tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post4871779212594393979..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: T-43, Take OnePeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-88626493645741391112019-06-05T13:13:40.536-04:002019-06-05T13:13:40.536-04:00There was a very serious fear that the Ferdinand i...There was a very serious fear that the Ferdinand is going to be a mass produced tank any day now, and the Pak 43 was going to hit the battlefield in huge numbers, making these small incremental changes pointless. I agree that they absolutely should have boosted the armour to resist the Pak 40, but the Red Army already ran into this issue with the previous wave of upgrades. The limited number of T-34 tanks that were upgraded with 15 mm applique plates to make them entirely proof against 50 mm APCR were slaughtered by 75 and 88 mm guns. There was no guarantee that a boost to 75 mm wouldn't end up in exactly the same situation.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-27948802745849822162019-06-05T12:45:36.392-04:002019-06-05T12:45:36.392-04:00Thanks for the read, though I agree with Crabtree&...Thanks for the read, though I agree with Crabtree's comment in that thread. The T-34's front, despite its having very good quality hull armor (a multiplier of 1.25, it appears, from back-calculating WaPruf1 stats, which represented the German(!!) opinion) was the frontal weak point, because of overmatching. The turret at 90 mm rounded effectively was better. <br /><br />The IS-2 wasn't "immune" frontally to the Kwk43, the Kwk42, the Kwk36, or even the Pak40, as in 'immune no matter how close the shot and no matter where or how the round hits'. But it was good enough; as you have posted, IS-2s could engage Tiger Is and Panthers at fairly low risk to themselves at 1000 meters because all guns save the Kwk43 had to get either very close or be very lucky. It was the Kwk43 pushed that out that same degree of immunity to longer ranges (> 1500 meters or so) which the Russians found a concern. But even the IS-3 wasn't immune to the Kwk43 frontally at near point-blank range (the lower plate).<br /><br />So why make this a requirement for the uparmored T-34 when your current heavy tank doesn't qualify yet is sufficing? The most common threat to the T-34 was the Pak40, and 60-75 mm of frontal hull armor goes a long way of making every StuG, every Marder, every Hetzer, every PzIV, and every towed Pak40 gun into a 'door knocker'. That's a big advantage.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-62902878767137728102019-06-05T09:48:38.461-04:002019-06-05T09:48:38.461-04:00The T-34T (which evolved into the T-34M) was suppo...The T-34T (which evolved into the T-34M) was supposed to have 60 mm of front armour. The T-34 was supposed to be upgraded to 60 mm of front armour in early 1942, but this requirement was cancelled. <br /><br />It was possible to incorporate into the T-34-85, and this solution was tested, but the requirement for medium tanks at that point was frontal immunity to the 88 mm Pak 43, anything short of that was not worth rejigging the assembly lines for. https://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/08/t-34-85m.htmlPeterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-55884363139096827282019-06-05T09:26:51.182-04:002019-06-05T09:26:51.182-04:00So the T-43 was originally to have 60-75 mm front ...So the T-43 was originally to have 60-75 mm front hull armor? I did not know that, and that would have been a significant improvement if it had been possible to incorporate that into the subsequent T-34/85.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.com