tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post8869874166576752713..comments2024-03-20T11:41:56.776-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: 5 cm KwK Penetration TablesPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger25125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-55176513042221990702021-02-21T14:57:37.635-05:002021-02-21T14:57:37.635-05:00550m is around the range where the 5cm Pzgr. 40 ha...550m is around the range where the 5cm Pzgr. 40 has the same penetration as the 5cm Pzgr., at least according to the German penetration data for 30°. However the Pzgr. 40 probably still has more penetration than the regular Pzgr. when striking vertical armor.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18092625442069414301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-78965858118151486242021-02-21T14:44:50.486-05:002021-02-21T14:44:50.486-05:00German penetration tables were quite pessimistic. ...German penetration tables were quite pessimistic. They are the minimal engagement distances at where penetrations are basically 100%. They always consider that the armor plate is angled 30°.<br />This caused some confusion among troops since practice showed that tanks could be penetrated at much longer range than the anti-tank "guide" predicted.<br />In later reports this is clarified and that under optimal circumstances, ergo the plate is shot directly from the front, the penetration distance would be higher.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18092625442069414301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-21209224186026366232020-04-17T07:58:17.205-04:002020-04-17T07:58:17.205-04:00I've reading through the "Servicing and R...I've reading through the "Servicing and Repair manual for T-34/85 tank and SU-100 SPG", looking for some useful information, and came across an interesting schematic:<br />https://imgur.com/mOV7Qbc<br /><br />Thankfully the scan is pretty high resolution. Doing some pixel measuring and assuming that the thickest pat of the external mantlet is exactly 90mm, I came up with the following dimensions for other parts (with some rounding assuming that they are all multiples of 10):<br />https://imgur.com/h7Bk30V<br /><br />So, the cylindrical part seen in this photo is 30mm, with a 20mm splash shield(s) covering the hole(s). <br />https://imgur.com/BIlKotS<br /><br />This arrangement wont be as protective as a single plate of sum of their thicknesses(90+30mm) but still the mantlet area of T-34/85 probably has the equivalent thickness of around 100-110 mm.Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00548023869907629898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-62887410805393586222020-04-17T07:34:02.492-04:002020-04-17T07:34:02.492-04:00I believe that the chart is computed with assumpti...I believe that the chart is computed with assumption that M4 Sherman tanks have 2,5in. of upper side armour. The ballistic limit for the 5cm Pzgr.39 for that thickness at 30° is about 735m/s, almost exactly its terminal velocity at 400m(730m/s).Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00548023869907629898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-32853282998003864122019-08-25T14:39:23.117-04:002019-08-25T14:39:23.117-04:00Yes, that is true. The APCR loses penetration fas...Yes, that is true. The APCR loses penetration faster than full size AP. APCR still penetrates more out to about 950 m.<br />APCR also has about twice the dispersion as the regular shell. <br />Though with the higher velocity still results in a higher percent chance to hit at 1000m.Mobiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05256982406940327658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-88697480779830965342019-08-23T09:38:34.583-04:002019-08-23T09:38:34.583-04:00Implying that the Germans themselves don't kno...Implying that the Germans themselves don't know how to use their own tables is a pretty shaky claim.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-2654592607450630082019-08-23T08:33:22.087-04:002019-08-23T08:33:22.087-04:00It reads 5cm KwK 40 but there was no 5cm KwK 40.
T...It reads 5cm KwK 40 but there was no 5cm KwK 40.<br />The first 5cm KwK was the short barreled 5cm KwK 38.<br />Since the penetration ranges are too short to be for the long barreled gun and 5cm KwK would refer to the short barreled gun, it's either infact for the KwK 38 or they simply underestimated the penetration ranges for the long barreled gun.<br />They might have taken the penetration data, which is against 30°, and treated them as if they were 0° and converted them again to 30°. However it's not really clear to what gun this guide is refering to.KillaKiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760488116137443661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-14635397813709848592019-08-20T14:06:35.918-04:002019-08-20T14:06:35.918-04:00@Kellomes: You have a right, smaller weight of APC...@Kellomes: You have a right, smaller weight of APCR also have conotation with smaller penetration at big distances (smaller than in typical AP), but due opinion which I found, this situation is more visible in early German APCRs and Soviet APCRs, which use non-optimal design from earodynamics point (in Poland we use "spool-type" term for this early APCRs).AKMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08038804619662765120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-714187813708679092019-08-20T13:06:29.963-04:002019-08-20T13:06:29.963-04:00Wouldn't that be already because a lighter pro...Wouldn't that be already because a lighter projectile (part of the whole point of the APCR design, in order to amp muzzle velocity) loses energy faster? Same basic reason why the 122 mm beat the 100 mm at extended ranges.