tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post5959830203399527882..comments2024-03-15T05:39:01.295-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Spare Track LinksPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger54125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-79541054568915251002015-07-24T01:12:08.724-04:002015-07-24T01:12:08.724-04:00>For one, we dont need to do any multiplying to...>For one, we dont need to do any multiplying to get the actual @0 values. 1000m for KwK48 is 109mm.<br /><br />For one thing, not everyone has a zero degree table w/i easy reach. For another, my table only has the 30 degrees, and I'm wary of mixing and matching tables from different sources. If you want to see why, perhaps this link would be a clue:<br />https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/7,5-cm-PaK_40<br /><br />In any case, 2mm. Gee, that's *really* worth a poke.<br /><br />>Let me spell this out for you. If we add in slope multiplier alone, we get 122m.<br /><br />Forget what's the truth, that's not even what you claimed. You said "The default slope multiplier for 45mm plate sloped at 60 degrees would be about 3.13, making that armor about 140mm thick. Once we add in the T/D ratio, we get 122mm." Not the same thing.<br /><br />>A 45mm medium hardness plate will resist like 45mm of medium hardness armor against 20mm and 90mm hits. A 45mm high hardness plate may resist 20mm hits like 53mm of medium hardness plate, but will resist 75mm hits like about 34mm medium hardness because it cannot take the impact with cracking.<br /><br />Oh, I see. And you took that and went: 34*3.13*(122/140)=93mm?<br /><br />I see the problem is *not* with what Rexford said, but with your comprehension of it. He ran the risk of putting numbers with his text, and it didn't work out for you. He *could* have said "High hardness armor tends to do better against smaller projectiles and worse against bigger ones", but that's not very satisfactory because it has no magnitude, so he threw two numbers in as a guide. He almost certainly did not mean for his readers to treat his examples as inviolable law, immune to any variation in the production of the armor, or the armor piercing projectile. Or to try to roll over observation based on it. But some people inevitably do, because numbers create an illusion of precision.<br /><br />>The 1235m "safe" range is consistent with figures presented in the next factoid.<br /><br />This neither supports nor denies Samsonov's example.<br /><br />>2. 75mm Pak 40 cannot penetrate T34 beyond 1000m<br /><br />Isn't that what Samsonov's example said? Though I must wonder. Not even the turret?<br /><br />>3. 75mm L43 penetrates T34 at 1200m at any angle, with 1600m max range, spring 1942. Report included in T. Jentz' Panzertruppen Volume I.<br /><br />I think in Spring 1942, T-34 turrets are about 50mm thick (or was it 45)?<br /><br />>75mm L43 penetrates T34 front hull at 1000m with a 30 degree side angle during 1942 Russian firing tests, according to Valera Potapov notes from Russian report he reviewed. This result is consistent with 1600m maximum penetration range when gun is lined up with T34 hull direction.<br /><br />It seems a bit mean of Samsonov to pretend to not even know Valeri Potapov, since he's Battlefield.ru's guy and that's famous enough.<br /><br />For all that, you might want to think twice before this one. The penetration of the L/43 is 82mm at 30 at 1000 (according to Jentz anyway). That's 11mm lower than your "divine law" estimate of 93mm - by your own estimate, this should not have worked and yet it did. Or is it only one direction for you? You will drink down anything lower, but not higher?<br /><br />BTW, the moment you have to rely on half-remembered tests you can't relink to should be a hint that 30 degrees is a real minority scenario for Russian tests.arkhangelskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15247250672432027166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-67151385303047858682015-07-23T15:22:59.472-04:002015-07-23T15:22:59.472-04:00Ah, that's rich. Find this evidence on your ow...Ah, that's rich. Find this evidence on your own, I don't care! Meanwhile, I already told you to find my evidence. It's conveniently assembled right here! Click the "penetration" tag and conveniently observe.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-12824222534778582542015-07-23T14:24:36.657-04:002015-07-23T14:24:36.657-04:00Find it on your own if you want. You keep refering...Find it on your own if you want. You keep refering to mystical angles of penetration that I havent seen evident of. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-17609723125630085012015-07-23T14:13:27.037-04:002015-07-23T14:13:27.037-04:00Who is Valera Potapov? What report did he review? ...Who is Valera Potapov? What report did he review? You keep referring to this mystical penetration test, and yet I have yet to see any kind of picture or citation or anything. Or any evidence of such wild glacis thickness variation. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-73358876073217776612015-07-23T14:10:27.261-04:002015-07-23T14:10:27.261-04:00Ah, well that's awfully convenient. Why don...Ah, well that's awfully convenient. Why don't you find it and get back to me.<br /><br />Yes, there were variances, +2 to -1 was acceptable IIRC. Not +15. I've never read about a 60 mm armoured SU-85. Maybe it was a SU-85M?Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-75157154985667757512015-07-23T12:41:03.440-04:002015-07-23T12:41:03.440-04:00More from Rexford: Research over the years on the ...More from Rexford: Research over the years on the penetration range of 75mm L43 APCBC against the T34 front resulted in the following bits of info:<br /><br />1. T34 stands at 1235m and is "safe", outranging panzer guns, based on George Forty recounting of March 1943 report from Grossdeutschland Division experience. The 1235m "safe" range is consistent with figures presented in the next factoid.<br /><br />2. 75mm Pak 40 cannot penetrate T34 beyond 1000m, German instructions to units on Eastern Front for Combating T34, May 1942. T34 76.2mm gun noted to be superior to 75mm L43, which would be the case if T34 has 50mm to 55mm glacis armor at 60 degrees slope and PzKpfw IV carries 50mm near-vertical frontal protection. "In correctly recognizing his technical superiority in weapons, the T34 already opens fire on German panzers at ranges from 1200 to 1800 meters."<br /><br />3. 75mm L43 penetrates T34 at 1200m at any angle, with 1600m max range, spring 1942. Report included in T. Jentz' Panzertruppen Volume I.<br /><br />4. 75mm L43 penetrates T34 front hull at 1000m with a 30 degree side angle during 1942 Russian firing tests, according to Valera Potapov notes from Russian report he reviewed. This result is consistent with 1600m maximum penetration range when gun is lined up with T34 hull direction.<br /><br />Whether the penetration range variations noted above are primarily due to changes in armor and projectile quality or T34 armor thickness are open to debate. Glacis thickness variations from 42mm to 53mm would certainly appear to support the above reports if all or most of the T34 in a group has similar armor thicknesses, which is possible if some factories aimed at greater thicknesses and others strove to meet the design spec as closely as possible. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-44198734665598278282015-07-23T12:39:46.218-04:002015-07-23T12:39:46.218-04:00Quoting Rexford: Medium hardness plate, 220 to 300...Quoting Rexford: Medium hardness plate, 220 to 300 Brinell Hardness, is designed to have good ductility so it can take hard hits without cracking. Shermans used medium hardness armor.<br /><br />High hardness armor, 450 Brinell, has low impact resistance than good medium hardness plate.<br /><br />A 45mm medium hardness plate will resist like 45mm of medium hardness armor against 20mm and 90mm hits. A 45mm high hardness plate may resist 20mm hits like 53mm of medium hardness plate, but will resist 75mm hits like about 34mm medium hardness because it cannot take the impact with cracking.<br /><br />Russian tankers talk alot about how ricochets off the T34 could result in armor flakes flying off the armor interior, injuring or killing the crew. It's due to the brittle nature of the plate.<br /><br />Russian tankers who fought in Shermans noted that ricochets did not result in internal armor flaking, like the T34, because the plate was medium hardness and had high impact resistance.<br /><br />High hardness armor is like auto glass, it works really well against small objects but can't take large hits very well and when it is penetrated it can send shards flying off into the driver compartment. <br /><br />The good thing about high hardness armor is that it can be quicker to make than medium hardness armor, because one doesn't have to spend as much time reducing the hardness to a specific range and getting the correct temper that will assure high impact resistance. So high hardness armor may have allowed more T34 to be made, although they were not especially resistant to PzKpfw IV and StuG III 75mm hits.<br /><br />Prior to October 1943, the Americans made quite a bit of medium hardness cast armor that was very brittle due to the composition and heat treatment.<br /><br />German face-hardened armor uses a thin 500 to 600 Brinell hardness surface layer to break up the nose of projectiles, but the bulk of the armor thickness is around 350 Brinell Hardness area and provides good impact resistance.<br /><br />Face-hardened and high hardness armor is good when you have thin plates under attack by small rounds, and you wish to boost the resistance. Like an armored car or halftrack attacked by rifle or machine gun bullets. U-Boats supposedly had face-hardened conning tower walls to boost the resistance to 20mm aircraft cannon fire.<br /><br />The Russians noted during the Spanish Civil War that penetrations of the German tanks with high hardness Krupp armor usually resulted in severe crew casualties as the armor shattered and allowed pieces to fly inside the tank. Russian T26 tanks used medium hardness armor and unless a round directly hit a crew man it was common to suffer penetration without crew injury.