Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Very true Plan_D, that is also why I said any distance past 1,500m, as it wouldn't take the T-34's starting at 1,000m long to reach 800m from which they could start firing on the Panthers Tigers. At 1,500m the Tigers Panther would have time to knock out many T-34's before they could reach effective firing range. The Tiger Panther did afterall feature a near 100% first hit ratio at 1,500m.

As I say, it's a hard decision and in reality the Panther did achieve (if I remember correctly) a 9:1 kill ratio against the T-34.
Click to expand...

Yes, but this ratio was even higher during battles which took place over long and open stretches of landscape.
 
But the original discussion was about Panthers with Russian crews. I don't see those destroying the SU's in time.

Plus, the Panther is quite weak on the sides. German crews would know how to exploit this as they were experts in manoeuvring...

Kris
 
civettone- re your question about better crews in lesser tanks - the references I have seen to this are usually in passing and mostly in books. It's almost as if someone came up with it and everyone else just adds it in as a matter of course. It is usually found in overviews or books on campaigns - generally in the form " the allies were fortunate in some ways due to the German practice of putting more experienced crews in older model tanks such as the Panzer IV ". This is what you see on occasion. I know it can't be true of the heavy AFV units as the best crews were put in these and I have never seen anything to qualify the argument. I hope it doesn't become one of those accepted myths just because people keep saying it.

I am also glad to see my question about German and Russian crews in opposing vehicles has sparked such a spirited debate on the geographic features and intercontinental line crossings of the Soviet Union.
 

Actually the optics on the 100 was not poor at all, it was better than optics of the SU-85 and far more better than the of the T-34 with its dull triplex glass. It was good enough to hit a moving target at the distances up to 1500 m.
But Jagdpanter had some other advantages over 100: the PzGr 39/43 round gave the Jagpanther a slightly better AP power over long distances, and it carried also more ammuniton.
However, this factor can be count out : even for Jagpanther it would be very difficult to hit a moving low silluette target like Su-100 on the distance more than 1500m.
If a long range engagement was initiated between the two tanks the JagdPanther would singlehandedly take out many of the SU-100's
before having to withdraw to avoid being outflanked, and this is what happened frequently on the Eastern front
Click to expand...

Su-100s found only a limited use in combat so I highly doubt that Jagdpanther and Su-100 had much opportunities to meat each other in engagement.

Soren said:
The T-34 was more likely the best tank-fodder ever made
Click to expand...
well, tell that veterans of the T-III or T-IVC/D tank crews in Russia in 1941/42 - they certainly won't share your sense of humour on that point.
 
The optics used on the SU-100 was vastly inferior to the Zeiss optics used by the JagdPanther and other German tanks, and thats fact.

The SU-100's optics weren't sufficient for accurate fire against enemy tanks at 1500m, infact anything past 1000m was very difficult to hit. You can read about how German tank crews in late 44 felt safe from ANY Soviet tank at ranges passed 800m. German tanks on the contrary could were adviced to start their engagments at 2km range as hit percentages at this range and lower was very high.

Su-100s found only a limited use in combat so I highly doubt that Jagdpanther and Su-100 had much opportunities to meat each other in engagement
Click to expand...

I was talking against all tanks Ramirezz, not just the SU-100.

well, tell that veterans of the T-III or T-IVC/D tank crews in Russia in 1941/42 - they certainly won't share your sense of humour on that point.
Click to expand...

Huh ?? What kind of example is that ?! I bet M8 Greyhound M5 Stuart felt the same about the Sherman

The T-34 was essentially tankfodder from 1942 and onwards, the German tanks taking out 10-12 T-34's for every one of their own!
 
Many German weapons are vastly overvalued.

For example ,kwk43 comparing kwk36.

same warhead; muzzle velocity: 1000m/s (kwk43) to 780m/s (kwk36).


kwk36's penetration: 120mm (100m 30degree)
kwk43's penetration: 200mm (100m 30degree)

Everytime I see this kind of statistics, I cann't help laughting.

