rexford

First, here is John Waters' recent post on Yahoo! Tankers site regarding firing tests versus Tiger: "Lorrin in the first live fire tests against the Tiger E armor conducted by NIIBT at Kubinka April 25 - 30th 1943. The 76.2mm F-34 reportedly failed to penetrate the Tiger E side hull and turret armor "even 200 at meters". During the second live fire tests conducted in September 1943 the 76.2mm F-22 USV, F-34, and Zis-3 reportedly failed to penetrate the Tiger E side hull and turret armor at 500 meters & 100 meters. These are 2 live fire tests with basicly the same results. To bad we dont have access to the complete text of both reports etc. & it was a US 57mm IIRC. Regards, John Waters" The post from John supports the firing test origin of the info posted by Pavel. Pavel's reading of the Czech article states that a Tiger was positioned on a polygon and shelled. I believe it was. I will get to the rest of your statements in a follow-up post.

JasonC, You completely missed the points, as often happens. There were two official front lower hull thicknesses, 60mm on Panther D and A and 50mm on later Panther G, according to a variety of materials. I'am not trying to make up anything new, just stating where firing tests and combat results support 60mm+ or 50mm front lower hull. U.S. measurements show 60mm design spec front lower hull measured 67mm, and firing tests with HVAP support that thickness when penetration probability is used to analyze the results. Please provide your mathematical analysis if you can show that my conclusions are erroneous. I was speculating that some hits on the Panther mantlet by 899th TD M10's at Le Desert may have failed due to shatter gap, which requires a certain velocity range and certain impact angle range. You missed the fact that the July 1944 tests showing a 200 yard penetration range for 76mm APCBC against Panther mantlet greatly underestimate the range where 76mm APCBC penetration equals the mantlet thickness. 76mm APCBC penetrates 100mm at 1250m, and even further when cast armor deficiency is considered. Why does 76mm APCBC only penetrate the 100mm Panther mantlet at 200 yards, or not at all, in France during combat or trials? In other U.S. tests against Panther, 3" M79 AP shattered against the center area of the Panther mantlet at close range, which strongly suggests shatter gap failure. You seem to always interpret things so you can argue with me. Lorrin [ January 07, 2004, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: rexford ]

JasonC, I was suggesting that the absence of mantlet penetrations could have been due to shatter gap, not trying to make an ironclad case. You also missed the point regarding Panther differences in lower front hull armor thickness. Penetration probability bears out my conclusions, all the words you threw at the issue show nothing. Lorrin [ January 06, 2004, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

Lorrin, note, the John Walters' soviet Pamphlet also said in Russian the tests were firing Trials.(later showed to be estimetes by the issue date) Is the report on the Czech site Verified. So far we don't even having this Russian 1993 magazine. We don't even know what source is used for the article IN the magazine. With regard to the czech data(if indeed it is verified as firing test), how is this data any more comprehensive than the Russian September 1943 firing trials on a Tiger E. (which took place 5 months later) Copied below from John Walters post/ Have you read the full report on the september tests from john walters. </font>

