Effectiveness of Artillery and SPH vs Tanks?

[HTV-3X]

Hi yall,

One thing Ive been wondering lately is how effective is artillery against modern tanks? Specifically, could a 105 or 155mm Howitzer penetrate a modern tank`s(M1Ax Abrams, Leo, Challenger, T80, T90, etc) armor or atleast disable it? Say, for example, on a large flat field where the howitzer or SPH is out of range of the tank gun or maybe the tank cannot/doesn`t see the howitzer. And, in an indirect fire situation, would a modern Howitzer or SPH(say PzH2000 or Paladin, etc) be able to even hit a static tank from 10+ km using unguided projectiles?

 

[Rimasta]

Hi yall,

One thing Ive been wondering lately is how effective is artillery against modern tanks? Specifically, could a 105 or 155mm Howitzer penetrate a modern tank`s(M1Ax Abrams, Leo, Challenger, T80, T90, etc) armor or atleast disable it? Say, for example, on a large flat field where the howitzer or SPH is out of range of the tank gun or maybe the tank cannot/doesn`t see the howitzer. And, in an indirect fire situation, would a modern Howitzer or SPH(say PzH2000 or Paladin, etc) be able to even hit a static tank from 10+ km using unguided projectiles?

A direct hit arty round will just about anything. And with a standard HE round we could theorists ally hit a tank at 20km+. Hitting it would be a lucky shot for a single gun but a battery or a battalion would have a much better chance. But yes a direct hit from a 155 round would probably kill an Abrams, especially since the arc or the round will see it go right through the top of the tank. And the tank would be completely destroyed with the entire crew killed most likely. A catastrophic hit.

 

[Waylander]

A direct hit would defenitely shred any tank due to angle of impact.
I wouldn't even bet on any tank being able to go on fighting after taking a high charge frontal hit by a SPH in direct fire mode.

Close calls may also very well destroy antennas, optics or smoke absorbers. Air burst or quick fuzed rounds in wooded areas should also become quite interesting for tanks with open hatches.

But usually when the target is an armoured formation artillery tends to use bomblets (like DPICM) or intelligent (like SMArt) ammunition.

 

[surpreme]

Hi yall,

One thing Ive been wondering lately is how effective is artillery against modern tanks? Specifically, could a 105 or 155mm Howitzer penetrate a modern tank`s(M1Ax Abrams, Leo, Challenger, T80, T90, etc) armor or atleast disable it? Say, for example, on a large flat field where the howitzer or SPH is out of range of the tank gun or maybe the tank cannot/doesn`t see the howitzer. And, in an indirect fire situation, would a modern Howitzer or SPH(say PzH2000 or Paladin, etc) be able to even hit a static tank from 10+ km using unguided projectiles?

I tell you what during my time with an artillery unit in the U.S. Army if we pack a shell with 7 bags which is the maximum it will stop any tank in it tracks. The probably is you will have to have a battery which is 4 or 5 howitzers to really destroyed some tanks. The problem is you have to shoot couple shots to adjust your fire to hit the tank we called it "fire for effect".

 

[Rimasta]

I tell you what during my time with an artillery unit in the U.S. Army if we pack a shell with 7 bags which is the maximum it will stop any tank in it tracks. The probably is you will have to have a battery which is 4 or 5 howitzers to really destroyed some tanks. The problem is you have to shoot couple shots to adjust your fire to hit the tank we called it "fire for effect".

We stopped using the powder bags in favor of the safer MAC charges. But even with the old charges, what was it again, a green bag charge 3 is the smallest charge? It's a little hazy especially since we stopped using them. The howitzer sounds puny when you use the minimum charge but I'd imagine with a direct hit, it'd still be a kill.

 

[HTV-3X]

Hm, okay thanks yall. I guess I had thought that, considering, in WW2, tank/anti-tank guns were much more similar to the artillery of today(excluding fire control) than modern tank/anti-tank guns. Tank guns have become much different in recent decades, and armor has advanced quite a lot as well. I kinda figured that since tank guns have become so specialized, that they were the only ones that could defeat a modern tank.

Btw, are there any notable examples of tank(s) vs Howitzer(s)/SPH(s) from WWII until now? I cant really seem to think of any off the top of my head though I want to say there may been such a situation in one of the Indo-Pakistani Wars? Am I wrong?

Thanks again yall

 

[ADMk2]

A direct hit would defenitely shred any tank due to angle of impact.
I wouldn't even bet on any tank being able to go on fighting after taking a high charge frontal hit by a SPH in direct fire mode.