The author of kwk43's statictics was joking: Is the kinetic energy direct propotional to the penetration? Definitly NOT.I'll bet a cookie.

German amor quality varies during the war, and I have to say that the poor amor quality of kingtiger and jadgepanther (maybe including Kwk43's test amor)is usually ignored by someone.

In 1945 "Spring awake", the German amor troops was beat heavily by 2nd class Soviet army. Soviet 85mm 100mm 122mm showed their strength by FACT.

BTW, it is said that 90% T34 and 70% Js2 were destroyed by other German troops, NOT by German tanks/destroyers. If indian troops vs German amor, the indian's tank kill/lost ratio will be *:0: indian have no tank so their tank lose is zero.....Tank's main task is NOT destroying enemy tank. German tank's high kill/lost ratio is vastly benefited from other arms: infantry, AT gun, Luftwaffe, mine......


If some tanks are used intentively as tank destroyers. the good score of these tanks is natural: some American tank destroyers troops also have excellent ratio of kill/lost.
 
No,Soren, I didn't say it was superior or even equal, but it wasn't THAT inferior like really shitty optics of its predecessor, SU-85 (I saw photos made trough the optics of 85 - you can't even recognize any objects on distances more than 600-800 m - the glass is too muddy! I think though it has to do more with the quality of production rathen than with the construction itself)
SU-100 had a telescopic gunsight Tsh-19 - this is pretty the same gunsight wich was used in IS-2 ,which was based (or,better to say, copied) on the excellent german TZF-5 gunsight but had bigger sight scales up to 2000 m. Moreover , Soren, I have 2 combat reports of SU-100 tankers who destroyed german tanks on distances more than 1200 m , then I have reports of D-10S test in Kubinka with the 20-40% hit percentage on the targets at the distances between 1000 and 2000 m. When I find some time, I'll certainly translate it into English.
And please, as I said in the other post - do not rely so much on a veteran accounts or memoires- there're all subjective and often too inaccurately. For example I wouldnt judge the combat effectiveness of the Panther D solely based on the russian or american vets accounts. This is just too one - sided point of view.
German tanks on the contrary could were adviced to start their engagments at 2km range as hit percentages at this range and lower was very high.
Click to expand...
how high exactly? Not that I don't believe you on that point - we're all aware of the superb performance of the Zeiss optics on german tanks, but maybe you have some exact figures like I quoted regarding russian optics just two sentences ago.


Huh ?? What kind of example is that ?! I bet M8 Greyhound M5 Stuart felt the same about the Sherman
Click to expand...
What? Are M8 M5 MEDIUM TANKS?! ))))
The T-34 was essentially tankfodder from 1942 and onwards, the German tanks taking out 10-12 T-34's for every one of their own!
Click to expand...
according to contemporary researches, 5 for every panther and about 7-9 for every Tiger (but these numbers're so relative, actually I don't see much sense in a tank vs. tank comparison)
And T-34 was by no means a cannon fodder like Sherman wasn't it as well - it's all about (lackness) of tactics and your countrys mobile warfare doctrine. Before mid 1942 no german tank was a match for T-34 or KV-1, after 1942 it didn't matter anyway - they were build in too great numbers and they were still excellent from both operational and strategical point of view.
BTW, the most losses T-34 has suffered until late 1944 were inflicted (up to 75-80% I think) by PAKs
 
glen said:
German amor quality varies during the war, and I have to say that the poor amor quality of kingtiger and jadgepanther (maybe including Kwk43's test amor)is usually ignored by someone.
Click to expand...
ditto. At the late stages of war Germans produced really bad quality armour which was very vulnerable at the points where the armour plates were weld . In fact, there're numerous accounts of completely desintegrated german tanks after 152mm HE rounds hits in a front armour
 
Glen,

Quit posting bullsh*t. Your percentages are completely made up! German Panzers were infact responsible for most of the Soviet tank losses.

