# Could America have used heavy tanks?



## MacArther (Mar 4, 2008)

We all know that America focused on producing more M4 Shermans that the enemy had tanks combined, but could American factories be modified to make heavier tanks? Could strategies have been devised to use them, or would they be thrown into the fray alongside the M4s? Thoughts and comments on America using a heavy tank (besides the Pershing at the end of the war) are welcome...


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2008)

I think it would have been a good idea. There are situations where the defender is in such a good defensive position that weaker tanks cannot disloge him, no matter how many are sent to attack the position.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 4, 2008)

freebird said:


> I think it would have been a good idea. There are situations where the defender is in such a good defensive position that weaker tanks cannot disloge him, no matter how many are sent to attack the position.



I actually saw an interesting top of tanks and at some point someone told a story from the war where the germans had an 88 put near a narrow road, the road allowed only one tank to pass so the americans kept sending Shermans who where destroyed one after another, apparently eventually the germans ran out of shells for the 88 but the americans still had plenty of tanks.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 4, 2008)

The US strategy for armoured warfare, was to use the Sherman tank used in the mobile part of the battle to "go deep" and cutoff enemy strongpoints with dedicated tank destroyers to go "one on one" with the enemy tanks.

Obviously, this strategy didnt work out so well.

End result was the M26 being developed and used with good success.

Too bad the tank wasnt developed earlier on.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The US strategy for armouored warfare, was to use the Sherman tank used in the mobile part of the battle to "go deep" and cutoff enemy strongpoints with dedicated tank destroyers to go "one on one" with the enemy tanks.
> 
> Obviously, this strategy didnt work out so well.
> 
> ...



Quite right. Imagine how much better "Market Garden" would have gone if the Allies had a heavy tank that was immune to enemy AT, instead of the vulnerable Sherman/Firefly


----------



## Arneken (Mar 4, 2008)

Indeed the Allieds would be in the ruhr-area and end war.

The tiger and koningstiger had their little faults, didn't they? Too heavy for some roads, too slow.

The Americans could have got these problems too maybe.

I'm not really a tanks-specialist.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 4, 2008)

It would have been nice, I think, to have a heavier tank. Didn't they call the Sherman a "Widow Maker"? I think it would have been very appreciated by the tank crews. But like Arneken, I'm not a tank expert.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2008)

Thorlifter said:


> It would have been nice, I think, to have a heavier tank. Didn't they call the Sherman a "Widow Maker"? I think it would have been very appreciated by the tank crews. But like Arneken, I'm not a tank expert.



Yes, unlike the excellent US aircraft, the US tanks had a rather poor reputation. The Shermans were known to the Germans as "Tommy cookers" for their tendancy to 'brew up", and to the British as "Ronson's" {lights up first time - every time}

The Russians had a name too for the Grant tanks they got - "coffin for 7 brothers"


----------



## Soren (Mar 4, 2008)

> Quite right. Imagine how much better "Market Garden" would have gone if the Allies had a heavy tank that was immune to enemy AT, instead of the vulnerable Sherman/Firefly



Considering the firepower that the Germans possessed that would've been impossible Freebird.

The German AT guns were so powerful that not even the massively up armored versions of the Churchill tanks could feel safe at 2km range, the 88mm KwK43 being capable of pucnhing straight through its armor past 3km. 

Furthermore the M-26 Pershing wasn't a success, it was waay to unreliable (More unreliable than the Tiger Ausf.B), and its armor was to thin to provide sufficient protectiong against even the PaK 40 at 1,000m.

Also the Allies really had no experience building heavy tanks, and so had they decided to attempt this by 44 they wouldn't have been able to produce any very effective tanks, there lack of knowledge in this area simply being to great.


----------



## Thorlifter (Mar 4, 2008)

Thanks for the post, Soren. Good info since, like I said, I'm no expert at tanks.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 4, 2008)

The 90mm gun would have meant the Panther and Tiger were at risk at far longer ranges than the pathetic gun the Sherman had.

As for reliability, it wasn't so bad as to not be kept in action by the immense logistics base the allies possessed.

Famous last words..."the US had no experience in [fill in the blank]..."


----------



## Freebird (Mar 4, 2008)

Soren said:


> Considering the firepower that the Germans possessed that would've been impossible Freebird.
> 
> The German AT guns were so powerful that not even the massively up armored versions of the Churchill tanks could feel safe at 2km range, the 88mm KwK43 being capable of pucnhing straight through its armor past 3km.
> 
> ...



I don't think "lack of knowlege" would apply, the British had quite a bit of experience in tanks {using the first ones in battle!}, although not always successful. The British Tortoise would have worked quite well, had they not put it's development on the "back burner". It was designed to withstand any German AT gun {225 mm armour}, and also had the powerful 94 mm gun. The problem was that the powers in charge decided that they didn't need it, so its development was slow. The difficulties that the Shermans or Fireflys faced dealing with only a few Jagdpanthers on the first day of Market Garden really showed how inadequate the Allied tanks were. 

Soren if you are saying that the German tanks were far better than Allied ones it's hard to argue with that. You are also correct that 1944 is too late to start to work on this, they would have had to identify the need for a heavy tank in 1941-1942 and start development then.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 5, 2008)

Well the U.S. adopted the numbers strategy, plus in 1944 the main threat to the panzers divisions was the U.S. Airforce .


----------



## The Basket (Mar 5, 2008)

I would say the Sherman was very successful and got the job done.

The fact it could be built in huge numbers was its good point. Also a heavy tank is a logistic nightmare. 

The Sherman was easier to transport by rail and can use weaker bridges. Watched a programme about this very issue. 
The weaknesses of the Sherman were known but their was no way a better tank could be built in big numbers for D-day. So it was the Sherman or nothing. The quality of a tank has to be guaged also with its quantity. The Tiger was built in such low numbers and was a nightmare to maintain and build.

Yeah the Tiger was excellent but get a rocket firing Typhoon on its case and Tiger go boom.

Best to have 100 Shermans than 10 Tigers.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 5, 2008)

The Basket said:


> Best to have 100 Shermans than 10 Tigers.



Well the Tiger had many problems but it was on hell of a tank and in the right hands it was the worst nightmare for allied tanks.Lets remember what one Tiger did at Villers-Bocage.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 5, 2008)

The Sherman was not a bad tank; it was faced against the wrong opponents. It must be remembered that the Pz.IV was the main battle tank of the Wehrmacht up until the end of the war - while the Pz.IV was superior to the M4 (all variants, in my opinion) it wasn't such a large gap as that between the M4 and Panther. 

If the Allies had produced a tank like the Tiger it would have been great ! But if the Allies had adopted the same mentality and tactical ability as the Wehrmacht it would have also been great ! 

That said by 1945 the Allied force was looking quite formidable - the British were rolling the Comet and Centurion (was on its way to battle when the war ended) off the production lines and the U.S had the Pershing, Hellcat (TD, but a great one) and Chaffee (light tank, one of the best, if not the best). 

If the Allies had the Centurion in 1944 then armour battles wouldn't have been so one side - but we can't have it all.


----------



## Soren (Mar 5, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The 90mm gun would have meant the Panther and Tiger were at risk at far longer ranges than the pathetic gun the Sherman had.



Yes,, but at the same time the Allies already had a better gun, the 17pdr. So why the Pershing ?

The Pershing was no success, it was unreliable as heck, and provided inadequate protection against even the PaK 40 at 1,000 m.



> As for reliability, it wasn't so bad as to not be kept in action by the immense logistics base the allies possessed.



This doesn't define the success of a tank however.


----------



## Soren (Mar 5, 2008)

freebird said:


> I don't think "lack of knowlege" would apply, the British had quite a bit of experience in tanks {using the first ones in battle!}, although not always successful.



I'm not talking tanks in general Freebird, I'm talking heavy tanks, with which the British had ZERO experience. The Churchill is the perfect example of this, an attempt by the british to build a heavy tank, and look how that ended: The Churchill was terribly slow, it mounted a pea shooter of a gun, it had poor optics and unusually poor vision for the driver.

Compare this to the Tiger which was fast, very maneuverable (Regenerative steering), featured the best optics in the world, a super powerful accurate main gun and excellent armor protection (Nearly indistructable to begin with). 

It's quite clear that the Germans were well ahead when it came to designing constructing AFV's.

The Allies quite simply lacked the know how when it came to designing building heavy tanks, they simply hadn't spent nearly as much time designing testing such designs as the Germans.



> The British Tortoise would have worked quite well, had they not put it's development on the "back burner". It was designed to withstand any German AT gun {225 mm armour}, and also had the powerful 94 mm gun. The problem was that the powers in charge decided that they didn't need it, so its development was slow.



You do know how slow unreliable this tank was right ? And as for its protection, well again it was insufficient, esp. for the time of its design. The 88mm KwK43 could punch right throught the front armor of the Tortoise at long ranges, and the 128mm KwK44 at even longer ranges.

Remember the KwK43 could punch through over 238mm of armor with its std. AP round, and more than 300mm with APCR rounds. The 128mm KwK44 was even more fierce.

The problem the Allies were facing was that they had simply fallen waay too much behind in regards to tank design, so when they finally designed some heavily armored tanks the Germans had at the same time already designed, built deployed guns more than powerful enough to deal with them.


