"Penetration. Entrance diameter: 76-76 mm. Exit diameter: 76-76 mm. The shell penetrated the plate and two walls. Dimensions: 110-130-140 mm.
Penetration. Entrance diameter: 76-76 mm. Exit diameter: 70-65 mm. The shell is in front of the plate. Dimensions: 100-130-120 mm.
Penetration. Entrance diameter: 76-76 mm. Exit diameter: 80-80 mm. The shell penetrated the plate and three walls. Dimensions: 120-135-150 mm.
The shell was stuck in the armour.
Penetration, less than a caliber. Entrance diameter: 70-70 mm, Exit diameter: 70-70 mm. The shell is in front of the plate. Dimensions: 145-160-150 mm.
Dent. Diameter: 60-60 mm. Depth: 3-5 mm. The shell was not found.
Dent. Diameter: 75-75 mm. Depth: 8-10 mm. The rear side of the plate has a bump. The shell is in front of the plate. Diameter: 135-155-145 mm.
Penetration, less than a caliber. Entrance diameter: 75-78 mm. Exit diameter: 70-80 mm. The shell was not found.
Penetration. Entrance diameter: 110-80 mm. Exit diameter: 130-100 mm. The shell penetrated the plate and three walls. Dimensions: 120-150-125 mm."
The quality of the shell seems decent. Most penetrations are the size of one caliber or larger, and the shell does not shatter after penetrating the armour or bouncing off.
Round type name, BHN, of round, and plate are necessary for this to be meaningful data.
ReplyDeleteYeah the issue with this kind of thing is that they rarely include that information. I suppose the people it's meant for already have it.
DeleteIt may be left out ( most likely), this blog does a good job of cherry picking information. The articles are comprised of incomplete clippings as is the case here. Do you really believe that this test is only a 1/2 page long? It obviously an excerpt. This test most likely has at least 10-20 pages (check out other similar tests released via archives ( Brit, Canadian,US, other full russian docs) they tend to be long.
DeleteWe don't even get the full conclusions page of these tests. Just that the rounds performed well relative to this except with no quantifiable evidence that the rounds were indeed of good quality..... other than the unneeded comments (opinions) of the author at the end of this article. I do find it interesting that he brought up shatter which makes me believe the round might have been susceptible to shatter despite its low velocity, there was some evidence of that vs FHA plate at least for one of the 76mm's round types the A, I believe it might have been fixed on the B type.
It's interesting how you accuse me of jumping to conclusions with limited information and then immediately jump to conclusions with limited information.
DeleteThis is an excerpt there is no question about that all tests have a title "effect of temperature and range" ,the purpose of the tests, the actual tests (usually with details about everything being tested) then the conclusion.
Deletethe shatter thing....I said "suspect" which implies personal opinion not fact which as stated was formed from your comment & from other sources.
I never said did..... that's the difference.
Yes, also is known from british Tests in ww2 ballistics that these shells had a rather poor quality compared to english and german shells of compareable caliber.
ReplyDeleteThere's also a US report on soviet metallurgy for these round types up to the 85mm and including the 76mm which came to the conclusion that the rounds were generally of inferior quality to US rounds.
ReplyDeleteGive me and the others a link to said report. I don't know what others think of but myself want to read it in some detail.
Delete