Jeff Duquette has posted a variety of reports from the 899th TD unit regarding their Normandy combat against Panther tanks (Yahoo! Tankers site). In fighting at 200 yards or less the only M10 penetrations of the Panther frontal armor took place against the bow machine gun ball, the lower front hull and ricochets off the mantlet bottom that went through the hull top. The following analysis looks at some of the penetration-armor details and speculates that mantlet penetrations should have occurred but didn't (possible shatter gap failure due to overpenetration) and the Panthers had 50mm front lower hull armor. The analysis also suggests that the Panther A's fired at during the U.S. August 1944 Isigny tests had 67mm front lower hull armor, which exceeds the design spec of 60mm by 12%. A comparison of penetration figures for U.S. 75mm and 76mm APCBC is also made using TM9-1907 and British test results, showing that wide variations in quality were possible. U.S. quality control tests with those two rounds showed that the best and worst ammo varied by 20% in velocity needed to defeat the given thickness, which translates into the best doing 15% more than average at a given velocity, and the worst falling under average by 14%. The above is a summary and the details follow: =============================================== A few issues related to the subject combat: 1. If 76mm rounds from the M10 were hitting the mantlet bottom and front lower hull, it seems reasonable to assume some hits landed on the mantlet center area. Given a range under 200 yards, 76mm APCBC would penetrate around 124mm vertical while the Panther mantlet would resist like about 95mm rolled plus angle effects. So, if 76mm APCBC lands near the mantlet apex how come no reported penetrations of the mantlet? One way of explaining away the absence of mantlet penetrations is possible shatter gap, where the 76mm APCBC overpenetrated the mantlet armor and broke up due to the immense inertial forces. During the U.S. Navy tests with 76mm APCBC against 3.82" inch armor (97mm) at 20 degrees, hits at 2526 fps shattered and hits at 2573 fps penetrated. Against the same approximate armor thickness at 30 degrees, hits near the M10 muzzle velocity shattered and failed while hits at 2495 fps penetrated (analysis limited to Brinell Hardness under 340 to eliminate high hardness anomalies). 2. The 76mm penetrations of the Panther front lower hull by M10's may have taken place against 50mm plates. 3" APCBC penetrates 124mm vertical at 100m (TM9-1907 data), and 60mm at 53 and 55 degrees from vertical resists like 131mm and 141mm vertical equivalent (53 degrees considers ground tile favoring M10 hit). If the Panthers were carrying 50mm front lower hull armor, the resistance at 53 and 55 degrees impact would equal 104mm and 112mm and M10 hits would easily penetrate at 150 meters. At Isigny, the front lower hull armor on a Panther was measured at 66.7mm (more than 10% above the spec), and 76mm APCBC failed to penetrate the Panther nose at 400 yards. Also at Isigny, 76mm HVAP failed to penetrate the Panther nose on one hit at 600 yards and succeeded on one hit out of two at 400 yards, The 76mm HVAP penetration at 400 and 600 yards is 218mm and 204mm vertical, whereas the vertical resistance of 66.7mm at 53 degrees is 207mm (ground tilt at Isigny favors projectiles by two degrees). 60mm at 53 degrees resists like 186mm vertical. The Isigny trials suggest that the front nose armor on the test Panthers was around 67mm based on comparison to 76mm HVAP hit results and penetration. I'am assuming that 76mm ammo was not fired against any Panther G's at Isigny, and that Panther G's were involved in the fighting at Le Desert. 3. British trials with U.S. 75mm and 76mm APCBC resulted in significantly higher figures than TM9-1907 at close range, an issue that is addressed on page 57 of our book. While TM9-1907 has vertical armor penetration figures of 90mm and 127mm for 75mm and 76mm APCBC at 0 yards, WO 291/741 has 101mm and 140mm (see John Salt's penetration page at British Wargamers for complete details). We figured that the Brits used best quality American ammo in their trials, and our book and calculations use more conservative (lower) penetration data for American and British ammo. If the British figures for 75mm and 76mm APCBC, the results would not be consistent with reported firing test and combat results against Panther and Tiger tanks. Which is why we chose the lower penetration numbers, they look better after comparison to attack on actual German armor. Lorrin

The early Shermans used a hull top scope for the gun aim which was linked to the gun sight on the inside of the tank, and there was a tendency for the linkage to go out of adjustment.

