Seeing that its just the truth I can't see how it's wasted.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
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.
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.
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.The Panther's 75mm KwK42 L/70 out-performed the M26 Pershing's 90mm M3 on all accounts.
At the Aberdeen proving grounds, on REAL LIFE tests, please give me the clue of US L70/90mm penetration and compare it with kwk43.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 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
The Sherman did it's job but it could have used a bigger brother to hide behind when things got tough.
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.
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)
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).
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..
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.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)
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/
Seeing that its just the truth I can't see how it's wasted.
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.
One mile is 1,600m.
The 88mm KwK43's penetration figures aren't fake, the US, British and yes even the Soviet tests proves this.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.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.
102mm @ 46 degree's is 147mm, and the 88mm KwK43 L/71 will punch through 153mm at 3km.
So the point stands.
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!?"As for quality, well the quality of the German test plates were always excellent throughout the war, the acceptance criteria beeing very strickt.