<br /><br />Not that most of the newer and fancier shell designs of the day weren't in varyingly acute need of product improvement ofc. *eyes British APDS accusingly*Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-46314289459188320122019-08-20T12:50:02.456-04:002019-08-20T12:50:02.456-04:00Maybe due aerodynamics of early German APCR? I fou...Maybe due aerodynamics of early German APCR? I found opinion that during WWII, due to bad aerodynamics, early German APCR and Soviet APCR, at big distance, have worse penetration than typical full caliber AP.AKMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08038804619662765120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-80091041615214936232019-08-16T10:02:34.281-04:002019-08-16T10:02:34.281-04:00It looks like the maximum range for the HK -APCR i...It looks like the maximum range for the HK -APCR is 550 m no matter what the target.Mobiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05256982406940327658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-12205163486055357832019-08-15T16:56:44.096-04:002019-08-15T16:56:44.096-04:00Didn't you see the model and the data in the f...Didn't you see the model and the data in the first page of the document? Motzkorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18316989921665401048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-64573315384343126202019-08-15T03:06:23.219-04:002019-08-15T03:06:23.219-04:00It's indeed for the 5cm KwK 38 and not the lon...It's indeed for the 5cm KwK 38 and not the long barreled 39.<br />Otherwise it could only penetrate the Sherman side turret from 100m. The Valentine's front and side can also only get penetrated at 400m while the KwK 39 penetrates more than 60mm at 30° at 500m.KillaKiwihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04760488116137443661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-2181204680889450772019-08-14T21:35:00.290-04:002019-08-14T21:35:00.290-04:00The M3 and M4 having different values for the hull...The M3 and M4 having different values for the hull sides and rear is an obvious tell as well for guesstimating as they should offer up roughly the same 1.5 inches of protection in those areas.whelmhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09171057315413506371noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-6748460595981748812019-08-13T21:00:24.128-04:002019-08-13T21:00:24.128-04:00I assume this is the 5 cm. KwK 38 but I don't ...I assume this is the 5 cm. KwK 38 but I don't know. The Yugo tests has the 5,cm PaK vs T-34 and it has a lot longer side penetration. The German criteria cannot be that much more stringent than the Yugo criteria.Mobiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05256982406940327658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-89880850645401692382019-08-13T14:54:23.903-04:002019-08-13T14:54:23.903-04:00Possibly, I do recall about rationalizing the thic...Possibly, I do recall about rationalizing the thickness of plates to only a few thicknesses, so the distinction between 40 and 45 mm would probably be the first to go.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-79456154949305344692019-08-13T14:32:02.349-04:002019-08-13T14:32:02.349-04:00@Peter, I know opinion that T-34 (T-34-76) have 40...@Peter, I know opinion that T-34 (T-34-76) have 40 mm upper side hull... but I think that's not truth. As example, in British document about "Russian T/34" we have data which show 45 mm thickness of upper side hull thickness. I think that Soviets propably increase thickness of upper side hull to 45 mm before itroduction of T-34-85.AKMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08038804619662765120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-1625926603924191162019-08-13T14:23:32.964-04:002019-08-13T14:23:32.964-04:00As I supposed the M4 turret front offer better pro...As I supposed the M4 turret front offer better protection than that on T-34 which probably relate to the more factors like thickness, overlaps, slopes and better protected recoil brake. In T-34-85 and IS turrets was improved housing of the gun and center of the gun shield was no more such weakspot.Crabteeth RMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715071498952492184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-51793909156971345652019-08-13T14:22:40.856-04:002019-08-13T14:22:40.856-04:00The Sherman's front turret is 76 mm: better th...The Sherman's front turret is 76 mm: better than a T-34-76, but not as good as late model T-34-85s (90 mm).Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-78816283903490313822019-08-13T14:20:55.312-04:002019-08-13T14:20:55.312-04:00The upper side was 40 mm until the T-34-85, when i...The upper side was 40 mm until the T-34-85, when it was changed to 45. As far as I can tell, the difference between A and B is welded vs cast turret and one driver's observation device in the hatch vs two. The thing is that this classification makes no sense, since a) you can find tanks with either type of turret and driver's hatch and b) what classification is there then for a T-34 with the L-11 gun?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-25564833845063640672019-08-13T14:20:47.846-04:002019-08-13T14:20:47.846-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Crabteeth RMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09715071498952492184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-61101768828703949122019-08-13T14:00:17.417-04:002019-08-13T14:00:17.417-04:00My presumption here is that the T-34B is meant to ...My presumption here is that the T-34B is meant to be the 42 model with the larger turret, which would explain the increase in height, even though the features still resemble the earlier turret. The Builderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17242924608059447367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-71266884268842348952019-08-13T13:53:10.788-04:002019-08-13T13:53:10.788-04:00In terms of upper side hull differences between T-...In terms of upper side hull differences between T-34A and T-34B: maybe later T-34 variant have 45 mm upper side hull thickness instead 40 mm? Some data show that T-34 (T-34-76) have 40 mm thickness of upper side hull, some 45 mm thickness. From other hand, maybe we have differences of armour quality...AKMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08038804619662765120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-12957624605620284242019-08-13T13:30:36.370-04:002019-08-13T13:30:36.370-04:00So having a cast turret somehow increased the prot...So having a cast turret somehow increased the protection of the T-34s hull compared to the welded turret. I'm thinking that this German graph was more "guesstimates" as opposed to actual test results.Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-45594649638826358582019-08-13T10:50:20.031-04:002019-08-13T10:50:20.031-04:00Beautiful. Thanks for sharing.Beautiful. Thanks for sharing.Iron Drapeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07585842449654170007noreply@blogger.com