rexford

The Australians estimated that one penetration of a PzKpfw II by 2 pounder AP was sufficient for a "kill", but two were required against PzKpfw III and IV. Energy left after penetration is another issue. If a 37mm Stuart round with 70mm penetration gets thru 80mm on Tiger side, the residual energy in the tank is going to be close to zero (comparing penetration data to armor, how does Stuart 37mm penetrate Tiger and Tiger II side armor?). Russians in Spanish Civil War fought in tanks with soft armor, if penetrations didn't hit anyone they often would do little or nothing (37mm and 20mm). One penetration of M13/40 was usually enough, armor would give off big high velocity chunks. Crews reported to survive few penetrations. KV-II tank that held up Germans during 1941 was penetrated several times by 88 and turret crew was still in there ready to fire. The issue with small AP is like someone firing a pistol at a car with a few people in it. Some shots won't do much, others will do it all. Solid shot, like 37mm fired by Stuarts and 2 pounder from English vehicles, has more penetration than rounds with HE filler but does a little less inside if the added velocity is neutralized by thick armor.

Passages from jentz panzertruppen Vol.1 indicate that T34 would turn and run after side hits from anything (even MG bullets if they made enuff noise), and lack of radio's resulted in penny packet attacks where a small pack advances, to be followed here and there by others. Will this be in CM2?

Why we need some data regarding the penetration ranges is because there is just enough data to compute face-hardened armor resistance at angle, which would allow face-hardened penetration to be "ball-parked". Backing into face-hardened penetration data for some Russian ammo would allow others to be roughly estimated. Since there is no published face-hardened pen. stuff, anything would be great at this point. One would think that tactically smart Russians would have tabulated penetration ranges against captured panzers, based on their many tests, and we would have all sorts of actual data. Just where is this stuff? 45mm L66 gun could penetrate Tiger side armor at close range using AP type ammo, and at further ranges using APCR. 45mm L46 gun would have to aim at lower side armor or use APCR at close range. Regarding cheesy gun penetrations, how does the much bally-hooed 37mm on Stuart pierce the side of Tiger II's? 80mm armor seems way beyond the penetration stats for that 1.5" peashooter. Even if it did get in, so what? 37mm is solid shot, and light, and if it penetrates it probably wouldn't have much energy left so might fall inside tank without being noticed.

Thanks for responses. The Russian Battlefield lists knocked out Panthers examined by Russians, hits and penetrations by 45, 76.2 and 85mm guns, plus a bomb dropped on a tank that landed atop the panzer. No anti-tank rifle hits listed, and only a few minefield track breakage.

Does anyone have any data on the ranges at Kursk where 45mm anti-tank guns penetrated all areas on Panther except front hull. Or the 76.2 penetration ranges. The Russian Battlefield has data on Panther penetrations by ammo type and size, and angle, but no ranges. There is one penetration of Panther mantlet by 45mm APCR, so range must have been short. There has to be some data hiding somewhere. Posts on the Military Forum and AFV NEWS went unanswered.

Does anyone out there have any data for face-hardened penetration by Russian APBC ammo, or have any ideas how to estimate same? All the published data is against homogeneous armor. APBC is the blunt nosed job with ballistic cap to reduce air resistance. German tanks used ALOT of face-hardened armor, probably cause it was a little more resistant against Soviet anti-tank rifles.

There's a thread on the Saumur Intranet that discusses why the 75L46 had a higher muzzle velocity than the 75L48, and why 75L43 and 75L48 muzzle velocities are so similar. This thread went into the Russian 76.2mm situation, as well as some other stuff (like the effect of ammo storage room on muzzle velocity, as well as "elbow room" in the turret).

T34 fired 76.2mm APBC at 680 m/s and the field guns fired at 655 or 662 m/s. The Russian Battlefield states that the carriage for the 76.2mm field guns was not designed for the recoil forces associated with the ammunition(Valera Potapov corrected me when I referred to 76.2mm "crash boom" as an anti-tank gun, it was a regimental or divisional cannon). So, it appears that 76.2 towed guns have muzzle brakes and reduced velocities to minimize recoil forces on carriage. This is why 76.2mm in T34 has no muzzle brake and shoots at 680 m/s, towed guns have muzzle brake and shoot at 655 or 662 m/s. The towed guns fire tungsten core ammo at a slightly lower velocity than T34. For years I wondered if the 680 m/s figure was a typo, and swore by 655 m/s for T34 and those towed cannons. Potapov's site and many discussions on his Military Forum finally resolved this. It is interesting that T34/85 doesn't have a muzzle brake and Tiger 88L56 does. And SU-100 doesn't have a muzzle brake, but Tiger II does. Only German vehicles I can think of without muzzle brakes are PzKpfw III, PzKpfw IV with 75L24 and Hetzer. And Jagd Tiger. Didn't PzJg IV with 75L48 and 75L70 go without a muzzle brake? Sherman 75 and 76 didn't have muzzle brakes, if one looks at 56° glacis versions. M10 doesn't. Stuart doesn't. Guess it depends on alot of factors whether a muzzle brake is used.

