tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post1634377383601842630..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: 100 mm D-10 vs 88 mm KwK 43Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-35716718472020338272023-08-25T15:52:26.135-04:002023-08-25T15:52:26.135-04:00Peasant is pushing an old theory from axis History...Peasant is pushing an old theory from axis History that, for example, entails penetrative limit of D-25T, point blank, normal, being 167mm.<br /><br />But from British trial we find similar gun (D-10T) penetrate 160mm @30 degree for 500 meters.<br /><br />I think it is interesting that on BL-9 article he completely missed the parameters of gun and shell involved<br />[Wrong MV and "BR-471B service shell" in 1943] to force his conclusion.Pagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11606895746508225792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-81854167024993865932023-03-30T10:54:20.147-04:002023-03-30T10:54:20.147-04:00I think Peter is using the word "penetrate&qu...I think Peter is using the word "penetrate" in this criteria as Soviet designers would have, from the perspective of designing armor to resist rounds, i.e., "would the armor be compromised even if the round does not go through"? That is simply conservative engineering.<br /><br />If, on the other hand, your interest is in choosing a gun to penetrate an enemy's weapon, you err in the other direction-- "does this gun have a high probability of defeating the enemy's armor?" Then you use something like the 80 % certified penetration criteria as your metric.<br /><br />Evidence of this. Looking at some old posts of Peters' I was looking at the evaluation of the T-34/85M's armor performance, and it was calculated that the Kwk42 gun on the Panther could still defeat the uparmored 75 mm sloped at 60 degrees on the T-34/85M at 720 meters. Yet 75 mm at 60 degrees is at a minimum 150 mm of vertical armor by the cosine calculation, the most conservative calculation, while the certified penetration value for the Kwk42 the Russians deemed to be only 132 mm. So obviously the Russians could not be using the certified penetration metric for the Kwk42 to come to this conclusion. <br /><br />It would be great to see the PTP curves for all the weapons that the Russians generated. I think that might reveal considerable insight into Russian design choices.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-10665410437291242992023-03-04T03:40:21.972-05:002023-03-04T03:40:21.972-05:00Indeed it can work to compare the two guns, among ...Indeed it can work to compare the two guns, among themselves, but you are clearly relying on this data to make judgment about their effectiveness against tanks:<br /><br />"From these graphs, we see that the 88 mm Pak 43 is a powerful weapon indeed. At point blank range, it can penetrate 120 mm of armour sloped at 60 degrees"<br /><br />"At 30 degrees the gun penetrates 180 mm of armour, making it capable of penetrating both the front turret or the front hull of a Tiger II at ranges where the Tiger II can penetrated it back."<br /><br />"When it comes to the Panther, a more realistic opponent, the 100 mm gun can defeat it at a great range. The upper front plate (85 mm at 55 degrees) can be penetrated at a velocity of about 600 m/s with the sharp tipped shell (a range of over 3 kilometers) and at even greater ranges by the blunt tipped shell."<br /><br />which is misleading to your readers.<br /><br />Also, you keep using the word "penetrate"(implying "perforate") while the chart shows the PTP limit. Peasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06854227623897076639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-24668475110378676492023-03-03T19:54:51.922-05:002023-03-03T19:54:51.922-05:00The data works to compare the two guns in the same...The data works to compare the two guns in the same test. A test against a different reference performed decades later will give different data.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-35597374927046137322023-03-03T13:23:10.039-05:002023-03-03T13:23:10.039-05:00This data should not be taken at face value, as it...This data should not be taken at face value, as it contradicts pretty much every other source about performance of these two guns.<br />https://www.tankarchives.ca/2017/06/soviets-vs-m48-patton.htmlPeasanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06854227623897076639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-10679933590743744652022-11-25T15:02:32.292-05:002022-11-25T15:02:32.292-05:00I'd suspect some of the discrepancy between Pe...I'd suspect some of the discrepancy between Peter's data above and the Yugoslav T-54 test result would be due to the difference in the definition of 'penetration'. With PTP, (by Peter's comment above; dimpling and cracks may be apparent but there is no spalling) this means that "the armor is NOT penetrated and there have been no significant after-armor effects but the armor but has been significantly compromised". <br /><br />With the Yugoslav tests, someone would have had to go inside the T-54 (assuming an actual tank was used) or examine the armor plate (if that was used) and evaluate the back of the point of impact to check if the PTP criteria had been met.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-46449920639848258722022-11-25T10:26:13.058-05:002022-11-25T10:26:13.058-05:00Very interesting. Note that in Yugoslav tests 88mm...Very interesting. Note that in Yugoslav tests 88mm was not able to penetrate T-54 front armour (100mm@60°).<br /><br />I was wondering if it would be possible to translate the graphs' titles and put them in the charts or below as a caption. There are quite a bit of data in this post and it would make life easier. Regards.Alejandrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537203226584815118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-69119659654756348792022-11-24T08:42:15.741-05:002022-11-24T08:42:15.741-05:00You are reading it correctly, the IS-4 was designe...You are reading it correctly, the IS-4 was designed specifically to fight the Ferdinand so it makes sense.<br /><br />Yes, it's similar to the British criterion, PTP means there's no spalling, through cracks, etc. seen on the back of the plate. The tests against Panthers were done with early ammo, and after one of the conclusions was that better ammo must be developed to surpass the D-25 in penetration.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-45334608852803788152022-11-23T12:36:35.996-05:002022-11-23T12:36:35.996-05:00It would have been nice to have the distance in me...It would have been nice to have the distance in meters as an extra Y axis on the right-hand side of the graph. Also, I'm seeing "perfect protection" for the IS-4's frontal hull (140 mm at 60 degrees); the curve goes to point-blank at 55 degrees, unless I'm mis-reading the curve.<br /><br />What is PTP? Is it the analogy to the 20 % chance of penetration (with penetration being still defined as 75 % of the shell mass going through)? Or is it something more akin to the British definition of "there's a hole in the armor that light can pass through"?<br /><br />How does the data on the D-10 be reconciled with the data done on actual Panther hulls, which concluded that 1400 meters, not 3000, was the limit of the (at least the sharp-tipped) APHE round?<br /><br />It would be nice to see the same curves for the D-25T.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.com