Tuesday 18 November 2014

German Experience in 1942

I have written many times that penetration achieved on paper is no match for penetration achieved in combat. The Germans seem to have been in agreement, issuing a document describing effective ranges from various weapons against T-34 and KV tanks on June 21st, 1942. A translated version of the captured order containing this data is stored in CAMD RF 208-2511-1049.

Type of gun
Type of shell
Range
Tank
Effect
Notes
50L/60 tank gun
PzGr. 39
600-700
T-34 (turret)
Penetration. Ammunition can explode and the tank can burn.
At long ranges, it is still possible to jam the turret and destroy the gun.
PzGr. 40
300-400
T-34 (turret)
Penetration only.
Same as above.
PzGr. 40
600-700
KV-2
Penetration.
The armour is about 80 mm thick. At longer ranges, the gun can be damaged.
50L/42 tank gun
PzGr. 40
Point blank
T-34
None.
It is possible to jam the turret or damage the gun.
75 mm gun (PzIV)
Hollow charge
Up to 700 m.
T-34 (turret)
Penetration.
Crew can be knocked out by the shockwave.
Hollow charge
Up to 2000 m.
T-34
Suppressive fire.

Hollow charge
Up to 800 m.
Type II (all parts)
Penetration.
Tank is easily ignited.
75L/43 tank gun
PzGr. 39
Up to 800 m.
T-34
Penetration of the front turret and hull.
Under favourable conditions, the side can be penetrated at 1200 meters.
PzGr. 39
Point blank
KV-1 (side)
Penetration.

Light field howitzer
PzGr. Rot
600
T-34
Damage to the gun.
23rd TD reports that the shell can be effectively fired from up to 1000 m. at tracks. Fire from reverse slopes.
PzGr. Rot
400
T-26
Penetration.

PzGr. Schwarz
300
T-26
The turret is destroyed.

105 mm leFH 18
PzGr. Rot
1200
KV-2
Front armour screen penetrated.

PzGr. Schwarz
1000
BT
Penetration

PzGr. Schwarz
1000
T-34
Penetration of the front hull.

50 mm Pak 38
PzGr .40
300
T-34 (turret)
Penetration
23rd TD reports effectiveness. At 800-1200 meters, the angle of meeting the sloped armour is more favourable.
PzGr. 38
300
T-34
Penetration

PzGr. 38
300
KV-1 and KV-2
Penetration of side and rear hull.
When shooting the rear at up to 1000 meters, there is a chance to set the tank on fire.

"The casing of PzGr. 40 frequently bursts, and the shell jams.

Rules of using AT guns: Fire from all weapons at proper distances. In cases of massed tank attacks, move the guns into the open. Against the T-34 tank, artillery fire must be concentrated, even if the armour cannot be penetrated with shells."

This document doesn't really tell us anything that we didn't know. The short 50 mm gun is ineffective at fighting T-34s, even with APCR. The longer gun of the same caliber is a little better, but only then against the turret, and not the hull (explaining the short life of up-armoured T-34s). APCR doesn't do as much damage to the insides as APHE. In this case, where the 50 mm APCR can penetrate the T-34's turret, it doesn't cause detonation of the ammunition like APHE does. 

It's interesting to note the obsession with the T-34. Heavier KV tanks are also present (as well as a drizzle of light tanks), but the T-34 receives greatest attention, with more rows dedicated to its destruction, plus additional instructions to fire even if it's ineffective.

The report contains descriptions of tactics I have already posted, along with some new points. For instance, they praise Soviet artillery.

"Enemy artillery has achieved successes in control and concentration of fire. There are cases of massed artillery fire. Because of this, we are forced to loosen our formations.

Reserve positions, ranging guns, and "migrating" guns are used skilfully. Artillery positions are masterfully camouflaged."

It is also noted that the amount and effectiveness of Soviet tank units has increased. In connection with this, tactics must be revised.

"Tanks must be constantly, up to the moment of the breakthrough, be supported by artillery fire (sometimes smoke). If possible, dive bombers must also be used.
...
It is necessary for tank units to occupy favourable positions (preferably reverse slopes), wait for enemy tanks, and then fire on them. These tactics bring greater success than excessive heroism demonstrated by frontline units."