----------



## DBII (Mar 5, 2008)

As everyone is aware the military was gutted after WWI (sound familiar?). Congress would not fund any tank development after the war. The Armor Corps had to hide what little they did do as armored cars. Like much of the army, tankers had to make do. They used 1/4 and 3/4 ton trucks and scout cars for exercises. The Recon elements still were using horses on a limited bases. This went on into the 1930's. When the war broke out, the army was in a mad rush to throw together a tank. After the Lee/Grants took a beating the best short term fix was the redesign the hull and the Sherman was born. It was better than the Lee/Grant but still under gunned. 

During this time, there was a power struggle going on between the Inf and Armor about the best way to use tanks. The Inf won out and the tactics called for the tanks to be used as a gun system to support the foot soldiers. This struggle was similar to the Navy and Army fighting about the use of airpower. The tank was new technology and the traditionist did not want to change things. There was also a struggle as to the correct mix of tanks, heavy, medium and light. The Inf was in control and they wanted light tanks for recon and medium to support the foot troops. They did not see the need for heavy tanks. This is a way to protect their political power base. 

To be fair to the Inf, tank theory was still being developed. Combined arms was not a proven concept yet. There were several different schools of thought. The Combinded Arms model was still unproven. The plan was to try and overwhelm the Germans with fast moving targets. It did work but the tankers paid a high price. The Sherman was call "Zippo" after the lighter. 

There are parallels between tank developement and modern aircraft. No one once to pay for developement because we do not need high tech aircraft. The same thing was said about the tank. 

A footnote of history. The fist modern tank battle was in South American. Most of the European powers and the US had observers at the war. This war was to armor warfare what the Spain War war was the aircraft. Sorry but I do not remember the country involved. I think it was Brazile. It was watching the tank battle that lead to the Germany using the conbinded arms attack through Europe.

I have talked way to long. This is just rolling out of my brain between calls at work so I my facts may be a little off.

DBII
clank, clank, I'm a tank


----------



## Lucky13 (Mar 5, 2008)

Konigstiger205 said:


> Well the Tiger had many problems but it was on hell of a tank and in the right hands it was the worst nightmare for allied tanks.Lets remember what one Tiger did at Villers-Bocage.


Not to forget "Barkmann's Corner and Otto Carius and his company of eight (early and mid production) Tigers at the village of Malinava just to mention another two....


----------



## Freebird (Mar 5, 2008)

Soren said:


> I'm not talking tanks in general Freebird, I'm talking heavy tanks, with which the British had ZERO experience. The Churchill is the perfect example of this, an attempt by the british to build a heavy tank, and look how that ended: The Churchill was terribly slow, it mounted a pea shooter of a gun, it had poor optics and unusually poor vision for the driver.
> 
> Compare this to the Tiger which was fast, very maneuverable (Regenerative steering), featured the best optics in the world, a super powerful accurate main gun and excellent armor protection (Nearly indistructable to begin with).
> 
> ...



238mm at what range? That won't go through the frontal armour then, as it is 225 mm {IIRC} and *sloped* so that its effective thickness is more. You know more about guns armour than me, but from what I understand the Tortoise was specifically designed to withstand direct hits from the feared 88 mm, which the Sherman couldn't hope to do. The designers tested the armour vs. an actual 88mm gun



> *The problem the Allies were facing was that they had simply fallen waay too much behind in regards to tank design*, so when they finally designed some heavily armored tanks the Germans had at the same time already designed, built deployed guns more than powerful enough to deal with them.



Can't argue with that Soren.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 5, 2008)

By the time the allies figured out they needed heavy tanks, the war was lost for Germany, and it ended before the US could deploy only a couple hundred Pershings

Had the war lasted several months more, the allies would have had effective designs would have been fielded and able to take on the German heavy tanks on equal terms.

There was nothing "magical" about the Germans being the only ones able to desgn and build tanks.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren, 

I personally agree that the Germans were also one step ahead of the Allies in tank design (except in '39 - '41 when the T-34 was the greatest tank in the world). But I would not say that they were incapable of designing and producing heavy tanks. The Pershing was unreliable, yes, but the main problem was politics holding the machine up in the U.S.A. - the Pershing was capable of battling German tanks and the Super Pershing (only one built) was a very effective tank killing machine. Yes, the war was almost over but the proof was there that the Western Allies had the technology. The Centurion further strengthens that idea; the British were on par with German armour designs and only improving when the Centurion arrived. 

For the Western Allies it was mostly politics and inferior doctrine that hindered the progress of heavy armour deployment. By '44 the Allies were relying on heavy weight in artillery and airpower to clear the way for the armour - in some respects, that's the way it should be done - but the Allies didn't quite grasp the speed of which the armour breakthrough should be achieved.


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> 238mm at what range? That won't go through the frontal armour then, as it is 225 mm {IIRC} and *sloped* so that its effective thickness is more.



With the Pzgr.39/43 (APCBC (HE)) the 88mm KwK3 L/71 gun punches through 238mm of 240 BHN RHA armor (The highest quality armor the Allies could produce), this is at 0 degree's (Vertical) and 100m. At 300m it punched through 225mm. 

With the Pzgr.41/43 (APCR) the KwK43 punches through 307mm of armor at 300m, and 225mm at 1,745m.



> You know more about guns armour than me, but from what I understand the Tortoise was specifically designed to withstand direct hits from the feared 88 mm, which the Sherman couldn't hope to do.



Yes the 88mm KwK36 L/56, the KwK43 L/71 is an entirely different beast.



> The designers tested the armour vs. an actual 88mm gun



IIRC against a 88mm FlaK 18/36 or KwK36.


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

plan_D said:


> Soren,
> 
> I personally agree that the Germans were also one step ahead of the Allies in tank design (except in '39 - '41 when the T-34 was the greatest tank in the world). But I would not say that they were incapable of designing and producing heavy tanks.



They weren't incapable, but they failed to focus their attention to this area from as early on as the Germans. 



> The Pershing was unreliable, yes, but the main problem was politics holding the machine up in the U.S.A. - the Pershing was capable of battling German tanks and the Super Pershing (only one built) was a very effective tank killing machine.



Still it was too weakly armoured armed. And although the Super Pershing addressed the issue with the armament, the armor was still the same, inadequate. 

Also the Super Pershing AFAIK only had one engagement in the war, where it hit the lower frontal hull of a Tiger Ausf.B as it drove up a rubble embankment. A very lucky scenario against a very inexpertly driven Panzer. (Probably had a HJ crew)





> Yes, the war was almost over but the proof was there that the Western Allies had the technology.



They might have had the tecnology, but not the know how. Also the optics only got improved after the war after studying the German equipment.



> The Centurion further strengthens that idea; the British were on par with German armour designs and only improving when the Centurion arrived.



British weren't on par with the Germans in regards to heavy tank design, they were behind. But the British were the closest nonetheless.

That having been said the Centurion was almost on par with the Panther, so the British were closing the gap by 45. But remember the Panther was a medium tank by German definition, not a heavy tank. The Tiger Ausf.B was from the beginning of its introduction and till the end of WW2 the best armed armoured tank of WW2.

Also to further prove the German dominance in tank design they had already finished designing and were on their way contructing a new tank series, the E-series, of which the E-100 would be the new std. heavy series tank armed with the 128mm KwK44 L/61 gun. Furthermore the Germans had already designed, build tested the enormous Maus tank, a bunker on tracks.

When it came to heavy tanks, the German were way ahead from 42 and onwards, and mostly thanks to their high interest on the subject of heavy breakthrough tanks and their high level of research testing in the area.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 6, 2008)

The Super Pershing almost destroyed a few other AFVs after its King Tiger encounter; I believe a Panther was made a victim of the Super Pershing the day after the VI ausf B met its fate - but how the fight progressed I haven't a clue. 

You are absolutely right on the optical equipment, but at the standard combat ranges of World War II (400 - 600 metres) the Western Allies had optical equipment good enough to hit their target. 

_"That having been said the Centurion was almost on par with the Panther, so the British were closing the gap by 45. But remember the Panther was a medium tank by German definition, not a heavy tank. The Tiger Ausf.B was from the beginning of its introduction and till the end of WW2 the best armed armoured tank of WW2.

Also to further prove the German dominance in tank design they had already finished designing and were on their way contructing a new tank series, the E-series, of which the E-100 would be the new std. heavy series tank armed with the 128mm KwK44 L/61 gun. Furthermore the Germans had already designed, build tested the enormous Maus tank, a bunker on tracks."_

While this is all true, what you fail to notice is the day of the super heavy tank never came. If the war had continued the Germans would have been foolish to continue their testing and attempted production of those grossly over-engineered monsters. 

Post-War armour shows us how armoured warfare progressed; the Germans seemed to be stuck in the mindset that bigger is better and frankly that's not the case when it comes to AFVs. 

The Centurion, in my opinion, was the most advanced design in the Western Allied arsenal and it was the future (so much so that it served until the '60s). The way forward for Germany should have been the Panther, all other machines should have been abandoned to the medieval ages of armoured warfare - tanks are not land based battleships; that's something Germany did not realise. 

The Panther ausf F should have been at the forefront of Germany's design and production priority list. The Centurion was the future for Britain. The Pershing was the future for the U.S.A. The IS-3 was the future for the Soviet Union. 

The day was coming for the MBT - there was no place for the super heavy tanks post-world war II.


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 6, 2008)

plan_D said:


> The day was coming for the MBT - there was no place for the super heavy tanks post-world war II.



And even today the tank is more vulnerable than ever with so many antitank weapons developed.


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

Plan_D,

Although we mostly agree I wouldn't call the E-100 a super heavy tank. The Maus most certainly (Like I said, a bunker on tracks), but not the E-100.

