tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post3012231203852379932..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Soviet SchurzenPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-10584357084749907992019-07-31T15:35:38.906-04:002019-07-31T15:35:38.906-04:00I never left ;)I never left ;)Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-71777404731685691652019-07-31T15:34:14.315-04:002019-07-31T15:34:14.315-04:00Peter the communist is back with more ancient jewi...Peter the communist is back with more ancient jewish bolshevik propagandaCodyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15415499188701291429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-91138416852688360812018-05-20T13:12:07.456-04:002018-05-20T13:12:07.456-04:00It says right in the report that German shells are...It says right in the report that German shells are reported as being decapped by relatively thin plates. This "extra high strength solder" isn't magic. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-59553619854757309672018-05-20T04:54:17.393-04:002018-05-20T04:54:17.393-04:00You are wrong twofolds, Peter.
A) I refer to the ...You are wrong twofolds, Peter.<br /><br />A) I refer to the previous comments of You about 76mm AAA trials on the TIGER, which You claimed were sufficiently robust because they could defeat the side armor incorrectly citing a hit with clear EDGE EFFECTS.<br /><br />Actual source states instead:<br /><br />a) Бронебойный снаряд с дистанцин 500 метров не оте пробивает бортовую броню корпуса.<br />b) Металл Бронебойного снаряда имеет невысокие механические свойства.<br /><br />Please enlighten me where my (or anybodys) reading of russian supports Your interpretation here, which is the exact OPPOSITE of what the primary source and I stated...<br /><br />And 2nd, US trials (WAL710/607-3 is dated June 1944) don´t even use german shells. THATS A PLAIN FACT. You think the US shells behave like german, and it is true that even the US believed that. <br /><br />But the fact remains that neither the german nor the british decapping trials with actual APCBC-HE support that they behaved like US test projectiles. Therefore You made a mistake. Mistakes can be made by everyone but I pointed out the mistake of You several times now and You are unable to admit mistakes and instead choose to keep repeating already disprooven points. YES, I CALL YOU ON THIS MISTAKE OF YOURS. <br />The US had no information about german extra high strength solder until after the war.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-70196622464058051962018-05-17T10:01:42.492-04:002018-05-17T10:01:42.492-04:00My "free interpretation" is what's w...My "free interpretation" is what's written in the document. Meanwhile, since you cannot read Russian, you mixed up the 6-pounder and ZIS-2 trials because both were labelled "57 mm" in the picture. <br /><br />And again, the American document is explicitly talking about protection from German shells. If you have this amazing evidence, you're welcome to post it. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-52439576824094841792018-05-17T03:46:24.525-04:002018-05-17T03:46:24.525-04:00Obviously You can´t as demonstrated by your free i...Obviously You can´t as demonstrated by your free interpretation of soviet TIGER trials, which were in contradiction to what was written in the source. This has been demonstrated multiple times.<br />US Research was conducted with US APC shells, capped by US methods not with german APCBC and not with US shells capped by german methods. They therefore are suited only to give information about how US caps behave. 1/12 was ok for US APC as demonstrated by these trials. German research with large 38cm APCBC-HE and british post war trials with german actual 8.8cm Pzgr39/43 showed the same: 1/5 cal. minimum to decap, with 1/4 cal thickness required to ensure decapping under all conditions. Quite a difference.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-16162148838570505742018-05-16T10:00:00.472-04:002018-05-16T10:00:00.472-04:00American research designed to protect against Germ...American research designed to protect against German shells, which straight up says that "The lack of success in the above attempts to make caps resist the penetration of 1/8" plate, together with the reports that make thin plates also decap German projectiles, make it seem likely that if our armored vehicles are equipped with 1/12th caliber decapping plate, the enemy will not, in the near future, perfect his porojectiles as to defeat the purpose of such plates."<br /><br />And by the way, I'm doing no such thing. I can read primary documents too, you know.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-83923232539434809152018-05-16T04:48:38.429-04:002018-05-16T04:48:38.429-04:00that´s american research, not german and only true...that´s american research, not german and only true for type 1 caps. The US didn´t use the extra strong solder which was employed in Germany. By the way, You are quoting information from Okun´s initial article on decapping plate thickness. I was involved in provided the primary prooving ground sources to Okun, which caused a review and reassessment of the initial decapping article. <br /><br />[url]http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-085.php[/url]<br />critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-15823174088409152232018-05-15T20:17:32.136-04:002018-05-15T20:17:32.136-04:00American research found that "one twelveth ca...American research found that "one twelveth caliber plates remove the caps of APC projectiles at service velocities, irrespective of hardness of cap, closeness of fitting, or, within wide limits, of cap design", so 6-8 mm would be fine for 75-88 mm shells.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-54032436216707199082018-05-14T17:38:28.390-04:002018-05-14T17:38:28.390-04:00The biggest headache of the day was subcaliber amm...The biggest headache of the day was subcaliber ammunition, so it's probably to protect from that.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-5729533585326912292018-05-14T06:56:37.560-04:002018-05-14T06:56:37.560-04:00I´d agree partially with that observation.