And in the end, one little tidbit that will prove to be the curse of German vehicles for a few years to come: "There are many cases of breakdowns when they need to tow vehicles of equal or greater mass."

16 comments:

  1. Could you link to the document? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The full thing is rather hefty, but here's the table: http://i.imgur.com/JU8fTer.jpg

      Delete
  2. Interesting that the KwK 38 is using the PzGr 39 while the PaK 38 is using the older PzGr 38. And is much better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It does show that the 50mm pzgr 40 is about in line what the Yugoslavs tests show that the T-34 front hull is penetrated at 300-400m.
    -m

    ReplyDelete
  4. 75L/43 tank gun can destroy a t 34 at 800 meters, but wih is the range for the 75L/48 tank gun? 1000 metesr?

    ReplyDelete
  5. It depends
    The Russians say that the 75mm/L46 (MV=770) penetrates the front of the T-34 to 1000m.
    http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/04/spare-track-links.html
    However this says the 75mm/L46 (MV=770) only penetrates 74mm at 1000m.
    http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/penetration.html
    So prorating this the 75mm/L48 (MV=750) ought to do the T-34 front to 850-900m.

    ReplyDelete
  6. wrong the 7.5 kwk 40 penetrates t 34 hull at 90 degre angle at ranges of up to 600 meters, no more

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wrong its 1,000-1,600 meters
    Yugo and other tests (~ 1200 meters through Glacis at any angle and 1600 m max) show this

    There is armor quality/ thickness /Muzzle velocity to consider so I expect the figure to waver a bit however even with a pristine quality plate, slightly thicker armor, and a lower muzzle velocity the 75mm Lang should penetrate at a minimum of 1000 meters.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Can you please post the full document instead of the excerpt please.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Certainly. https://www.dropbox.com/s/010jacxyzdo6dwk/%D0%A6%D0%90%D0%9C%D0%9E%20%D1%84%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B4%20208%20%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%8C%202511%20%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE%201049%20-%20%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8B%20%D0%A0%D0%9E%20%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE%20%D1%84%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%82%D0%B0%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%20%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B5.pdf?dl=0

      Delete
  9. "There are many cases of breakdowns when they need to tow vehicles of equal or greater mass."

    This was the case for all recovery vehicles when they where required to pull vehicles of equal mass or greater mass.This is why the recovery T-34T was not very successful at least when used to recover t-34s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't read any critiques of the T-34's ability to tow itself. The IS-2, however, performed just fine at this job http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2014/07/mobility-trials-part-3.html

      Delete
    2. Its not an issue with the vehicle itself but the strain put on the transmission of said vehicle pulling something of the same weight/mass or greater, splitting the difference between more vehicles is less taxing
      @ the link
      That is testing m8, but still they used 2 vehicles to pull one (divided effort) that's probably the standard for recovering or towing IS-2's, using multiple tanks.

      The other a single IS-2 pulling another IS-2 is not ideal and while possible, and tested (battlefields are messy and standards ideals can't always be met).
      I would like to see the maintenance report done to the towing IS-2 after the towing. My guess is transmission work was performed afterwards.
      The "Total distance towed 20km" isn't clear is that
      totaled distance of both towing teams so 10km each?

      Delete
    3. sorry I came off a bit unclear
      "battlefields are messy and standards ideals can't always be met"-
      What I mean by that is that the vehicle could tow the same type of vehicle (IS-2 towing IS-2) itself for short distances in case there aren't any prime movers or other vehicles to help but again its not ideal and would result in automotive issues for the towing vehicle.

      Delete
    4. They make it sound like 10 km each, yes. As for mechanical failures, I have not read of any problems when this was performed. Sure, it's less than ideal (you have a tank out of action instead of a tractor), but I see no evidence that it absolutely must lead to mechanical problems.

      Delete
  10. There is no PzGr 38 for the PAK 38. It is either 5,0 cm PzGr or 5,0 cm PzGr 39.

    ReplyDelete