The KwK43 KwK36 are not overrated at all, and any Allied vet will loath you for saying so, esp. those who lost their dear friends to these guns at incredible ranges.

The performance of the KwK43 KwK36 are as follows:

8.8cm FlaK 18/36 KwK36 L/56

Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39-1 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr-39-1 APCBC): 773 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 51.09 KJ

8.8cm PaK43 KwK43 L/71

Projectile Weight (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 1,000 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 85.49 KJ


From German after action report:
March 1945, Lieutenant Beckmann from sPzJagAbt 88 destroyed Soviet IS-2 at the range of 4600 meters near Marzdorf.

___________________________________________________

What? Are M8 M5 MEDIUM TANKS?! ))))
Click to expand...

LoL! Now I see, you meant the Pzkpfw. III IV. Now that makes abit more sense. Please, to avoid any confusion in the future, next time use the right designation for the AFV's in question.

The Pz. III IV are just that, Panzers or PanzerKampfWagens - NOT T-3 T-IV.

In 1941 the T-34 was a menace, no doubt, but by mid 1942 it had litterally become gunfodder for the German panzers. The StuG III and Pzkpfw. IV F-2 both were easily capable of handling the T-34, esp. the StuG proved to be an absolutely devastating foe for the T-34.



Soren, I have 2 combat reports of SU-100 tankers who destroyed german tanks on distances more than 1200 m ,
Click to expand...

Err, and so ? Lucky hits are entirely possible.

then I have reports of D-10S test in Kubinka with the 20-40% hit percentage on the targets at the distances between 1000 and 2000 m. When I find some time, I'll certainly translate it into English.
Click to expand...

I already have them, so no need for any translation.

And please, as I said in the other post - do not rely so much on a veteran accounts or memoires- there're all subjective and often too inaccurately.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ! They are pretty much some of the most accurate info we've got! Up till now I've only been qouting excerpts from in depth after-action reports, date, time, place, distance rounds fired all covered.

how high exactly? Not that I don't believe you on that point - we're all aware of the superb performance of the Zeiss optics on german tanks, but maybe you have some exact figures like I quoted regarding russian optics just two sentences ago.
Click to expand...

8.8cm KwK43 L/71 hit percentage against 2 x 2.5 m targets with Turmzielfernrohr 9d using std. APCBC round (Pzgr.39/43):

500m: 100 %
1,000m: 100 %
1,500m: 95 %
2,000m: 85 %
2,500m: 74 %
3,000m: 61 %
3,500m: 51 %
4,000m: 42 %

Source: Thomas L. Jentz

_____________________________________________________

Moving on..

German test plate quality never fell, it was kept to the highest standards, and so were the AP projectile. To further stress this here are the German British penetration results for the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against RHA armour laid back 30 degree's from the horizontal:

Distance: German/British
1,000m: 165mm / 167mm
1,500m: 148mm / 153mm
2,000m: 132mm / 139mm

Note: The British were known for using very hard plates.

Source: Thomas L. Jentz Ian V. Hogg

The 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 was field tested by the US, UK, Germany, USSR, and all came to the same conclusion, the KwK43 is the best AT gun to see service in WW2.

During the testing done at the Aberdeen Proving grounds USA the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated that it would consistantly punch through 153mm of 240 BHN RHA armor at a distance of 3km with its std. APCBC round (Pzgr.39/43).



Source: "WW2 armor Gunnery" by Robert D. Livingston Lorrin Rexford Bird.

Note: For the results of some of the other guns tested at Aberdeen you can go read Tank Gun Comparison thread, I posted them there.

In USSR trials against another KingTiger the KwK43 punched straight trough the frontal turret and out the back, which amounts to 285mm of armor penetrated. Not even whilst hitting the very weak point where the gunsight was situated did the D-10 manage to even come close to this.
 
Soren，in the past, I agreed with you about the performance of Kwk43, but now NOT.Let's discard "subjective factor", just check the numbers.


This data is CORRECT, however, that's just the evidence of my opinion: Kwk36 is NOT overvalued but Kwk43 is.

The ratio of Kinetic Energy=5200 KJ/3107 KJ=1.677

Kwk36 @100m 30 degreee,penetration=120mm

120*1.677=201mm


If you believe Kwk43's penetration is 201mm @100m, 30degree, you will make a very big mistake.

If the the kinetic energy is direct propotional to the penetration, that is to say: two 100mm amor plates=one 200mm plate.This conclusion completely breaches the "theory" and "fact".


With regard to german shells, there are a lot same warheads with defferent muzzle speed, you can compute the ratio of both Kinetic Energy and penetration.

Jacob de Marre formula is the basic penetration formula which is very common in the military technology books:

b=Vc^1.43 *m^0.715 / (K^1.43 *d^1.07) (only for vertical plate)

This formula says: the penetration ability is direct propotional to the Vc^1.43 , NOT Vc^2.




The British were known for using very hard plates......What's the defference between 165mm / 167mm or 148mm / 153mm or 132mm / 139mm? What did you want to say? Do you mean the German test plate quality is ALSO very bad?

USSR conclusion? The Russian Battlefield


According to the formula, the kwk43's penetration is 172mm@100m, 30degree, not 201mm.
This explains why kwk43 can only penetrate Panther D glacis 80-85mm/55 degree WITHIN 650 meters. Slope plate penetration formula is quite complex depending on the ratio of T/D and the type of shells(AP.APBC,APCBC etc.)


Another proof of USA: L71 88mm can NOT penetrate the Jumbo's front/side amor @800 meters and more. You can google this story, it's L71 88mm not L56 88mm.........

During the testing done at the Aberdeen Proving grounds USA the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated that it would consistantly punch through 153mm of 240 BHN RHA armor at a distance of 3km with its std. APCBC round (Pzgr.39/43).
Click to expand...

I don't know what crap test plate was used at the Aberdeen Proving grounds. But one thing is confirmed:the front/side amor (152mm) of M4A3E2 must NOT be the rubbish 240 BHN RHA armor and must be better than kwk36 test plate ......
 

Attachments

  • 111.JPG
    220.9 KB · Views: 347
The Russian Battlefield

Cross-sections showing different arrangements for joining the frontal armour plates (JS2).

These arrangements are very very different! Tiger and Kingtiger can penetrate the front amor of early JS2 from 1500m even 2000m 3000m...,but they can NOT penetrate that of late JS2 within 100 meters!
 
Again quit posting bullsh*t Glen.

You clearly have no clue about KE and its effects on armor penetration or those of armor hardness durability. De Marre's theory is only usefull for penetrations against vertical armor, it goes right out the window as soon as any slope is applied, and like has been explained ALL German penetration figures are against 30 degree sloped plates!

That British test plates were very hard has nothing to do with their quality, the quality of British test plates was infact very good throughout the war.

The official German penetration figures for the 8.8cm KwK36 KwK43 with the Std. Pzgr.39 APCBC projectile against 260 BHN RHA armor laid back 30 degree's from the vertical:

Range: KwK36 / KwK43
100m: 120mm / 202mm
500m: 110mm / 185mm
1,000m: 100mm / 165mm
1,500m: 91mm / 148mm
2,000m: 84mm / 132mm

These figures were consistantly achieved against 260 BHN RHA armor plates. Std. criteria demanded atleast 2/3's of the projectiles fired to completely penetrate the test plate, ie. a 100% clean penetration. This is the most strickt critera used by any country during WW2.

By comparison the US testing criteria for their own rounds demanded only that 50% of the projectiles fired to partially penetrate the test plate. Hence why the 7.5cm KwK42 L/70 was found to outperform the US 90mm M3 in the tests conducted at the Aberdeen proving grounds against 240 BHN RHA armor.

Source: Thomas L. Jentz, Ian V. Hogg and Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird.