The E-100 was a very promising design, and with the 128mm KwK44 L/61 gun it would've also been the by far the deadliest tank on the battlefield. With sabot rounds the KwK44 would turn any tank inside out past 4km with ease (The gun has a larger charge capacity than the modern 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore gun), and the by then newly developed range finder equipment (Which the Allies also copied along with the optics designs) meant extreme accuracy at long ranges.

And on top of this the Germans were already deploying infrared equipment on their tanks, a group of Panthers effectively utilizing their new infrared sights to target and knock out a large group of Sherans during a night attack. 

And in addition to the extremely powerful accurate armament and night fighting capability, the E-100 also featured extremely good protection, being very heavily armoured, and thus ofcourse also heavy. But the powerful 800 HP engine (Possibly a 1,000 HP engine instead) would've also made sure that the weight was acceptable, providing an equal power to weight ratio as on previous Panzers.

Furthermore the Germans had also completed designing the Tiger Ausf.L E90:

E100 (With MAUS turret) E90


----------



## Glider (Mar 6, 2008)

There is no doubt without question that the Germans were ahead of the rest of the world in tank design. 
If we are looking at second place its nice of Soren to say that the British were closest but I would have to give that title to the Russians.

There equipment, might have been simple and of poor quality but they did carry a decent gun, at a decent speed, with decent armour, was reasionably reliable and had a better than average cross county ability.

Allied Genrals must have had a heart attack when they first saw the JSIII in the victory parades.


----------



## Soren (Mar 6, 2008)

JS-3 looked good from the outside, but its poor optics gun really let it down. Also seeing that the Sabot round was in development the JS-3 wasn't going to prove to much of a heart ache.

The British were the closest to the Germans, they proved that with the Centurion, a tank which after the war came to utilize allot of the equipment used in German tanks during the war. And look at how well the Centurion did against the Soviet tanks.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 6, 2008)

Soren said:


> The British were the closest to the Germans, they proved that with the Centurion, a tank which after the war came to utilize allot of the equipment used in German tanks during the war. And look at how well the Centurion did against the Soviet tanks.



Yes the British did have some really good stuff, too bad it came out in 1946-1947...

You can also include the Battleship "Vanguard" and the Aircraft Carrier "Implacable" which was completed in a blistering fast *5 1/2 years*! 

Did anyone tell these people that there's a war going on?  

The British tank development really was poor up until 1942-43, as you point out the Churchill was a rather disappointing design, the Crusader was also unrelible weak.

The few who really did understand modern mech. warfare were ignored.
Col. Worthington in Canada was reponsible for much of the development of the "Ram', he wanted to put a 75mm or better gun on the tank, but was over-ruled by the British tank commission.

"Why would anyone want a gun bigger than the 2 pounder? It's a perfectly good gun"


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> "Why would anyone want a gun bigger than the 2 pounder? It's a perfectly good gun"


"Well I don't know...I guess to actually destroy enemy tanks..."


----------



## Freebird (Mar 6, 2008)

Konigstiger205 said:


> "Well I don't know...I guess to actually destroy enemy tanks..."



Seems pretty obvious to us doesn't it?   

I guess they were hoping that if they didn't put any larger guns on their tanks, maybe the Germans wouldn't either....


----------



## mkloby (Mar 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> Seems pretty obvious to us doesn't it?
> 
> I guess they were hoping that if they didn't put any larger guns on their tanks, maybe the Germans wouldn't either....



Maybe that line of thinking falls in line with the 14 inchers on King George V...


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 6, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Maybe that line of thinking falls in line with the 14 inchers on King George V...


----------



## Freebird (Mar 6, 2008)

mkloby said:


> Maybe that line of thinking falls in line with the 14 inchers on King George V...



The 14" guns were limited by treaty, and by the time they realized that nobody else was going to adhere to the treaty, it was 1936/1937 and it was considered too late or to costly to re-design to a higher caliber. No such excuse for the tank guns, the war had already started, and by late 1940 it was already very obvious that the 2 pounder was too small.


----------



## mkloby (Mar 6, 2008)

freebird said:


> The 14" guns were limited by treaty, and by the time they realized that nobody else was going to adhere to the treaty, it was 1936/1937 and it was considered too late or to costly to re-design to a higher caliber. No such excuse for the tank guns, the war had already started, and by late 1940 it was already very obvious that the 2 pounder was too small.



From what I recall - which may be wrong - the Americans developed a quad 14"/triple 16" turret that could be swapped out for just such a case...


----------



## SoD Stitch (Mar 6, 2008)

mkloby said:


> From what I recall - which may be wrong - the Americans developed a quad 14"/triple 16" turret that could be swapped out for just such a case...



I'll check on that; I've got an excellent reference book on the _Iowa_-class BB's. I'm assuming that the dual turret set-up was designed for them. I'll let y'all know . . . . .


----------



## mkloby (Mar 6, 2008)

SoD Stitch said:


> I'll check on that; I've got an excellent reference book on the _Iowa_-class BB's. I'm assuming that the dual turret set-up was designed for them. I'll let y'all know . . . . .



Actually it was the North Carolinas - I'm away from home and can't reference any of my books...


----------



## Freebird (Mar 6, 2008)

mkloby said:


> From what I recall - which may be wrong - the Americans developed a quad 14"/triple 16" turret that could be swapped out for just such a case...



I think you are right, by the time the Carolina's came along the treaty was pretty much DOA. The Germans also designed the triple 11" turret on Scharnhorst to be swapped for twin 15"


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 6, 2008)

How did we go from Pershing tanks to 14" naval guns?

I knew the Germans intended to mount some big caliber guns on their tanks, but not naval ordnance.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 7, 2008)

freebird said:


> "Why would anyone want a gun bigger than the 2 pounder? It's a perfectly good gun"





Konigstiger205 said:


> "Well I don't know...I guess to actually destroy enemy tanks..."





freebird said:


> Seems pretty obvious to us doesn't it?
> 
> I guess they were hoping that if they didn't put any larger guns on their tanks, maybe the Germans wouldn't either



I think we were talking about lack of preparation "head in the sand" mentality.

So do you think the new Pershing would have been a success against German tanks?


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 7, 2008)

freebird said:


> I think we were talking about lack of preparation "head in the sand" mentality.
> 
> So do you think the new Pershing would have been a success against German tanks?



The Pershings that did get into a match with the Germans did prove they were perfectly capable of taking them on.


----------



## Soren (Mar 7, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> The Pershings that did get into a match with the Germans did prove they were perfectly capable of taking them on.



Yes, when the said German tanks were operated by the Hitler Youth..

By the time the Pershing saw action it was no more effective than other Allied TD's. The British Firefly enjoyed much more success.

Three Pershings were kncoked out before wars end though, one by a Nashorn, and the two others by a Tiger Ausf.E.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 7, 2008)

> Yeah the Tiger was excellent but get a rocket firing Typhoon on its case and Tiger go boom.



I like that Basket.

One question: Could the Tiger armor stand agains't a 88mm gun, or a Pak 43?


----------



## Soren (Mar 7, 2008)

The Tiger Ausf.E's armor couldn't stand against any of German 88's.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 7, 2008)

Sorry, but the E-100 was definately a super-heavy tank and completely pointless. The numbers are nice but in reality the E-100 and Maus were both on a level playing field which was not a very stable one for either of them. It weighed over 100 tonnes ... that's a moronic weight. That's more weight than any modern MBT.


----------



## Soren (Mar 7, 2008)

The weight of the E-100 with the MAUS turret was very high, 137 metric tons, which is double that of the Tiger Ausf.B. However with speed of 38 - 40 km/h it could work. But with a smaller turret and gun (Instead of the 150 - 173mm gun) the weight would've decreased considerably.

The MAUS on the other hand weighed in at 188 metric tons, a behemoth of a tank, and very impractical, seeing that no bridge could hold it.

The best design the Germans had finished was undoubtedly the Tiger III Ausf.L, which at a weight of 95 metric tons and with a 1500 HP HL450 engine was a very sound design. Its armour protection and armament was incredible. It was to be armed with a 128mm KwK44 L/61 equipped with infrared sights, range finders, and armour protection was in excess of 250mm.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2008)

How can the E-100 not be considered a Super-Heavy tank? Hell it weighs more than the best modern tanks today. Granted that is partially due to better armour and construction materials but still...


----------



## Konigstiger205 (Mar 7, 2008)

The Germans kinda got nuts at the end of the war with some really unrealistic designs...what they should have concentrated was on improving the Tiger, produce more Stg44 and perhaps work on the Me262...


----------



## Juha (Mar 7, 2008)

E-100 was clearly impractical, real "paper-tiger". 
Not surprisingly no nation seriously considered to mass-produce 100-140 ton tanks after 1945. 

Juha


----------



## DBII (Mar 7, 2008)

OK guys, I found these links on the T28 Super Heavy Tank. I first saw this monster in 1979 while at Fort Know. The Patton Museum as a video of this monster on the move. 

Missing Links Gallery Daniel Mitchell T28 Heavy Tank
2007 08-07 Patton Museum of Armor at Fort Knox - T28 Super Heavy Tank photo - Bryan photos at pbase.com

DBII


----------



## Soren (Mar 7, 2008)

I disagree on the E-100 being impractical. As long as the fording capability was good the tank would prove very useful.

As for the E-100 being super heavy tank, well I concede.

At any rate the E-90 Ausf.L was a much better design, and at 95 tons and a 1500 HP engine, it featured a better power to weight ratio than any other heavy tank of the time.

