# Schwarzpanzer's sources



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

A picture of that Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armor having been penetrated would be a welcome treat to begin with!

(Sorry to the rest of you, but I have just had enough!)


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2006)

Any of his sources would be a welcome treat! I haven't had one in all the time I've been discussing with him.


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 28, 2006)

We have all seen Battlefield.ru but to see some other of his sources would be nice as well as that picture you refer to Soren.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2006)

I've seen a picture of a King Tiger's frontal armour that's been pierced. I don't have it. But I do know the story behind it, and it wasn't pierced in combat. The said King Tiger was turret #502 and was used as target practice, and shot to pieces by varying calibres and cannon of the Soviet inventory. In the picture all the pot marks around the eventual hole are clearly present.


----------



## Erich (Jun 28, 2006)

at what, 50 yards ? and what calibre's ? 100mm and on up I suppose


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

Yep, hit over 100 times all over with anything from 50-152mm guns. It was truly shot to pieces. And the 100mm D-10 projectile which penetrated the front turret hit right where the gun-sight was situated, one of the weakest spots on any tank.


----------



## plan_D (Jun 28, 2006)

The cannon most used, I've heard, was the A-19 122mm cannon. Also, the first cannon to fire on Berlin.


----------



## Soren (Jun 28, 2006)

Yes, that is true.


----------



## Henk (Jun 28, 2006)

Here is the link to that site where they show the damage to the hull and turret of the King Tiger. One guy said that this proved that this proves that the King Tiger was not really a great tank. We all know it was very heavy and had very technical problems when it came to the engine. 

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=282&Itemid=123〈=en


----------



## Gnomey (Jun 29, 2006)

Link is dead... It was still a tank to be reconed with on the battlefield despite its mechanical problems.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jun 29, 2006)

and the fact it was used mostly in Western Europe with large road networks meant weight was less of an issue..........


----------



## Soren (Jun 29, 2006)

Henk that is the link to the Russian test where litterally hundreds of rounds had been thrown at the tank even before the real testing began - In truth it is worth absolutely nothing.


----------



## Erich (Jun 29, 2006)

Lanc it was mostly used on the Ost front .......... and took on all Soviet armor with ease


----------



## Henk (Jun 29, 2006)

It worked last night, ag well. Soren they stripped the tank hull and turret of everything and then took it to the test ground and shot it up like the holes in cheese.


----------



## Soren (Jun 30, 2006)

You certainly can't accuse them for being too thorough !


----------



## Henk (Jun 30, 2006)

That was actually stupid of those idiots to shoot at a tank while it is not moving with that kind of artillery and think they are so great to shoot it pieces. Idiots.


----------



## HealzDevo (Jul 1, 2006)

Not so idiotic depending on how you stage it and what you tell people. It could with the right background be used to fool people into thinking it was knocked out in the field, although with the amount of ammunition to hit it and destroy it I think the German Tank crews were in more danger from mechanics than most of the Russian Tank Crews. Even a T-34 was supposed to have a bit of a hard time penetrating the armour. Yes, it could do it but not all the time. Also how much training would the German Tank Crews in their tanks like King Tiger and the rest have had in relation to the Russian Tank Crews of the T-34 and the rest?


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2006)

_"Even a T-34 was supposed to have a bit of a hard time penetrating the armour. Yes, it could do it but not all the time."_

The T-34 couldn't penertrate the King Tiger's frontal armour ever. The T-34 cannon wasn't even powerful compared to it's German counter-parts. 

The King Tiger was designed for the Western front, because the designers knew the weight was going to be massive and the West road networks would hold it up. Whether or not the King Tiger saw more action on the West or East, I don't know. But I'll take Erich's word.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 1, 2006)

They couldn´t defeat the glacis (upper frontal hull), but there is high probability that a T-34-100 may defeat the lower hull or the turret front, even the T-34-85 may do so from very close range and at direct impact angles.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2006)

T-34-100 ?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 1, 2006)

Intersting stuff. Cant wait to see some sources though. There are plenty of other people that should post there sources here as well!


----------



## plan_D (Jul 1, 2006)

I want to know what a T-34-100 is. Unless it's the Su-100 or T-44...


----------



## Henk (Jul 1, 2006)

Oh boy we have something no one else ever heard of except for one person.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 2, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I want to know what a T-34-100 is. Unless it's the Su-100 or T-44...



There were two prototypes of T-34 with 100mm D10. The first suffered from too heavy recoil forces, the second was found to be excellent. Nethertheless the project was postponed because of mass production concerns. Subsequent development lead to the T44 with a somehow smaller main gun.

regards,


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 2, 2006)

So why the fu*k would u compare what could have happened to the King with a theoretical tank??? Thats just plain stupid....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 2, 2006)

Agreed


----------



## delcyros (Jul 2, 2006)

It all belongs to the artelleristic performance of the D10. This gun was in service for several tank hunters. Nethertheless, I earlier stated that even the 85 mm D 5 of the T-34-85 will have a reasonable chance to defeat the turret front. However, running my calculators shows that it cannot do. The necessary impact velocity exceeds the muzzle velocity, but not by much (24 m/s or ~ 80 fps are missing). If we factor nose shatter, the gap widens significantly.


----------



## plan_D (Jul 2, 2006)

So, the 'T-34/100' didn't go past prototype stage. Next you'll be informing us how well the KV-7 could have done...