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

162 * 1.43 = 231. (Verifiying that De Marres theory was good for estimations against vertical plates only)

The 240 BHN RHA armor used in the Aberdeen tests was of very good quality and by viture of its Brinnell hardness number very durable as-well.

And as to the M4A3E2 on the picture you posted, it was engaged knocked out by a 8.8cm Flak 18/36 L/56 gun, NOT a PaK 43 !

_________________________________________________

Moving on to the late IS-2 type with the 120mm glacis plate laid back 60 degree's from vertical. Again NO, it was not even close to being invulnerable to the 8.8cm KwK43, it was infact very vulnerable even at 3km, YES all the way. And the lower front hull was even more vulnerable to the KwK43, being easily penetrated way past 3.5km.

But besides this there's the fact that the glacis on the IS-2 made up very little of the frontal area, and that the huge turret was always the no.1 target the German gunners would be aiming at. The turret remained a very vulnerable area on the IS-2, being easily penetrated by the Tiger Ausf.E's 8.8cm KwK36 gun even past 1,500m. Hence how a small Tiger Ausf.E unit managed to massacre 15 IS-2's in a frontal engagement at 1,500m:




Even the Tiger Ausf.E infact remained superior in combat to any Soviet tank till the end of the war.
 
I have to back up Soren on the IS-2 debate. The IS-2 was designed to withstand a direct hit from the KwK36 at 1000 metres and be able to penetrate 160mm at 30 degrees at the same range. In reality the D-25T was unable to penetrate the Panthers glacis above 600 metres. The IS-2 suffered from splintering of its own armour because it was not tempered as this process was deemed too slow and complex which left the IS-2 a lot weaker than the numbers claim.

The IS-2 was not a lame duck, it's role in the late war period cannot be downgraded - only the Soviet claims can be. In April '44 the IS-2 saw service with the 11th Guards Independant Heavy Tank Brigade in Ukraine. The 72nd Independant Guards Regiment [part of the 11th Brigade] in 20 days of fighting lost 8 IS-2 tanks and claimed 41 Tigers and Elefants (slightly excessive...). One IS-2 did, apparently, withstand five direct hits from an Elefant at 1500 - 2000 metres but was eventually destroyed at 700 metres by another Elefant.

The IS-2 met its first Tiger II in Sandomierz in August '44. On the 13th the 71st Heavy Tank Regiment met 14 Tiger IIs [of the 501st] with 11 of their own IS-2s. They engaged at 600 metres and four Tiger IIs were destroyed with seven damaged, while three IS-2s were destroyed and seven damaged. A deeper look into the battle could provide a better insight into the Soviet victory (positioning, luck etc.) but post-battle analysis by the Soviets did reveal that the IS-2 was vulnerable to the Tiger IIs KwK43 at well over 1000 metres.
 
The 122mm D-25T could penetrate 120mm of armor laid back 30 degree's from the vertical at 1,000m. The gun was effective against the Panther's glacis out to 600m after which it was unable to penetrate the glacis. The 88mm KwK43 L/71 would penetrate the Panther's glacis at up to 1100m with the std. APCBC round.

Still because some late war Panthers featured flawed glacis plates a hit from the D-25T at 700 - 900m could cause the glacis plate to crack, in which case the tank needed substantial repairs.

So although the 12.2cm D-25T wasn't amongst the most effective AT guns of WW2, such as the 128mm PaK44 L/55, 88mm KwK43/PaK43 L/71, 75mm KwK42/PaK42 L/70 the 17 pdr, it was nonetheless never a pleasant thing to get hit by one of its rounds.

I will again post the performance of the various guns during the trials at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA, all results against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:

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


17 pdr 25 pdr


90mm M3 L/52


75mm KwK42 L/70


122mm D-25T L/46


Source: "WWII armor Gunnery" by Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird.
 
I am glad to see that you are interested in the "penetration" although totally disagreed with you.


De Marre's theory is also can be applied on sloped plate, here is the "sloped formula":

b*K^1.43*secα^n=Ｖc^1.43*m^0.715/d^1.07
secα=1/cosα
Click to expand...

compared with vertical version:

b*K^1.43=Ｖc^1.43*m^0.715/d^1.07
Click to expand...