Perhaps the one piece ammunition 105mm KwK44 was a better solution than the two piece ammunition 128mm KwK44 though, considering the lower reloading time of the 105mm gun.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Mar 7, 2008)

Soren said:


> I disagree on the E-100 being impractical. As long as the fording capability was good the tank would prove very useful.



Until it sank in the mud...

The Tiger, King Tiger, and Panther were more than good eneogh. The E-100 and any of the other "super heavy" tanks were a waste of recourses and impractical.


----------



## Glider (Mar 7, 2008)

I must admit a 100 ton tank is basically useless. You would have great trouble finding a bridge that could take the weight, a tunnel big enough to fit it or a railway wide enough to carry it.
How on earth you would move it to the front is a bit of a mystery to me.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Soren, most tank battles were at ranges under the theoretical max effective range of their guns.

The US 90mm was more than capable of defeating the Tiger and Panther at the medium and short ranges that usually occured.

And its a wasted argument of yours saying that the German tanks that the Pershing destroyed were manned by Hitler Youth. The fact is the Pershing engaged them and knocked them out.


----------



## comiso90 (Mar 7, 2008)

No knowledgeable person can fault the Sherman. It wast designed for a slugfest. It's job was to punch through and hit the supply lines. Speed, reliability and moilty supreme! Let the "Tank Destroyers"(M-10, M-36) and aircraft mop up. There is no way Patton could have covered as much ground as he did if he had Tigers and KingTigers. The German tanks were marvelous machines built for a different type of battlefield. Do I fault American armored doctrine for not including a heavy tank at least in a limited capacity?

YES! The Pershing was too late to even mention.

The Sherman did it's job but it could have used a bigger brother to hide behind when things got tough.

Who here would have liked to have been a Tanker in a Sherman??

 


Those were some brave Mo Fo's!!!



.


----------



## glen (Mar 7, 2008)

> The US strategy for armoured warfare, was to use the Sherman tank used in the mobile part of the battle to "go deep" and cutoff enemy strongpoints with dedicated tank destroyers to go "one on one" with the enemy tanks.
> 
> Obviously, this strategy didnt work out so well.



Right! General Mcnair of US army was the "murderer" of US heavey tank. His strategy(persitsed by himself) is just like that. On one hand, US tank destroyers did very well in knocking out german tanks, on the other hand, US medium tank suffered from german panther/tigers. If Mcnair had not been so stupid, the allied would got pershing @ D day.





> Also the Super Pershing AFAIK only had one engagement in the war, where it hit the lower frontal hull of a Tiger Ausf.B as it drove up a rubble embankment.


Soren allways forget sth. which is "bad" for german. It's kingtiger not Tiger.






> The Pershings that did get into a match with the Germans did prove they were perfectly capable of taking them on.



Pershing/Js2 and panther are of same weight, tiger nad kingtiger are much heavier. ....As we all known, Yamato class is the strongest battle ship in the world, but it's hard to say Japanese marine technology is the best! Note that Yamato class is much heavier than IOWA/bismark.... Stronger protection require more amor(weight), and stronger firepower requires bigger or longer cannons which renders more weight and space. Soren, if you are proud of germany 60 tons heavy tank's advantage over allied 30-40 tons medium tanks, enjoy it plz. I am also enjoying the BIG "marine technology advantage" of Japanese over germany. 

With regard to firepower, 17pdr L58/76mm=L70/75mm, L50/90mm=L56/88mm, L70/90mm=L71/88mm...I can't find any advantage of German guns. For those thick target plate, the quality should be "bad" inevitably no matter which country produces it. Therefore the penetration of 17pdr/kwk43 is "fake", that is to say they can penetrate thick vertical amor(bad quality) in battle field, however, they are insufficient facing Panther's 80mm/55degree (good quality) or pershing's 102mm/46degree(good quality) .

You don't know how APCR works, soren. APCR's real diameter is quite small, so they are insuffcient facing high obilique/ enough thickness (>>40mm)plate because their poor T/D number. For example, the L56/88mm apcbc can't penetrate panther's 80mm/55 degree, neither can it's apcr. However, if the plate thickness or oblique is small such as T34's 45/47mm, js2 early version's 120mm/30degree, the apcr will show their power. 

Optics, allied is not bad, they even have elevation stabilizer.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Mar 7, 2008)

> Who here would have liked to have been a Tanker in a Sherman??



I think being stuck in a burning tank would feel worse than being stuck in a burning plane. 

But I have never been stuck in either so I really don't know.


----------



## glen (Mar 7, 2008)

I don't know the quality of pershing amor, but if it is as good as M4A3E2's, the 102mm/46degree of upper front will be imune to Panther or Tiger's apcbc/apcr. Even the kingtiger's kwk43 can only pene. it within 500 meters. of couse, th turret front is only 102mm-110mm vertical which can be pene. by many late guns from far away.


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> And its a wasted argument of yours saying that the German tanks that the Pershing destroyed were manned by Hitler Youth. The fact is the Pershing engaged them and knocked them out.



Seeing that its just the truth I can't see how it's wasted.


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2008)

glen said:


> Right! General Mcnair of US army was the "murderer" of US heavey tank. His strategy(persitsed by himself) is just like that. On one hand, US tank destroyers did very well in knocking out german tanks, on the other hand, US medium tank suffered from german panther/tigers. If Mcnair had not been so stupid, the allied would got pershing @ D day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What a load of rubbish!

I see you have no clue what the Allies concluded after their trials at the Aberdeen proving grounds.

The Panther's 75mm KwK42 L/70 out-performed the M26 Pershing's 90mm M3 on all accounts.

The best AT gun of WW2 in terms of armor penetration weight was the 88mm KwK43 L/71, consistantly punching through 153mm of 240 BHN RHA plates at 3km. 

As for your once again ridiculous claim of the "fake" figures, you've got to be kidding me! You've got absolutely ZERO proof to this ridiculous theory, esp. when cmpared to the Allied German conclusions beased on REAL LIFE tests! 

Moving on Allied optics were VERY poor by comparison to German optics, the Germans being amazed at how the Allies could permit themselves to mount such poor optics in their tanks. 


In short: Glen, get a clue!


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2008)

glen said:


> I don't know the quality of pershing amor, but if it is as good as M4A3E2's, the 102mm/46degree of upper front will be imune to Panther or Tiger's apcbc/apcr. Even the kingtiger's kwk43 can only pene. it within 500 meters. of couse, th turret front is only 102mm-110mm vertical which can be pene. by many late guns from far away.



Again complete bullshit from glen.

Using the std. Pzgr.39/43 the 88mm KwK43 could punch straight through the Pershing's glacis at 2km with ease.


The Pershing's armor wasn't better than the armor the KwK43 was tested against in Aberdeen USA or during the British trials.


----------



## glen (Mar 8, 2008)

> The Panther's 75mm KwK42 L/70 out-performed the M26 Pershing's 90mm M3 on all accounts.


It's very natural that kwk42 outforms L50/90mm in penetration because M3 90mm gun=L56/88mm(kwk36) and kwk42> kwk36 in penetration. Don't you know panther has better penetration than tiger? BTW, if the plate is high obilique, the kwk36/m3 will get the same pene as kwk42 due to their higher T/D.

Let's compare kwk42 with 17pdr soren, they have nearly same cailiber.




> The best AT gun of WW2 in terms of armor penetration weight was the 88mm KwK43 L/71, consistantly punching through 153mm of 240 BHN RHA plates at 3km.


At the Aberdeen proving grounds, on REAL LIFE tests, please give me the clue of US L70/90mm penetration and compare it with kwk43.


----------



## glen (Mar 8, 2008)

Let's check the "fake" penetration of Soviet 122mm D25T, oh, near 220mm @blank point while the "true" pene. is only 162mm. De marre theory says that D25T has 94% vertical penetration of kwk43 @blank point and has better pene after 800m far away. This figure comparation of 162mm:220mm has proved my thick plate=bad quality theory.



> At Aberdeen the penetration performance of the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against vertical 240 BHN RHA armor at 100m was as follows:
> 
> 8.8cm KwK36: 162mm
> 8.8cm KwK43: 232mm



Ok. on bad quality target plate, kwk43 has the 232mmvertical penetration @ blank point while 122mm D25T has nearly 220mm on bad plate(probably as bad as other countries.)

220/235=93.6%, this figure is perfectly proved by De marre's theory.


Pershing glacis is equal to around 165mm vertical amor when hit by 88mm apcbc round. However, I've said that I don't know exactly the K number of pershing's amor, so my conclusion is under the condition that pershing's K=2400. kwk43's penetration @ piont blank is 173mm on good quality plate( k=2400, impossible to made when >150mm thickness) ; 235mm on bad quality plate.


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2008)

Sorry glen, but you're just not being realistic at all.

Try comparing the KE over surface area to give you a clue as to which gun is the best.

As demonstrated over and over again in real life tests the 88mm KwK43 L/71 has a much higher penetration performance at all ranges compared to the 122mm D-25T. The D-25T isn't even close..

German tests were carried out against 260 BHN RHA plates, and at 30 degree's from vertical. The British tests which yielded higher results were against 270 - 280 BHN RHA plates.

At Aberdeen where all the guns were tested against the same type quality armor (240 BHN RHA) the 88mm KwK43 L/71 out-performed each and every other gun in penetration performance out to 3km, with the exception of the 128mm PaK44.