Karl, Do a weapon and ammo comparison of all the data provided by Pavel and the info John Waters provided. They are not the same. 76.2mm APCR penetration against Tiger FRONT armor is in the data mix from Pavel, and it penetrates in one case at 500m and fails in another at 500m. The info John Waters has does not provide the two different cases for 76.2mm APCR against Tiger front armor. The 350m penetration range for 45mm M42 APCR against Tiger side armor is not in John Waters' pamphlet. That's my point, Pavel's info is much more comprehensive and provides many important aspects such as the Russian decision to start producing 76.2mm special ammo and APCR on the basis of the April 1943 tests, which is the first time I've been aware of the timing. There is nothing about 6 pdr against Tiger side armor in John Waters' posts. This is not to say that John Waters' posts were not valuable and informative, just that Pavel's post provided many more details. Lorrin

First, didn't John Walters clear up this article months back. This czech site has the same dated article as the Instructions on fighting tigers, taken from the Russian magazine. The report is a set of Instructions on dealing with the Tiger E. The 45mm so called penetration on the tiger are estimates made using the De Marre/ARTKOM formula. The instructions were issued 5 days prior to the Actual LF tests vs the Tiger E conducted by NIIBT @ Kubinka April 25 - 30th 1943. 45mm HVAP and 75mm AP failed against the side amror in the actual tests. John Walters also posted the Russian firing tests of September 1943 which were fairly conclusive where 76mm APBC failed at 0degrees 200m. </font>

The German 50mm Pak 38 is said to have significantly lengthened the range at which could take place due in part to the optics. Here's a few thoughts on the role of the optics behind that statement. 1. 50mm Pak 38 had 3.0x magnification with excellent light gathering qualities, 2 pdr guns had 1.9x magnification. So, A. If you're aiming at a target at a range where the observed target size is small, higher magnification means it is easier to put the 50mm Pak 38 cross-hairs on the center of mass, which increases the accuracy. A 2m x 2m target at 1200m range appears to be 0.066 inches high (1.68mm) on each side to the naked eye (measurements taken one foot from the eyeball, or 30.5cm. With 3.0x magnifying power the observed image is 0.20 inches (5.0mm), with 1.9x is it 0.12 inches (3.2mm). B. Better light gathering means that if the target is fading out of sight at range due to camouflage, dust, fog, glare or dusk/dawn conditions, the 50mm Pak 38 has the edge. As noted in a previous post this thread, better optics make the biggest difference in extreme conditions. There is a story where a Tiger in fog was able to spot and knock out a group of T34 that were organizing for an attack, and the Russians never figured out where the shots were coming from cause they couldn't see very far into the mist. In NWE, the Americans had a difficult time fighting in limited light conditions (dusk/dawn/overcast) compared to the Germans, due to the light gathering disparity of the optics. 2. 2 pdr guns had range markings up to 1800 or so yard, 50mm Pak 38 was not as limited.