----------



## delcyros (Jul 2, 2006)

Never mind, Plan_D, the comparison was biased, agreed.
it all belongs to the artelleristic performance of the tank gun. The D10 has a superior AP-performance and was widely used in tank hunters.
Compare it with the 122mm D25 of the JS-II:
At ~1300 m distance the impact velocity is 2273 fps and the aof is .78 deg, allowing for penetration with a shattered AP-cap (projectile nose suffers no or little damage), altough only barely: 2254 fps are necessary to defeat the turret front plate. Differences in barrel wear (=MV) or target angle or plate properties may cause a somehow lower performance, but there is enough plausibility (>80%) for penetration at closer distances than ~1000 m. (compare: 1390 m for the D10 with a projectile suffering nose shatter)


----------



## Soren (Jul 2, 2006)

The 122mm L/43 D-25T would penetrate no more than 183mm of vertical 240BHN RHA armor at 500m. For comparison's sake the 88mm L/71 Kwk43 achieved the same at ~1,800m distance, penetrating 176mm of vertical 240BHN RHA armor at 2,000m.

- Results achieved at the Aberdeen proving grounds.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 2, 2006)

...and now You have to factor that 240 BRH RHA is a lot superior to the armour used in the turret front, which prooved to be soft&brittle due to lack in some metals necessary to make a plate beeing hard ductile. The plates used in the Aberdeen prooving ground were standart US homogenious plates, undoubtly the best of the world by this time (and for plates under 8" thickness).
That´s why I use to recalculate for specific shell/plate properties, altough I also use assumptions in some aspects (shell metal properties to name one), results will differ from plate to plate and little is known about the circumstances of impact. Note that in case of the turret front there is a large central hole for the tank gun. This hole doesn´t impaire the resistance of the plate but the ability to move sideways (elongation) under impact stress (the closer the impact is on a plate edge, the more reduced is the elongation). That´s one reason why single, large plates are superior to many small ones welded together. 
I must admit that the possibility arises that my metal properties are generally too low, since the important plate elongation ability I took, is always measured from the plate edges (wouldn´t be wise to cut samples from the middle of an expensive plate), implying that an impact on the middle would result in better plate resistance, generally. 
I do not question that the 8.8 cm KWK/L71 is the best tank gun of ww2.
Even the JS-II almost has no immune zone to it:
upper hull, front (120mm sloped back 30 deg): penetration up to 4170 m, no nose shatter
middle hull, front (60 mm sloped back 73 deg): not possible, far beyond proofing angle for 8.8 cm shells under 10000 m distance, shell will be deflected in most cases
lower hull, front (100 mm inclined 30 deg.) : penetration up to 4630 m, no nose shatter
These distances questioning that the JS-II had ANY immune zone vs 8.8cm KWK L71.


----------



## Soren (Jul 4, 2006)

US test-plates were in no way the best Delcyros, they were actually abit on the soft side. German test-plates were of much better quality and more resistant than US test-plates, the German test-plates being of 260 - 300 BHN. - The best available during WWII.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 4, 2006)

Partly correct. They had more brinell hardness (and also deeper down the plate), making this kind of armour comparably tough. However, as a side effect of the high ability to resist being permanently deformed by a slowly-applied or rapidly-applied force on a small area, very hard materials are usually also brittle and suddenly fail over a large area when the applied force exceeds the shear or tensile strength of the material. This was a problem to most but not all german plates. 
Tank armor(Improved "HIGH-%" NICKEL-STEEL with Molybdenum added), which is made of higher hardness to protect against close-range, high-velocity projectile impacts from close range and projectile fragments are moving at a high velocity near the point where their filler explodes. Very low Percent Elongation should result in larger scaling effects than with softer (=more ductile) plates.
The US homogenious plates, beeing softer, could tear and therefore deflect incoming projectiles better. In general spoken, the lower the impact obliquity, the better the german plate in comparison, the higher the impact obliquity, the better the US plates. Sound and simple.
Quality of plates differs a lot. The best tank armour quality of ww2 is represented in the thinner turret front plates of the Pz-III tanks, beeing extremely hard and still ductile (Q:1.10; E:18%). The Tiger I also has tough and ductile armour but the Panther, beeing tough, was prone to spalling effects and the Tiger-II armour in the end was both, soft&brittle. If You compare Tiger-II plate properties with those of US plates (both using acceptance limits as comparison), the US average 1944 plate is far superior.


----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2006)

Delcyros 260 - 300 BHN is in no way brittle, its the best there was, and 240 BHN is abit too soft - hence why German guns achieved such tremendously high results at Aberdeen compared to German test-results with the same guns.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 5, 2006)

In comparison to US plates, german plates were not that ductile. Part of the problem was the unsolved hydrogenium embrittlement, not noticed by german metallurgists. A plate beeing initially ductile soon becomes brittle with a significant drop in %-elongation ability (often between 1.5 and 2.5%) due to wear of use. US plates had this problem fixed by mid 1943.
Now, If you factor that the angled plates of the Tiger-II ALWAYS caused high obliquity impacts, the german plates did not well in comparisoin to what would have been possible with a 240 BRH RHA US plate of simnilar thickness.
In opposition to this, the vertical surfaces of the Tiger-I benefitted from the very hard, av. 260 BRH RHA plates, the german used by then.


----------



## Soren (Jul 5, 2006)

Delcyros, I was talking purely about test-plates, where the German test-plates were of 260-300 BHN throughout the war, compared to the US 1943 std. 220-240 BHN test-plates. - 220 BHN for plates of >127mm. 

