Could America have used heavy tanks?

syscom3 · Mar 8, 2008

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

plan_D · Mar 8, 2008

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

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

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

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

davparlr · Mar 8, 2008

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

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

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

glen · Mar 9, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soren · Mar 9, 2008

Glen,

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

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

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

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

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

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

88mm KwK43

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

100mm D-10T

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

122mm D-25T

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

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

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

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

122mm D-25T L/46

Soren · Mar 9, 2008

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

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

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...

Good post Plan_D, I agree 100%.

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

glen · Mar 9, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

D25T's penetration 0 degree

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

pen. decrases 10mm every 500m,

α=30

88mm PaK 43 L / 71

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

pen. decrases 20mm+(α=30) every 500m.

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

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

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

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

α=30

88mm PaK 43 L / 71

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

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

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

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

Soren · Mar 9, 2008

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

Directly proportional, no, but close.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strange ? No.

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

glen · Mar 9, 2008

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

2)official kwk43 pen.

α=30

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

official d25t pen.

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

I can't explain two issues below:

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

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

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

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

Juha · Mar 9, 2008

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

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

Juha

Soren · Mar 9, 2008

Glen,

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

Do you understand the importance of BC ?

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

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

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

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

The case is closed!

glen · Mar 10, 2008

α=30

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

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

α=0

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

It looks really good.

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

2) the advantage of kwk43 over d25t is below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a convenient methord to calculate Equivalent stoppoing power.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soren · Mar 10, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

glen · Mar 11, 2008

It's said that ......

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

On the contrary, blank point range penetration of Soveit late guns such as D10T/D25T are absent while pen. of early guns(eg. 76mm) are clear. Note that technichers woundn't use different quality plates in one test. Since it's impossible to produce as good quality thick amor as thin ones, russian cancelled the test of close range. However, there is some data of D25T on thick/low quality plates as I posted above. As you can see, D25T's pen. is nearly 220mm@blank piont range. At US test, D25T still can pen. around 200mm at close range. Therefore, the D25T's penetration is probably undervalued by many people, I believe it is very close to kwk43 in penetration and the battle example had proved this: both D25T/ap and kwk43/apcbc can pen. Panther D's glacis @650m. It's the FACT which you usually ignore.

Soren · Mar 11, 2008

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

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

Could America have used heavy tanks?

More options

syscom3

Pacific Historian

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel

davparlr

Senior Master Sergeant

glen

Banned

Soren

1st Lieutenant

Soren

1st Lieutenant

glen

Banned

Soren

1st Lieutenant

glen

Banned

Juha

Senior Master Sergeant

Soren

1st Lieutenant

glen

Banned

Soren

1st Lieutenant

glen

Banned

Soren

1st Lieutenant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads