Russia marks anniversary of its best tank
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
It beats 5cm Pak figures with AP APC rounds, yes, anything wrong with that? With APCR the 5cm Pak 38 L/42 performed considerably better penetrating 130mm of vertical 240 BHN RHA armour at 100m. (All figures are corrected from yards results into meters, the original figure being 132mm at 100y for the Pak 38 )
Test results from Aberdeen (range in meters):
Juha said:
More realistic ? How so Juha? Are you saying that actual real life test results are "unrealistic" ?
Well, what'ever suits you then...
Also APCR wasn't rare for 2cm, 3.7cm 5cm weapons. It became rare for larger caliber guns by 1943 onwards, but not the smaller caliber guns which were given top priority for tungsten ammunition.
Last edited:
Gotta be ware of copyright laws tomo, but I can include the 5cm L/60 figures:
Compared to what people post, you're about to be convicted to 10-12 years
I have posted many other figures in the "updated tank gun comparison" thread.
Good, will look at that.
About the figures, I supose those at table are for 90 deg impact?
Yes tomo the results were achieved at 90 degree impact angles. As I wrote all tests were conducted against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour plates 
The German figures are lower for two reasons:
1. They were obtained at a 30 degree impact angle
2. They were conducted against 255 to 350 BHN RHA plates (255 to 265 BHN RHA plates for 12.8cm to 7.5cm guns, and 265 to 350 BHN for 7.5cm to 3.7cm guns)which were more resistant than 240 BHN RHA plates.
The German figures are lower for two reasons:
1. They were obtained at a 30 degree impact angle
2. They were conducted against 255 to 350 BHN RHA plates (255 to 265 BHN RHA plates for 12.8cm to 7.5cm guns, and 265 to 350 BHN for 7.5cm to 3.7cm guns)which were more resistant than 240 BHN RHA plates.
Last edited:
Hello Soren
My numbers are from British tests and in fact better than the German figures. And because of a pure right angled hit was very difficult to achieve in battlefield, my figures are more realistic. BTW German figures for 3.7cm K.w.K L/45 with Pzgr. 40 ie APCR are 64m/100m and 31mm/500m. 30deg. Source for British data "Fire and Movement", RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975, pages 22–25, for German data Jentz: Panzertruppen 1 p. 283
It seems to me that T-34/85 crews didn't have much to worry on Pak 36, also Finnish and German reports what I have read backed that. Have you any sources that tell that Pak 36 crew really succeeded to shot through the side armour of turret of T-34 from 500m? I know one case when a Finnish crew using 37mm Bofors A/T gun succeeded to destroy a T-34 which tried to run over them. They hit the bow mg, there was a material failure and the hit pushed the mg and its, what is kugelblende in English, inside tank, Finns shot a couple more shells through the emerged hole and that was the end of the T-34, but that was a real "lucky" shot and IMHO T-34 was more or less immune to German 37mm KwKs and PaKs.
Juha
My numbers are from British tests and in fact better than the German figures. And because of a pure right angled hit was very difficult to achieve in battlefield, my figures are more realistic. BTW German figures for 3.7cm K.w.K L/45 with Pzgr. 40 ie APCR are 64m/100m and 31mm/500m. 30deg. Source for British data "Fire and Movement", RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975, pages 22–25, for German data Jentz: Panzertruppen 1 p. 283
It seems to me that T-34/85 crews didn't have much to worry on Pak 36, also Finnish and German reports what I have read backed that. Have you any sources that tell that Pak 36 crew really succeeded to shot through the side armour of turret of T-34 from 500m? I know one case when a Finnish crew using 37mm Bofors A/T gun succeeded to destroy a T-34 which tried to run over them. They hit the bow mg, there was a material failure and the hit pushed the mg and its, what is kugelblende in English, inside tank, Finns shot a couple more shells through the emerged hole and that was the end of the T-34, but that was a real "lucky" shot and IMHO T-34 was more or less immune to German 37mm KwKs and PaKs.
Juha
I never mentioned the Pak36, I said 3.7cm AA guns, which were more potent than the Pak 36 and actually accounted for some T-34 losses. The turret armour was so soft that the APCR rounds penetrated it without too much difficulty, bursts of APCR fire proving quite effective against the T-34.
As for actual accounts of it happening, well I don't really have any reports on hand mentioning confrontation between a T34/85 3.7cm AA guns atm. But it is mentioned in "T-34 in action" by Drabkin Sheremet, and looking at the recorded performance of the 3.7cm gun firing APCR rounds it must be true. The cast armour of the T-34's turret would've been vulnerable to the fire from 3.7cm AA guns all the way out to a 1,000m, that's for sure.