The armor quality of German tanks however went down considerably from late 44 to 45, the JagdPanther's having a frontal armor of just 200 BHN - Yet again somehow it proved immune to Allied fire, both Allied and German crews reporting that penetrations from the front were as good as impossible - One particular incident comes to mind where US M36 TD's after fruitlessly having bombarded a Jagdpanther's glacis plate from 300y away had to come within 100y to knock it out.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 6, 2006)

Correct. But I see no ductility related values in Your test samples.
To give an example about it´s importance:
T-34- front plate A (original):
45 mm sloped back to 60 deg.
Now I factor that 45 mm homogenious material with a BRH of ~450 and an elongation of 10% as usual for the somehow brittle soviet armour grade materials.
A 75 mm KWK 42 /L70 with a mv of 3100 fps and a shellweight of 15 lbs would need at least 2734 fps striking velocity to defeat the front plate. At close distance, the frontplate, despite its decent slope will be defeatable.
Using the 240 BRH US plate with high ductility (25% elongation) will give an edge of 120 fps in minimum striking velocity needed to defeat the plate, despite the somehow softer armour grade material. The plate will bend more and allows the projectile to ricochet off. The thicker the plate, the slower the impact velocity and the more slope is involved, the more important becomes ductility. Very thick plates may crack or-even worse- seperate spalling, dividing the plate. And since armour penetration is a local phenomen, such a plate has greatly reduced resistence. (A concern for all cast armour plates)


----------



## Soren (Jul 7, 2006)

Delcyros,

Panther crews reported that a successful penetration of the T-34's glacis plate could be achieved regularly at a distance of 2,500m. 

Tiger crews reported that at 1,000m (The most usual engagement range for Tiger's in the beginning), the Pzgr.39 usually tended not only to completely penetrate the glacis but also exit out the back end of the T-34 - through the engine. And mind you this is before the improved Pzgr.39/43 appeared...


----------



## plan_D (Jul 7, 2006)

All these calculations become worthless when the fact remains that Tigers and Panthers were hitting, and destroying the T-34 from ranges beyond which the T-34 could strike back. And this would be at any point on the T-34.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 7, 2006)

...just wanted to point out that BRH is not the one only metal quality.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 11, 2006)

My, my, my Soren but you've got the knives out haven't you?

I've posted allsorts, usually my stuff is wiped off for some strange reason (the Panther vs Bazooka test being one).

Constantly quoting is boring, but if it puts someone onto something of interest to them, so be it.

You can moan all you want Soren, but I am not about to do a bibliography, I have explained when I can't get links and as I find them I will post them.

I suppose anything new should go here though, so it's nice and together - I can understand that.

- I actually attempted it before!



> It was still a tank to be reconed with on the battlefield despite its mechanical problems.



True, even when immobile!

You must remember that the Soviet's used different tactics - sheer weight of fire to pound an ememy and that the 122mm ammo did not work by penetration like the other nations.

The way a Soviet (and some modern British) gunner works is to simply hit a target 'till it stops moving.

I don't think you take these factors into consideration do you delcyros?



> Also how much training would the German Tank Crews in their tanks like King Tiger and the rest have had in relation to the Russian Tank Crews of the T-34 and the rest?



Usually a lot more HealzDevo, but like most WW2 German equipment it was not for the badly trained and/or inexperienced.



> The T-34 cannon wasn't even powerful compared to it's German counter-parts.



Er, the 76mm vs the 50mm 75mm L24 and the 85mm vs the L48 75mm? - I'd say it was.



> The King Tiger was designed for the Western front, because the designers knew the weight was going to be massive and the West road networks would hold it up.



True, but a silly idea really. It was also intended to combat any heavy Soviet vehicles.

I think maybe a T34/100 was used, but IIRC it was a field upgrade in 'Nam, if I find info I'll post it.

Found some info the place where the Panther Ausf F was apparently used PlanD, thought you'd like it? I'll post it shortly.



> It all belongs to the artelleristic performance of the D10. This gun was in service for several tank hunters. Nethertheless, I earlier stated that even the 85 mm D 5 of the T-34-85 will have a reasonable chance to defeat the turret front. However, running my calculators shows that it cannot do. The necessary impact velocity exceeds the muzzle velocity, but not by much (24 m/s or ~ 80 fps are missing). If we factor nose shatter, the gap widens



Yes delcyros, the D10 results you post are fascinating, to me at least.

I know you don't factor tungsten shells like APDS APCR/HVAP into your calculations? - Maybe you should state this more clearly?



> These distances questioning that the JS-II had ANY immune zone vs 8.8cm KWK L71.



If it's glacis wasn't hit square on?...(Spalling or crew shock etc might still result in a KO though, or allow time for a folow-up round).

I know that T34 armour spalled horrendously when hit by even a glancing blow, also the stress from a hit can affect a glacis, as can weak-points like the MG ball-mount etc.

Also if a blow drops a piece of heavy equipment previously bolted to the inside of the tank on top of you then...

Simply saying x round will not defeat x plate is going nowhere, though delcyros' calculations give a very good indication of what is a likely result.

Continuing would give a good real-world expectation of what might happen, luck is also a big factor!


German test plates may have been the best in the world, but the King Tigers armour was often sub-standard; brittle, soft and prone to spalling.

As for the King Tigers armour quality, I think 'very variable' sums it up.



> The US homogenious plates, beeing softer, could tear and therefore deflect incoming projectiles better.



Yes, I remember a Sherman's belly armour 'bent' when hit by an AT mine. KO'd the driver, but no penetration happened.



> In general spoken, the lower the impact obliquity, the better the german plate in comparison, the higher the impact obliquity, the better the US plates. Sound and simple.



Yes, 'till APC/APCBC is factored in?



> The Tiger I also has tough and ductile armour but the Panther, beeing tough, was prone to spalling effects and the Tiger-II armour in the end was both, soft&brittle



Prone to cracking too, though that would definately be ductility I guess spalling was various factors, not 1 main one (non-homogenious etc)?

