Gemhorse
Senior Airman
Real impressive posts and pics, CB, it's got my attention !.....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
lesofprimus said:Unfortunatly (or fortunatly), not very many aircraft could carry the Mk103 on the wing......
The only one i know off the top of my head was the Fw 190A8/R3 and the Fw 190F3/R3, both of which carried them in under-wing gondolas....
plan_D said:It could most likely defeat the IS-2 as well, it's top armour wasn't anything to go nuts about. I don't know about the IS-3 because the 'frying pan' turret was a well protected shape, but that never saw service.
plan_D said:Have you just stated that the IS-2 armour was of excellent quality. Where did you get this information, might I ask?
The IS-2s armour was of extremely poor quality, it collapsed on many an occasion. It was never rectified either. The IS-2 was designed to be invincible to German tanks, but the poor quality on the thick armour did not provide this invulnerability.
Combat experience also revealed that the 122mm (4.8in) gun could not penetrate the Panther's sloped armour above 600m (656yd), whilst splintering remained a problem for the IS-2's own armour. Tempering the frontal armour to very strong hardness proved too complex and costly to introduce, and the defiency was allowed to remain.
KraziKanuK said:The lighter, more compact and faster-firing MK 103 used a hybrid gas+recoil system and was belt-fed. Various AP rounds were used, but the most effective was the Hartkernmunition, which had a penetrating core of tungsten carbide sheathed in a light-alloy shell with a sharply-pointed profile. This could penetrate 75-90 mm / 300 m / 90 degrees (depending on the type of armour), dropping to 42-52 mm when impacting at 60 degrees.
Tony Williams
CharlesBronson said:Another thing is the material of the armour, wich not always is Steel.
The cast iron is more easy to pierce than steel
The russian many times used the cast iron for his tank turrets. This material is not actually steel, being much more fragile and with tendency to crack by nature. The only advantage is that is more easy to handle in hot than steel, forming the turret in one step. The germans used only the welded contruccion, this is cutting steel plates forming the turret and the hull, keeping it together with electric welding. The lack of manganese was solved in part increasing the amount of chrome and carbon in the alloy.
That diferent contruccions can explain some of the catastrofical failures seeing in the russian tanks when it got hit.
CharlesBronson said:Excuse me...
The part that I wrote "This material is not actually steel, being much more fragile and with tendency to crack by nature" mean something to you..?
CharlesBronson said:The cast iron is more easy to pierce than steel
Erich said:interesting thought on the Tungsten cored rounds via being a rare commodity. Seems that the SG 9 equipped with MK 103 Hs 129's had enough to go around as witnessed by their successful Geschwader history as well as the Panzerstaffels flying 3.7cm equipped Ju 87G-1's with SG 2, 3, 77 till wars end.
E ~
CharlesBronson said:I should say " the cast iron is less resistent to impact than steel"
But still I do prefer be protected for a steel plate,.. let say a SAE 8620 face hardened, and not the s**t cast iron. ( I say s**t because I have to turn and drill bars of this material many times and is really dirty)