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-46900980164206415152015-07-23T12:35:21.997-04:002015-07-23T12:35:21.997-04:00I dont have, it but I have seen it. If you want to...I dont have, it but I have seen it. If you want to seach for it, Rexford himself brought it up years ago on the CM forums. <br /><br />Sorry but I disagree that you can just assume normal when not stated otherwise. W'ell just have to agree to disagree. <br /><br />Perhaps we can find common ground on the fact that T-34 Armor thickness did vary. Most had 45mm of armor, but examples have been found with less than 45mm, and some with more, since soviet manufacturing was different at every factory. For example, Rexford stated that when they were going through a museum, they found a Su-85 with 60mm of frontal armor!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-43343962872387213102015-07-23T11:32:37.734-04:002015-07-23T11:32:37.734-04:00Yes, they did do 30 degree tests. They then explic...Yes, they did do 30 degree tests. They then explicitly stated, even in summaries and conclusions, that these tests were at 30 degrees. If you have this test, I would very much like to look at it.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-45865400767245256782015-07-23T10:51:32.897-04:002015-07-23T10:51:32.897-04:00@ PS, alot of the stuff here does specify one way ...@ PS, alot of the stuff here does specify one way or another. And the things that do dont magically absolve this tests lack of specificity. Fact: The Russians didn't Specify. Fact: The Russians did do 30 degree tests. I do not have it here, but there is a 1942 test where they fully state its was at 30 degrees, 1000m, T-34 and KwK 43. <br /><br />@ARch- There is nothing wrong with the BHN multiplier. It is based on corroborating and separate tests, and any margin of error would be alot less than you propose. If you really want to argue this was at 0, then you should take note that T-34 armor could vary by as much a +/- 8mm, which would be a much better explanation---but would still main the average T-34 could be killed from over 1500m. <br /><br />Tales of a different gun that is very similar ballistically to the gun we are talking about. And I, apparently unlike you, cannot read minds. <br /><br />And your figuring hear is just plan silly. Clearly you need to sit down and actually READ Rexford and Livingston before you try to show me how the conversions are made. Reading you section on less than 20% or whatever makes me think you dont know what is being done here. <br /><br />For one, we dont need to do any multiplying to get the actual @0 values. 1000m for KwK48 is 109mm. Let me spell this out for you. If we add in slope multiplier alone, we get 122m. Which would prevent the Pak 40 from penetrating except at less than 500, which I think youd agree is nonsense. Without slope, and just LOS, you get 90mm, which agrees with me.....but it should be obvious that you cant just dispense with slope multiplier. So the only way you get a reasonable number without dispensing with the facts is use Multiplier and BHN for the strength of the armor. The BHN multiplier is NOT up for dispute pal. It was determined from test firings, and is not a pure estimate. And I have other news for you. Whatever witchcraft you were trying to construct up there its kinda irrelevant if you dont take into account T/D ratio, since the BHN multiplier for high hardness steel is not one size fits all, and varies depending on round diameter. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-91857311401713906472015-07-23T09:24:07.242-04:002015-07-23T09:24:07.242-04:00Joystick, you make a lot of claims backed by "...Joystick, you make a lot of claims backed by "numerous" sources, but you fail to provide any. Take a look at literally any penetration test on this site. They are all done at 0 degrees. I can think of maybe two or three that include shots at another angle, but this angle is always explicitly stated in the test.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-88050737930740007462015-07-23T06:25:04.766-04:002015-07-23T06:25:04.766-04:001) Do we really have to resort to bringing in tale...1) Do we really have to resort to bringing in tales about a different gun? I must wonder who was so diligent as to log in the heat of combat that a) it was definitely 1500m (surely they meant yards, a 10% difference) and b) they categorically did not use HVAP.<br /><br />2) I did not start bringing in the complexity, you did. I suppose you did that at least partially because you realize that just using the Cosine Formula is not going to beat a test. What you are not noticing is that you have to be *very careful* when you take the decision to squelch (which in turning the tank 30 degrees is effectively what you are doing) a new observation due to its failure to mesh with your existing theory.<br /><br />3) For that matter, I did not go so far as to say the "shaft" coefficient derived in the West was totally wrong, and Soviet armor is completely exempt from the laws and trends of metallurgy. I just propose, in light of observation, that the coefficient is imperfectly applicable since it's implausible for that coefficient to be equally valid for all the possible metallurgical permutations that would obtain 460BHN steel and its AP projectile counterparts anyway. Of your coefficients, it is probably the least universal so my blades are on it first.