Jason, You miss the point, it is not "averaging up". At 1200m, hits penetrate at every angle. At 1200-1600m, every hit is destructive Both statements are suggesting/inferring that hits didn't bounce. And a few, or some, or many, must have been frontal hull hits cause the panzers were fighting ALOT of T34(see below). The statements say that hits didn't bounce off repeatedly, and since some must have been frontal hits,.......... Both statements infer the same thing. As far as your oft repeated and oft responded to statement on hulldown T34's, they were attacking the Germans during early 1943 and the PzkPfw IV stabilized the front (stopped the attacks). FOUR PzKpfw IV knocked out 26 T34, 17 KV-I and other tanks by attacking them when the T34 were hulldown? One must use all the facts to paint a picture, which requires some assumptions. If you don't feel comfortable with the inferences, and not everybody will, then we have no reason to discuss it further. My point still holds, both statements regarding T34 penetrations by 75L43 infer that front hull penetrations were possible beyond 1200m. And that is how it will go in our book. I appreciate all the assistance received from posters on this thread. Thank you. Time to finish the book and get it to the printers.

On Ostfront, 85mm rounds would also appear to shatter against Tiger frontal armor. A two front tank!

Regarding Frenchmen never being wrong, my last name was originally L'Oiseau. My grandfather won the Croix de Guerre in France during WW I. Does this give me "immunity" from being voted off this board, no matter what I say?

The 75mm APCBC round fired by the 75L24 with higher muzzle velocity was not the normally listed K.Gr.rot Pz, it was something else. One of the interesting things that has come out of the Russian Battlefield site is the great number of rounds fired by Russian tank and field guns. Tanks fired 76.2 at 680 m/s, field cannons at 655 m/s except for some rounds at 662 m/s. Many of these rounds and specifics have not been widely discussed or identified Now, granted that Russian records have been less available than German, but isn't it possible that a couple of 75mm APCBC rounds escaped attention? I'll try to get more specifics on the higher velocity 75L24.

Saumur Intranet can be joined by filing an application, see web page application "click on".

5 Panzer Div. report states that EVERY hit caused destructive damage, and given that 26 T34 were knocked out at 1200-1600m range, it seems totally logical to assume that a certain percentage were frontal hits. At and 1200-1600m range the hull front is going to catch at least half, if not more, of the frontal hits on a T34 Model 1942 or 1943. So, given the limited specifics, the report suggests that 75L43 could penetrate T34 frontal hull to 1200-1600m. If hits at any angle penetrate to 1200m, it suggests that frontal hits at combat angles resulted in penetrations. My point on the IS-2 may have been missed by some. If one didn't know that IS crews had a hard time hitting beyond 1000m, then how would one interpret the result that IS tanks would not open fire at more than 1000m range? It could be interpreted as meaning the rounds wouldn't penetrate (some people's interpretation on 75L43/48 holding fire), which would be suggested using much of the penetration data out there. If 26 T34 are killed at 1200-1600m and EVERY hit damages, it is natural to assume some were frontal hits and a good portion of these were frontal hull hits. And if 75L43 penetrates at EVERY angle out to 1200m, well it is natural to suggest that it includes some frontal hull hits. And if the above interpretations support the armor hardness equation we have developed, it does not prove the value of the equations but it is suggestive. That is all we are saying, that 75L43 could, based on our equations, penetrate the T34 front hull to 1600m or beyond. The reports in Jentz' books appear to support our work, and certainly don't invalidate it. It is possible that T34 could be penetrated frontally on a hull hit at 1600m by 75L43 APCBC. 5 Panzer doesn't say all hits were damaging except frontal hull. Regarding "most hits are turret", look at the front of a T34 model and where is most of the area? We have American drawings of German hit locations on Shermans in the desert, and where do most hits land? On the hull front. The use of general statistical data can be misleading.

76mm APCBC should shatter fail against the frontal armor beyond really close range, and 75mm penetration should be about 9% or 10% lower, which increases Tiger survival. Faint Praise shows the Tiger to be a more difficult frontal target for American 76mm gun, 50 yard penetrations against Tiger and 200 yards against Panther is max penetration range. Advanced Squad Leader didn't model shatter gap failure either. The WRG armor rules for 1925-1950 give U.S. 76 APCBC a 300 meter penetration range against Tiger frontal armor, based on combat reports they reviewed. Makes for a different game when Tigers sit at 400 meters and laugh off practically all 76mm non-HVAP hits (although who gets to laugh when HVAP hits the scene). HVAP was developed to counter the heavy armor on Panther and Tiger which 76mm gun couldn't handle. Funny that this wasn't noticed and communicated from the Italian experience.