Look at it this way Soren;

2 pieces of clay - 1 hard, 1 soft.

KwK43 = sharp knife

D25 = hammer

Right, you could pound the soft clay or stab it, but with the hard clay you can just shatter it or hole it, you understand?



> Part of the problem was the unsolved hydrogenium embrittlement, not noticed by german metallurgists. A plate beeing initially ductile soon becomes brittle with a significant drop in %-elongation ability (often between 1.5 and 2.5%) due to wear of use. US plates had this problem fixed by mid 1943.



Thank you very much for that delcyros! Good info, thanks!



> Now, If you factor that the angled plates of the Tiger-II ALWAYS caused high obliquity impacts



The D25 was a howitzer remember, and was sometimes used that way...



> The armor quality of German tanks however went down considerably from late 44 to 45, the JagdPanther's having a frontal armor of just 200 BHN



I wonder Soren, some StuG's were made of mild, unhardened steel - perhaps this was what the Panther 'suffered' from and could have actually been a blessing?!



> One particular incident comes to mind where US M36 TD's after fruitlessly having bombarded a Jagdpanther's glacis plate from 300y away had to come within 100y to knock it out.



Could be down to 2 factors called skate angle or shatter gap - wet cardboard can deflect tungsten there!



> At close distance, the frontplate, despite its decent slope will be defeatable.



Also the Panther will be firing down at the T34's glacis too, and the T34's glacis armour being only 45mm will mean shatter gap and skate angle aren't a factor.



> Tiger crews reported that at 1,000m (The most usual engagement range for Tiger's in the beginning), the Pzgr.39 usually tended not only to completely penetrate the glacis but also exit out the back end of the T-34 - through the engine.



I think that's a lie, though apparently a PaK43 did blow a T34's engine through the glacis, and quite a distance away!



> All these calculations become worthless when the fact remains that Tigers and Panthers were hitting, and destroying the T-34 from ranges beyond which the T-34 could strike back. And this would be at any point on the T-34.



Good point PlanD, but fights did sometimes get up close. These calculatons can answer questions like "at what distance could a T34/85 nail a Panther G head-on?" etc.



> just wanted to point out that BRH is not the one only metal quality.



Too right delcyros, I too understand the importance of this.

I apologize for my many quotes, but I find this thread very interesting and just can't help myself.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

Well schwarzpanzer I am still waiting on your info on the Mig-15 that was shot down by your father or uncle or whoever it was at the end of the way by a Seafire of Seafury, whatever it was.

I really want to know where you come up with this because the MIg-15 was not in service even at the end of the war.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 12, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> The way a Soviet (and some modern British) gunner works is to simply hit a target 'till it stops moving.
> 
> I don't think you take these factors into consideration do you delcyros?
> 
> ...




Thank You, there are many points to discuss, so let´s start.
I only used to consider plate penetration processes under the assumption that "penetration" means that at least 80% of the projectile´s body weight (excluding AP-cap and windscreen) make it through the plate. This doesn´t mean that the penetrating projectile is in effective bursting condition. At these very high impact velocities necessary to defeat the thick plates of Tiger II, the filler often is rendered useless. I do not take forces other than via pure momentum (Heat or hollow charges and of course no APCR / APDS-projectiles) into consideration because till today, I couldn´t perform computations with a high degree of reliability for them. I do feel confident with the results for APC and APCBC-rounds, only. It is correct that momentum alone will plug out plate weight, which flies around inside the undefeated tank (for example, a D25, APCBC 122mm projectile hitting a 200 mm average face hardened plate (vertically) with an impact velocity of 2300 fps will not defeat the plate but it will punch out some 60.5 lbs discs of armour with a velocity of 419 fps!) Awesome.
As You already recognized, I cannot tell what will happen in all cases but these computations do give some probability whether or not round X will defeat plate Y under Z circumstances, if it hits the plate for the first time.
(take notice that repeated hits may defeat a plate with ease, which they shouldn´t defeat normally). I also neglect fluke hits (optics, weak points of the plate, etc.) , because they do make calculations very buisy for me (I do only have a very rudimentary base of knowledge regarding those weak spots), altough design failures usually tend to attract such "fluke hits". This should be noted.
I do not know how effective the D-25 as a howitzer would be. At least in the gunmounts used for Js-II this can be excluded. A benefitial effect would be at distances around 10000m for this gun (ergo distances far beyond the optical devices capability) or the barrel has to be elevated 60 deg+, but this isn´t possible for the JS-II. At a distance of 3000 m the difference in angle of fall between high velocity D10 and low velocity D25 is only 0.7 deg. I do not know wther or not this gun could be loaded with fewer charges, this would make the gun an even more worrisome penetrator for horizontal plates.
You haven´t been around here for some time, Schwarzpanzer, I am really glad to see You are back!
I am also looking forward to see Soren rejoining, there is nothing I enjoi more than such a well argued debate.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 12, 2006)

Hi delcyros,

You too mate! Glad to be back, I think real progress on this debate has been made.

I'd be happy to talk through the points you posted:

I take it you only include AP with a HE filler?

These were the norm in WW2 and were not called APHE by the Germans or Americans, but for the British APHE shells were not used as they reduced penetration performance, solid shot was used only. Perhaps you may need to recalculate your QF 17pdr figures?



> because till today, I couldn´t perform computations with a high degree of reliability for them.



'till today? Could it be possible that you now know how to calculate for these? If so, great!!



> It is correct that momentum alone will plug out plate weight, which flies around inside the undefeated tank (for example, a D25, APCBC 122mm projectile hitting a 200 mm average face hardened plate (vertically) with an impact velocity of 2300 fps will not defeat the plate but it will punch out some 60.5 lbs discs of armour with a velocity of 419 fps!) Awesome.



