

  • Players
  • 56837 battles
  • 5,657
  • [FGTVE] FGTVE
  • Member since:
    11-27-2012

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 28 2015 - 12:56, said:

Quote

while the actual tank hunting was to be done by the Tank Destroyer forces

 

Before I go to the effort of linking to the usual array of various documents when I see statements along these lines, might I ask you to show where this is supported in the doctrine of the period?

 

I don't have any data to back up this claim but, my great uncle was a tanker in WWII.  He stated his unit rarely faced off against tanks.  Most of the armor they actually fought were TDs (he always called them SPGs).  They mostly saw Stugs but, told of a very scary encounter with a J-Tiger.  He also talked about fighting the "fixed gun Panther" (J-Panther I assume).  His unit did take a butt-kicking by Panthers (he was in the rear getting his tank repaired).  Of course, his unit was attached to an infantry unit and most of the work they did was against infantry, AT guns & structures.  He told me they never actually saw a Tiger tank that wasn't already knocked out of broken down.

However, they would get called when German armor was in the area & they would go looking for the armor.  So, at least in my great uncle's unit they were send out versus armor.  I'm going to guess it's better to have a platoon of Shermans go after an armored target then a bunch of infantry with a bazooka & the only armor they had was a helmet.

(BTW, yes I'm old)


Edited by Audie_L_Murphy, Jan 28 2015 - 22:43.


blackfalconjc #19 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 22:50

    Captain

  • Players
  • 7675 battles
  • 1,996
  • [GTO] GTO
  • Member since:
    06-14-2014

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 28 2015 - 15:56, said:

Quote

while the actual tank hunting was to be done by the Tank Destroyer forces

 

Before I go to the effort of linking to the usual array of various documents when I see statements along these lines, might I ask you to show where this is supported in the doctrine of the period?

 

Well, for starters, how about FM 18-5, Tactical Employment Tank Destroyer Unit, dated July 18, 1944?

https://archive.org/details/FM18-51944

 

Chapter 2. Fundamentals of Employment

6. MISSION. A. Primary Mission. The primary mission of tank destroyer units is the destruction of hostile tanks by direct gunfire.

 

 

 

Also, to quote General Mcnair: http://usacac.army.m...pubs/gabel2.pdf

 

The tank was introduced to protect against automatic small arms fire, which was developed so greatly during and since the [First] World War. Its answer is fire against which the tank does not protect-the antitank gun. That this answer failed [against the Germans in 1940] was due primarily to the pitifully inadequate number and power of French and British antitank guns, as well as their incorrect organization.

 

McNair emphatically believed that the antidote to the tank was not one’s own tanks: “Certainly it is poor economy to use a $35,000 medium tank to destroy another tank when the job can be done by a gun costing a fraction as much. Thus the friendly armored force is freed to attack a more proper target, the opposing force as a whole . . . . “

 

Therefore, the task confronting Bruce and the Tank Destroyer Tactical and Firing Center was not simply one of finding a way to stop tanks, but rather one of developing a mode of antitank combat that freed other friendly forces for offensive operations. To meet this challenge, the tank destroyer creators adopted mass, mobility, firepower, and aggressiveness as the qualities that would enable tank destroyer elements to fulfill their mission.  

 

 

From these accounts specifically, and many others on a more anecdotal note, early WW2 US tank doctrine was to allow anti-tank guns to engage and destroy enemy armor while friendly tanks were reserved for other "more appropriate" targets. '43-'44 saw them turn to more mobile anti tank gun platforms (37mm towed, 75mm self propelled half tracks, M10 Wolverine, M36 Jackson, and culminating with the M18, the first from the ground up designed purpose built TD) to seek and destroy enemy armor. 

 

And I'll freely admit that I'm biased on this subject, they used to make M18 Hellcats 15 miles from where I grew up (made in Buick City, Flint MI), so the local hearsay and history on the role of these vehicles is colored by the plants that made them...Heck, my dad's factory used to make M4 Shermans during the war...

 

/utestsacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdfacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf



HermanBix #20 Posted Jan 28 2015 - 23:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 25563 battles
  • 3,005
  • Member since:
    02-08-2011

View Postblackfalconjc, on Jan 28 2015 - 21:50, said:

 

Well, for starters, how about FM 18-5, Tactical Employment Tank Destroyer Unit, dated July 18, 1944?

https://archive.org/details/FM18-51944

 

Chapter 2. Fundamentals of Employment

6. MISSION. A. Primary Mission. The primary mission of tank destroyer units is the destruction of hostile tanks by direct gunfire.

 

 

 

Also, to quote General Mcnair: http://usacac.army.m...pubs/gabel2.pdf

 

The tank was introduced to protect against automatic small arms fire, which was developed so greatly during and since the [First] World War. Its answer is fire against which the tank does not protect-the antitank gun. That this answer failed [against the Germans in 1940] was due primarily to the pitifully inadequate number and power of French and British antitank guns, as well as their incorrect organization.

 

McNair emphatically believed that the antidote to the tank was not one’s own tanks: “Certainly it is poor economy to use a $35,000 medium tank to destroy another tank when the job can be done by a gun costing a fraction as much. Thus the friendly armored force is freed to attack a more proper target, the opposing force as a whole . . . . “

 

Therefore, the task confronting Bruce and the Tank Destroyer Tactical and Firing Center was not simply one of finding a way to stop tanks, but rather one of developing a mode of antitank combat that freed other friendly forces for offensive operations. To meet this challenge, the tank destroyer creators adopted mass, mobility, firepower, and aggressiveness as the qualities that would enable tank destroyer elements to fulfill their mission.  

 

 

From these accounts specifically, and many others on a more anecdotal note, early WW2 US tank doctrine was to allow anti-tank guns to engage and destroy enemy armor while friendly tanks were reserved for other "more appropriate" targets. '43-'44 saw them turn to more mobile anti tank gun platforms (37mm towed, 75mm self propelled half tracks, M10 Wolverine, M36 Jackson, and culminating with the M18, the first from the ground up designed purpose built TD) to seek and destroy enemy armor.

 

And I'll freely admit that I'm biased on this subject, they used to make M18 Hellcats 15 miles from where I grew up (made in Buick City, Flint MI), so the local hearsay and history on the role of these vehicles is colored by the plants that made them...Heck, my dad's factory used to make M4 Shermans during the war...

 

/utestsacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdfacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf

 

Have you reviewed the information on this site? Some interesting information that supports what you are commenting on. Excellent paper on site providing additional coverage on US Army Tank Destroyer doctrine.

http://tankdestroyer.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=166:seek-strike-and-destroy-us-army-tank-destroyer-doctrine-in-world-war-ii&Itemid=86

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users