While this topic has been covered by many, including myself, in the past, an occasional reminder helps to keep APDS use in perpective. British APDS was a good idea that didn't always work as planned. Army tests 2 and 3 on the Mycenius site at http://www.geocities.com/mycenius/ show that the rounds could have trouble hitting things. The following analysis of firing tests against Tiger and Panther with 17 pdr APDS show how the penetration results could be far off the theoretical, which may be due to uneven shed of sabot petals leading to yaw and unstable trajectory: The following analysis shows that many of the Panther glacis hits at Isigny, and against a captured Tiger tank, failed to penetrate when they should have. But the data also shows that 17 pdr APDS was capable of penetrating targets in accordance with the published curves on occasion. The penetration figures in brackets show cases where 17 pdr APDS should have penetrated but didn't, and the failures appear to be due to more than random variations in penetration due to normal causes. Isigny (fair hits only) vs Panther Glacis (55 glacis angle plus 2 degree ground for 57 degrees) ================================================== ======== 200 yards, 1 pen on 3 hits, "271mm" penetration and 253mm armor resistance 300 yards, 1 failure, "266mm" penetration and 253mm resistance 400 yards, 1 pen on 6 hits, "262mm" penetration and 253mm resistance 600 yards, 2 failures, 253mm penetration and 253mm resistance 700 yards, 1 failure, 249mm penetration and 253mm resistance Vs Captured Tiger (as function of impact velocity) ================================================== 3511 fps, 1 failure, 82mm/50 degree armor and "108mm"/50 degree penetration 3131 fps, 1 pen, 82mm/50 degree armor and 91mm/50 degree penetration 3437 fps, 1 failure, 102mm/48 degree armor and "115mm"/48 degree penetration 3215 fps, 1 failure, 102mm/48 degree armor and 105mm/48 degree penetration 3427 fps, 1 failure, 102mm/41 degree armor and "143mm"/41 degree penetration 3602 fps, 1 failure, 102mm/41 degree armor and "153mm"/41 degree penetration Note how 82mm/50 degree armor case has success at 3131 fps and failure at 3511 fps, where failure ratio of penetration/armor is 1.32. Also note that failures against 102mm/41 degree plate have penetration/armor ratio's of 1.40 and 1.50. The above data suggests that a good share of the 17 pdr APDS rounds had greatly reduced effectiveness due to flight instability and yaw (and possible additional other factors). The Tiger tank data is from Jentz' book on Tiger tanks and is analyzed on page 103 of our book. Jentz also presents penetration test data for 6 pdr APDS. At Balleroy during summer 1944, two fair hits by 17 pdr APDS during Allied firing trials against the Panther glacis penetrated at 700 yards. The penetration/armor resistance ratio would be 249mm/226mm on level ground (55 degree impact angle) so the rounds penetrated according to theory (they worked at Balleroy). __________________ Lorrin P.S. To be consistent with CMBB, the share of Panthers with deficient glacis armor should be less than 100%, and limited firing test data suggests that the quality of Panther armor against 17 pdr APDS should be about 95% instead of 85%. This suggests that some type of dice roll system be used to determine how many effective APDS rounds will be allowed in a scenario, based on APDS problems and the Panther glacis resistance.

Pushing the envelope a bit further, did the British ever attach Firefly tanks to Churchill units? I bought a ton of 1/87 scale Churchill tanks for miniatures wargaming and am looking to see if an occasional Firefly in support would be historical. The question also came up during our CMBO scenario designs. Given the weak armor on the lighter Churchills in France and their woeful 75mm gun during tank battles, it would seem prudent and logical to attach a Firefly for important help should a Panther or Tiger show up. Thanks for help. Lorrin

Click the mouse and the music and intro screens disappear. PzKpfw III's carried spaced armor, with a 20mm plate about 6" in front of the main 50mm armor on the turret front and driver plate. 20mm plate was designed to decap or blunt armor piercing rounds, decreasing their ability to pierce the face-hardened 50mm armor. The 20mm plate also would detonate the HE burster in armor piercing rounds before they reached the 50mm plate, which actually defeated 122mm hits in Russian tests. To see the impact of the 20mm spaced/50mm combo on armor piercing rounds go to http://www.geocities.com/mycenius/ and click on army test 1. About 4/6 of the way down is a graph showing firing tests with 75mm M61 ammo against the 20mm+50mm spaced armor, the rounds with HE bursters failed on every hit while the inert loaded 75mm ammo penetrated. Problem with spaced armor is that the 20mm plate broke up after a few hits and maintenance was probably a problem. Look at pictures of tanks with the spaced armor and quite a few will probably be missing one or both spaced plates.

Thanks to all who pointed me towards the scenario site, it looks great! Lost as the Germans at Barkmann's Corner, darn aircraft! Panther lost when it backed into a bomb crater and was immobilized, crew bailed out. Will test scenario more. Really valuable stuff, appreciate the site alot. Lorrin

Thanks for the additional info. When I posted similar info on other sites I added the comment that the six inch figure was made decades after the fact and was not the best. The entire interview should probably be taken in the same vein, decades ago something happened and time clouds some details sometimes.

Due to divided attention I haven't been able to give total attention to every thing of interest on the forum, but there seemed to be something about using CMAK for combat beyond North Africa. Like Italy and Sicily and units like Panthers (after the spring of 1943 and maybe up to spring 1944?). Did I imagine this or did I miss something important (which wouldn't be the first time). Thanks for helping me out on this. Lorrin

Did the British mix Churchill types within large and small units, so that one might come across a small unit of 4 Churchills with a mixture of Churchill VI (88mm front armor) and Churchill VII (152mm front armor). Would larger Churchill units mix the VI and VII types? Thanks.