Some rather interesting information was presented on the Saumur Tank Museum Intranet, http://musee-des-blindes.intranet.com regarding the ability of StuG III and PzKpfw IV to hit and kill T34 with the 75L24. French data indicates that the 75L24 fired a 6.8 kg APCBC round at 480 m/s, which is considerably higher than the 385 m/s normally assumed. At 480 m/s, 75L24 APCBC would penetrate about 75mm at 0m, based on a DeMarre equation estimate from 75L43 performance. With 75mm penetration at point blank, 75L24 could destroy T34's from the side on most hits, and do a job on the turret front of those Model 1941 T34. Another interesting thread on that site concerned the stories regarding 75L24 adequacy. Wittmann and others knocked out tanks with 75L24 APCBC, and the gun was effective in France and Russia. Other stories and reports beg for HEAT rounds due to 75L24 ineffectiveness with AP, even pointing out that the Germans flew HEAT rounds to locations where Russian armor would be engaged. The stories regarding 75L24 performance are similar to 75L43, some reports indicate that gun will save the Eastern Front since it kills T34 at 1200 to 1600 meters on every hit, and reports state that PzKpfw IV must be hidden to avoid long range penetration by T34. And T34 can stand at 1200m and be safe. When weapon effectiveness reports vary so widely, it appears that more than just penetration performance and ammo/armor consistency may be involved.

The human component of the battle can influence the ability of tanks to penetrate at ranges where theory says they should. 5 Panzer Division reports 1200 to 1600 meter kills of T34 and KV-1 by 75L43 PzKpfw IV's, where each hit did destructive damage. There are other stories where Russian attacks were so badly mauled that they stopped attacking, early '43 or late '42, forget which. Other reports indicate that 75L43 penetrates T34 at 1200m regardless of angle. The above two reports tend to confirm that 75L43 could handle T34 at practically all ranges, which is in line with "theory" (1600m penetration of T34 front hull). There are other reports in Jentz' book where T34's are feared, where hits are reported to bounce off the angled armor and PzKpfw IV with 75L43 is to be carefully located in a column lest T34's pick it off. Allied tankers in Normandy were scared stiff from the threat of a Tiger, which no doubt caused some stupid moves and nervous, ineffective fire. Couldn't T34 have caused the same jitters in panzer crews who feared their highly accurate fire at over 1000 meters range. Calm panzer crews in 75L43 armed tanks blow T34's apart and stabilize the front, scared tankers who know that a 76.2mm hit is lethal to 50mm armor are less likely to perform their best. Tactics don't always match theoretical kill ranges because warfare is more than aim and pull trigger. IS-2 can penetrate Panther glacis at 1500m to almost 3000m, yet Russian Battlefield states that it took an excellent crew to obtain hits at over 1000m. Even though IS-2 can penetrate at tremendous ranges when one considers turret hits, would we consider the 122mm penetration data and reported maximum kill ranges to be baloney if we found that IS-2 tanks would not engage Panthers beyond 1000m?

Americans published penetration data for 75L24 APCBC based on their tests, 62mm at 0m/0°, 54mm at 500 yards and 49mm at 1000 yards. 75L24 with above penetration could pierce T34 45mm at 40° side hull armor and 52mm at 30° turret side armor after high hardness deficiency is cranked in. If the information that Paul has posted in the past is applicable, slow 75L24 rounds would increase 450 Brinell Hardness resistance compared to 75L43 hits, but hard armor would still lose some resistance due to overmatching.

The URL for the Saumur Intranet site is: http://musee-des-blindes.intranets.com Forgot to include this in first post. Guests are allowed to enter the intranet. Interesting threads on a number of issues, including Panther in Vietnam, 75L24 against T34 and Michael Wittmann in his StuG IIIB (first T34 kills).

Since the Allied analysis is based on German tanks found in field, maybe more PzKpfw IV were removed from field by Germans to go again, while Panthers and Tigers were more difficult to pull back after K-O? Ditto for StuG III and IV. PzKpfw IV certainly seems more likely to be pulled out of exposed positions after penetration than a Tiger. Although penetration of PzKpfw IV might be more damaging. However, penetration of those 30mm sides might allow Sherman rounds to go completely thru the tank before the HE burster kicks in. Would a higher percentage of Knocked-Out Panthers and Tigers be found in field by Allies, compared to PzKpfw IV and StuG?

When was 75mm HEAT for StuG III available? Michael Wittmann earned his early "bones" knocking out T34 and KV tanks in a StuG IIIB, and we wonder if he used APC or HEAT.

For IS-2 tank stuff, see above.

Posted data indicates 145 PzKpfw IVH lost out of 414 during first month. 90% seems kinda high, don't you think?

During past threads on HE fire, Jeff Duquette sent me drawings on HE fragment spread. The spread does not cover a large area and is limited to the front and sides of the impact. This may account for all those ineffective HE shots at infantry in the open, if round is long it doesn't do much, if it is too short it also blows dirt around and little else. The spread for 75mm HE (US) is 15 meters long.

I don't have the figures in front of me right now, but about 40-50 Tigers during the first month of fighting, with 14 lost in field. Good data, just can't find it now.