The best AFV in the Kursk bulge 1943.

Will perform an T-34 analyzis regarding PzGr.39 5.0 cm (Pak L60).
Just have to fix lags in my knowldege about soviet armor qualities...

Pushed for time, so very quickly:


Looking at it, I'd say the Church was destroyed by 88 75mm shots. I agree with CB.


reddragon, the Soviets were tipped-off anyway. I don't know if the Panthers delayed the offensive, but it's certainly possible. The main problem is the Panthers were rush jobs and scrimped on to boot.


I think you're calculations are correct delcyros.

CB:

The Panzergranate 39 of the 50 mm L 60 pierce 89mm of homogeneous armor.....?

Are you sure about that ?

Click to expand...

Definately.


delcyros:

Such ranges are not common except for fiercy street fights.

Click to expand...

The PaK38 was a pain, very easy to hide and manoever. In a bush or ditch for e.g.

A T34 was often right on top of one, then it was all over. Tankovy-Desant were always vital.


PlanD mentioned KV's and T34's being destroyed by the PaK38, I know this happened, but his info sounds very interesting.


Also be aware that penetration is not the only way to kill a tank.

The T34's armour was prone to spalling from deflected blows, also radios and ammo can hurt if they fall on you, not to mention shot trapping or mobility kills...

That´s a good question.
T-34/76 vs 5.0 cm PzGr.39 APCBC round (2.06 Kg)
Since the turret design differs a lot I will check only frontal hull penetrations for now. I am still not sure wether the T-34 has 45 mm inclined by 50 or 60 degrees upper frontal armor. So I will take both inclinations, if I am wrong, please tell me so I can correct the datas.
Armor quality: Soviet armor over the whole ww2 was high Brinell hardened armor. It suffered from a comparably low elongation and therefor high britellness but on the other side the high hardened armor will cause more damage on projectiles and cause shatter to happen more often. In turn for this it´s ability to deflect projectiles is somehow lower compared to more ductile armors used by the british for example. Scaling and non penetrating damage is also more worrisome.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SOVIET ARMOR QUALITY OF MEDIUM THICKNESS PLATES VARIED HEAVILY.
Armor quality: 0.96; elongation: 12%
minimum striking velocitys needed to achieve full penetration at 50 and 60 degrees obliquity and 0 degrees longitudinal impact angle:
against the upper hull(60 degrees inclined): 3.553 ft./sec. (~1070m/sec.)
against the upper hull(50 degrees inclined): 2.106 ft./sec. (~635 m/sec.)
against the lower frontal hull (53 degrees inclined): 2.430 ft./sec. (730 m/sec.)

Conclusion: If the upper hull is inclined by 60 degrees, the PzGr.39 5.0cm round will by all possibilities FAIL to penetrate the upper frontal hull even at point blanc range. It has a low chance (L60 model) at very close range to penetrate the lower frontal hull (ranges in within 150 yrds). But only at direct impact angles and in case of a Pak (lower height of fire compared to tank KwK, therefore a lower impact obliquity). The older L48 model has a chance to do so in case of a brand new gun with low gunwear and point blanc range.
Repeated hits may cause the armor to crack or horizontaly weakening, allowing penetration of the 5.0 cm gun with a higher degree of reliability.
The AP-caps of 5.0 cm PzGr39 will ALWAYS suffer shatter. The projectile body has a reasonable chance to suffer nose shatter as well.
I cunclude that it is very difficult with single hits to penetrate the T-34 frontal armor. Esspecially if longitudinal impact angles are greater than 10 degrees (which very often is the case if a PaK hasn´t the luxury to aim head on vice versa against a T-34 from a hidden position...).

However, what about the T-34´s sides? A 5.0 cm gun may also engage under more favourable conditions the sides. The upper sides are 40mm at 40 degrees inclined that would imply a 42 degrees impact obliquity at direct impact angles for a PaK and a somehow lower (39-36 degrees, depending on range) for KwK mounted guns. minimum striking velocity for full penetration:
upper side hull: 1.548 ft./sec. for PaK and 1.473 ft sec. for a 38 degrees obliquity KwK fired 5.0 cm PzGr.39 round. If we asume 1.500 ft. sec. (450 m/sec.) as average, the T-34´s sides are vulnarable to 5.0 cm fire from close to medium range, allowing a wide window for different longitudinal impact angles and easy penetration.
The lower side hull may be even easier to penetrate if the direct line of fire wouldn´t be obstructed by the wheels and drive parts. Since I don´t know all their details I will not perform a calculation for the lower side hull.
The T-34´s rear armor has a 42 degrees inclined 45 mm plate which may be penetrated by a 5.0 cm APCBC round with a minimum striking velocity of 1.667 ft./sec. (~500 m/sec.) This is still in within the abilities of a PaK 38 at close range and with a wide window for possible longitudinal impact angles...

Good research Delcyros, only a detail, at the time of Kursk most of the tanks were T-34 M1943 with the frontal armor increased at 60mm in a slightly less sloped plate.