Radley-Walters and some other references allude to the ability of the subject ricochets to kill the driver or radio operator of a Panther via a direct hit: Following from Valor and Horror web site: "And when it bounces down, what does it do? It smashes this weak armour here over the driver and the co-driver and in most cases, we found out that they're either badly wounded or they're killed, and the tank is automatically knocked out." Where do the Panther driver and radio operator site relative to the hull top hatches? Radley-Walters indicated that a round would have to land within a six inch diameter circle to bounce off and hit the driver, and same for the radio operator. The probability of hitting the "sweet spot" for an effective ricochet would be 2 x 0.196 square feet for "sweet spot"/8.3 square feet or 4.7% percent of the hits if evenly distributed over the mantlet. However, if one is aiming at the center of the Panther target aspect the probability of a mantlet hit decreases as the range is reduced, since the shots will have a higher chance of landing close to where they aimed.

Good question. Russians are probably aware of edge effects and zones of influence where penetrations into armor create strain hardening fields about impact point that extend out several projectile diameters. Plus microscopic cracking that can't be seen. Russian 76.2mm APBC from T34 fails none the less at 200m, and other penetration ranges are in line with what would be expected (except for 6 pdr tank gun). I think they probably spread the target areas around the tank to avoid previous hit influence.

Pavel posted the following on the Yahoo! Tankers site, which provides the best firing test data for Russian guns against a Tiger tank. The source of the material is a Czech web site at: http://fronta.cz/index.php?dokument=3 My comments are in brackets. ============================ "> Are these results estimates or actual tests? The report says that the results are from the actual tests of Russian tank and anti-tank guns against to captured Tiger I. The source is the Russian magazine from the year 1993. > There is a Russian pamphlet that shows penetration ranges that are similar in > many cases to what is stated on the above page. > If you could summarize some of the information on the above pages it would be > helpful, especially for 45mm and 76.2mm ammo. 76.2mm F-34 tank gun --------------------- 1) Spring 1943: The T-34/76 is able to penetrate Tiger side armor with thicknes 82mm from the max distance 600m with AP projectile. The T-34/76 was able to penetrate the front 100mm armor of Tiger from the max distance 500m with HVAP. (my comment: the above round appears to be the uncapped 76.2mm APHE round which was undergoing trials at the time. The round was later available in limited quantities for use against Tiger tanks) (my comment: 76.2mm APCR is given 92mm penetration at 500m so defeat of Tiger front hull 100mm plate is probably a low probability lucky success) 2) 4th May 1943: During 24th - 30th April was tested Tiger on the main tank polygon. The Tiger was shelled by many tank and AT guns of Red Army. a) The side of Tiger (82mm) was penetrated: - 45mm AT gun vz. 1942 (mark 1942) with HVAP from the distance 350m - 45mm AT gun vz. 1939 (mark 1937) with HVAP from the distance 200m - 57mm AT gun ZIS-2 with AP from the distance 1000m - 85mm AAA gun with AP from the distance 1500m - 57mm UK tank gun with AP from the distance 600m (my comment: American, British and Russian penetration data for 6 pdr uncapped AP and capped APCBC suggest that the 6 pdr L43 tank gun should penetrate 82mm at 1000m) - 57mm UK AT gun with AP from the distance 1000m (my comment: American, British and Russian penetration data for 6 pdr uncapped AP and capped APCBC suggest that the 6 pdr L43 tank gun should penetrate 82mm at 1000m) - 75mm US tank gun with AP (because it's US ammo so it should be APC?) from the distance 600m (my comment: this range appears to be associated with the 75mm APCBC round) The front of Tiger (100mm) was penetrated: - 85mm AAA gun with AP from the distance 1000m The shelling of side armor (82mm) by 76.2mm tank gun F-34 from the distance 200m showed, that the projectiles are weak and the projectiles have been deformed when the projectiles hit the armor of Tiger. (my comment: 76.2mm APBC fails miserably against Tiger 82mm side armor at 200m, suggesting that penetration probably was close to zero) 76.2 mm HVAP projectiles don't penetrate the Tiger front armor (100mm) from the distance 500m. (my comment: Russian data shows 92mm penetration at 500m for 76.2mm APCR) On the base of these results do this: a)Give the order to Immediately prepare the 76.2mm AP projectiles, which will be able to penetrate the Tiger side armor (82mm) from the distance 600m. (my comment: based on tests, Russians are to start producing the new APHE ammo for use against Tiger). b)Immediately prepare the 76.2mm HVAP projectiles, which will be able to penetrate the Tiger front armor (100mm) from the distance 500m. > Thanks for sharing the info with us. You're welcome, ) Yours sincerely, Pavel" [ December 28, 2003, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