Close calls may also very well destroy antennas, optics or smoke absorbers. Air burst or quick fuzed rounds in wooded areas should also become quite interesting for tanks with open hatches.

But usually when the target is an armoured formation artillery tends to use bomblets (like DPICM) or intelligent (like SMArt) ammunition.

An open hatch operation like this?

http://tinyurl.com/l85fl9y

 

[Bonza]

Hm, okay thanks yall. I guess I had thought that, considering, in WW2, tank/anti-tank guns were much more similar to the artillery of today(excluding fire control) than modern tank/anti-tank guns. Tank guns have become much different in recent decades, and armor has advanced quite a lot as well. I kinda figured that since tank guns have become so specialized, that they were the only ones that could defeat a modern tank.

Btw, are there any notable examples of tank(s) vs Howitzer(s)/SPH(s) from WWII until now? I cant really seem to think of any off the top of my head though I want to say there may been such a situation in one of the Indo-Pakistani Wars? Am I wrong?

Thanks again yall

I used to have a PDF floating around somewhere that featured an article, with pictures, on the effects of artillery against MBTs. I can't find it now (may have been on my old computer) but if I come across it again I'll let you know. Alternatively Abe might know, as I think it was he who posted the PDF in the first place. I believe the general consensus was that a 155mm direct hit would cause massive issues for any tank, to the point where it would likely be "mission killed", if not killed altogether.

That's just from memory though, others around here would have far better insight.

 

[Rimasta]

Hm, okay thanks yall. I guess I had thought that, considering, in WW2, tank/anti-tank guns were much more similar to the artillery of today(excluding fire control) than modern tank/anti-tank guns. Tank guns have become much different in recent decades, and armor has advanced quite a lot as well. I kinda figured that since tank guns have become so specialized, that they were the only ones that could defeat a modern tank.

Btw, are there any notable examples of tank(s) vs Howitzer(s)/SPH(s) from WWII until now? I cant really seem to think of any off the top of my head though I want to say there may been such a situation in one of the Indo-Pakistani Wars? Am I wrong?

Thanks again yall

Ill avoid writing an essay by giving details i know but here are some instances were howitzers have engaged tanks with considerable effect. The first use of howitzers stopping tanks WW2 on that I know of was done in the U.S. Army was at the Kasserine Pass in western Tunisia. After the initial rout, the Americans put up a last ditch defense on the road to Allied supply dumps at Tebessa. During the Allied landings in Sicily, the Allied landings at Salerno and then later at Anzio, the Normandy landings, principally around the Caen sector where German panzer formations were focused. Even later at Bastogne American howitzers trapped in the town used their limited ammo to engage with some effectiveness German AFV's. I'm not too familiar with its use in the various Arab Israeli war(s), Korean War, or Gulf wars.
One thing I would say is that if a conventional conflict ever occurred between NATO and Warsaw Pact for RS, given the massive amounts of tanks and artillery on both sides, massed artillery fires would have been even more effective at killing tanks in the open than they were in WW2. I never say any when I was on Paladin's, but we have specialized anti-tank rounds as far as I'm aware. And I'm not sure if we still have them but NATO had artillery deployed mines, so as to slow an enemies advance by having to clear and recover disabled vehicles and sweeping for mines constantly.

 

[rossfrb_1]

Btw, are there any notable examples of tank(s) vs Howitzer(s)/SPH(s) from WWII until now? I cant really seem to think of any off the top of my head though I want to say there may been such a situation in one of the Indo-Pakistani Wars? Am I wrong?

Thanks again yall

I do remember reading about the Poms and Aussies in Tobruk during WWII using the 25 pounder howitzer in direct fire mode as an antitank weapon.
Needless to say when you are at the point of using a howitzer as an antitank gun, things are dire.
A quick google brought up
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CARL/download/csipubs/9AustralianDivVsAfricaCorps_Miller.pdf

(Bottom page 15, cannot vouch for the veracity of this link)



"As a result, the 25pounders, with a direct-fire range of 1,000 yards, bore the brunt of the antitank defense."


cheers
rb

 

[Todjaeger]

I do remember reading about the Poms and Aussies in Tobruk during WWII using the 25 pounder howitzer in direct fire mode as an antitank weapon.
Needless to say when you are at the point of using a howitzer as an antitank gun, things are dire.
A quick google brought up
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/CGSC/CARL/download/csipubs/9AustralianDivVsAfricaCorps_Miller.pdf

(Bottom page 15, cannot vouch for the veracity of this link)



"As a result, the 25pounders, with a direct-fire range of 1,000 yards, bore the brunt of the antitank defense."


cheers
rb

I too recall reading that the Eighth Army in North Africa often used 25pdr howitzers as direct fire anti-tank guns. Part of the reason IIRC was that a number of the available AT guns were 2pdr's which were not particularly effective. Another reason was that there were a number of 25pdr guns available, and that some of the time some batteries would be positioned close enough to the front line to allow for direct fire.

