tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post2132266247233514328..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Soviet 107 mm GunsPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-32825919996958842732020-06-19T23:26:44.314-04:002020-06-19T23:26:44.314-04:00Since I posed the question, I discovered that not ...Since I posed the question, I discovered that not only were they out of useful AP ammo, but the factory that built the ZIS-6 was in the Stalingrad area. So yeah...rubble pile. Like you said they would have had to start from scratch, and the D-10 conversion happened to be the lightest weight of the 3x 100mm prototypes being tested, with decent firepower.<br /><br />Still, you can't count out the ol'ZIS. Even though it's heavier; in a semi-obsolete caliber; it _still_ out-pens a D-10 by somewhere between 10-15% What a gun!! Just a pity they could never find a tank to stick it in.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02513099345226258911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-22069917954104796312020-05-25T10:16:09.331-04:002020-05-25T10:16:09.331-04:00The ZIS-6 would have required just as much work. T...The ZIS-6 would have required just as much work. There was no 107 mm AP and all the stockpiled ammunition was old Tsarist era stuff. Rather than developing new ammunition for an obsolete caliber it was much easier to just expand existing production lines for guns currently in service.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-69999713612035473732020-05-25T00:48:00.313-04:002020-05-25T00:48:00.313-04:00So my question is--when they were developing the S...So my question is--when they were developing the SU-85/SU-100, why didn't they just grab the ZiS-6 gun instead of doing redevelopment of an AA gun (85mm) or Naval gun (100mm)? <br />They didn't destroy the plans when they shut down the "Super-KV" project, did they? (Wouldn't put it past the Russians to do something wierd like that..)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02513099345226258911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-84986647553977675572019-07-30T16:30:46.446-04:002019-07-30T16:30:46.446-04:00Mais did not go 8km/hr it went 22km/hr and the Mau...Mais did not go 8km/hr it went 22km/hr and the Mause had a better gun, better crew and better armor...Codyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15415499188701291429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-7790108692349845062016-06-22T08:46:19.665-04:002016-06-22T08:46:19.665-04:00The key word in this document is "calaculated...The key word in this document is "calaculated performance".<br />The performance tabulated is reasonable for the soviet blunt nosed APBC shells. However, the caveate lies in the projectile technology itselfe. <br />The calculated data are reasonable for intact penetrators and apply as long as the shell doesn´t bend, upset, break or compress against the plate.<br /><br />Soviet period AP shells were, however, made from low alloy steel, which suffered by poor hardenability, and generally did not receive AP-caps.<br />Consequently, they were very soft and unable to survive the stresses of high velocity impact intact. Breaking up reulted in a loss of penetration performance compared to calculated values.<br /><br />Trials conducted 1941 with high performance 107mm ATG and soviet domestic shell seem to support this, as the long barreled gun was struggling to penetrate 152mm vertical RHA at 200m with the projectiles breaking up.<br /><br />These high powered guns would still penetrate a lot of armour downrange, when the impact velocity dropped sufficiently. But AP-performance would tend to plateau over a wide range of distances with virtually no gain in performance at close range.<br /><br />Lower velocity, larger calibre guns were the way to go when You intent to improve the power of the guns in view of the self-imposed limitation by rejecting higher quality steels, more complicated decrementally hardening and AP-caps for AP projectiles.<br /><br />Post war, these projectiles were introduced.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-16558362939613571162013-05-06T19:55:27.891-04:002013-05-06T19:55:27.891-04:00The KV-5 would have been great as commanding tanks...The KV-5 would have been great as commanding tanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-11400524865756870352013-04-30T23:08:47.402-04:002013-04-30T23:08:47.402-04:00Yes, but 100 tonne and 188 tonne is still a huge d...Yes, but 100 tonne and 188 tonne is still a huge difference. If I had to pick one of them, I would choose KV-5 over Maus, at least KV-5 wouldn't have to crawl at 8 km/h.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-63839222113389522992013-04-30T07:59:11.846-04:002013-04-30T07:59:11.846-04:00If produce, KV-5 would be utterly useless, kinda l...If produce, KV-5 would be utterly useless, kinda like the maus. Too heavy, consume too much fuel manpower and material, unable to cross bridges, and probably breakdown every few miles. blackluposhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08574300842982087326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-83517284115898586272013-04-24T09:24:42.204-04:002013-04-24T09:24:42.204-04:00If there were Tigers in 1941, you'd have seen ...If there were Tigers in 1941, you'd have seen KV-3s rolled out in the same year, and KV-4/5s the year after.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-67668580301202226852013-04-24T09:02:28.868-04:002013-04-24T09:02:28.868-04:00So KV-5 could had 188mm of pen, and if they were p...So KV-5 could had 188mm of pen, and if they were produced could easily roflstomp Tigers in war.Worashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05134704651600263428noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-10804113079766444322013-04-23T23:45:12.235-04:002013-04-23T23:45:12.235-04:00I also believe that the L/70 would destroy Tiger f...I also believe that the L/70 would destroy Tiger frontally from 4 kilometers away, considering its excellent ballistics performance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-56451236928918746132013-04-23T23:40:39.948-04:002013-04-23T23:40:39.948-04:00I also know that 107 mm guns had excellent ballist...I also know that 107 mm guns had excellent ballistic performance (penetration drop over distance), comparable or even actually better than the Germans' guns. <br /><br />So an L/70 would likely penetrate about 140 mm at 2 kilometers and 120-130 mm at 3 kilometers, both against armor angled at 30 degrees, calculating from the penetration table of M-60.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com