Did you calculate that? - If so great work! If not, great info!

The probability factor is excellent, it seems that in 'real-world' conditions (discounting crews) that your calculations are a great indicator.

BTW: Can you work out @ what range a T34/85 could kill a Panther G (Late) head-on, please?

The same for a Pak40 vs an IS2M would also be interesting to me.

You can probably figure these out? - I find that very impressive.

What I like most is that your results seem completely unbiased, commendable.

I feel your omissions are sensible, but you almost always note them.

I keep forgetting the IS2 has poor elevation, sorry! What about the ISU-122?



> I do not know wther or not this gun could be loaded with fewer charges, this would make the gun an even more worrisome penetrator for horizontal plates.



Do you mean like modern 'bag and sticks'?

I would've thought more of a charge would be better??

I do know though that Soviet propellent was of very poor quality (@ least that much is true!).


Hi DerAdler,

Sorry, the MiG was shot down in the Korean war, by a Hawker Sea Fury (piston-engined). The topic was called something like; 'piston-engined jet kills' or something - I didn't think it meant WW2 only.

A bit of info at the bottom of this page:

Hawker Sea Fury - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


That link I promised PlanD: 

Germany's Panzerkampfwagen V, Panther, SdKfz 171

- It says "Some were used at Stuhlweissenburg in 1945 with great success." Though it is not where I originally saw the info (IIRC they were made by Daimler-Benz and numbered 6). It also seems confused between the Panthers II Ausf F.


A Soviet tanker saying the Shermans armour quality was better than the T34's. Quality, that is - not design:

"Emcha" Commander


This may be of interest to some:

Background Information on the M1911 .45 Caliber Pistol

- 9mm PB vs .45 ACP penetration/lethality comparison.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi DerAdler,
> 
> Sorry, the MiG was shot down in the Korean war, by a Hawker Sea Fury (piston-engined). The topic was called something like; 'piston-engined jet kills' or something - I didn't think it meant WW2 only.
> 
> A




Yes I know that it was in Korea and have allways known that. The post is for piston-engined jet kills and does ot have to be WW2 however in your post you said that it was shot down at the end of WW2.



Here is what you wrote:

My grandads Aircraft Carrier (it wasn't exactly 'his') *at the end of WW2*, HMS Ocean, apparently had a Hawker Sea Fury that destroyed at least 1 MiG 15 Faggot. I think he left before that happened, but it's something I've been meaning to ask him.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 13, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I take it you only include AP with a HE filler?
> Perhaps you may need to recalculate your QF 17pdr figures?
> BTW: Can you work out @ what range a T34/85 could kill a Panther G (Late) head-on, please?
> The same for a Pak40 vs an IS2M would also be interesting to me.
> ...



True. I only take AP with HE filler, but the difference is not that striking. The difference do belong to condition of impact, not to penetration (for a filler under 4%), e.g. whether or not the projectile makes it through the plate in effective, bursting condition or not (large fillers tend to degrade the condition, small or no fillers do greatly improve the condition).
For these calculations I need a confirmation of the basic datas:
Panther Ausf. G:
A1)turret face: 100mm @ 12 deg. (cast) with a BRH of 220-260 and an E of <10% (I use 240 BRH and 10%)
A2)turret mantlet: 100 mm rounded (cast) with a BRH of 220-260 and an E of <10% (I use 240 BRH and 10%)
B)front galcis: 85mm @ 55 deg (RHA) with a BRH of 220-265 and an E of 18%
(I use 250 BRH and 18%)
C)lower front: 50 mm @ 55 deg (FH) with a BRH of >555 and an E of 16-18%
average qulaities for armour: A) Q:1.05 , E: 10; B: Q: 1.05; E:18; C: Q: 0.98 -FH armour is celculated seperately-
D5 85 mm gun:



Caliber = 3.3 inch (8.5 cm) 
Shell weight = 20.26 lbs (9.2 kg) 
Muzzle velocity = 2621 fps (792 m/s) 
shell type: APCBC
filler: 2.5%

Relative ballistic performance: 0.95 

Muzzle energy = 2.978 megajoules = 1097.2 foot-tons 

Relative muzzle energy: 0.92 



----Elevation--------Range----Time----Velocity----Fall Angle---on turret face---on galcis------on lower hull
----0--------------->100yrds--0.1 s---2594 fps----0 deg-------1815 fps-----no penetration---(627)* fps
----0.1-------------250yrds---0.3 s---2542 fps----0.1 deg-----1740 fps------no penetration--(525)* fps
----0.2-------------500yrds---0.6 s---2468 fps----0.2 deg-----1639 fps------no penetration--patial penetration
----0.3-------------700yrds---0.9 s---2398 fps----0.4 deg-----1509 fps------no penetration--no penetration
----0.4-------------900yrds---1.2 s---2332 fps----0.5 deg-----(1418 ) fps----no penetration--no penetration
----0.5-------------1100yrds--1.4 s---2289 fps----0.6 deg-----(1346) fps-----no penetration--no penetration
----0.6-------------1300yrds--1.7 s---2229 fps----0.7 deg-----(1242) fps-----no penetration--no penetration
----0.7-------------1500yrds--2.0 s---2172 fps----0.8 deg-----1137 fps-------no penetration--no penetration
----0.8-------------1700yrds--2.2 s---2135 fps----0.9 deg-----1065 fps-------no penetration--no penetration
----0.9-------------1900yrds--2.5 s---2083 fps----1.1 deg-----958 fps--------no penetration--no penetration
----1.0-------------2100yrds--2.8 s---2033 fps----1.2 deg-----845 fps--------no penetration--no penetration
----1.1-------------2300yrds--3.0 s---2001 fps----1.3 deg-----766 fps--------no penetration--no penetration
----1.2-------------2400yrds--3.3 s---1955 fps----1.5 deg-----639 fps--------no penetration--no penetration
----1.3-------------2600yrds--3.6 s---1911 fps----1.7 deg-----partial penetr.--no penetration--no penetration
----1.4-------------2800yrds--3.8 s---1883 fps----1.8 deg-----Plate holed-----no penetration--no penetration
----1.5-------------2900yrds--4.1 s---1842 fps----2.0 deg-----no penetration--no penetration--no penetration
----1.6-------------3050yrds--4.3 s---1816 fps----2.1 deg-----no penetration--no penetration--no penetration
----1.7-------------3200yrds--4.6 s---1778 fps----2.3 deg-----no penetration--no penetration--no penetration
----1.8-------------3450yrds--4.8 s---1754 fps----2.4 deg-----no penetration--no penetration--no penetration
----1.9-------------3600yrds--5.1 s---1719 fps----2.6 deg-----no penetration--no penetration--no penetration
----2.0-------------3700yrds--5.3 s---1696 fps----2.7 seg-----no penetration--no penetration--no penetration