----------



## Freebird (Mar 8, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> The Sherman did it's job but it could have used a bigger brother to hide behind when things got tough.



I'm with ya on that one.


----------



## The Basket (Mar 8, 2008)

An interesting story...When the Soviets and Germans were allies as the beginning of the war, they were shown the German tanks and the Mk IV production line.

The Soviets asked where the heavy tank was being made...the Germans said the Mk IV WAS the heavy tank! The Soviets thought they were lying! Turns out the Mk IV was the German idea of heavy.

The KV was heavy...don't forget the Soviet tanks as tank warfare was mainly Eastern Front and the Germans could never match the sheer numbers of the Soviet tanks.

Numbers win wars...not quality.


----------



## glen (Mar 8, 2008)

> At Aberdeen where all the guns were tested against the same type quality armor (240 BHN RHA) the 88mm KwK43 L/71 out-performed each and every other gun in penetration performance out to 3km, with the exception of the 128mm PaK44.



Agian, could you give me the penetration of US L70/90mm at Aberdeen ?
My data is below:


> 90mm Gun T15E2
> 70 Caliber
> 3420 lb total weight
> Separated Ammunition
> ...



I believe that kwk43 has NO advantage in penetration compared with 90mm Gun T15E2.



> Allies and Soviets were producing new weapons and vehicles to deal with Germany's "super tanks". Only the war coming to an end prevented them from chewing up the Tiger. Case in point, on 8 August, 1944, A single Sherman Firefly destroyed three Tigers in an exchange of fire, killing the famous Wittman in the process. Tigers were having to be careful on the Eastern Front due the Soviet heavy tanks and tank destroyers. In 1945, a Pershing fitted with the T15E2 90mm gun fired at a captured Tiger. The round penetrated the front, passed through the crew compartment, and continued on through the engine exiting the rear plate where it eventually buried itself into the ground. When American ordnance personnel tried to recover the penetrator it was too deep for them to find. The Tiger was built to survive the guns of 1942, not 1945. Pershings and IS-III's would have tapped danced over the Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers (at least those that didn't break down because they were mechanically unreliable machines).



BTW, I need the kwk36's projectile volecity at 500m, 1000m 1500m....


----------



## glen (Mar 8, 2008)

> As demonstrated over and over again in real life tests the 88mm KwK43 L/71 has a much higher penetration performance at all ranges compared to the 122mm D-25T. The D-25T isn't even close..



Soren, you're just not being realistic at all. German test showed that Panther (D version I belive) glacis are safe when >600m far away from D25T. The russian battle field report had proved this:


> Further, after the first encounters between the JS-2 and German heavy tanks, it turned out that the sharp-nosed 122 mm APHE round - the BR-471 - could only penetrate the frontal armour of a Panther up to 600-700 metres.(Panther G hadn't been produced then/Glen)


The soviet test showed that kwk43 can only pen. Panther's(D version I belive) glacis WITHIN 650m. Therefore, kwk43 and D25T are very close in penetration. Soren, you have been cheated by kwk43's fake penetration, while I think you woundn't accept D25T's fake penetration as the picture shows above. 

D25T'as fake penetration is nearly 220mm @blanck piont range!

As we all known, Panther D's glacis is much better than Panther G's.



> REPORT ON THE RESULTS OF TESTING OF THE 100 MM AND THE 122 MM TANK GUNS AT THE KUBINKA PROVING GROUNDS
> September 12, 1944
> 
> Top Secret
> ...



The tests have shown the projectile of the German 88 mm gun to have only limited effectiveness when used against the German Panther tank. 

I can explain why kwk43 is insufficient facing Panther D. Due to the thin plate (80-85mm), panther D's glacis has better quality than kwk43's target plate(>200mm at close range).Don't forget that kwk43 and Panther D are of same period.

Soren, acording to your opinion, kwk43 can penetrate 170mm-180mm vertival plate @2km. Panther's D glacis is just 170-180mm vertical. So kwk43 can pen. panther D @2km, but that's not the fact.!Panther G glacis is inforior to D version, however, even Panther G can resist kwk43 @ 2km. 

D25t has only 149mm vertical penetration @650m(true pen. not fake) while it can really pen. Panther D's glacis=170m+vertical. Now you know how bad the panther's amor and kwk43's target plates are.

Kingtiger's front protection is better than tiger, isn't it? however, tiger's amor quality is better than kingtiger's...... Soren, german tanks' better protection doesn't mean their amor quality is better than allied, German tanks benifit form the huge weight. For example., panther's glacis is as weigh as 140mm vertical amor while js2 early version's 120mm/30 section is equal to 139mm vertical in weight. Furthermore, 55 degree has much more extra slope effect than 30 degree espicially when hit by APCR.
Therefore, tiger's apcr can pen. 120mm/30 @1500m away but it can NOT pen panther's 80mm/55 at close range! When russian realize their fault, JS2 late version's glacis was midified to 120mm/60, so none of german AT gun can pen. JS2 late version's galcis at any range! You cann't find any picture showing the penetration of JS2 late's 120mm/60, I'll bet that.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> Seeing that its just the truth I can't see how it's wasted.



Soren, let me rephrase it into something you can understand:

Panther or Tiger crewed by highly trained and experienced men, 90mm shell goes through armor.... tank destroyed.

Panther or Tiger crewed by inexperienced men, 90mm shell goes through armor.... tank destroyed.

Panther or Tiger crewed by mice and rats, 90mm shell goes through armor.... tank destroyed.

Panther or Tiger crewed by no one, 90mm shell goes through armor.... tank destroyed.

What part don't you understand?


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> Using the std. Pzgr.39/43 the 88mm KwK43 could punch straight through the Pershing's glacis at 2km with ease.



Thats nearly one mile.

Not many chances for that to happen.


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2008)

Glen,

Please quit it, you're wrong and it has been proven time and time again.

Furthermore I haven't been fooled by any "false" figures, the 88mm KwK43 17 pdr's figures (As-well as all the others) are all very real, they are all derived from real life tests, so deal with it glen. 

Also do you understand the benefits of the T/D effect ? The larger the diameter of the projectile the better its performance against sloped armor is.

The 88mm KwK43's penetration figures aren't fake, the US, British and yes even the Soviet tests proves this. 

Also why would they be fake ??? Simply doesn't make any sense glen.

In the Soviet tests the 88mm KwK43 managed to punch through 285mm of armor at 400mm!

I have already shown the US test results from the Aberdeen trials, go to the Tank Gun comparison thread to read them. The 122mm D-25T was tested as-well, and it didn't even come close to the 88mm KwK43 L/71.



syscom3 said:


> Thats nearly one mile.
> 
> Not many chances for that to happen.



Oh really ?

One mile is 1,600m. 

The 88mm KwK43 punches through 132mm of 260 BHN RHA armor laid back 30 degree's at 2,000m, and 139mm of 270 - 280 BHN RHA armor at the same range. The Pershing's armor was no where near that tough, and the oblique was just 46 degree's, not enough to compensate for the thinner armor.

Against 240 BHN RHA armor (About the best the Allies could produce) the 88mm KwK43 L/71 consistantly punched completely through vertical 153mm plates at 3,000m.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 8, 2008)

Soren said:


> One mile is 1,600m.



Youre right, 2KM is actually 1.25 miles.

And finding open lines of fire for that distance is unusual and infrequent. Not to mention being able to hit a moving target in the pre ballistic computer days was being "lucky"


----------



## glen (Mar 8, 2008)

> The 88mm KwK43's penetration figures aren't fake, the US, British and yes even the Soviet tests proves this.



The real test of kwk43 is 232mm+ @ 100m, it's completely true. however, you havn't understand what I mean or my expression is not clear, my opinion is that: the real thick target plate (>>150mm even>200mm) is quite inferior to those thin ones! Therefore, the penetration of 232mm,285mm etc...is of overvalued numbers. Wehn kwk43 fires at 80mm/55 or 60mm/60, we will find kwk43 insuficient.

For D25T, there was another test on thick plates(>>150mm), and the penetration is quite high: [email protected] point/[email protected] whilst common test on thin plates is [email protected]



> The 88mm KwK43 punches through 132mm of 260 BHN RHA armor laid back 30 degree's at 2,000m, and 139mm of 270 - 280 BHN RHA armor at the same range. The Pershing's armor was no where near that tough, and the oblique was just 46 degree's, not enough to compensate for the thinner armor



just 46 degree's....Soren,your math is not very good.

Pershing gacis is 102mm/46degree, the straight distant of this plate is 102mm/cos(46)=147mm. Furhermore, the extra slope effect of 46 degree is much greater than 30 degree!


----------



## glen (Mar 8, 2008)

The relatonship between thickness and quality, as delcyros said:



> Also keep in mind that thinner plates such as used on the Panther slopes were treated more carefully in production than thicker plates and generally offer more *relative stopping power due to higher hardness while still beeing ductile. Applying any formula here is tricky to say at least, cause You would come in the uncomfortable situation that your basic assumption would be that the effective stopping power euqitations of the thick and thin plates are identic, the difference is beeing defined by thickness alone, which by any means are not!
> 
> 
> The 120mm armour plate tested for the KWK 36 was manufactured according to specifications calling for a BRH of 279-307 Brinell (Specification PP793 and PP7182 for thicknesses of 85mm to 120mm, date unknown. The two specifications were slightly different alloys but had the same BHN). It was of very tough quality compared to the 200mm armour plate of the latter tests
> ...