We can see the "α" factor added, α is the angle from vertical. However, be cautious with the factor "n" which is usually used incorectly by many people.

First, I will ask you why the tank designer is favorite of slope amor? The length of 50mm/60 degree (from vertical) amor is TWICE of 50mm/0 degree amor. So is the weight! So is the straight distance between amor two sides! If the 50mm/60 degree amor can NOT provide MORE THAN TWICE protection of 50mm vertical, the designers will be the most foolish technician in the world: why not put on 100mm vertical amor simply?

For many shells，the sloped "50mm/60 degree" plate has a extra "sloped effect" which provide MUCH MORE than 100mm protection ability, such as 110mm,125mm,130mm,depending on the ratio of thickness to shell diameter(T/D), shell head shape, cap type, shell material ... all is concluded in the facor "n". For steel material(enough hardness)--sharp tip AP, n=[-0.08*(T/D)^2+0.66*(T/D)+0.52]/0.7. Attention, this expression of "n" is NOT suitable for APBC, or APCBC or APCR,which are different from AP in many aspects.

For AP, the sloped effect is quite obvious, that's n>0.7, however, for APCBC, due to the normalisation phenomenon, the n is close to 0.7 when the angle from vertical is not bigger than 30 degree. Therefore, the 30 degree score of German APCBC is very close to their vertical score. I believe it's the main reason why designers invented APCBC instead of sharp-tip AP. You can find that many APCBC shell (including allied)with same velocity,same quality, same weight to AP could score higher penetration.


Nevertheless, the normalization ability of APCBC is limited when facing high oblique plate especialy 60 or 55 degree from vertical ! That explians well why the kwk43 only can penetrate Panther D's 85mm/55 degree within 650 meters, if the normalization is obvious, the 85mm thickness of Panther glacis will be easily penetrate by kwk43 beyond 3000+ meters.Of course, the blunt-nosed projectiles(APBC) also has the normalisation phenomenon, and in my oipnion, APBC's normalisation effct is inferior to APCBC facing 30 degree, but superior to APCBC facing 60 degree. We can discuss this issue in future.


That British test plates were very hard has nothing to do with their quality, the quality of British test plates was infact very good throughout the war.
Click to expand...

hardness is only one factor of amor's protection ability----"toughness" is another important factor and is usually tied up with ductibility/tensibility. In the De Marre's theory, the factor "k" includes all factors above(hardness, toughness). After all, we needn't talk too much: the acual performace of british test plate is very close to Germans, that's enough.


We can see the ratio of kwk43 to kwk36 penetration is a alomost constant:168% within 1000 meters which indicates us that there is also a constant ratio facing sloped amor compared with vertical score. In fact, the De Marre's sloped formular reveal that the penetration ability is also direct propotional to the Vc^1.43 , NOT Vc^2 because kwk36 and kwk43's projectiles have same shape/weight/matirial factors and the only difference is velocity.

kwk36 is of 1936, and kwk43 is 0f 1943. You cann't guarantee german test quality was identical within 7 years espicially noticing germany's embarrassment in late period. However, at the Aberdeen Proving grounds USA, american probably used identical amor when testing both kwk36 and kwk43.

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

162 * 1.432 = 232
Click to expand...

Thank you very much Soren! You helped me proving the correctness of De Marre's theory because the formular says the ratio of kwk43 to kwk36 is (1000/780)^1.43=1.427.

Now let's discuss the sploped plate.