<br /><br />In fact, we can refine it pretty well here. At 1500m, the Pak40 penetrates 97mm at 0. If you are using a "85mm/30@1000" table (Jentz's table), then it is "74mm/30@1500". So a 14% improvement over 500m of range. Multiply that and we can extrapolate 111mm/0@1000.<br /><br />Divide that by 93 is 1.19. So, b/c the steel performed less than 20% better than predicted by a still relatively simple predictive formula we ignore observation? Can you see how that might be an uphill climb?<br /><br />4) For the German claims, since you can add 30 degrees where none is likely or necessary, given the data you provided, let me give you my first impression: "Maybe they meant the turret, which is often 50 or 70mm on T-34s. Even with a T-34/85 it is only 90mm on the front so there is still a chance at 1200m if you hit it square on." arkhangelskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15247250672432027166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-36613647902652347422015-07-23T02:20:43.823-04:002015-07-23T02:20:43.823-04:00Also note that Shermans in Korea reported penetrat...Also note that Shermans in Korea reported penetrations of T-34s at ranges of 1500m as well, front the front, without HVAP. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-87613105473545126552015-07-23T02:15:43.426-04:002015-07-23T02:15:43.426-04:00There simply isnt any way this was done at 0 degre...There simply isnt any way this was done at 0 degrees, no matter how you slice the numbers. If you go only be LOS, you get 90mm of armor. Without BHN factored in, you get 122mm. I think we'd both agree that LOS alone is not valid, and it would closely agree with 93mm anyhow. 122mm is obviously too high, as no combination of angles reconciles this test or the German combat accounts on this site or elsewhere. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-49042949587493731932015-07-23T02:08:30.557-04:002015-07-23T02:08:30.557-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-78613451198031244162015-07-23T02:02:30.010-04:002015-07-23T02:02:30.010-04:00Hows this for food for thought? If the Soviets wer...Hows this for food for thought? If the Soviets were so smart in using such high hardness (and highly brittle steel) then one does have to wonder why everyone else in the world was so foolish. Weird how everyone else seemed to find mid-200 BHN the most effective middle. Fancy That. Fancy that a book written by two highly respected historians, Lorrin Rexford and Robert Livingston to boot, completely agrees with what I just stated. Doing AP values without calculating BHN or ignoring it because it doesnt jive with your fantasy is pretty laughable. If the armor quality didnt matter, then the cast armor on he M4A1 Sherman would be worth 121mm. Put it this way, if we take off the BHN factor, then you get 122mm for the T-34, which would make penetration dead on impossible except at ranges under 500m. I dont even think you'd try to claim that nonsense. Fact is, you cant work out the armor resistance by conveniently leaving out factors you dont like, which your probably doing because your just now hearing this is a thing. <br /><br />I am not a Germanophile or a Wehraboo or whatever you want to insinuate. But im not going to assume things into tests because it fits some simplistic understanding of the data. As I mentioned before, there are numerous German accounts of KwK48 being credited with being able to knock out T-34s "at any angle" at ranges of 1200m. The ratio I used is based on German and American test firings, IE: its hard fact based in real life test data. It isnt up for dispute. But of course, continue to propagate your soviet meta-metal theories. How the russians got right what everyones supposedly got wrong. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-72335398689524074492015-07-23T01:20:20.966-04:002015-07-23T01:20:20.966-04:00Here's what I see, Joystick. A person that eve...Here's what I see, Joystick. A person that even bothers to read WW2 Ballistics, Armor and Gunnery is no noob and must know that the standard Soviet test is done at 0 (it is a source of great mirth to Germanophiles, who can claim based on this at least a 15% advantage, just from simplistic trigonometrical considerations, over any Soviet penetration stat).<br /><br />Your main justification for insisting it is 30 is that <i>after</i> you added the normative "shaft" for 460BHN (hopefully it is from W2BAaG), the Soviet armor loses 25% of its resistance, and thus should not be able to resist the German shell at the specified range. However, there is another explanation for this - that the shaft ratio is not perfectly in line with reality.<br /><br />Because here's a thought. Why would *anyone* choose to use a hardness that's non-machineable (much harder to make) and loses 25% of its resistance? One would think any fringe advantages will not compensate for these two factors. Yet the Soviets choose this hardness. Since the actual durability of steel depends on its fine composition and production process (how the loss of certain elements caused German steel to degrade is a well known story), perhaps the shaft ratio is not as high as the West (who quickly decided to go for soft armor) believed.