Conclusion: If the upper hull is inclined by 60 degrees, the PzGr.39 5.0cm round will by all possibilities FAIL to penetrate the upper frontal hull even at point blanc range. It has a low chance (L60 model) at very close range to penetrate the lower frontal hull (ranges in within 150 yrds). But only at direct impact angles and in case of a Pak (lower height of fire compared to tank KwK, therefore a lower impact obliquity).

Click to expand...

Huhumm...that was I being said.

You are right. It seems that the maths confirm the combat reports, indeed.
Can You tell me to what inclination the T-34M 60mm frontal plate was and where (upper or lower frontal)? I could recalculate but I already expect a nearly total frontal immunity at most circumastances (except underbelly exposed or so) against 5.0 cm PzGr.39.

Well.. not much diference 57-58 degrees.

With these datas (60 mm at 58 degrees) the T-34M upper frontal armor enjois complete immunity against a 5.0 cm PzGr.39 fired from a L60 gun (muzzle velocity: 835 m/Sec.): It would require 3.821 ft./sec. (~1150 m/sec.) minimum striking velocity for full penetration but this is far beyond capabilities for a PaK 38...

Nice data Delcyros , I like your fast calculation ...now we got to teach that to "Schwarzpanzer" .

I will search the specs for the 5cm panzergranate 40 hartkern.

APCR ammo is more difficult to compute. I would need the exact diameter of the round with Aluminium mantlet PLUS the exact weight and diameter for the rigid tungsten core to perform a reliable computation.

CharlesBronson said:

now we got to teach that to "Schwarzpanzer"

Click to expand...

Cheeky, very cheeky!


The T34's hull could even shirk off the Tiger's rounds.

The early T34's and apparently some T34/85's had 60 degrees of frontal armour sloped @ 60 degrees.

For the early ones, the quality was very impressive also.

I had no idea that the Kursk T34's had applique, though I suspected it and heard rumours (that I politely dismissed).

- You learn something everyday here!

The Pak's can shoot upwards into the T34's hull, the PzIII can fire down on the glacis of the T34, this could also be from a hull-down position...

The lower side hull may be even easier to penetrate if the direct line of fire wouldn´t be obstructed by the wheels and drive parts.

Click to expand...

This was a good feature of the Hetzer and Panther/Tiger variants.

The T34 wasn't so protective this way, I reckon a side hull hit is a definate kill.


The turret of the T34 was weak, German gunners knew this and aimed accordingly.

Also the T34's generally had the bow MG's protecive armour mantlet left off and this area was a weakness anyway.

Also, unlike Panther G+ German sloped armour, the Soviets had a hatch in the glacis plate. On the T34, this was huge, besides getting hit there, it weakened the plate.

The T34 also had a tempting shot-trap area.

Some courageous PzIV crew members even killed a T34 with a 75mm L24, by hitting it on the engine slots!!

Also (Otto Carius IIRC) killed KV's with his Pz38(t)'s diddy little cannon by firing down the barrels, even making a habit of it!

It also has to be said that APCR seemed to be the most commonly used round for the PaK38, though this had horrendous consequences later...

Also be aware that a T34 charging headlong effectively increases the striking velocity of the projectile.

Also, when moving away from the LoF, the protection is increased.

Cheeky, very cheeky!

Click to expand...

Sorry but I had to tell that.

I would go Panther as it had speed, could manoeuver and fairly decent armour for that time. Especially backed up by a Tiger 1...

Well, the Panther in Kursk did not performed as espected. .

--------------


The Ferdinand "612" used by the 654 th heavy Tankhunter batallion.






"Tank hunter Ferdinad/ Elefant Part 1" Tadeuz Melleman -AJ press

schwarzpanzer said:

Cheeky, very cheeky!
Also be aware that a T34 charging headlong effectively increases the striking velocity of the projectile.

Click to expand...

And penetration by an extra 2 millimeters if you're lucky - not much.

Amazing, I suppose it is something to do with the idea that a bullet leaving the gun travels at its own speed plus that of the gun it is fired from, when fired from a moving vehicle, at the front... At least that is my understanding of the physics involved...

The question on the thread is The Best AFV in the Kursk Bulge. With the limitation being at Kursk timewise, the Panther and the Tiger are in my mind ruled out as they were too unreliable and the bugs hadn't been worked out. If its unreliable then it cannot be good in combat.
This leaves the rest on the list and the best of the rest would be the PzIV G.

If we were talking 1944 then it would be between the Panther and the Tiger, but not in 1943.

The Tiger didn't suffer many problems with reliability in 1943, and it was by far the best tank of the Kursk battle - eventhough there were hardly any there.

The Panther, although formidable when in action, often failed even to reach where the action was taking place, suffering from serious reliability issues.

The Pz.IV Ausf.G did well during Kursk, but number for number not as well as the Tiger.

different thought ......... Hs 129 ♪

AFV..?, The Henschel was armored, but not so much.

CB that was my thought, an armored bathtub for the pilot, more manuverable than a panzer and fully loaded with a 3cm Mk 103 to take even the JS II out if need be ......... like I said a different idea .. . . .......... ~

rippin it up !