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."
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."
Could you link to the document? Thanks!
ReplyDeleteThe full thing is rather hefty, but here's the table: http://i.imgur.com/JU8fTer.jpg
DeleteInteresting that the KwK 38 is using the PzGr 39 while the PaK 38 is using the older PzGr 38. And is much better.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
ReplyDelete-m
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?
ReplyDeleteIt depends
ReplyDeleteThe 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.
wrong the 7.5 kwk 40 penetrates t 34 hull at 90 degre angle at ranges of up to 600 meters, no more
ReplyDeleteWrong its 1,000-1,600 meters
ReplyDeleteYugo 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.
Can you please post the full document instead of the excerpt please.
ReplyDeleteCertainly. 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"There are many cases of breakdowns when they need to tow vehicles of equal or greater mass."
ReplyDeleteThis 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.
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
DeleteIts 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
Delete@ 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?
sorry I came off a bit unclear
Delete"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.
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.
DeleteThere is no PzGr 38 for the PAK 38. It is either 5,0 cm PzGr or 5,0 cm PzGr 39.
ReplyDelete