tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post2862533506352809991..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Gun Motor Carriage M10Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-55355997945658093532017-05-08T10:41:48.497-04:002017-05-08T10:41:48.497-04:00Interesting, only 14 mm doesn't sound particul...Interesting, only 14 mm doesn't sound particularly useful though. A sniper shield could be useful.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-48273011540583395182017-05-07T00:12:44.345-04:002017-05-07T00:12:44.345-04:00They did test the spaced armour in a report at Abe...They did test the spaced armour in a report at Aberdeen; APG report no, AD-812 "Report on test of spaced armor arrangements for GMC M10"<br /><br />The British and the Canadians may have in fact used said spaced armour, there are memos out of London stating they would be used when the M10's were used for specific special missions and then removed otherwise (could be why we see no examples in photos)<br /><br />Early ideas in 1943 including weight of each piece.<br /><br />http://i.imgur.com/YBk4Pnb.jpg<br />http://i.imgur.com/Ga63BX6.jpg<br />http://i.imgur.com/PlUvVin.jpg<br />http://i.imgur.com/e1NcMsV.jpg<br /><br />Later in 1944 there are drawing plans in the British archives showing the extra M10 armour, values are up to 17mm on the sides, and turret and hull front, with a 20mm shield on the roof of turret. (not covering the roof, more like a sniper shield?)whelmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09171057315413506371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-30174170889191871662017-04-22T11:29:11.514-04:002017-04-22T11:29:11.514-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09100867291433992415noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-53755049480488495852017-04-22T06:38:26.021-04:002017-04-22T06:38:26.021-04:00"n. It turned out that the American shells we..."n. It turned out that the American shells were good enough to penetrate 120 mm of armour, while Soviet ammunition of the same caliber could only penetrate 100 mm. This was explained by the superior design of the M62 shell, better choice of materials, and better thermal treatment. The M62 shell could penetrate 120 mm of armour at 500 meters. Precision trials also gave satisfactory results."<br /><br />The photo show start of deformation of the projectile penetrating 100mm RHA of unknown quality under unknown obliquity (1.3 cal /plate ratio for the 76.2mm M62).<br /><br />No.7: upset failure<br />No. 10, 11 & 12: offset failure.<br /><br />This appears indeed to be a substantially better performance than soviet period AP, which often mushroomed against the plate or outright broke into pieces due to the reasons outlined (worse steel mix and hardening treatment, lack of AP-cap). Soviet AP of the period did not keep it´s form, resulting in the cavity frequently deform or split open causing low order explosions or duds. HE filler effect is thus significantly reduced (typically only 1/3 as powerful as E/O or violent explosions).<br />German 75mm Pzgr.39 and 76.2mm Pzgr 39 rot (reissued AP to replace soviet 76.2mm AP ammunition in captured soviet ordnance) were significantly superior to both.<br />The 75mm Pzgr 39 would barely start to deform penetrating 200mm RHA plate even striking at 30° obliquity if fired with increased muzzle velocity (2.67 cal/plate for the 75mm projectile).<br />critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.com