tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post5063802743911564249..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: PenetrationPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-19013832110612907772020-06-01T10:14:05.231-04:002020-06-01T10:14:05.231-04:00I have some data on tests against the King Tiger.
...I have some data on tests against the King Tiger.<br />76 mm: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/04/american-guns-vs-german-tanks.html<br />85 mm: http://www.tankarchives.ca/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html<br /><br />The American 76 mm penetrates more armour. However, other tests show different results, for instance the Americans say that the front of a Tiger can be penetrated from 1200 yards (about 1100 m) while the 85 mm gun guarantees penetration from 1000 meters and can penetrate from up to 1500 m. Could be issues with the specific Tiger or specific batch of ammunition, who knows. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-32644178029462504122020-05-30T22:37:40.765-04:002020-05-30T22:37:40.765-04:00Do you have any data on the 76mm gun on the Sherma...Do you have any data on the 76mm gun on the Sherman? I'm curious about its performance compared to the 85mm gun on the T-34 85. Fei Gaohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10561527576820894281noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-17238284642382644952020-05-18T12:10:27.889-04:002020-05-18T12:10:27.889-04:00All of this splitting hairs about penetration is l...All of this splitting hairs about penetration is like listening to someone with Aspergers obsess over different varieties of lamp posts. So here, from someone who actually Deployed, is how it really works:<br /><br />If you’re in a tank and you get hit with a “pretty big shell” (no need for fancy tables) that rings your bell, maybe spalls the armor and knocks out pretty much every sighting/aiming device onboard, *you are immediately bailing from that tank*. Because the next hit (on your now-harmless coffin-to-soon-be) is likely to be the last. That’s a Mission Kill, and the rest is up to the repair and recovery teams (or not). <br /><br />I mean, for real guys. Go actually sit in a tank sometime. It’s loud, claustrophobic and you feel like a blind elephant. You get hit, you have no real idea what’s happening either now, or next. <br /><br />This is why tank duels are generally won by the guy who starts putting rounds on target *first* (assuming it’s not a total mismatch, like where we knew the Iraqi T-72s couldn’t pen our M1’s even at point-blank).Erichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17438621463266503313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-69289951380285229582019-02-09T07:02:31.150-05:002019-02-09T07:02:31.150-05:00Seems to me German guns data is way too lower than...Seems to me German guns data is way too lower than other sources, anyway this might be because during WW2 Russians had to rely on german ammo they managed to pick up on battlefields, from bogged down tanks, or damaged ones, which means such ammo would be most likely spoiled by humidity/water etc and therefore perform a lot worse than normal ammo...jj284bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14900991109990032149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-18587569303766741442017-08-22T18:43:00.308-04:002017-08-22T18:43:00.308-04:00While that is true, why do we see that even when a...While that is true, why do we see that even when angled at 60° the penetrations are very similar? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804780563510219669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-59766179231914450192017-08-22T09:14:56.206-04:002017-08-22T09:14:56.206-04:00122 mm performs better against highly sloped armou...122 mm performs better against highly sloped armour due to overmatching.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-5085448218163126882017-08-22T04:29:47.447-04:002017-08-22T04:29:47.447-04:00While I do not doubt this data, I actually find it...While I do not doubt this data, I actually find it a pretty neat collection of data. The 100mm and 122mm have virtually identical penetration. And the D-10 vs D-25 document you posted said that the 100mm could penetrate a Panther no further than 1200 meters and that the 122mm could penetrate the panther past 2000 meters. I was curious if you knew why the two documents conflict? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804780563510219669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-38263212006722853422017-08-22T04:26:02.742-04:002017-08-22T04:26:02.742-04:00While I do not doubt this data, I actually find it...While I do not doubt this data, I actually find it a pretty neat collection of date. I find it interesting how the 100mm and 122mm have virtually identical penetration, however in the D-10 vs D-25 document you posted it said that the 100mm could penetrate a Panther no further than 1200 meters and that the 122mm could penetrate the Panther past 2000 meters, I was just curious if you knew the reason why the two conflict. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01804780563510219669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-36510234420302441402016-05-25T01:17:23.118-04:002016-05-25T01:17:23.118-04:00You joker !You joker !Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-50087069037274993252016-04-02T13:01:08.165-04:002016-04-02T13:01:08.165-04:00It's not flawed or unreliable. It's simply...It's not flawed or unreliable. It's simply a different standard. The vast majority of people don't even know that there are different standards and try to mix and match penetration data recorded by various nations without understanding that the numbers don't represent the same thing.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-3613333515257653542016-04-02T11:41:43.178-04:002016-04-02T11:41:43.178-04:00Actually this is a bit of cherry-picking.