I also recall during my reading about the British Eighth Army, that sometimes Italian POW's would request to see the 'belt-fed' artillery guns which the various Royal Artillery units used against them. Basically the POW's did not realize the reason for the volume of artillery fires against them was a combination of a large number of artillery tubes, with an effective system for coordinating the fires from multiple batteries on one target.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

To keep it simple high explosive (HE) artillery defeats tanks via the level of fire concentration and statistics. The artillery unit will fire rounds indirectly into an area where the tanks are and it is primarily the splinters of the shells that will defeat the tanks and a certain number of direct hits to the roof. But the key issue is firing enough rounds into the area to ensure that statistically a shell will detonate within the lethal distance of each or most of the tanks within that area. Calculation of this density is called an artillery norm. If a 152mm/155mm HE shell explodes on the ground within 5-10m of a tank’s rear or sides it (the tank) is going to be knocked out. The Soviet Army back in the Cold War days planned artillery norms for use against tank units where at least one 122mm or more HE shell or rocket would land in every 10 square meters which statistically would provide a hit to the roof of every tank in that area. This would ensure destruction of the tank unit even if their tanks were dug into two level fighting holes and were all turret down.

Shells like DPICM (cluster bombs) and SFM (skeets) simply change the calculation of the artillery norm by reducing the number of shells needed to be fired into the area to ensure destruction of the tank unit. Less shells needed means less artillery concentration and importantly less time to fire all the shells which enables more mobile tank units to be successfully engaged.

Artillery also has excellent direct fire capability for self-defence. But even a 155mm HEAT shell fired at 800 mps isn’t going to defeat the frontal armour of an Abrams tank.

 

[Nikaki]

Artillery also has excellent direct fire capability for self-defence. But even a 155mm HEAT shell fired at 800 mps isn’t going to defeat the frontal armour of an Abrams tank.

Accurate analysis on concentration of fires, but I have to strongly disagree with your comment on ANY modern tank surviving a direct hit from a 155mm class shell even in front. Simply put the round does not have to penetrate. The shock of impact will be such as to incapacitate the vehicle and/or destroy its ability to return fire. Read this gentlemen:

I just finished asking my Warrant about this question. He served in the Infantry (6 yrs), artillery (12 yrs), and now is a clerk. Here's what the had to say:

A normal airburst will pretty much do SFA to any tank. If the round lands close then you run the risk of damaging some of the external sensors and equipment, you may even throw a track. Real close and the tank may flip. The crew inside will have there bells rung but the chances of having a casualty are low. Anything aside from a direct hit at elevation 0 or having the round punch through the turret's top, and it will be fine.

If you get a direct hit on the front of the tank from a direct fire mission, then the tank will pretty much be gone. You could blow a turret off completely or the concussion will kill / wound everyone inside. But he even admits that with the latest generation of armour (specifically the M1A1's and '2's) then even that may not stop it...

Modern MBTs are strong but not indestructible...

 

[Waylander]

Well a 155mm HE may not penetrate the forntal turret armor but I am not sure if the upper glacis isn't affected heavily due to it being relatively thin and it getting hit by the blast and shrapnel at a flat angle.

Not to talk of a the optics and vision blocks suffering a lot.

 

[Raven22]

Accurate analysis on concentration of fires, but I have to strongly disagree with your comment on ANY modern tank surviving a direct hit from a 155mm class shell even in front. Simply put the round does not have to penetrate. The shock of impact will be such as to incapacitate the vehicle and/or destroy its ability to return fire. Read this gentlemen:

If you do the sums and compare the KE of a 155 round and a 120mm tank round at realistic combat ranges and you'll probably find the 155 round isn't that scary. If it hits the frontal armour of a tank it might bang the crew around and it might damage some electronics, but it's hardly a guaranteed kill. A direct hit of a PD round on the top turret armour will almost certainly destroy it, but that's the same with most weapons. I agree that near misses will do almost nothing besides strip some antennae, damage sights and vision blocks and maybe damage the track.