----------



## Soren (Mar 8, 2008)

glen said:


> The real test of kwk43 is 232mm+ @ 100m, it's completely true. however, you havn't understand what I mean or my expression is not clear, my opinion is that: the real thick target plate (>>150mm even>200mm) is quite inferior to those thin ones! Therefore, the penetration of 232mm,285mm etc...is of overvalued numbers. Wehn kwk43 fires at 80mm/55 or 60mm/60, we will find kwk43 insuficient.
> 
> For D25T, there was another test on thick plates(>>150mm), and the penetration is quite high: [email protected] point/[email protected] whilst common test on thin plates is [email protected]




glen,

The thinner the plate the higher BHN, that's universal for all WW2 armour, be it test plates or the armour on the tanks. During WW2 it wasn't possible to produce 200mm thick plates of high BHN levels. This is something which you seem not to understand. 

So while it is true that the 232mm plates penetrated by the KwK43 were of lower BHN levels than the thinner ones penetrated further away, the very same applies to the plates all other guns were tested against. 

In the German tests the 88mm KwK43 consistantly penetrated 132mm 260 BHN RHA plates at 30 degree's impact angle at 2,000m, and 139mm of 270 - 280 BHN armor under the same conditions. These plates were of a higher BHN than those at closer ranges which were thicker.

As for quality, well the quality of the German test plates were always excellent throughout the war, the acceptance criteria beeing very strickt. 

Fact is the 122mm D-25T wasn't capable of penetrating 200 + mm plates, even at point blank range, while the KwK43 penetrates plates of over 238mm at 100m. Thus the 88mm KwK43 is the better performer, nomatter the distance. 

Also take a look at how much energy the 88mm KwK43 L/71 concentrates on its target, it's WAAAY higher than that of the 122mm D-25T at all ranges. Hence the KwK43's much higher penetration performance.




> just 46 degree's....Soren,your math is not very good.
> 
> Pershing gacis is 102mm/46degree, the straight distant of this plate is 102mm/cos(46)=147mm. Furhermore, the extra slope effect of 46 degree is much greater than 30 degree!



102mm @ 46 degree's is 147mm, and the 88mm KwK43 L/71 will punch through 153mm at 3km.

So the point stands.


----------



## glen (Mar 8, 2008)

> The thinner the plate the higher BHN, that's universal for all WW2 armour, be it test plates or the armour on the tanks. During WW2 it wasn't possible to produce 200mm thick plates of high BHN levels. This is something which you seem not to understand.



I completely understand this, and this is our consensus, isn't it?




> So while it is true that the 232mm plates penetrated by the KwK43 were of lower BHN levels than the thinner ones penetrated further away, the very same applies to the plates all other guns were tested against.
> 
> In the German tests the 88mm KwK43 consistantly penetrated 132mm 260 BHN RHA plates at 30 degree's impact angle at 2,000m, and 139mm of 270 - 280 BHN armor under the same conditions. These plates were of a higher BHN than those at closer ranges which were thicker.



Our difference is here.Let's check this test on thick plates(>150mm)(see picture below), do you find that D25T can pen. about 152mm @2000meters?

Then please check this link:
The Russian Battlefield - Tank Armament

D25T can only pen. 152mm @500 meters!

How can this strange thing happen? The reason is that: these two 152mm plate are of different quality! 
Can you image technichers use dfferent quality plates in one test?

Let's check the kwk43's penetration:



> α=30
> 
> 88mm PaK 43 L / 71
> 
> ...



You can find that the penetration of kwk43 decline steadily while the distant increases. If they use high quality target plates @>1500meters, you will find a sharp drop of kwkw43's penetration, however, the fact is NOT. If kwk43 can pen. 148mm good quality @1500, it should pen. 185mm bad quality @1500m also, not @500m. The technichers won't do that silly thing: use different qaulity plate in one test.





> Fact is the 122mm D-25T wasn't capable of penetrating 200 + mm plates, even at point blank range, while the KwK43 penetrates plates of over 238mm at 100m. Thus the 88mm KwK43 is the better performer, nomatter the distance.
> 
> Also take a look at how much energy the 88mm KwK43 L/71 concentrates on its target, it's WAAAY higher than that of the 122mm D-25T at all ranges. Hence the KwK43's much higher penetration performance.


LOL, 100mm D10T has 25% more energy than kwk43's apcbc projectile, D25T's advantage is more: 150%+......Compared to D10/D25, kwk43's energy is quite low.




> 102mm @ 46 degree's is 147mm, and the 88mm KwK43 L/71 will punch through 153mm at 3km.
> 
> So the point stands.



One 102mm/46 amor consumes same weight of 147mm vertical amor, if 102mm/46 can't provide more protection than 147mm vertical, all slope amor designers are rubbish/idiot.

My calculation is 102mm/46=165mm vertical when hit by 88mm apcbc. (188mm for 88 AP sharp tip shell).
This "calclulated" 165mm vertical amor is of good quality same as a real thin 102mm amor, therefore, it is estimated to be euqal to about 210mm+ real thick vertical amor(bad quality as kwk43's target plate)!




> As for quality, well the quality of the German test plates were always excellent throughout the war, the acceptance criteria beeing very strickt.


If you say panther's glacis is only 80mm/cos55=140mm vertical, those german designers will kick your ass soren! ---"Do you think we are idoits!?"

Panther glacis is around 170-180 depending on the cailiber and shell type, for apcr, it is equal to 200m+!

However, D25T has only 149mm vertical pen. ability @650m, and it acutally pen. PantherD galcis(170-180mm). German tank amor quality is not very good except for Tiger and StugIII.. Panther benifit from it excellent design not amor quality. For exmaple. 80mm/55 is equal to 200mm+ vertivcal facing APCR(Low T/D), and this 200mm+ has the quality of 80mm thin plates, so it is equal to 250mm+ vertical real thick plate, that explains why allied APCR besides German APCR are insufisient in front of Panther.


----------



## plan_D (Mar 8, 2008)

I still believe 90 tons to be too heavy, Soren. The Panther F would have been more than good enough against the new Allied and Soviet armour and it certainly would have been the most practical. I think the modern development of the tank speaks for itself on this issue. 

On the Pershing vs. ? issue, it was a good tank for development but I don't believe it was on par with the Tiger or Panther - and in a straight shooting match certainly not the King Tiger. The Super Pershing is a completely different machine (in my opinion) because the increased firepower gave the German AFVs something to fear as it was perfectly capable of destroying the Panther and Tiger at combat ranges. The King Tiger was still above the Super Pershing in a straight shooting match despite the fact a King was the Super Pershings first victim; bad handling on the Kings crew. 

The optical equipment on the German armour was exceptional - it was THE best in the world, there should be no doubt. The optical equipment gave accurate ranging up to 5km; something the Allies could only dream of. Unfortunately for the Allies the German guns that accompanied these optics were powerful enough to inflict damage 5km away - I believe the longest kill in World War II was an Elefant vs. T-34/76 at 4.8km away ? I'm open to corrections on that. sys, while 4.8 certainly was extreme and 'bizarre' I wouldn't discount long distance kills (2 - 3km) being unique so much so that they should be discounted as luck and not worth mentioning in a discussion. 
The reason combat ranges were 400 - 600 metres was simply because both Soviet and Allied armour were closing on the German armour in an attempt to inflict damage ! The ranges would have been further out if the Allies had something capable of doing serious damage that far out. You say there was no line of sight for those ranges - open Pontic steppes, desert (Pz.IV F/2 Tiger), fields of [parts of] France... all wide open spaces - Tigers were inflicting damage while the enemy was closing in to "combat" range. 

That said, I must admit that the Sherman was not a 'bad' tank. It was no worse than the T-34 ... which is funny because everyone loves the T-34 (best tank in WWII blah, blah, blah) while hating the Sherman... fact of the matter is there's some numbers out there that claim for every Panther there were 15 T-34s destroyed ... or 9 Shermans. The T-34 and Sherman were 'medium' tanks , or best put by the British 'cruiser' tanks - (best 'cruiser' was the A34 Comet !) the idea was to rush through the gaps of the enemy line and wreck the rear echelons - simple ! Guderian wrote that idea in Achtung! Panzer! ... so the Allies and Soviets had the right idea...what they failed to grasp was "the main enemy of the tank is another tank" - the Allies and Soviets forgot that the enemy (Germany) was going to have a mobile ARMOURED reserve... terrible shock when they were more capable armour vs. armour. And also upsetting to discover that the Germans used this magical thing called a 'heavy' tank that was used to punch the original hole, and allow the 'cruiser' (Pz.IV in Germanys case around '43, Pz.III before then) to wreck the rear lines. The heavy tanks in Germany were also used to engage the enemy armour ... which effectively eradicated the T-34s and Shermans ... which did not have such support. Tank destroyers were a good thought, but really - one hit wonders... any infantry around and they're in trouble. 

The Allies could , and SHOULD, have used heavy tanks. With the Pershing punching the original hole and aiding the 'cruiser' (sherman) in the battle against the enemies armoured counter- attack ... the Allies would have had an easier time (and the Sherman would have had a better name for itself). The British idea of the breakthrough tank was the 'infantry' tank ...matilda II unfortunately showed this idea to be a good one by being a great tank and only stoppable by the dreaded '88' FlaK 36 in '40 - '41. That led to the Churchill ... being a 'good idea'. It was a good idea in cities ... but certainly no good in open ground. Given a year or so on top of the war and Britain would have been splitting lines apart with Centurions and chewing up the supply lines with Comets. Much praise for the British armoured corps then ! But no...


