Could America have used heavy tanks?

[Soren]

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]

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.




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






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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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
4 rounds/minute

Muzzle Velocity
AP T43 (APBC-T) = 3200 ft/sec (975 m/sec)
HVAP T44 (APCR-T) = 3750 ft/sec (1143 m/sec)
HE T42 = 3,200 ft/sec (975 m/sec)

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]

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

Copy No____

To the chairman of the technical Council of the People's Commissariat for Armaments of the USSR, Comrade E.Satel.



According to the results of the test shooting performed against the German Panther tanks at the Kubinka Proving Grounds of the GBTU the guns tested in order of decreasing effectiveness against the frontal armor of the Panther are as follows:

1. The D-25 122 mm tank gun manufactured at the factory #9. Its ballistic characteristics are identical to those of the following guns: the A-19 122 mm, the D-2 122 mm (factory #9) and the S-4 (Central Artillery Design Bureau), giving it a muzzle velocity of 780-790 m/s with a 25 kg projectile. This gun reliably penetrates the Panther's "(G version/Glen)frontal armor at 2500 metres, and that is less than its maximum range.

2. The D-10 100 mm tank gun with ballistics identical to those of the BS-3 100 mm gun, its muzzle velocity being 890-900 m/s with a 15.6 kg projectile. This gun can penetrate the frontal armor of the Panther (G version/Glen)at up to 1500 metres, which is its maximum range.

3. The German 88 mm gun with muzzle velocity of 1000 m/s with a 10 kg projectile penetrates the Panther's (D version/Glen)frontal armor at distances of only up to 650 m.

The Panther's frontal armor is 85 mm thick and sloped at 35 degrees to the horizon. Therefore, when shooting at it from the above stated distances the angle of the projectile's trajectory at the point of impact is close to 0 degrees, and the difference between the axis of the projectile and the right angle to the armor's surface (angle of impact) is close to 55 degrees.

The above test results are preliminary, as the testing was done on guns with varying levels of deterioration: the 100 mm D-10 had fired 400 shots, and the 122 mm D-25 was new. However the difference in our test results is so great that it is unlikely that any necessary adjustments will be more than minor.

The method of evaluating armor penetration at angles of impact ranging from 0 to 30 degrees that is currently in use appears to be inefficient in evaluating the anti-tank guns.

Therefore it is our opinion that it is necessary to reconsider the subject of the most effective caliber of the anti-tank guns.

In regards to fighting the Panther tanks the tests at Kubinka clearly show that the 122 mm D-25 gun (V=780-790 m/s; g=25 kg) is superior to the 100 mm D-10 gun (V=890-900 m/s, g=15.6 kg). Also superior to the later are the 122 mm guns on wheeled carriage (the A-19 of the factory #9 and the S-4 of the TsAKB). The 100 mm BS-3 gun turns out to be less effective.

As you know, currently there are available two types of 122 mm field guns of a reduced weight but equal ballistic characteristics compared to the A-19 gun, i.e.:

1. The S-4 122 mm of the CADB, which is due to be delivered for field testing. The S-4 gun has a lot of parts common with the 100 mm BS-3 gun and its production could be begun using the facilities manufacturing the BS-3. Thus currently we are only waiting for the positive test results from the proving grounds and, probably, field tests of this gun.

2. The D-2 122 mm gun of the factory #9, which has successfully completed proving grounds tests on numerous occasions. A series of four D-2 guns is being readied for field testing. I believe that it is urgently needed to consider the task of manufacturing the D-2, in case S-4 does not pass its tests.

The second important problem that surfaced as a result of the tests at Kubinka is that of the high muzzle velocity, particularly the problem of the 85 mm guns with muzzle velocities of 1000-1100 m/s.

The tests have shown the projectile of the German 88 mm gun to have only limited effectiveness when used against the German Panther tank. It is also known that a similar 85 mm gun comes out to be roughly equal in its size and weight to a 100 mm gun with V=900 m/s. Currently 85 mm guns with muzzle velocities of 1000-1100 m/s are being developed by the CADB and factory #9, however their effectiveness against actual German tanks becomes doubtful, especially given the fact that such a gun would require tank turret dimensions no less than those used for the 100 mm D-10 or S-34 guns.

In this regard it appears that after the completion of the Kubinka tests, and if their final results confirm the current data, it would be beneficial to hold a special meeting to discuss further plans for the development of guns with high muzzle velocity.

The only point beyond doubt at this time is the need for increasing the muzzle velocities of the anti-aircraft guns, where it will result in drastic increase in range and reduction in projectile's time in travel to target.

Requesting you further instructions.



Deputy Chief of the Technical Department of the
Peoples Commissariat for Armaments:
Major-General of Engineering and Artillery
/TOLOCHKOV/

Chief of the Test Designs unit:
/VOLOSATOV/

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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: 220mm@blank point/180mm@1000m whilst common test on thin plates is 142mm@1000m.

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]

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
which was manufactured according to a specification (E43 is a bit on the late side but there was a preceeding specification calling for the same BHN) requiring a BRH of 220-265.

There is nothing like a most effective BHN level for armour plates. The higher, the more stopping power it has. Diminishing returns for overhard plates exist in manufacturing constraints and britellness (esspeccially hydrogen embrittelment and cast armour) and the ductility against large calibre impacts (large starts with 8" and more), the latter hardly beeing a factor against tank guns.
A 200mm, 260 BHN plate has less stopping power than a 120mm BHN 300 scaled up to 200mm thickness of the same quality, if it would be possible to treat such a plate without quality loss wrt laminations and ductility, which is the limiting factor. Otherwise they would have produced them.

 

[Soren]

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: 220mm@blank point/180mm@1000m whilst common test on thin plates is 142mm@1000m.

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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.