It's probably worth pointing our that if a tank is within range of a 155 in direct fire, the 155 is in range of the tank. I'd much rather be in the tank than manning the gun!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

On the effectiveness of artillery splinter against tanks there is no need for estimates. It is a NATO standard. In particular STANAG 4569:

155mm HE splinters (aka fragments) at 25m have the same penetration effectiveness as a 25mm APDS at 500m (Level 5) and a 155mm HE at 30m is the same as a 14.5mm AP at 200m (Level IV).

While the frontal armour of most tanks will withstand 155mm HE splinters from a blast within 20m the side and rear armour won’t. Artillery shells falling from indirect fire are more likely to hit tanks with splinters from the sides and rear than the front. If the concentration of fire is dense enough to ensure blasts within 20-30m of tanks then those tanks are going to suffer some significant internal damage and be knocked out.

It is also worth noting that STANAG 4569 is based on 152mm and 155mm HE shells with less energetic explosives and mild steel casings. There are HE shells with preformed fragments and high hardness steels and higher energy explosives that produce much more lethal splinters (smaller and faster) and fragments than those used in the STANAG testing. They will penetrate equivalent armour and much longer distances than the STANAG 4569 basis.

 

[Waylander]

And this is exactly why I doubt that tanks are really safe in any way when getting engaged by SPH in self defense, even in frontal engagements.

As long as the SPH hits, and even with LRFs like in the PzH2000 that is a tough task against a moving target, the tank has a problem.

A maximum charge 152/155mm HE with delayed fuze will mess up any tank when the hit occures on the side and even a close call hitting he ground next to the tank is ugly. A hit on the turret front would send lots of high power shrapnel into the upper glacis at an angle where the upper glacis should have problems stoppig them. Optics and vision blocks are also going to suffer. The lower glacis may also have problems withststanding such a hit, but due to the tracks being rather close even when it isn't penetrated, a mobility kill is a big possibility.

Every other AFV apart from tanks is done when hit, regardless of the angle.

As the direct fire capability of SPHs exists for giving them a fighting chance against small numbers of enemy vehicles broken into the rear area it is nice to have when it happens. An unscated tank company surprising a battery of SPHs is going to eat them alive in minutes.

 

[hipshotau]

On the effectiveness of artillery splinter against tanks there is no need for estimates. It is a NATO standard. In particular STANAG 4569:

155mm HE splinters (aka fragments) at 25m have the same penetration effectiveness as a 25mm APDS at 500m (Level 5) and a 155mm HE at 30m is the same as a 14.5mm AP at 200m (Level IV).

While the frontal armour of most tanks will withstand 155mm HE splinters from a blast within 20m the side and rear armour won’t. Artillery shells falling from indirect fire are more likely to hit tanks with splinters from the sides and rear than the front. If the concentration of fire is dense enough to ensure blasts within 20-30m of tanks then those tanks are going to suffer some significant internal damage and be knocked out.

It is also worth noting that STANAG 4569 is based on 152mm and 155mm HE shells with less energetic explosives and mild steel casings. There are HE shells with preformed fragments and high hardness steels and higher energy explosives that produce much more lethal splinters (smaller and faster) and fragments than those used in the STANAG testing. They will penetrate equivalent armour and much longer distances than the STANAG 4569 basis.

I know this is an old post for forgive me for dredging it up. I am curious about this comment here. Are you referring to direct hits/fire or indirect battery fire in terms of the potential damage inflicted?

Thanks Kevin

 

[Bonza]

I know this is an old post for forgive me for dredging it up. I am curious about this comment here. Are you referring to direct hits/fire or indirect battery fire in terms of the potential damage inflicted?

Thanks Kevin

I believe he is referring to indirect fire, as he makes numerous comments regarding the upper, rear and side armour of main battle tanks, which most likely suggests an indirect fire arc rather than direct fire. In addition the use of direct fire, while certainly doable from an artillery perspective, is by no means its primary battlefield purpose so I would again suggest Abe is speaking about indirect fire.

Hope this helps. There are others, Abe included, who would be able to get you better insight as to the topic.

 

[OPSSG]

I believe he is referring to indirect fire...

Agreed. He is talking about weapons effects of artillery.

...use of direct fire...

Direct fire is not the focus of this discussion.