50mm h...I´d agree partially with that observation. <br />50mm hits were the largest cause of T34 losses in 1942, and the vertical sides and turret plating were particularely vulnerable (out to beyond max range >2000m when striking perpendicular under favourable obliquities).<br /><br />The 6-8mm screens, even if made from mild steel could be expected to be just thick enough to decap an ordinary medium calibre APC with the HHA vertical side armor taking care of the uncapped projectile afterwards, sharply reducing the vulnerability range. Also the interspace gap between screen and side plate is sufficiently large to support decapping. Notice, this might not be true for turret and upper side screening plates which were too close.<br />However, the type of extra high strength solder used to cap the 5cm Pzgr.39 m.K. would render the decapping effect of the screens marginal at best (except at very acute obliquity, but then again, the side armor of the T34 was sufficiently thick to take care even of a capped 5cm pzgr39 at >45°). Somehow thicker screens would be required.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-68636216269442653342018-05-13T19:04:24.943-04:002018-05-13T19:04:24.943-04:00Ie. the 5 cm and 7,5 cm guns respectively. Makes s...Ie. the 5 cm and 7,5 cm guns respectively. Makes sense if the first design was intented to protect against the former.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-32205552334413592012018-05-13T19:02:41.378-04:002018-05-13T19:02:41.378-04:00That certainly makes sense for the second design, ...That certainly makes sense for the second design, but were the 'Fausts enough of a headache already in early '43 to merit the first one? Or is that a continuation or variant of the additional armour devised against the 50 mm guns?Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-90552236182938167682018-05-11T17:10:44.115-04:002018-05-11T17:10:44.115-04:00No doubt the T-34 76 could manage with the extra w...No doubt the T-34 76 could manage with the extra weight of the extra armor. But what it needed more was a large 3 man turret and the 85mm gun. Sager ,William A.https://www.blogger.com/profile/06830369127449299646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-53029458151416290252018-05-10T13:03:58.858-04:002018-05-10T13:03:58.858-04:00Panzerfausts almost always hit the side of the tan...Panzerfausts almost always hit the side of the tank, very rarely the front or the rear.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-69492291143799539542018-05-10T11:25:06.058-04:002018-05-10T11:25:06.058-04:00skirts work best against high density, high veloci...skirts work best against high density, high velocity, small calibre impact. The glacis was proof against such thread in it´s original state.<br />Against slower moving, larger calibre impact, which the glacis was very vulnerable against, a double, parallel layer might actually even increase vulnerability due to the normalizing effects of the too thin first layer and due to the inhibition of ricochet.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-51035697756660953962018-05-10T08:24:35.003-04:002018-05-10T08:24:35.003-04:00I rather doubt the necessary cut-outs for his hatc...I rather doubt the necessary cut-outs for his hatch and vision devices would have represented a significant engineering challenge... Especially as the designed add-on plating for the turret has the appropriate openings for the side vision slits and pistol ports.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-67036189896986092982018-05-10T07:42:16.987-04:002018-05-10T07:42:16.987-04:00I would guess any extra spaced armor on the front ...I would guess any extra spaced armor on the front slope would block the driver's vision. Dat34https://www.blogger.com/profile/05191197983174208313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-74161508979894509442018-05-10T04:30:20.592-04:002018-05-10T04:30:20.592-04:00Any specific reason why the first one doesn't ...Any specific reason why the first one doesn't add plating to the main glacis? Was the greater slope and (slightly) thicker plate felt to be sufficient protection as-is?Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.com