<br /><br />Just my two cents.arkhangelskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15247250672432027166noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-76897994927438652902015-07-22T19:50:27.004-04:002015-07-22T19:50:27.004-04:00We could start with the numerous German reports of...We could start with the numerous German reports of T-34s being knocked out "from any angle" at ranges of 1200m. Heck, take the Tiger for instance. There are tests showing 76mm guns on the T-34 penetrating the upper side at 500m, but there also ones that dont. So what? Does reality change itself at random? Nope. Its simply a matter of some rounds penetrating more than the 50% success average or perhaps a poorly built tiger. The "real world" is not different from the math, real world reports just have more variable to them. Given equal conditions, the "real world" is the same.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-62458157304289353612015-07-22T19:44:22.191-04:002015-07-22T19:44:22.191-04:00Its not theory, as all of the data in those books ...Its not theory, as all of the data in those books is based on testing. You cant just assume normal in the absense of being stated otherwise. This tests doesnt state the angle of shot, and therefore you opinion is based totally on assumption. I also dont have any proof per se that it was done at 30, but the AP performance is so far off normal that its physically impossible to be at normal. Practice = Theory. The Math never lies, period. A P-51 doesnt out turn a Bf109 simply because loads of pilots said it did. This test does not state that his was a normal, which mean you cannot matter of factly state that its was. Its possible that this particular T-34 came off the factory with slightly more than normal armor, which occasionally happened. But it is a matter of fact that your typical T-34 was vulnerable from 1500m or more. If you took every test out there at face value, we'd be here all day spewing contradictory reports at each other. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-32010548610267249952015-07-22T19:29:47.615-04:002015-07-22T19:29:47.615-04:00"Tons of tests"? From what I've read..."Tons of tests"? From what I've read and definitely from every test I posted here, firing is done at 0 degrees against the front and 90 degrees against the side, unless explicitly stated otherwise. You can quote WW2 Ballistics all you want, practice beats theory.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-36333186787329040702015-07-22T18:54:49.216-04:002015-07-22T18:54:49.216-04:00PzG 39 out of the KwK 48 penetrated 97mm of RHA at...PzG 39 out of the KwK 48 penetrated 97mm of RHA at 1500M, meaning that assuming a Normal angle of impact, the T-34 was vulnerable past 1500 from the front. PzG 39 penetrated 85mm at 30 degress at 1000m. Given that it is likely that the Soviet fired a statistically inconsequential number of rounds in this test (at the very least it is not detailed so far as I can see) it is perfectly reasonable to assume that PzG 39 penetrated at 1000m at 30 degrees. A similar example is the US 76mm, which achieved 93mm at 30 with 50% criteria, but at shoeburyness penetrated 100mm at 30 on at least two occasions. In short, its is simply impossible that the T-34 Glacis was proof against PzG 39 over 1000m at angles less than 30 degrees using average penetration criteria at 50% success. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-83291746574342101142015-07-22T18:48:46.541-04:002015-07-22T18:48:46.541-04:00To be even more clear: The default slope multiplie...To be even more clear: The default slope multiplier for 45mm plate sloped at 60 degrees would be about 3.13, making that armor about 140mm thick. Once we add in the T/D ratio, we get 122mm. Add in BHN (460 Brinell was standard on soviet 45mm plates) and we get 93mm. These numbers are not in dispute, are published in great detail in WW2 Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery by Lorrin Rexford and Robert LivingstonAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-50920268916792398212015-07-22T17:37:45.692-04:002015-07-22T17:37:45.692-04:00That is not correct. The T-34 has an effective arm...That is not correct. The T-34 has an effective armor thickness of 93mm on the glacis when you take into account the slope multiplier and the BHN. Vs a 75mm gun, armor thickess is 122mm, but when you add the effect of the overly hard armor, you get 93mm. Tons of soviet tests, just like everyone elses, were done at 30 degrees. And in the case of this test, its the only way it makes sense<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-39478273428418781692015-07-22T13:53:36.771-04:002015-07-22T13:53:36.771-04:00Why do you think that? That's not a typical an...Why do you think that? That's not a typical angle for the Soviets. Also a T-34 UFP at 30 degrees is 104 mm, I have a hard time believing that a KwK 40 could penetrate that at 1000 meters.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-54474859468152871492015-07-22T11:07:56.154-04:002015-07-22T11:07:56.154-04:00Has it not occured to any of you nutters that thes...Has it not occured to any of you nutters that these were done at the typical angle of 30 degrees? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12568370006222729012noreply@blogger.com