Rare Crazy Panzer Projekts.

plan_D · Aug 22, 2005

From what I've read the KwK36 L/56 8.8cm was superior at longer ranges and was only partially inferior at 500m and below. The KwK43 L/71 8.8cm was without a doubt, in my mind, superior to the D-25T 12.2cm.

schwarzpanzer · Aug 23, 2005

I was under the impression that the Russian 122 mm was not as effective a weapon as the German 88 mm.

It depends, also bear in mind that the TigerI's armament, the KingTigers armament and the '88' were completely different beasts, despite all being 88mm, there was also a naval version.

I had another point of interest for you PlanD today, but I forgot it!

Anyway, your questions/points:

A loss is a loss IMHO, unless it's recovered then repaired and ready again.

The IS-2M armour wasn't as strong as the statistics make out. Combat reports prove so.

There are scars on JS2M armour made by KwK36's, though yes, it was the luck of the draw.

I still have to get you a lot of info for you, got it somewhere.

Forgot where I put that Panther F stuff at mo, will get it ASAP.

Damn it! shatter gap is when a HV projectile crumples due to the shock of impact, even on extremely soft armour or even annealed steel!

Don't forget about skate angles either.

An interesting point is that in battle, the T34's armour could be at 90 degrees to an enemy gun, destroying the advantages of sloping armour.

On the other hand, the Tigers armour could be @ 60 degrees, making it effectively invulnerable!

I don't rank the D-25T above the KwK36 - certainly not. The KwK36 was capable of destroying the IS-2M above regular combat ranges, that means it's a more than adequete cannon. An argument you use for the 17pdr being superior due to the 8.8cm because it's a smaller shell, remember the D-25T is 12.2cm!

Hey, I admitted that didn't I?

Yes, the King could still be deadly but a lot of the time even when the crew had abandoned the King the Soviets would destroy the King and claim it as active.

I don't doubt it. So did the Allies!

Also, the German crews were generally superior to that of the Soviets which gave the Tiger I an even bigger increase in RoF. Not only that, the Tiger I was a more accurate tank due to superior optics.

Granted, I even made the 1st point!

As combat reports showed the D-25T was often unable to knock a Panther out at ranges beyond 600m. The Tiger I armour wasn't much less than that of the Panther on the front, it would be able to withstand a blow at 1000m. The fact is, at 1000m, the D-25T would have to rely on luck when, and if, it hit the target.

You seem hung up on penetration (oo-er! ) an IS2 shell worked similar to a HESH round. Even a HE round could destroy a Tiger.

A Panther was knocked out by a Sherman in Normandy at 600m when the Sherman struck between it's chassis and turret, jamming the turret.

That often happens, it's where the RoF comes in.

Also, guns, tracks, visors can be hit, if you're lucky and/or accurate. Your KwK36 wins hands-down there, unless the 122mm uses HE.

The Panther's cannon would start dropping away from it's extremely high velocity due to the low weight of shell while the KwK36 8.8cm had much more kinetic energy due to large weight.

Yeah, but it was still better than the KwK36, your point there works in the D-25T's favour!

The point still stands that Shermans defeated T-34s.

It was down to the crews, roughly equal though, yes.

From what I've read the KwK36 L/56 8.8cm was superior at longer ranges and was only partially inferior at 500m and below.

You know what, maybe at close range the Tiger was better (High Rof, 1st shot probability), dunno.

At long ranges, I'm still going for the D-25T.

A point is the Tigers complicated Henschel suspension made it a much more accurate gun platform.

Your other points I agree with!

plan_D · Aug 23, 2005

The D-25T didn't have the velocity in the first place to make good use of the 12.2cm shell. The Sherman 105 had a heavy shell but again, the shell wasn't out quick enough to give it good long range capability.

HE shells are not effective at destroying tanks. The heat is spread across the armour and cooled down. It's not going to melt its way through the armour, so what's the point? The only time it's going to have a big effect is through the vision ports when the heat can get inside of the tank and kill the crew. An AP shell would go through the armour and puncture a fuel tank or ammo store, big explosion, tank is destroyed.

Are you trying to tell me that a 7.5cm shell travelling at 900 m/s could crumple against soft armour because of the shock of the impact because of this "shatter gap"?

Deflection of shot is always taken into consideration since the introduction of angled armour. All the penertration values I have are at 30 degrees.

Penertration is the easiest and most efficient way to destroy a tank. Heat would get spread out. The IS-2M would have to be close to knock out a Tiger from pure brute force.

It would work in the D-25Ts favour, if the D-25T had a good velocity in the first place. The heavier the shell, the higher the velocity needs to be to make up the difference. The D-25T didn't have enough charge to make up the fact the 12.2cm was so heavy.

From combat I think the Tiger I was a superior machine. From a war point of view, the IS-2 was better. If the Germans had the IS-2M they could have made much better of it than the Soviets did.