( ) - indicate that the projectile penetrates but suffers significant shatter, rendering the projectile´s small cavity useless
( )* - indicates the projectile is broken into two or more parts, remaining velocity is relative to lower body parts, projectile always is ineffective

(to be continued)
Conclusion: The 85 mm D5T of the T-34/85 has a reasonable chance to defeat the turret face of the Panther G at 1380 m up to 2200 m distance with 80% reliability for APCBC rounds and direct impact angles. At lower distances from 1200m to 830m the projectile may suffer shatter, thus reducing the probability of effective penetration considerably.Even if so, the projectile may still be able to knock out the turret by spalling effects or fragmentation which penetrates. At distances under 830 m the projectile, despite shatter, will always penetrate the plate by pure momentum more or less intact other than nose shatter. Take notice that target area is pretty small and most projectiles hitting the mantlet will glance off, so the turret face can only be defeated near the edges, baring some kind of fluke hit.
The Panther´s glacis cannot be defeated by single hits from the 85 mm gun, except for a fluke hit or so. At point blanc range the gun misses 591 fps (178 m/s) to defeat the plate (exceeding muzzle velocity of the D-5), at 3500 m distance the gun misses 1053 fps (318 m/s) striking velocity to defeat the plate. Too much.
The Panther´s lower hull is defeatable at distances below 300m, however, most projectiles will glance off or break into parts, limiting the reliability of penetration (est. 66%).


----------



## delcyros (Jul 13, 2006)

Here we go with the Pak 40 and the JS -2 m:
I do not know the specific Js-2m plate thicknesses so here are my estimations:
turret face: 100 mm (cast); 
glacis: 120mm @ 60 deg (cast)
lower hull: 100 mm @ 30 deg (cast)
-all BRH of 420; equaling to Q:1.31 and E: 5%

pak 40 


Caliber = 2.96 inch (7.5 cm) 
Shell weight = 15 lbs (6.9 kg) -Pz.Gr. 39- 
Muzzle velocity = 2540 fps (770 m/s) 

Relative ballistic performance: 1.05 

Muzzle energy = 2.057 megajoules = 757.9 foot-tons 

Relative muzzle energy: 0.92 



----Elevation-------Range-----Time-----Velocity--Fall Angle--on lwr. hull------on glacis--------on turret face 
----0--------------<100yrds---0.1 s----2526 fps--0.1 deg---(880) fps--------no penetration---1217 fps
----0.1------------200yrds----0.3 s----2479 fps--0.1 deg---(702) fps--------no penetration--- 1116 fps
----0.2------------400yrds----0.6 s----2411 fps--0.2 deg---(426) fps--------no penetration---(956) fps
----0.3------------700yrds----0.9 s----2348 fps--0.3 deg---partial penetr.---no penetration---784 fps
----0.4------------900yrds----1.1 s----2307 fps--0.4 deg---plate holed------no penetration---651 fps
----0.5------------1100yrds---1.4 s----2249 fps--0.6 deg---no penetration---no penetration-- 399 fps
----0.6------------1300yrds---1.7 s----2193 fps--0.7 deg---no penetration---no penetration-- partial penetr.
----0.7------------1500yrds---1.9 s----2158 fps--0.8 deg---no penetration.---no penetration--no penetration
----0.8------------1700yrds---2.2 s----2107 fps--0.9 deg---no penetration---no penetration--no penetration
----0.9------------1850yrds---2.5 s----2058 fps--1.1 deg---no penetration---no penetration--no penetration
----1.0------------2000yrds---2.7 s----2021 fps--1.2 deg---no penetration---no penetration--no penetration
----1.1------------2150yrds---3.0 s----1996 fps--1.4 deg---no penetration---no penetration--no penetration
----1.2------------2300yrds---3.4 s----1971 fps--1.5 deg---no penetration---no penetration--no penetration
----1.3------------2400yrds---3.7 s----1945 fps--1.6 deg---no penetration---no penetration--no penetration
----1.4------------2500yrds---4.0 s----1908 fps--1.7 deg---no penetration---no penetration--no penetration
----1.5------------2600yrds---4.3 s----1862 fps--1.8 deg---no penetration---no penetration--no penetration
----1.6------------2700yrds---4.7 s----1823 fps--1.9 deg---no penetration---no penetration--no penetration
( ) - indicates that the projectile suffers shatter, rendering the small cavity charge useless

Conclusion: The 7.5 cm Pak 40 with Pz.Gr. 39 (APCBC) has a reasonable chance to defeat the lower hull plate of the Js-2m at distances closer than 600 m. (450m with 80%) for direct impact angles. At all distances at which the projectile may penetrate, it will also suffer full shatter, questioning the penetration at all but point blanc ranges, at which it will fully penetrate the lower hull of the JS-2m (assuming that 100% of the projectile´s weight, excluding AP-cap and windscreen will move through the plate). The 60 deg. sloped back 120 mm glacis of the JS-2m cannot be defeated by the Pak 40, there are more than 2000 fps striking velocity missing to do so.
In case the projectile hits the edges of the turret face (without hitting the mantlet first), there is good chance that the projectile will knock out the turret, even from considerable distance as far as 1150m ( resp. 860 m with 80% reliability) at bets possible circumstances. Again, at distances closer than 450 m the projectile´s nose will suffer shatter but in this case the impact force is great enough to always assure that 100% of the projectile´s weight will make it through the plate, despite shatter (except for a shatter gap between 450m and 250m).
Keep notice that hittable target size for turret face is rather small with a wide area covered by the 100mm mantlet...


----------



## Soren (Jul 17, 2006)

*Delcyros*, don't tell me you actually believe this 80% reliability condition set out by the Russian Battlefield site ?? Also worthy of note is the extremely poor quality of the test-plates the Soviets used to test their guns against - totally negating the 80% reliability factor. 

Also when it comes to penetrating armor, calculations like these are often very mis-leading. Panther crews certainly didn't fear the Soviet 85mm L/53 AT gun, as it failed to penetrate any part of the front armor from distances greater than 300m - its round would either bounce off or shatter - Tiger E crews on the other hand, despite its straight armor, felt completely immune to this gun. 

Test results achieved at Aberdeen revealed that the German 88mm Kwk36 would duplicate the performance of the Soviet 85mm L/53 AT gun at an extra 1,250m distance, and as slope was applied to the plate the difference got even larger. And this is with the Zis-53's best available AP round 'APCBC', the most frequently used 'solid shot' round faired much worse - The 88mm Kwk36 being capable of the same performance at an extra 2,000m distance.

Vertical armor penetration results achieved with the 85mm Zis-53 at the Aberdeen proving grounds: 

_APBC (Round used in 1946) = 1,000m - 102mm.
AP (Most common Soviet AP round during late war period) = 1,000m - 95mm
AP FH (Common Soviet AP round throughout WWII) = 1,000m - 86mm_

At a distance of 3,000m the 88mm Kwk36 actually achieved a penetrative performance of just 11mm less than that of the 100mm D-10.

*Schwarz*, the fact that you can't post any sources is because most of what you claim is bull****.(And as can be seen in your last post, you still keep on spewing it out) I've asked you to give me the website address to the place where you've 'supposedly' seen this picture of a Tiger II's frontal armor having been penetrated, so I could check what was on that site before it 'supposedly' went down - but as expected you refused to give me the address.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 18, 2006)

Soren said:


> *Delcyros*, don't tell me you actually believe this 80% reliability condition set out by the Russian Battlefield site ?? Also worthy of note is the extremely poor quality of the test-plates the Soviets used to test their guns against - totally negating the 80% reliability factor.



No, my 80% reliability figure belongs to some uncertainitys regarding the projectile nose. M 79 APCLC calculates via US M79 3" APC-rounds, which are in the middle of blunt shaped and pointed. So actually a very pointed body / AP-cap (8.8KWK) would perform significantly better simply because of the form factor. Other reasons (sectional density, cap-hardeness and others) explain why it may even perform far better (including those figures You quote). 
Keep in mind that these penetrations are only possible with 0 deg. longitudinal impact angle (target angle), which is rather uncommon in the heat of the battlefield. And of course, a low garde steel projectile (as those commonly used by red army forces) will suffer shatter much earlier than a solid, high grade steel projectile and thus will have a somehow reduced penetration as well.
I ALSO REVISED THE PENETRATION CURVES FOR THE JS-2M, resulting in very good immunity against 7.5cm pak 40, except for very close ranges (see above). Correction results from plate property differences.


----------



## Soren (Jul 18, 2006)

Your calculative assumptions on the Zis-53 against the Panther are still wrong however...

PS: Don't think that I don't think its some nice work you're doing Delcyros, cause I do, its just you're using the wrong figures to begin with.


----------



## delcyros (Jul 18, 2006)

I am open to learn and change my mind, Soren. I made some progress so far but I do firmly believe, there is a lot to factor in yet. From all this discussion I use to learn and try different aspects still open to discuss. Yet I need as much shell datas as possible, so there are some uncertainitys left, which may cause different results, agreed.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 19, 2006)

Those results seem fine to me Delcyros, though IIRC the Panther's glacis was only 80mm thick?

The mantlet 'chin' and hull ball-mount I take it wouldn't be included in your calculations?

PzKpfw V Ausf. G, Panther

(Yes, it's a link Soren, try not to get too excited?)


The IS2M one is good and surprising, the IS2 should have much less survivability when compared with the IS2M...


Soren,



> its round would either bounce off or shatter



Bounce off the shot-trap? A mantlet hit could kill, though it would be hard to pull off.



> Tiger E crews on the other hand, despite its straight armor, felt completely immune to this gun.



Rightly so, only HVAP at point-blank would be likely to KO a Tiger head-on. Even then that would take a brave or foolish crew, or a skillfull one hidden or flanking it, or loads of them etc...

Still, forgetting that, a T34/85 could kill a Tiger head-on.