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 8, 2008)

Good points plan_d

The Sherman got a bad reputation for being forced (by circumstance) to perform the role of a tank destroyer, when it wasn't intended to do that.

Lets not forget that the Sherman had one advantage over the Tiger and Panther... its was reliable enough to do the deep penetrations of the battlefield, neither of which the German tanks could do.

The long range shots of the era were lucky ones, in conditions of good weather and unobstructed lines of fire. That is not the norm.


----------



## syscom3 (Mar 8, 2008)

Didnt the Pershing have a turret transverse rate of 24 degrees/sec, almost 4 times faster than the Panther or Tiger?


----------



## plan_D (Mar 8, 2008)

The Tiger was never intended for deep penetrations; it was a breakthrough tank. The reliability of the Tiger was not an issue, the lack of support vehicles and spare parts was the real issue. I cannot remember which Tiger unit it was but I remember reading an article than stated the unit, when properly supplied, maintained an 86% combat ready state - that's extremely high. 

You must also remember that the Pz.Kpfw IV was the tank for deep penetrations - it was the Germans equal to the Sherman and, unfortunately, still superior. The Pz.Kpfw IV and III made up the larger part of the Wehrmacht armoured forces; the Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers were in the minority. 

Define norm and then define long range? At 4.8km it could be luck, but at 1.5km it was more likely the high skill, excellent optics and great guns that made the kills. More armoured conflicts were fought out in the open than in the streets; and defending Tigers normally had a long time to aim and kill before being compromised.

The Panther A could fully traverse its turret in 15 seconds (quickest time); this relied on the engine speed and hydraulic gearing. I cannot remember the Tiger's rotation speed but it was slow; this was normally made mute by the fact that the Tiger could rotate on the spot quicker than any other tank because it's width to length was practically 1:1.


----------



## davparlr (Mar 8, 2008)

Heavy tanks were not needed to win the war. By the time the US realized the good medium Sherman tank was no match for the latest German heavy tanks, everybody realized that the war was inevitably over and that the quickest war winning strategy did not include the need for a heavy tank. While we may grimace at the decision relative to the losses of too many good men, the conclusion is inescapable. Within a year, the remnants of German war machine, including their “superior” tanks were scattered in pieces across Europe, both east and west. 

From ’42 on, the German tank philosophy was a disaster, passing up on building outstanding tanks, and military equipment in general, in quantity for bigger and better, giving up time they did not have, materials they were short of, and military advantage they desperately needed. In general, the top level of German command fiddled away their tactical advantage.

In my opinion, the outstanding WWII tank war machine was the T-34. It was clearly superior to anything the Germans had when it came out and blunted the German offensive momentum. By the time the Germans developed a response, the quantity they face was overwhelming. It was an excellent combination of armor, firepower, mobility, reliability and manufacturability that the Germans could never quite answer.


----------



## glen (Mar 9, 2008)

Medium tank and heavy tank play different roles. Tigers/KTs and Panther are heavy tanks! Some believe the panther is medium tank, it's unreasonable.. Panther is even stronger than Tiger when they shoot each other from front.

German standard is always changing, at first Pz.Kpfw IV was defined as "heavy tank". So is US standard, after WWII, Pershing was called medium tank, not heavy tank.

It's unfair to compare T34/Sherman with Panther! How about comparing a cruiser with battle ship? Germany has no 70000tons class battle ship, so 40000tons Bismark should be compared with Yamato class in order to prove Japanese tech is higher than Germany?

Pershing was on par with the Tiger or Panther. The proof is below:

1) 90mm gun is as good as kwk36 even kwk42 if APCR used.
2) 102mm/46 glacis of is much stronger than tiger's and on par with panther's.
3) 102mm/0 turrent front is on par with tiger' but inferior to panther's. (sb. says tiger's turrent front is 140mm, if so, pershing's is the worst)
4) side amor of pershing is between tiger and panther.
5)optic of pershing is good. Britain tanks' optic is inferior to US.

Pershing's APCR can pen. Pz IV from 3000m away, so US tank is greatly better than german's? 

German has a lot of heavy tanks, panther 6000+,tiger, 1500,kingtiger,800....But soviet has only 2000+ Js2. allied has only 200 pershing. German "battle ship" is stronger than enemy's cruiser, therefore, german "ship" tech is better, what a ridiculous logic.


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2008)

Glen,

You don't understand, you've proven that once again.

A thicker plate, while having a lower BHN, also benefits from its thickness creating as much resistance pr. lenght as a thinner higher BHN plate. You don't understand this glen, you've just proven that.

That the penetration figures are close to linear is completely normal, infact it would be rather strange if they were not, since a projectile has a certain ballistic coefficient the drop in speed and thus energy will always be linear. 

Look at the Soviet penetration figures, they're linear as-well, so are these fake according to you as-well glen ???

Now do you see that you're making no sense at all glen ??

As for the energy put on the target you didn't understand once again. The total KE doesn't matter, it's the concentration of that energy which matters! (The reason a needle has an easier time penetrating your skin than a soda bottle) 

*88mm KwK43*

Projectile weight: 10.4 kg (APCBC)
Muzzle Velocity: 1000 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: *85.49 KJ*

*100mm D-10T* 

Projectile weight: 15.88 kg (APBC)
Muzzle Velocity: 887 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 6250 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: *79.57 KJ*

*122mm D-25T*

Projectile weight: 25 kg (APBC)
Muzzle Velocity: 780 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 7605 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr cm^2: *65.05 KJ*

As you can see the 88mm KwK43 concentrates a far higher amount of energy than any of the other guns, hence its much better penetration performance. Simple physics glen, something which doesn't change and something you can't run away from.

So the below results at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates are no surprise:

*88mm KwK43 L/71 88mm KwK36 L/56*






*122mm D-25T L/46*


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2008)

plan_D said:


> I still believe 90 tons to be too heavy, Soren. The Panther F would have been more than good enough against the new Allied and Soviet armour and it certainly would have been the most practical. I think the modern development of the tank speaks for itself on this issue.
> 
> On the Pershing vs. ? issue, it was a good tank for development but I don't believe it was on par with the Tiger or Panther - and in a straight shooting match certainly not the King Tiger. The Super Pershing is a completely different machine (in my opinion) because the increased firepower gave the German AFVs something to fear as it was perfectly capable of destroying the Panther and Tiger at combat ranges. The King Tiger was still above the Super Pershing in a straight shooting match despite the fact a King was the Super Pershings first victim; bad handling on the Kings crew.
> 
> ...



Good post Plan_D, I agree 100%.

As for the 95 ton E90 Ausf.L, yes it was very heavy, too heavy for many bridges. But the fording capability was to be very great, thus small rivers could be crossed easily. Still the Panther F was a better tank to mass produce, no doubt about it. However the E90 would've been a great asset on the Battlefield, assisting the Panthers.


----------



## glen (Mar 9, 2008)

I admit that Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2 of kwk43 is the highest( L70/90mm is another), but the issue is not so simple, Energy pr. cm^2 is NOT direct proportional to penetration for same projectile and this factor shouldn't abused among different cailiber projectiles.

1)I need the velocity of kwk43's projectile of 0m,500m,1000m,1500m....

2) There is one strange thing about 88mm KwK43/122mm D-25T. According to your data, the velocity retain ability of kwk43's projectile(apcbc 10.2kg) is BETTER than D25T's(APBC 25kg):

at close range, 232/206=113%, and then 196/152=129%, at last, @3000m, 153/108=142%

10.2kg projectile's penetration advantage over 25kg projectile INCREASES with distant. Very strange!



> D25T's penetration 0 degree
> 
> 0m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
> AP (162mm) 152mm 142mm 132mm 122mm



pen. decrases 10mm every 500m,



> α=30
> 
> 88mm PaK 43 L / 71
> 
> ...



pen. decrases 20mm+(α=30) every 500m.

Therefore,kwk43 pen. decrease faster than D25T. However, Aberdeen proving grounds USA test has told us a total different story: D25T pen. decrease faster！



> That the penetration figures are close to linear is completely normal, infact it would be rather strange if they were not, since a projectile has a certain ballistic coefficient the drop in speed and thus energy will always be linear.
> 
> Look at the Soviet penetration figures, they're linear as-well, so are these fake according to you as-well glen ???



off course, penetration figures are close to linear, but if they use different quality target plates, the linear relationship between pen. and distant will be changed!



> α=30
> 
> 88mm PaK 43 L / 71
> 
> ...



Tell me which plates is high of quality. 132mm? If 132mm plates is high quality and the others are low quality. pls tell me what the difference is between 132mm(high quality) and 148mm(low quality)?Note that there are no more than 20mm gap between every 500m. Do you know what I mean?

Is the kwk43's penetration constant from 1500m to 2000m？

To be frank，I don't trust Aberdeen proving grounds USA test on D25T because I believe 25kg projectile's velocity retaining ability is better than 10.2kg or 15kg.


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2008)

glen said:


> I admit that Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2 of kwk43 is the highest( L70/90mm is another), but the issue is not so simple, Energy pr. cm^2 is NOT direct proportional to penetration for same projectile and this factor shouldn't abused among different cailiber projectiles.



Directly proportional, no, but close.

The higher the energy concentration, the higher the penetration power, simple fact. Hence why the SABOT round is the std. AT projectile today.



> 1)I need the velocity of kwk43's projectile of 0m,500m,1000m,1500m....



I can tell you that the velocity is ~775 m/s at 2,500m.



