tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post8235273244098682775..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Results of a Great WarPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-57356148331821628902021-12-12T06:47:44.392-05:002021-12-12T06:47:44.392-05:00Part of me thinks this can be traced back to Kursk...Part of me thinks this can be traced back to Kursk where the new German zoo caught them heavily off guard.<br /><br />GBTU since then seemed utterly obsessed with never falling behind in anything, no matter how spotty the intelligence was. Ze Germans working on an enormous heavy tank with 200mm of armor all around and a 128mm AA piece? Better build counter vehicles, and a heavy tank capable of overmatch!<br /><br />Germans looking into mounting the KwK43 into an improved panther? Better get to work on a 240mm LoS frontal protected medium tank with a D-10! The Americans and Brits are working on a wide array of machines with gun calibers up to 155mm inclusive, got to do something about those!<br /><br />76mm AT guns and small HEAT launchers everywhere? Side armor needs to be at least 80mm thick!<br /><br />It's just a endless rat race to nowhere trying to keep overmatch all the time. At least the T-54 and IS-7 did come out of it, even if IS-7 didn't make it to production because the very heavy threat failed to materialize.Tokyo Morosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17319803375878393783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-68763149448745289932021-12-10T14:49:59.403-05:002021-12-10T14:49:59.403-05:00Could it be "half of all kills"? That wo...Could it be "half of all kills"? That would make more sense.<br /><br />Good side armor is a plus when digging through prepared infantry positions, as the anti-tank defenses are laid out so that to confront one enemy frontally you usually expose your flank to another. But side armor resistance to Kwk43 guns? Did the Russians really think that these would be as common as Pak40s on battlefields coming soon?<br /><br />I really feel that here the Russians let the perfect be the enemy of the good, particularly when up-armoring the T-34/85's front armor (the upgrades were rejected because they failed to stop the Kwk43). Having armor that the ubiquitous Pak 40-type weapon (which was their main opponent of Soviet armor right up to the very end) struggled to penetrate was plenty enough, practically speaking. Ditto with side armor good enough to stop Pak40s or the US 76 mm.Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-67556309759398839352021-12-10T05:59:38.823-05:002021-12-10T05:59:38.823-05:00Thanks for the article, I have enjoyed it so much....Thanks for the article, I have enjoyed it so much.<br /><br />I have become specially interested about this,<br /><br />"..since about half of all hits came at the side of the hull and turret."<br /><br />Can you give references about it?<br /><br />ThanksMotzkorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18316989921665401048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-42838598911181024782021-12-09T12:03:48.303-05:002021-12-09T12:03:48.303-05:00I'm talking about the 100 mm class guns that w...I'm talking about the 100 mm class guns that were the norm by the mid Cold War period, not the 80-90 mm ones earlier. Actually did some brief looking around and found the explosive shells of the Rh-120 are only about a kilo or two heavier than those of the smaller RO L7, don't ask me why. Substracting the extra metal that goes into the larger shell's casing that ought not leave all that much to spare for more payload (Wikipedia doesn't have the filler weights for the 120 mm's for whatever reason).<br /><br />The Russki 125 mm shells seem to be quite substantially heavier from what I can quickly find but appear only gain in the ballpark of 1-1.5 kg explosive filler over the old Western 105 mm (~3 kg vs ~2 kg naturally varying by specific designs). Incidentally they also seem to have LESS explosive filler than the old warhorse 122 mm (thicker walls to cope with higher muzzle velocities I assume) which boast 3.6+ kg depending on model...<br />Couldn't quickly find similar details for the smaller Soviet guns so eh, but no doubt the high-velocity 85 mm gets fairly literally blown out of water in comparison.<br /><br />Be that as it may it is a fact that the gradual escalation in bore size was driven by the age-old race against improving armour, not any concerns of soft-target effectiveness. Getting some more bang was essentially just a side consolation prize that helped somewhat alleviate the unavoidable reduction in onboard ammo stowage.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-72744073844506822652021-12-09T08:07:21.818-05:002021-12-09T08:07:21.818-05:00Hmm, the Soviets noticed a practical difference in...Hmm, the Soviets noticed a practical difference in destroying infantry targets in East Prussia between the 85 mm and the 122 mm. The first struggled against fortifications, while the 2nd blasted them to tiny bits.<br /><br />As for it taking to the mid-sixties, I would say that armies tend to be conservative organizations which resist change. We see plenty of evidence for that on this blog.<br />Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-54664287943694114582021-12-08T17:43:27.904-05:002021-12-08T17:43:27.904-05:00MBTs didn't start getting 120+ mm guns before ...MBTs didn't start getting 120+ mm guns before the mid-Sixties tho (T-62 and Chieftain), with the smaller classes sticking around even in first-tier frontline use pretty much to the end of the Cold War. And I'm pretty sure the main driver behind scaling up the bore sizes was quite explicitly the eternal quest for better armour penetration...<br /><br />Case in point Rheinmetall recently dusted off their Nineties 140 mm gun concept for the Leo 2 in the form of a new 130 mm L/51 job as the T-14 Armata has caused some worry.<br /><br />You don't actually *need* to scale up to those sizes - with due penalties to ammo stowage - for blasting apart softer targets; the 100-odd mm class is for the most part more than sufficient for such tasks and in the rare case you run into a non-tank target too tough for them, well, modern armies have no shortage of ATGMs with right disgusting penetration capabilities and bunkers tend not be festooned with ERA.<br />The bigger bang of the chonkier shells is really just a bonus side effect. Nice to get in the bargain but not exactly the point of the exercise.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-70844374597723391732021-12-06T09:26:05.368-05:002021-12-06T09:26:05.368-05:00The IS-3 also had issues, but for other reasons. T...<i> The IS-3 also had issues, but for other reasons. The tank was put into production "as is" without time to work out bugs. Nevertheless, it was actively used for decades and two modernization programs radically improved its reliability. Its fate was completely different from that of the IS-4. One can only marvel at the claim of inferior protection, as the IS-3 turned out to be better protected than the IS-4. </i><br /><br />Evidence for this? Yuri seems to only offer negative evidence, as the IS-4 never was given the opportunity to face the 105 mm 7 gun. Most things I have read said the IS-4 had ridiculously good protection, even the sides were absurdly well-armored, but at the cost of weight (and thus, operational mobility). I don't know of the relative performance of of the IS-3 vs IS-4 in regards to ergonomics or reliability, which were two other criticisms generally leveled at the IS-3. As the IS-4 was shelved to the Far East, maybe any defects in it could also have been mitigated if development had continued? <br /><br />The only drawback to the IS-4 that I know of with certainty is the weight, and its effect on operational mobility. The 50-ton limit on crossing most bridges without having to wait for reinforcing them was always important for Soviet armor. And understandably so.<br /><br /><i> The former Allies arrived at the same conclusion as Soviet designers. There was no need to chase after long medium caliber guns that the Germans loved. The optimal solution was a 120-122 mm gun with ballistics of an AA gun. </i><br /><br />This is why I've come to see the IS series as the true forerunners of the modern battle tank. There are many advantages to having large caliber weapons, they are great for both armored and non-armored targets alike, and it was the German fetish for the ultra-high velocity medium caliber weapons that were really specialized for only AT purposes (Panther, King Tiger, etc) that was the dead end. Stewart Millenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01261690405884935161noreply@blogger.com