100m 500m 1000m 1500m
KWK40 L/48
APCBC 99mm 91mm 81mm 72mm (30 degree plate)

kwk42 L/70
APCBC 137mm 125mm 113mm 100mm (30 degree plate)


kwk40's muzzle velocity is 750m/s, and kwk42's is 925m/s. According to de marr formular the ratio of kwk42 to kwk40 is (925/750)^1.43=135%

The official test score ratio: 137/99=138% (approximately 100m's score = 0m's)

Therefore, the De Marre's theory works well under sloped plate condition.My conclusion is that: the kwk43's score is cheating! kwk43 vaunts it has 168% penetration ability compared to kwk36 whilst it has only 143% actually, furthermore, the normalization effect of kwk43's APBCB is usually ignored by too many people and this enlarges kwk43's vertical penetration farther. This kind of "double cheating" is far beyond my tolerance. That's the reason I've wrote so much.

With regard to the M4A3E2 story, I'll collect my evidence to prove it's L71 88mm not L56 88mm in future.

late JS2's upper front hull---120mm/60 degree is definitely invulnerable to kwk43 and German 128mm, the turret amor of late JS2 is 160mm which is invulnerable to kwk43's APCBC beyond 500m. The pictures you posted is JS2 early version, it's120mm/30 degree sector is very weak facing German APCBC due to "normalization" effect. Let's see kwk36's score:


kwk36's APCR can penetrate 122mm/30 degree of german test plate at 1500 meters so it's NOT suprising to penetrate JS2's 120mm/30 degree at same distant. To be frank, I regard the early JS2 protection is far inferior to late version, I guess before 1944 mid russian didn't know "normalization" effect, so the crap 120mm/30degree design esxited.

With regard to lower front hull, it's all tanks weakness including kingtiger.


The last but not least, penetration critera.


German 67% probility of amor penetration is NOT the most strict critera because Russia has 80%......



normalisation effect cartoon
 

Attachments

  • empic.gif
    6.8 KB · Views: 478
  • 1234.jpg
    123.1 KB · Views: 137
Glen,

You still have no clue. And quit relying on battlefield.ru, its one of the most biased websites on the internet. (They don't even note that the German penetration figures are against 30 degree sloped plates!)

Furthermore the site claims that the German criteria for defining a penetration was that 50% of the projectiles fired had to penetrate the plate, which is completely and utter bogus. In reality the std. German criteria for a penetration demanded that atleast 2/3's of the projectiles fired completely penetrated the test plate, ie. a 100% clean penetration.

German test plates stayed the same throughout the war. And to further support my case that you know nothing of what you're talking about you start start talking about that the 8.8cm KwK36 was tested with the Pzgr.39-1 in 1936 !! In reality the gun was first tested with this APCBC projectile in 1941 !!, again against the std. high quality 260 BHN RHA armor. All German guns of 75mm and up were tested against 260 BHN RHA armor plates, below 75mm in caliber and the BHN was raised accordingly, and this standard criteria remained the same throughout the war!

Also read Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Birds book, they use the De marre theory as-well, and guess what, when they apply 30 degrees of slope the penetration figure for the KwK43 reaches ~139 - 142mm at 2km. Now when you factor in that this is against 240 BHN RHA armor then the 132mmm result against 260 BHN RHA plates suddenly sounds very accurate.

Btw, everything else being equal, penetration performance is directly proportional to KE pr. surface area.

PS: Just so you know De marre's method isn't used anymore for determining armor penetration, it simply isn't accurate enough as slope is applied, but thats not surprising considering how old the theory is..
 
You do know that those soviet figures list penetration against 90 degree's 60 degree's from the horizontal. The Germans, British Americans all determined slope from the vertical.
 
Therefore, the De Marre's theory works well under sloped plate condition.My conclusion is that: the kwk43's score is cheating!
Click to expand...

You must be joking ! Cheating ??!! They are real life results for crying out loud !

You're obviously a gamer of some sort..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
20K
Reluctant Poster
R
A
Rolls Royce Tank Engines
Replies
2
Views
446
Reluctant Poster
R
P
Which tank is this ?
Replies
2
Views
669
programa
P
M
The D-Day Naval Gun Battle
Replies
0
Views
702
MIflyer
M
WWII Destroyers?
2
Replies
34
Views
842
Thumpalumpacus
Menu
Log in
Register