> Test results achieved at Aberdeen



In the Cold War, gee I wonder if the info they gave out was just a little biased? 



> And this is with the Zis-53's best available AP round 'APCBC', the most frequently used 'solid shot' round faired much worse



HVAP was the best - you could even be court-martialled for using it inappropriately!

Solid shot was dire though - In Soviet tests on the D25, even HE performed better!



> At a distance of 3,000m the 88mm Kwk36 actually achieved a penetrative performance of just 11mm less than that of the 100mm D-10.



Funnily enough, I don't doubt that.



> the fact that you can't post any sources is because most of what you claim is bull****.



I have, but I'm not anal enough to post a bibliography with each post that's all.

Anyway, not everything in WW2 was documented, believe it or not.

Airbrushing, propaganda etc does need to be found out though, that is right.



> I've asked you to give me the website address to the place where you've 'supposedly' seen this picture of a Tiger II's frontal armor having been penetrated, so I could check what was on that site before it 'supposedly' went down - but as expected you refused to give me the address.



I'll look for it, if it'll make you bloody happy?

Nice sig and Avatar BTW.8)


----------



## delcyros (Jul 19, 2006)

Hi again. Soren put forward a serious argument with different shelltypes for the same gun. Actually, I know very well about german projectiles and their properties but I do have a big gap considering soviet projectiles. I used to calculate with a solid steel (no HE filler, only a tracer) projectile with similar properties to the US M 79 3" APC-round, factored down by size, weight and shatter probability. Still the differences in nose configuration (steel hardeness) may affect my calculations for them to some degree. I think that error caused by crh-values (sharpeness of pointed nose) is negliable because impacts under 45 deg. impact obliquity will always cause a circular hole, which becomes more and more elliptical as the obliquity rises. It cannot become better than those posted, it only can result is worser penetration figures to my understanding. This is especcially true for D10 vs. Panther (not for the penetration of the FH-type lower hull, only for the turret face figures).
According to Pz.Kpfw.Panther the lower hull armour of the Panther Ausf. G is only 80mm thick (laminated over 8 mm construction grade steel: Q:0.9,E:25%, which gives a total thickness of around 83 mm according to the De Marres Nickel-Steel formula). I did not included mantlet hits (from which I believe they will bounce off most but not all impacts) nor did I included hull-ball mounts (from which I do not have enough datas to perform calculations).

best regards,


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Jul 22, 2006)

Uh-oh!: 

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/king_02.jpg

- Yes, it's on 'that' site. I can't wait for Sorens inevitable diatribe. 

I saw it without the watermark before.

Anyway, either:

1. It's been airbrushed very, very well.

2. The sights are very oversized.

- or 3. The King Tiger got it's turret front pierced, imagine that!!


Hi delcyros,



> I used to calculate with a solid steel (no HE filler, only a tracer) projectile with similar properties to the US M 79 3" APC-round, factored down by size, weight and shatter probability.



I think the Soviet projectile is inferior quality, both it and the American round have explosive fillers IIRC.



> I think that error caused by crh-values (sharpeness of pointed nose) is negliable because impacts under 45 deg. impact obliquity will always cause a circular hole, which becomes more and more elliptical as the obliquity rises. It cannot become better than those posted, it only can result is worser penetration figures to my understanding.



I know the D25's AP shells would have better performance if they were blunter.



> nor did I included hull-ball mounts (from which I do not have enough datas to perform calculations).



Well, the kugel 'ball' whatever - if that takes a direct hit an AP shell is definately going through. The surrounding blende is, I think, tougher than the surrounding glacis?

It would be hard to figure this out, but not impossible (I'm sure I have the kugel 'ball' data somewhere...).


----------



## Soren (Jul 23, 2006)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Uh-oh!:
> 
> http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/germany/king_02.jpg
> 
> ...





Schwarz you really do live in an imaginary world of your own - What you see there is the bloody gun-sight !

Late production Tiger Ausf.B with gun-sight shield.


----------



## plan_D (Aug 1, 2006)

Oh, how embarassing.


----------



## m kenny (Oct 15, 2006)

ok


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2006)

Where is the hole? I can see lots of dents...


----------



## m kenny (Oct 15, 2006)

here


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2006)

I shall believe you in saying that's a hole. However, that's not the front glacis so that's not the area that's never been penertrated.


----------



## m kenny (Oct 15, 2006)

It is a frontal penetration.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2006)

Not glacis front though, which is the area in discussion.


----------



## m kenny (Oct 15, 2006)

plan_D said:


> I've seen a picture of a King Tiger's frontal armour that's been pierced. I don't have it. But I do know the story behind it, and it wasn't pierced in combat. The said King Tiger was turret #502 and was used as target practice, and shot to pieces by varying calibres and cannon of the Soviet inventory. In the picture all the pot marks around the eventual hole are clearly present.



Not so. '502' (bottom pic) is still with us and on display at Kubinka.
'102' (top pic) was the Tiger used in the firing trials.


----------



## plan_D (Oct 15, 2006)

I sit corrected. I'll remember that in future. I'm not sure where my mix up has come from, but thanks for the correction.


----------



## m kenny (Oct 15, 2006)

Soren said:


> Yep, hit over 100 times all over with anything from 50-152mm guns. It was truly shot to pieces. And the 100mm D-10 projectile which penetrated the front turret hit right where the gun-sight was situated, one of the weakest spots on any tank.





Soren said:


> Henk that is the link to the Russian test where litterally hundreds of rounds had been thrown at the tank even before the real testing began - In truth it is worth absolutely nothing.



If you look closely at the British firing trial Tiger you can see hit number 131. So what exactly did the Russians do that made you think 'over 100 hits' was unfair?


----------