Lined up three 6 pdr ATG against 3 Tigers during early 1943 scenario, no tungsten rounds. 250m range with guns pointed along hull direction (no side angle). No 6 pdr APCBC penetrations of Tiger front armor, none expected. So the penetration data listed in CMAK for 6 pdr APCBC probably is face-hardened performance.

The book "Guns Against Tanks" has some reports where 2 pdr portee units took on Italian and German tank attacks. The common experience was one good hit was enough to stop an Italian M13/40 or a PzKpfw II, but it took two good hits on average to stop a PzKpfw III. The action took place early in the desert war and they were firing 2 pdr 40mm solid shot. There is a picture of a Valentine which was penetrated over 15 times by 50mm rounds and still kept on fighting. Little rounds don't always do much.

Two 30mm homogeneous plates would resist like a single homogeneous plate of about 43mm , which 2 pdr AP would penetrate at 1200 yards or so. Please note that the above estimate for two layered in-contact 30mm plates is based on limited data from a few tests, and might be off by quite a bit. It is safe to say that 30mm/30mm layered homogeneous plates in-contact would resist like much less than a single 60mm plate and should be defeated beyond 800 yards by 2 pdr AP.

Two 30mm homogeneous plates would resist like a single homogeneous plate of about 43mm , which 2 pdr AP would penetrate at 1200 yards or so. Please note that the above estimate for two layered in-contact 30mm plates is based on limited data from a few tests, and might be off by quite a bit. It is safe to say that 30mm/30mm layered homogeneous plates in-contact would resist like much less than a single 60mm plate and should be defeated beyond 800 yards by 2 pdr AP.

Originally posted by rune: Thanks for the effort, I don't need to see scans of pages, the quotes you provided are enough. Safeguard the book. "The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner Pgs 38-39, I quote: "Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side"" Above makes sense. "Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition". On Pg 39, a lot more detail, but basically states the British tanks were actually better then the Panzer III with this quote: Brigadier Davy of the 7th Hussars, found that with the telescopic sights, firing the 2 pdrs before Crusader, that at 1000 yard, the round would land short 300 yards, or 11 feet vertically below the aim point...and he also states "it was no doubt responsible for the legend that the effective range of the 2 pdrs was no more then 600 yards."" Bad sight adjustment as noted by others on this thread. "On pg 37 they talk about the 2 pdr penetrating the Panzer III easily at 1000 yards, and last, back on page 39, they tell on how when at longer ranges the shell would hit the Panzer III, the back tracer part would shatter and break off and shoot into another direction giving the impression that the round bounced off while it actuall penetrated." Good statement that makes sense, 2 pdr AP cuts throught 30mm face-hardened on PzKpfw IIIG front at 1000 yards, as it should. "Lorrin, it is late tonight, I will try to scan the pages tomorrow, but as the book is exceedingly rare and old, not sure I want to chance cracking the spine of the book." Quotes are fine, save the book. "Egads, went a little deeper, they talk about the base shop adding additional armoru to the Panzer IIIG, and the fact that once flame hardened armour was added on new tanks,t he 2 pdr could not penetrate, they specifically mention that this did NOT happen until the J model." So, 30mm plates added to PzKpfw IIIG make it safe against 2 pdr AP at all ranges (?), as Cairo tests suggest if one assumes no side angle to shots against hull front. German armor on PzKpfw IIIG front was face-hardened, and added 32mm or 30mm plates (32mm seems to be actual measurement, 30mm may have been design spec) were also face-hardened. Cairo test report indicates that basic armor on PzKpfw IIIG hull front was homogeneous and added plates were face-hardened, which conflicts with other British info (PzKpfw IIIG front face-hardened, hull and turret and mantlet). "PS There are several AARs in the book where they mention Panzer III kills frontally and sides at 1000 yard or greater ranfe." As one would expect from comparison of 2 pdr AP face-hardened penetration to PzKpfw IIIG armor type and thickness. After all of this CMAK seems reasonable, PzKpfw IIIH hull front hits from 2 pdr AP bounce, turret front hits penetrate and PzKpfw IIIG is very vulnerable to 2 pdr AP out to 1000 yards and beyond. So why is CMAK thought by some to be unrealistic when 2 pdr armed tanks fight PzKpfw IIIG and IIIH? Looks okay to me.