As for actual accounts of it happening, well I don't really have any reports on hand mentioning confrontation between a T34/85 3.7cm AA guns atm. But it is mentioned in "T-34 in action" by Drabkin Sheremet, and looking at the recorded performance of the 3.7cm gun firing APCR rounds it must be true. The cast armour of the T-34's turret would've been vulnerable to the fire from 3.7cm AA guns all the way out to a 1,000m, that's for sure.
Last edited:
Yes tomo the results were achieved at 90 degree impact angles. As I wrote all tests were conducted against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour plates
The German figures are lower for two reasons:
1. They were obtained at a 30 degree impact angle
2. They were conducted against 255 to 350 BHN RHA plates (255 to 265 BHN RHA plates for 12.8cm to 7.5cm guns, and 265 to 350 BHN for 7.5cm to 3.7cm guns)which were more resistant than 240 BHN RHA plates.
With that said, I'd stick to the penetration figures that are provided at panzerworld.net, for example (and those are from Jentz's Panzertruppen). And those, along with real experiences, are proving that it took a good hit from 5cm Pak 38 to pierce T-34, lighter weapons being useless.
Juha which weapon did I mention first? The AA gun or the Pak36??
I mentioned the Pak36 because I had the Aberdeen test results for that gun, and if that gun was dangerous at 1,000m then you can be sure the 3.7cm AA gun was as-well!
Ofcourse some will say that when they see their round harmlessy bounce of the T-34's front glacis plate which was made from rolled homogenous armour. But we're talking about the turret here tomo, which was made from cast armour which is a lot weaker than RHA. And REAL experience tells us that the 3.7cm AA gun Pak36 was effective against the T-34's turret at usual combat distances.
PS: 240 BHN rolled homogenous armour is very strong, the being within the 235 to 270 BHN range required to be most effective against AP projectiles.
Soren
a reality check, T-34-85 turret sides were 75mm thick and 20deg from vertical, so what figures you are refering for PaK 36. I can believe that 37mm AA cannon could realistically pierce the lower hull sides from 500m, if it hit it, most of it was shielded by bogie wheels. But the turret, Ju 87G had better chances, because the inclination worked for it.
And sources for the claim that PaK 36 was effective against T-34-85, please. Even Soviet A/T rifles could sometimes got an casualty producing hits on Elefant, but we surely agree that generally they were useless against Elefant/Ferdinand
Juha
a reality check, T-34-85 turret sides were 75mm thick and 20deg from vertical, so what figures you are refering for PaK 36. I can believe that 37mm AA cannon could realistically pierce the lower hull sides from 500m, if it hit it, most of it was shielded by bogie wheels. But the turret, Ju 87G had better chances, because the inclination worked for it.
And sources for the claim that PaK 36 was effective against T-34-85, please. Even Soviet A/T rifles could sometimes got an casualty producing hits on Elefant, but we surely agree that generally they were useless against Elefant/Ferdinand
Juha
Last edited:
So you said, but its a bit difficult to get right angled hit by a A/T gun to target which was inclined to 20 deg from vertical and situated 1.5 - 2m above ground level.
And the sources for real world achievement, Finns thought that Pak 36 was useless against T-34-85 in actual combat situation. And we tended to use everything which might be useful, even shotguns against T-26s
Juha
And the sources for real world achievement, Finns thought that Pak 36 was useless against T-34-85 in actual combat situation. And we tended to use everything which might be useful, even shotguns against T-26s
Juha
Last edited:
Well Juha, you go believe in what'ever suits you then. I really don't wanna discuss this any longer, its like beating a dead horse. If you ask me the facts are bright clear, esp. if one looks at multiple sources to gain an opinion and not just one. But I guess you're under the impression that Drabkin Sheremet lied in their book "T-34 in action", oh well...
Heh, my points made in this thread are based on at least 7 sources. And I don't have T-34 in Action, so I don't know what exactly Drabkin Sheremet write. Are they telling that PaK 36s regularly pierced T-34-85 turrets from 1000m? Can You give the exact quote and the page number?
BTW according to British data: 3.7cm Pak 36 with APCR Penetration vs homogenous armour at 30º: 22mm at 1000y, rather far cry from 75mm, even if cast.
Juha
BTW according to British data: 3.7cm Pak 36 with APCR Penetration vs homogenous armour at 30º: 22mm at 1000y, rather far cry from 75mm, even if cast.
Juha
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