Withou...Actually this is a bit of cherry-picking. <br /><br />Without knowing how the tests where done AND the quality and hardness of the armour-plate you cannot compare it with other data. And why would the german data be unreliable if they repeated the test several times? Why is it flawed to use a maximum value? <br /><br />Then there is the question about after armour effect and effect of impact. <br /><br />Pew-Pewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08001999163103434474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-17061164856415189822016-03-27T12:58:12.743-04:002016-03-27T12:58:12.743-04:00Who said anything about "falsify"? It...Who said anything about "falsify"? It's a different standard, not a falsification. Also if it's based on equations, why are some guns capped out at certain ranges? Surely nothing is stopping whoever composed the chart from filling out all of it unless they, I don't know, ran out of shells to test with?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-51673087548058698072016-03-27T04:49:55.982-04:002016-03-27T04:49:55.982-04:00"Germans used special shells to falsify their..."Germans used special shells to falsify their own testing data"<br /><br /><br />Nice try you Commieboo. German tests are in line with western assessments. What you don't understand is that all data in this table in regards to german guns are based on equations, not on real life trials. And yet you insist on making that absolute asspull about some "special shells" with no sources to back it up whatsoever.Guardiannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-67189494752252232642016-02-23T19:04:45.797-05:002016-02-23T19:04:45.797-05:00So that might could mean a slightly lower number t...So that might could mean a slightly lower number than otherwise achievable. Perhaps +5% at the high end? So approx ~176mm of penetration? Though such a margin would not be of particularly great concern I would imagine.<br /><br />Now I was wondering if it would be feasible to mount a 120mm L/56 cannon onto a 35-40 metric ton medium tank using WWII era technological developments.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-3336589623550662232016-02-23T17:48:41.706-05:002016-02-23T17:48:41.706-05:00No, the report does not contain details about the ...No, the report does not contain details about the wear of the cannon.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-5989959830988046522016-02-23T16:29:35.409-05:002016-02-23T16:29:35.409-05:00Zergling* WOT forum user. Apparently he/she has do...Zergling* WOT forum user. Apparently he/she has done some extensive work on the EU server; not quite as extensive as yours as far as i am aware.<br /><br />I was wondering if you could confirm that particular statement for me.<br /><br />Now could you please answer my question?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-78286241610211361162016-02-22T19:12:53.084-05:002016-02-22T19:12:53.084-05:00I don't know who or what "ZeZergling"...I don't know who or what "ZeZergling" is or why you think it's a reputable source.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-49023416419958926602016-02-22T14:17:59.349-05:002016-02-22T14:17:59.349-05:00So basically you typed out a lie more or less.
Ze...So basically you typed out a lie more or less.<br /><br />ZeZergling reports that the rounds are "of known quality"<br /><br />Didn't the Germans also have a round with almost the exact same results as the russians for the 88mm L/71 cannon? Does the report detail the wear of the cannon?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-67613394431022717222016-01-06T09:10:05.782-05:002016-01-06T09:10:05.782-05:00I haven't read anything to suggest this. Speci...I haven't read anything to suggest this. Special shells (with an increased powder load) were only used to test the reliability of guns by simulating the stress of hundreds of shots with only a few.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-77612383029413954782016-01-06T01:10:45.625-05:002016-01-06T01:10:45.625-05:00the sovjets used also special shells when testing ...the sovjets used also special shells when testing the penetration effects of their guns. It was common. Didn´t you know that? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18388216918315755478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-44306985266321203822015-11-28T13:31:50.367-05:002015-11-28T13:31:50.367-05:00Soviet criteria is not tougher. Soviet criteria is not tougher. Yugonamehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09363049276280844713noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-83067331215134018072015-10-20T17:36:09.187-04:002015-10-20T17:36:09.187-04:00There is a wide discrepancy in penetration results...There is a wide discrepancy in penetration results from testing protocols, even when the protocols are similar. John Salt compiled a list from various sources; for the German 75 mm Pak 40, tested a zillion times by all combatants, the test results varied something like 17 % even throwing out the highest and lowest results.Netnguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08764569084522350922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-13740935155365077002015-10-20T17:19:10.974-04:002015-10-20T17:19:10.974-04:00What Peter said. For one thing, the table doesn...What Peter said. For one thing, the table doesn't take into account armor overmatching nor shattergap with APCR. <br /><br />Heck, US M-36 tank crews complained when they saw their 90 mm HVAP rounds shatter against the glacis of Panthers when they should be able to penetration well over 200 mm of armor. Netnguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08764569084522350922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-84250467463598642432015-10-06T11:54:52.590-04:002015-10-06T11:54:52.590-04:00@arkhangelsk: German penetration criteria for 7.5 ...@arkhangelsk: German penetration criteria for 7.5 cm, 8.8 cm and 12.8 cm stated 5 consecutive successful penetrations, where successful meant 'in a condition fit to burst', e.g. explosive filler intact). Consecutive being the key word here. If any failed to penetrate, the test would start anew. <br /><br />As for the document presented here, that K value clearly indicates calculated penetration. German performance stated is what these guns would (theoretically) penetrate when using Soviet type and quality ammunition. THAT's what can be derived.<br /><br />Soviet criteria can be stated in several ways. There's Initial Penetration (20% probability 75% of shell mass behind the armor) and Certified Penetration (80% probability of 75% shell mass behind armor). Usually, when only one figure is shows it's the averaged result. Difference between IP and CP is only 11 - 18% roughly (depending on impact angle).<br /><br />Even if Soviet criteria is tougher than German one, it would be only a couple of percent. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-23475354365755792662015-06-12T21:28:51.112-04:002015-06-12T21:28:51.112-04:00As a logical proposition, "5 complete penetra...As a logical proposition, "5 complete penetrations" is not inconsistent with "50% statistical chance of penetration". If the round has any ability to penetrate the armor in complete condition at all, as long as you shoot enough eventually you'd get 5.<br /><br />As a general proposal, when you have two organizations testing the same gun and one comes up with a significantly lower penetration value than the other under similar "coarse-print" situation (range and impact angle), the most obvious hypothesis is that they were testing to a overall tougher "fine-print" standard (tougher steel or higher incidence of penetration or more complete penetration), so Peter at least has a prima facie case. It is the inverse that would take some real effort to prove.<br /><br />BTW, are you the same Anonymous who comes and spits random stuff every once in a while? I really appreciate your effort to present the other side, but you'd be a lot more convincing if you can decide on an net identity that's not "Anonymous" and make some real effort (e.g. links) to substantiate your assertions. Right now, you just look like a Germanonphiilic troll.arkhangelskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15247250672432027166noreply@blogger.com