Originally posted by rune: Thanks for the effort, I don't need to see scans of pages, the quotes you provided are enough. Safeguard the book. "The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner Pgs 38-39, I quote: "Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side"" Above makes sense. "Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition". On Pg 39, a lot more detail, but basically states the British tanks were actually better then the Panzer III with this quote: Brigadier Davy of the 7th Hussars, found that with the telescopic sights, firing the 2 pdrs before Crusader, that at 1000 yard, the round would land short 300 yards, or 11 feet vertically below the aim point...and he also states "it was no doubt responsible for the legend that the effective range of the 2 pdrs was no more then 600 yards."" Bad sight adjustment as noted by others on this thread. "On pg 37 they talk about the 2 pdr penetrating the Panzer III easily at 1000 yards, and last, back on page 39, they tell on how when at longer ranges the shell would hit the Panzer III, the back tracer part would shatter and break off and shoot into another direction giving the impression that the round bounced off while it actuall penetrated." Good statement that makes sense, 2 pdr AP cuts throught 30mm face-hardened on PzKpfw IIIG front at 1000 yards, as it should. "Lorrin, it is late tonight, I will try to scan the pages tomorrow, but as the book is exceedingly rare and old, not sure I want to chance cracking the spine of the book." Quotes are fine, save the book. "Egads, went a little deeper, they talk about the base shop adding additional armoru to the Panzer IIIG, and the fact that once flame hardened armour was added on new tanks,t he 2 pdr could not penetrate, they specifically mention that this did NOT happen until the J model." So, 30mm plates added to PzKpfw IIIG make it safe against 2 pdr AP at all ranges (?), as Cairo tests suggest if one assumes no side angle to shots against hull front. German armor on PzKpfw IIIG front was face-hardened, and added 32mm or 30mm plates (32mm seems to be actual measurement, 30mm may have been design spec) were also face-hardened. Cairo test report indicates that basic armor on PzKpfw IIIG hull front was homogeneous and added plates were face-hardened, which conflicts with other British info (PzKpfw IIIG front face-hardened, hull and turret and mantlet). "PS There are several AARs in the book where they mention Panzer III kills frontally and sides at 1000 yard or greater ranfe." As one would expect from comparison of 2 pdr AP face-hardened penetration to PzKpfw IIIG armor type and thickness. After all of this CMAK seems reasonable, PzKpfw IIIH hull front hits from 2 pdr AP bounce, turret front hits penetrate and PzKpfw IIIG is very vulnerable to 2 pdr AP out to 1000 yards and beyond. So why is CMAK thought by some to be unrealistic when 2 pdr armed tanks fight PzKpfw IIIG and IIIH? Looks okay to me.