Thursday 26 September 2019

T-44 Under Fire

The T-44 proved a tough nut to crack. Neither the Soviet 85 mm gun nor the German 8.8 cm Pak 43 could penetrate the upper front plate even from 100 meters. The lower front plate could not be penetrated by the 85 mm gun either, but the 88 mm gun managed to break it off after several hits. Despite the welding giving out, the protection was much better than that of the T-34-85, comparable to the Panther.

"Firing trials against the armoured hull resulted the complete destruction of the following welding seams: 
  • Upper front plate and left side
  • Lower front plate and left side
  • Idler carrier and sides
  • Hull roof and left side
The welding seam between the hull roof and right side was destroyed by 80%.

The overall view of the hull from the front after trials is show in figure 21.


Photo 21. Overall view of the hull from the front after trials.

11 comments:

  1. Actually, the T-44's upper hull protection should be superior to that of the Panther (90 mm @ 64 degrees, compared to 80 mm @ 55 degrees).

    I noticed it mentioned welds, so I assume that this is high-hardness rolled armor, similar to that on the T-34? If so, the Germans at least accorded that another bonus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Welding is a construction technique not particularly tied to specific metals though...?

      Delete
    2. Just saying it's not cast, Kellomies. It would be logical if the metals and technique used were similar to that of the T-34, for maintaining continuity of production methods.

      Delete
    3. Well, that much was apparent from looking at the thing. Though IIRC it wasn't unheard-of to mix and match techniques either - cast section welded onto welded ones etc.

      Delete
    4. Actually come think of it - did the Soviets pretty much ever use cast hulls in the first place? Turrets and such, sure, but off the top of my head I'm having the impression they went straight from riveting to welding in serial-production hull designs.

      Delete
    5. Yes, the Soviets did employ casting techniques for the hulls. Some of the IS-2 hulls were cast, some where welded.

      Delete
    6. Using a mix of cast and rolled components welded together was common. There was never anything like the M4A1, although there was a fully cast hull considered for the T-34 at one point.

      Delete
  2. Oh, and did the Soviets (or anyone else) test the Kwk43 against the Panther? I don't recall seeing the results if so.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2017/01/comparative-penetration.html

      The result was interesting: the shell knocks out a chunk of the armour but ricochets off. By Soviet standards this is not a penetration, even though there is a hole in the armour the shell is not behind the armour.

      Delete
    2. Interesting...at 600 meters for the Kwk43. The Panther's armor was 80 mm @ 55 degrees, which is about 168 mm (or 170 mm, depending if you don't round down) of vertical plate. According to Livingston and Bird, the Kwk43 should go easily through that (200 mm at 1000 meters), or should at least, be achieving a 'penetration' > 50 % of the time. Yet it didn't, and although the non-penetration was still pretty significant in terms of what happened to the thank, the result would be neither a 'penetration' by Russian nor German criteria.

      Was this just one round fired and tested? I'd have a hard time believing that multiple rounds would produce the same result.

      I went back and read the comments by CM and others in that thread. In this test vs German armor, just like in the tests with the 122 mm, the Kwk43, and the Kwk42 against the IS-3 hull, the same trend (122 mm > Kwk43 > Kwk42) is exhibited. This runs counter to the Bird & Livingston numbers which have Kwk43 > 122 mm > Kwk42 plus some still insist that it should be Kwk43 > Kwk42 > 122 mm. I think the 122 mm deserves more respect. :P

      Delete
    3. I think only one, any more ricochets like that and there wouldn't be much of a Panther left. In practical trials I've seen the D-25 always penetrates more, due to Russian Bias no doubt :P

      Delete