> 2) There is one strange thing about 88mm KwK43/122mm D-25T. According to your data, the velocity retain ability of kwk43's projectile(apcbc 10.2kg) is BETTER than D25T's(APBC 25kg):
> 
> at close range, 232/206=113%, and then 196/152=129%, at last, @3000m, 153/108=142%
> 
> 10.2kg projectile's penetration advantage over 25kg projectile INCREASES with distant. Very strange!



Strange ? No.

The projectile's BC (Ballistic Coefficient) is what determines the loss in velocity penetration as range increases. So obviously the Pzgr.39/43 has a higher BC than the projectiles fired by the 122mm D-25T.


----------



## glen (Mar 9, 2008)

1)You believe Energy pr. cm^2 is nearly proportional to penetration, and kwk43's apcbc shell is better than kwk36's apcbc, how can u explain the pen. ratio of kwk43 to kwk36 is only 143%(232mm/162mm) while the Energy pr. cm^2 of kwk43/kwk36 is 164%? 164% isn't close to 143% at all, De marre's theory is more accurate.

2)official kwk43 pen.


> α=30
> 
> PzGr.39 / 43 ( APCBC)
> weight velocity 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
> 10.2 kg 1000 m/s 202 mm 185mm 165mm 148mm 132mm



official d25t pen.


> 0m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
> AP (162mm) 152mm 142mm 132mm 122mm



I can't explain two issues below:

a) Official tests said kwk43's apcbc pen. decrease 20mm+ every 500m while d25t's ap decrease 10mm. However, US test told us that kw43's apcbc decrease 8mm while d25t'ap decrease 10-12mm every certain distant. What's the problem?

b)according to official tests, @blank piont, "advantage" of kwk43 over d25t is 202/162= 125%, @1000m, the ratio is 116%, @2000m, the ratio is 108%. Official tests want to say the advantage of kwk43 DECREASES when distant becomes greater and greater. However, the US test said a opposite story:

at close range, 232/206=113%, and then 196/152=129%, at last, @3000m, 153/108=142%


The official tests of German and Russian are totally opposite to US test. What's the problem?


----------



## Juha (Mar 9, 2008)

Plan D
I really doubted that ” fact of the matter is there's some numbers out there that claim for every Panther there were 15 T-34s destroyed ...” those numbers were very trustworthy.
And IMHO more important in the loss ratio. Allied decided to mass-produce simple smaller more reliable 26 – 35 ton mediums when Germans went to more complicated, more expensive 45 ton tank, which was more difficult to recover, more fuel-thirsty etc. IIRC Germany produced appr. 6000 Panthers and SU a little under 40000 T-34s and T-34/85s. I guess that at least some 4000 Panthers were lost on Eastern Front. So I guess that max 5, probably less T-34s were lost because of Panthers to one Panther lost because of T-34s because I believe that a greater portion of Panther losses were because of T-34s/T-34/85s than T-34s/T-34/85 losses because of Panthers. In other words I believe that greater portion of T-34s were lost because of Pz IIIs, IVs, VIs, StuGs, PzJgs, JgPzs, PaKs, mines, Panzerfaust etc than Panthers because of KVs, JSs, SUs, A/T-guns, mines, Molotov cocktails etc.

Soren, how one recover 100ton tank stuck on soft river bank? What we know on the reliability of that 1500hv engine or the ability to the powertrain of E90 to cope with 1500hp? My guess is nothing. If one can read something on the reliability of early Panthers and early Kingtigers and the complains of Panzerkomission on the unreliability of final-drives of German AFVs in Jan 45 my guess is that Germans would have had big problem on how to recover 100 ton tanks laying broken down in they had got E90 in service.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Mar 9, 2008)

Glen,

Don't you want to understand, is that it ?? Why else do you ignore the facts ?

Do you understand the importance of BC ?

Just stop it now glen, you're wrong and it has been proven time and time again. 

The German penetration figures you present were the results against 260 BHN RHA plates laid back 30 degree's from vertical, while the Soviet figures are against completely vertical plates (90 degree's).

In short the 122mm D-25T will NOT penetrate 122mm of 30 degree sloped armor at 2,000m. The 122mm D-25T's penetration performance at 2km is 105mm of 220 BHN RHA armor laid back 30 degrees, and this is low quality armor.

When its comes to testing the Soviets were never very thurough..

The case is closed!


----------



## glen (Mar 10, 2008)

> α=30
> 
> PzGr.39 / 43 ( APCBC)
> weight velocity 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
> 10.2 kg 1000 m/s 202 mm 185mm 165mm 148mm 132mm



Soren, at last but not least, I know your opinion well: German target plates and standard are the best in the world, OK, let's double the penetration of kwk43, would you be satisfied?



> α=0
> 
> PzGr.39 / 43 ( APCBC)
> weight velocity 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
> 10.2 kg 1000 m/s 404 mm 370mm 330mm 296mm 264mm



It looks really good. 

1) penetration of kwk43 decrease 40mm every 500m while D25T decreases 10mm-----Kwk43 even decreases faster than D25T.

2) the advantage of kwk43 over d25t is below:

@blank point: 404/162=249%
@500m: 370/152=243%
@1000m:330/142=232%
@1500m:296/132=224%
@2000m:264/122=216%

The advatange of kwk43 DECREASES while range increases. It's the conclusion of Official test of German and Russian.

There must be sth. "wrong" with US test.

It's said that german techinichers deliberately used thick/low quality plates to get higher pen. in order to get through Gestapo's check in late period. US test also applied thick/low quality plates. However, russian used thin-high quality amor to test their guns and that's why russian blank point range pen. is absent!

In my opinion, on high quality plate(K=2400),the correct pen. probably here:


> α=0
> 0m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
> D15T/AP (162mm) 152mm 142mm 132mm 122mm
> Kwk43/apcbc (173mm) 154mm 138mm 124mm 110mm



All official test tables are of sencond hand, the first hand pen should be like this:


> 360m 743m 1048m 1380m 1476m
> Kwk** 150mm 140mm 130mm 120mm 110mm


The reason is that it's very unconvenient to produce unregular thickness plate such as 123mm....

There is a convenient methord to calculate Equivalent stoppoing power.

For AP sharp tip shell. De marre function is accurate, for instant D25T's AP shell
For apcbc shell, De marre fuction is NOT accurate any more, however, we can estimate it using Average of De marre's result and staight distant.

For exmaple, 80mm/55 facing 88mm apcbc shell. De marre AP fuction's result is 188mm vertical Equivalent thickness while 80/cos55=140. then the average is (188+140)/2=164mm.

when facing 122mm AP sharp tip shell, the Equivalent thickness can be directly calculted form De Marre's fuction. The result is 166mm which is very close to kwk43's apcbc's.

As you can see, and 650metres distant, the vertical penetration of D25T/ap and kwk43/apcbc are almost same! And their Equivalent thickness on 80mm/55 are almost same, so I can say they will penetrate panther D glacis at almost same distant. Finally, the FACTS has proved my caculation, they can both pen. the glacis @650m!

That's my methord and this is totally Compatible to many battle facts I've knew. For instant, kwk43's apcbc could pen. T34/85 glacis up to 2000m. T34/85, pershing and Tiger's APCR shells are useless facing Panther D's glacis. Pershing's APCR can only pen. Panther G version glacis @ blank point. 

If anyone is interested in amor penetration,pls provide me more battle examples.


----------



## Soren (Mar 10, 2008)

Glen, please stop making stuff up, you'll get absolutely nowhere by doing so.



> It's said that german techinichers deliberately used thick/low quality plates to get higher pen. in order to get through Gestapo's check in late period.



Glen, that is completely untrue and you know it, cause you made it up. 

Let me ask you glen, why do you feel the need to come up with these things ? It only ruins your credibility, that's it. Don't you understand that when you make up sh*t like this you're just bound to be caught by people who actually know something on the subject ?

Now that you lie infront of everyone here is one thing, but that you come up with as ridiculous a claim like that above and then expect us to believe it, well that's just downright insulting to everyone no'less to your own intelligence. 

Are you seriously trying to fool yourself into believing that the Gestapo were at all involved with these tests and the results ?! Do you even know the role of the Gestapo ?

Come on glen, stop fabricating stuff and get real! The truth shall set you free, seriously!


----------



## glen (Mar 11, 2008)

It's said that ......

It's not my opinion, just someone else or my guess. I wonder why german test plates of kwk43 were of so bad quality while kwk36's were good. Probably, it's inevitable to produce thick amor with low quality. US, British and German tests of blank point range were on low-quality plates. Havn't you found that the penetration of 17 pdr APCR was "too much" greater than it's APCBC?

On the contrary, blank point range penetration of Soveit late guns such as D10T/D25T are absent while pen. of early guns(eg. 76mm) are clear. Note that technichers woundn't use different quality plates in one test. Since it's impossible to produce as good quality thick amor as thin ones, russian cancelled the test of close range. However, there is some data of D25T on thick/low quality plates as I posted above. As you can see, D25T's pen. is nearly [email protected] piont range. At US test, D25T still can pen. around 200mm at close range. Therefore, the D25T's penetration is probably undervalued by many people, I believe it is very close to kwk43 in penetration and the battle example had proved this: both D25T/ap and kwk43/apcbc can pen. Panther D's glacis @650m. It's the FACT which you usually ignore.


----------



## Soren (Mar 11, 2008)

The only one who has been ignoring facts here is you glen.

Anyway this discussion is over, cause you're obviously not interested in the truth.


----------