The design of the IS-2M was good, there's no doubt about that. The vital things missing are a proper loading mechanism, decent optics, decent radio - and it'd have been better with a OQF 17pdr.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Aug 30, 2005

plan_D said:
Adler, APCs aren't supposed be operating in urban areas. They should be dropping off the troops before reaching the village, town or city so it can be cleared by the infantry and any supporting tanks. APCs are just armoured trucks to mobilise the infantry in the operational advance to keep them up with the armour.

That is true, you are correct, but unfortunatly we are seeing APC's and vehicles such at the Bradley Fighting Vehical having to be used in an urban environment.

schwarzpanzer · Sep 3, 2005

The D-25T didn't have the velocity in the first place to make good use of the 12.2cm shell. The Sherman 105 had a heavy shell but again, the shell wasn't out quick enough to give it good long range capability.

Come on, the D-25 was developed from an AA gun IIRC and was about 50 calibres long.

HE shells are not effective at destroying tanks. The heat is spread across the armour and cooled down.

Yes but it causes incredible stresses, ripping armour and breaking welds etc. Russian tank HE shells were by far the best.

Penetration is preferable though, correct.

An AP shell would go through the armour and puncture a fuel tank or ammo store, big explosion, tank is destroyed.

Yeah, or kill the crew.

Are you trying to tell me that a 7.5cm shell travelling at 900 m/s could crumple against soft armour because of the shock of the impact because of this "shatter gap"?

Even more amazing, a Tungsten penetrator can vapourise when it hts mild steel!!

Deflection of shot is always taken into consideration since the introduction of angled armour. All the penertration values I have are at 30 degrees.

Yeah, ideal is 60 degrees, then the rules change.

The D-25T didn't have enough charge to make up the fact the 12.2cm was so heavy.

Good point, it had enough, but quality was little better than black powder (Guy Fawkes stylee stuff!)

From combat I think the Tiger I was a superior machine.

Disagree.

If the Germans had the IS-2M they could have made much better of it than the Soviets did.

Agree.

The vital things missing are a proper loading mechanism,

Good enough.

decent optics,

Yeah, pretty dodgy, but reasonable.

decent radio

Again, depends, but yeah see your point.

- and it'd have been better with a OQF 17pdr.

You damn right!

Or the (very available) D3/D10 100mm for that matter!

With the APC thing, of course they'll be used in urban areas and should be designed that way ie the Schurzen making a reappearance in Iraq.

This was where the KT lost it's 'King' status vs the IS2M.

If I were the Germans, I'd have a PzIV/Panther APC modified for this role.

BTW: If there's any pics of a Panther with schurzen plates, if I could see it It'd make me very happy!

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 4, 2005

Yeah that would be interesting to see.

me262 · Sep 4, 2005

your wish is my command!!!!!!

me262 · Sep 4, 2005

uuppss,forgot my source!!!!
from the book :
panzer, a pictorial documentation

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 4, 2005

Good stuff thanks.

schwarzpanzer · Sep 4, 2005

Thanks very much me262.

Is it justt me that thinks those skirts should have been deeper?

BTW Theres a webpage of a report of the Bazookas effectivness on a captured Panther.

me262 · Sep 4, 2005

schwarzpanzer said:
BTW Theres a webpage of a report of the Bazookas effectivness on a captured Panther.

can you post the link, please?

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 5, 2005

Yeah that would be interesting. Which was more effective anyhow? The Bazooka or the Panzerfaust?

schwarzpanzer · Sep 5, 2005

The Panzershreck!

http://www.100thww2.org/support/776tankhits.html

plan_D · Sep 5, 2005

In what way does a decent radio depend? Tanks cannot act independantly on the battlefield, when they do, they fail.

me262 · Sep 5, 2005

but it is only for the bazooka,not for the panzershreck

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 5, 2005

Yeah that does not have info on the Panzerschreck or Panzerfaust.

schwarzpanzer · Sep 7, 2005

In what way does a decent radio depend?

Well the platoon commander had one!

Hand signals will do for WW2-era (though the Russians had flags! )

I know real-world penetration for the Bazooka is 110mm and the PIAT 100mm.

I have the 'Faust Klein 50 100 Klein and 'Shreck (Not Disney!)somewhere and will do a little table if you want?

I'd have the Bazooka - light, available and re-loadable. Used against doors, buildings, pidgeons etc.

For pure anti-tank work the Panzerfaust Klein 100 had the best penetration, but was un-reloadable, so I go for the PanzerShreck.

DerAdlerIstGelandet · Sep 7, 2005

What was the penetration of the Faust or Schreck?

plan_D · Sep 7, 2005

Hand signals were not good enough for World War 2. They're unreliable and take work. They also put those doing the hand signals at risk of enemy snipers as they're exposed.

CharlesBronson · Sep 8, 2005

Rare Crazy Panzer Projekts.

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Airman 1st Class

Attachments

Airman 1st Class

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Airman 1st Class

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Lieutenant Colonel

Airman 1st Class

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Senior Airman

Private Chemtrail Disperser

Lieutenant Colonel

Senior Master Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads