rexford

The "real" Tiger was alot better than CM portrays: a) shatter gap reduced 76mm APCBC to 50 yard penetration ranges against the 100mm frontal armor, see Baily's Faint Praise. published American penetration data for 75mm gun in Sherman is 9% lower, and CM figures are the highest anywhere for 75mm. CM used the high end of the published 75mm penetration figures, even if they did generate the figures themselves with an equation. If American factories known for inconsistent ammo production, it would seem logical to use middle or low end of data. c) British 6 pounder ammo, both AP and APCBC, shattered against Tiger armor when it hit with more penetration than the armor resistance. d) Our upcoming book will show that Tiger armor was equal to American and British penetration test plate in terms of resistance, so American penetration data can be directly compared. e) Tiger mantlet thickness varies from 135mm around gun to 130mm-145mm on flat areas, more than enough to defeat 76mm APCBC hits at point blank. And enough to shatter fail those 90mm hits. f) Due to edge effects, hits on the tapered upper and lower edges of Tiger mantlet, where it is thinner, will be turned up or down, hitting 100mm turret front at an angle. The "real" Tiger looks better against 75mm and 76mm Shermans than it plays in CM.

The Saumur Tank Museum Intranet site has published research data on German tank losses in Normandy, based on Allied analysis of tanks they found in field and data from Operation Goodwood. For first month of Overlord, 48% by AP 7% by HEAT 9% by HE 1% by mines 10% by aircraft The most amazing statistic is the percentage of panzers that were knocked out, by tank type. This statistic was computed by comparing tank losses to available tanks. The PzKpfw IV, Panther, Tiger and StuG III all lost the same percentage of available vehicles during the first month. While CM threads often talk about the vulnerability of PzKpfw IV, due to light frontal armor, tank survival chances in a PzKpfw IV were equal to a Panther or Tiger. Further research indicated that the Tiger tank was more efficient than Panther in terms of kills per tank compared to losses.

The Russian Battlefield offers much data on the IS-2/IS-2m series of tanks: a) IS-2 is first version with 85mm and 122mm guns (maybe 100mm, too), front hull armor is very vulnerable, Tiger penetrates at 1200m All IS-2 tanks have relatively thin turret front and mantlet armor, many reports of 88L71 penetrating turret front/mantlet at 2200m or longer c) IS-2 122mm fires two part heavy ammo, and breechblock on first model guns contributes to slow rate of fire, like 1.5 shots per minute d) IS-2 122mm gun is long anti-tank weapon, SU-100 is short howitzer type e) 122mm on IS tank penetrates Panther glacis at 600 to 2500+ meters, depending on ammo used and glacis quality f) First IS-2 with narrow mantlet has line of sight problem with gun barrel, since gunner sight hole is very close to barrel. This would impact shots at moving targets where gun is rotated with target to track speed and then jumped ahead to fire at a lead angle. g) Russian ammo has lower nose hardness than American, might shatter fail on alot of hits where it overpenetrates armor. Russian Battlefield site notes that AP rounds may have shattered. h) 122mm tank is valuable cause of HE potency, most Russian tanks carried alot more HE than AP. i) Russian Battlefield site compares IS-2/2m to King Tiger, IS is lighter, has more potent HE, breaks down less, gun has equal or less random scatter j) U.S. analyzed IS-2m found in Berlin ruins, all armor except the vertical hull side was very hard. It was speculated that turret hits might crack turret ring even if the hit were defeated, due to the heat treatment given to lower areas of IS turret. k) U.S. fired 122mm APBC at targets from 0 to 70 degrees from vertical, round penetrated alot of armor and was superior to Allied or German ammo against angled targets. 122mm APBC has a blunt nose and ballistic windscreen l) 122mm AP doesn't penetrate as much armor as APBC, and has traditional high slope effects due to pointed nose. 122mm fired combination of AP and APBC, so tank in CM would have inconsistent performance against Panthers due to random ammo availability (who knows what is in the bin, based on supply line peculiarities).

T34 built to American and British standards does not automatically mean the same Brinell Hardness, it seems to mean the same workmanship and consistent quality of welds, finish, surface cleanliness, whatever. British Brinell Hardness readings are LOW, because they used a portable Poldi machine. WW II high hardness armor is brittle against 75mm hits, regardless of the quality. And it only gets worse, it doesn't get better. Were some T34 tempered to a point where the armor was 350 Brinell Hardness? Possible. But when the Germans decided to test T34 type armor in firing tests, they didn't have some plates at 350 Brinell, some at 400, some at 450. They were all over 400 Brinell. Based on our analysis of American and German tests during WW II against high hardness armor: 350 Brinell is 6% more resistant than 400 BHN 450 Brinell is 5% less resistant than 400 BHN If 75L43 penetrates 400 Brinell T34 glacis at 1500m, it penetrates 350 Brinell glacis at 1250m, and 400 Brinell glacis at 1750m. That's how hardness variability influences 75L43 penetration ranges, and if the quality of the armor is subpar, the ranges increase all around.

The T34 in the Russian Battlefield article is the T34 that the U.S. analyzed, and the steel was over 400 Brinell Hardness and homogeneous. The photo's associated with the T34 America received and analyzed and the T34 in the Russian Battlefield report are ONE AND THE SAME. There was no T34 armor with shallow tempering on the surface and soft armor underneath, BECAUSE tempering does NOT harden steel, it softens it and increases ductility. Look at the front of a T34 Model 1941 or Model 1942, most of the hittable area is on the hull (most of the seeable turret front is highly angled and ricochets would result). During early 1943, the Russians were on the offensive and the Germans were trying to STABILIZE the front (as noted in the 5th Panzer report), thus allowing FOUR PzKpfw IV with 75L43 to pick off over 20 T34 and almost as many KV-I. If 26 T34 were hulldown, would FOUR PzKpfw IV have attacked them and been able to pick off so many before being destroyed themselves???? From the statistics presented in the 5 Panzer report, it is OBVIOUS that the Russians were attacking. PzKpfw III with 50L42 are able to get within 150m for kills when Germans are attacking HULLDOWN T34?????

So, every hit on T34 and other enemy tanks at 1200 to 1600 meters range destroys target. 75L43 sounds pretty effective to me, no mention of endless bouncers till a round strikes the turret. Since the hull front is most of the frontal target aspect, the statement suggests front hull was no problem from 1200 to 1600 meters at the angles met in combat. And note that the report doesn't say except for hits on driver hatch, which always bounced. So we can read in alot more and make it sound like driver hatch is 45mm thick, too. Well, thanks to the quotation provided by Jeff, T34 armor seems mighty vulnerable to 75L43 at extreme ranges, which must include frontal hits on the hull. But was there alot of variability in T34 armor? Many posts seem to suggest that there was some "more resistant" armor.

The Americans, Germans and British tested T34 armor during the war and it was all hard homogeneous. No face-hardened. When the Germans duplicated T34 armor during early 1942 to shoot at, using the same chemical composition as T34, they had Brinell Hardness over 400. No 250 Brinell, no 350 Brinell. All over 400 Brinell. Americans tested several T34 and all over 400 Brinell. Say America sent Russia 45mm plates with typical range of flaws. 45mm at 60 degrees with medium flaws resists 75mm hits like 102mm at 0 degree resistance. This would give 75L43 a 50% penetration chance at 1200m on head-on hits. But we don't know how many, if any, T34 were made with U.S. "softer" plate. Regarding Aberdeen finding shallow surface tempering backed by soft armor, we have also read that T34 turret armor was soft copper or brass sandwiched between two thin steel plates. Nonsense. There are many possibilities here: 1. misinterpretation of engineer findings 2. Stalin sent over an "April Fool" specimen, "soft steel" generally means steel that has not been hardened enough to qualify as armor plate 3. Americans accidentally sent Russia face-hardened armor for T34, so Stalin sent it back on T34 ot see if Americans noticed Bulk of evidence suggests that "most" or "practically all, if not all" T34 used high hardness homogeneous armor.

We obtained drawings, from two different sources, of the BR-365 and BR-365K ammo for 85mm gun, and they are both uncapped pointed nose APHE. ?

Did Pzgr ammo have any caps? Encyclopedia of German Tanks lists penetration data for 50mm and 88mm Pzgr, and we thought (for some now forgotten reason) that Pzgr was without caps. Thanks.

Couple of questions came up: 1. Did 85mm fire rounds with ballistic cap? 2. Did Germans use 50mm and 88mm AP rounds in Russia that did not have any caps at all? 3. Did Pzgr 39 rounds for 50mm and 88mm come without caps and were they softer than later war German ammo. Thanks.

IS-2 and IS-2m also carried high hardness armor, what saved these tanks was the thickness, which overmatched 75 and 88mm hits and resulted in about the same resistance as good 250 Brinell Hardness armor. Jeff, The real vaue of penetration reports like the one calculated by the Germans is that they show us that: 1. No one bothered to ask the tankers what they were experiencing 2. No one appreciated during WW II appreciated the key issues like we do, although we have had a much longer and more peaceful time to study and we have the benefit of all these unclassified reports from different countries. America did the same thing, telling people 3" and 76mm gun could hole the Tiger front at 1000 yards. Try 50 yards, after shatter gap does its' thing!

Here is the problem with calculated penetration ranges summarized for Eastern Front: 1. very hard armor on T34 and T34/85 decreases resistance against 75mm/88mm hits 2. face-hardened German armor increases resistance against Russian ammo without armor piercing caps (all types) 3. Russian penetration figures are not against face-hardened armor so cannot be directly compared to German armor 4. Many Russian penetration figures are calculated from an equation that has proved to be questionable ("zementen platten", or cemented plate, is how Germans describe the equation Russians used for penetration of many rounds). When data for 76.2 penetration is 69mm at 500m and about 61mm at 1000m, be suspicious. Or 85mm penetration equals 111mm at 500m. 5. The Russian Battlefield site has good penetration data for 76.2mm, but may be confusing due to different penetration probabilities. But no face-hardened penetration data, so no good for comparing to Pzkpfw III and IV armor resistance. So any calculated penetration ranges that do not consider hard armor, or absence of face-hardened penetration data for Russians, are bound to be of less than face value.

The 47mm figure appears to be a single calculation that somehow was accepted as an increase that became the norm. A 2mm increase is not uparmoring. T34/85 armor on the hull was the same as the T34, no 60mm plate used. T34 and T34/85 armor is hard all the way through, not face-hardened. Hits that fail to penetrate could throw off pieces from the inside. One thing we have noticed is that early war German ammo may have been soft and vulnerable to shatter. German APCBC was used to minimize shatter. German PzGr for 50 and 88 has about the same penetration as PzGr 39 athough PzGr 39 is capped, which implies softer rounds. We suspect, but cannot prove, that some of the rounds available for the 75L43 during 1942 may have been APCBC but softer than ammo used during 1944-1945, thereby decreasing the penetration range. This would explain why some German units said StuG III is all they need to kill T34's at all useful ranges, and other units cry for help because T34 armor is just too angled. Russian Battlefront site has info on 45mm ammo, which was overheated in factories and didn't penetrate anywhere what it should have. During 1941 and early 1942 45mm ammo was poor quality. Couldn't something like this have happened with 75L43 APCPC in rush to get the badly needed gun to front. German ammo quality control, as described in British BIOS report, allowed ammo to get out with cracks. Germans reported that hits that should have penetrated often didn't. There are many ways to approach shorter than theoretical penetration ranges, including bad ammo, bad shooting (misses are blamed on angled armor) and some variations in T34 armor. One factory in the Urals or where ever could have tempered the T34 armor to 350 Brinell Hardness, which would improve resistance by increasing ductility. One problem with calculated penetration ranges is that the estimates do not consider high hardness armor. T34/85 vs PzKpfw IVH compares tanks with different armor types. As noted in my previous posts, Pzkpfw IVH 80mm plates had an advantage over Russian ammo that German calculations would not consider, along with 45mm disadvantage in terms of high hardness brittleness against 75mm hits.

About "toy armor model" equations, we can explain why U.S. 3" and 76mm APCBC shattered against Tiger and Panther armor, something Americans didn't know about during the war. We discovered alot of stuff that wasn't known during WW II and our book will showcase the findings. Our "toy models" are superior to anything available during WW II cause we had thirty years to study warfare that lasted 4 years. If one looks at the language I have used, it is tentative and is trying to find out if the model really holds. Now, here's a flat-out mistake in past posts on this thread. T34 76.2 CANNOT penetrate 80mm armor on PzKpfw IVH at 1000m. There is no data that we have seen anywhere that shows consistent 80mm penetration at 1000m for 76.2 gun. More spurious garbage that substitutes for serious and rational discussion. Check out the figures on the Russian Battlefield and find one 76.2mm penetration that equals 80mm at 1000m. NONE!!!!!!!!!!! All of the 50% penetration figures, average of IP and CP, are well below 80mm at 1000m and do not consider the special characteristics of the 80mm armor on PzKpfw IVH. There is another factor about the 80mm armor on the PzKpfw IVH that reduces 76.2mm penetration even further. This will be revealed in our book. Talk about "toy models", I wonder where some people are getting their data. T34/85 hull armor was same as T34/76 except for driver hatch, and T34/76 hull was not un-armored during 1942. More spurious nonsense. "Toy models"? "Superior models" is what they should be called because: 1. they are better than anything during the war 2. we have the patience and interest to put our results out for discussion purposes so we can test the waters before we publish

My post stated a sandwich arrangement with soft metal in between two steel layers, not add-on armor. Our model is based on firing tests against German and U.S. high hardness armor, and seems to work well. It is possible 75L43 could penetrate beyond 1200m because report says penetrates at any angle at 1200m, which infers longer range when there is no angle. And since most hits land on hull front or side, if it penetrates at any angle at 1200m it is probably a hull hit. Since there is alot of conflicting stuff at this point, it is probably reasonable to say that penetrations beyond 1200m were possible, but some factors that may change equation (like add-on armor) were not considered. Maybe some T34's were tempered to lower hardness, which would increase penetration resistance. 600-800m range may be based on hit probability, as I mentioned several posts ago 75L43 has BIG scatter with constant aim. If you read Jentz you'll see that some German commanders say 75L48 in StuG is enough to handle T34, other commanders say that 75mm hits bounce off highly angled T34 armor and what are they to do! Nothing consistent, so jury is still out. Which means our model has not been disproved or proved by the data. But the statement that &5L43 can penetrate at any angle at 1200m seems to imply that they are talking hull hits, and front hull in particular. And if it penetrates on an angled hit at 1200m, it penetrates on an un-angled hit at further range. Ah, but we must get back to reality and admit that there is not enough to go either way.

If 75L43 penetrates T34 glacis at any angle at 1200m, and say any angle includes 30° from hull facing, then armor suffers from two drawbacks: 1. high hardness armor brittleness 2. internal flaws American analysis of T34 armor found "bubbles" in the armor connecting the glacis to the nose. Bubbles! Robert Livingston has written a very detailed history of each countries armor for our book, and T34 armor gets alot of attention based on U.S. and British analysis.

Penetration resistance to HEAT is VERY sensitive to armor hardness, 420 Brinell Hardness plate would probably increase the "see thru" thickness by 10% or more. So 45mm at 60° goes to 100mm at 0° against 75mm HEAT from panzer guns. And HEAT must overpenetrate by 10mm to 25mm to really do anything, so figure on 110mm to 125mm penetration against T34 frontal hull to get thru the armor and score some damage or casualties. Does German 75mm HEAT have this much penetration?

American tests of T34 armor show defects and production shortcuts that reduce penetration resistance and are not likely to show up in a modern test where plate is produced with loving care, the best materials and lots of time. War time changes things. That is what I was getting at. T34 armor was not face-hardened, forget those reports where the armor had a hard surface over soft material. It was hard all the way through. Some German reports state that T34 turret armor was a sandwich with copper or brass in between the steel layers. ??????????????

WW II armor on tanks was prone to all sorts of problems that a modern ballistic test with nicely produced armor is not likely to duplicate. T34 armor had all sorts of problems besides high hardness. One other point is that tests are subject to scale factors, where the smaller the projectile the greater the benefits from high hardness and the smaller the drawbacks. Firing 75mm APCBC at a 45mm plate at 60° with 420 Brinell Hardness may be difficult to model with small test projectiles. Our study of German and American tests of 37mm-90mm ammo versus high hardness armor suggests that 75L43 APCBC could penetrate T34 front hull at 1600m when hull faces gun. If 75L43 can penetrate T34 hull front on all hits within a 15° to 20° side angle at 1200m, that would be equivalent to head-on shots at 1600m. Paul's comment on 1 of 3 hits penetrating at 1000m is true, all that says is that the angle and effective armor resistance made penetrations less than a 100% chance, which is consistent with head-on penetrations at greater angles. The fact that T34 armor will lose resistance against 75mm hits is a fact, the issue we are discussing is how much will it lose. If T34 front hull were made from good quality armor at 260 Brinell Hardness, 75L43 APCBC hits would bounce on half the hits at 500m, with a head-on shot at hull (no side angle). T34 Model 1941 or 1942 has a very small turret area on frontal shots, so most hits probably would land on hull front. There is an American report on German experience in Russia, and during 1942 T34's used to sit at 1200 or 1300 meters and pick off panzers due to difference in penetration range. Tiger changed this. The above anecdote suggests that 1200m may have been the extreme limit for 50 and 75 penetration, but it is only speculation. Maybe T34's had that add-on armor that occasionally shows up in pictures. But that is beside the point. We're looking for typical and maximum penetration ranges against T34 hull front by 75L43 or 75L48 (75mm Pak 40 would be 75L46, by the way).

Paul, 400 Brinell armor will resist with less vigor than 240 Brinell when 75mm rounds hit 45mm, as was stated early in the thread, based on tests conducted during WW II. Since WW II production armor is not the same as modern high hardness plate , and WW II projects are not the same, WW II tests would seem to be more dependable than modern experiments when it comes to predicting WW II results. I think your modern tests came to the same conclusion, T34 armor at 400+ Brinell is vulnerable to 75L43 beyond 1000m. Question is how much further than 1000m, cause this is needed to define penetration ranges on hits away from hull facing.

Bazooka hits on T34 may suffer from two factors: 1. HEAT penetration reduced by hard armor, and T34/85 armor is very hard. 2. Bazooka must overpenetrate armor by 25mm or so to do much inside tank. Early bazooka hits on PzKpfw III and IV would blow open hatches and crew would bail out, thinking gases were poisonous. Then they would jump back in.

German 75mm muzzle velocities were: L43 740 m/s L48 750 m/s L46 792 m/s We found data on these rounds and 75L46 APCBC round (everything included) was as long as Panther and carried a greater powder charge, which accounts for higher velocity compared to L48. Sherman 75L40 barrel length is only a little shorter than 75L43 but muzzle velocity difference is 740 m/s vs 619 m/s. Sherman muzzle velocity so low it doesn't need muzzle brake, rounds probably shorter than PzKpfw IVG and Sherman able to hold more ammo (?). The problem with penetration data is that T34 armor hardness is so much higher than test plate used for penetration figures that data cannot be compared. If it tookl 3 shots to K-O T34 at 1000m what does this mean? Crew survived first two penetrations? First two hits bounced? T34 turret highly angled so it is possible first two shots bounced off the side. 75mmL43 and L48 have alot of random scatter when they fire, much more than Tiger or Panther. Good idea to hold fire to minimize ammo waste. 75L43 will not penetrate T34 front hull at 1000m if tank is angled at 20° or greater. The StuG report is interesting, and is consistent with other material in Jentz. Some commanders say 75L43 penetrates T34 at any angle at 1200m, others say T34 armor too highly angled to make hits stick.

Thanks for responses. Responses from other sites have 1200m range for 75L43 APCBC against T34, penetrating hit at any angle, based on panzer unit report. Published figures may be either test results, battlefield reports or calculations by bureaucrats far from front, using whatever numbers they can find. Tiger and Panther Fibels use office estimates based on calculations where T34 armor is rolled homogeneous medium hardnessm which misses high hardness aspect. I'll summarize the other site replies with this thread. Russian Battlefield has 1000m, which is consistent with panzer report.

Anything from Korea when 76mm Shermans or British armor met T34/85's?

Just how vulnerable was T34 front hull (45mm at 60° from vertical), to 75mm gun on PzKpfw IV and Stug's? We put together an equation based on German and American tests against high hardness armor, and are looking for actual penetration range statistics to confirm theory. Does anyone know of a source where this data can be found? The Russian Battlefield lists 1000m, and Jentz indicates 75mm L48 could handle T34 at all useful ranges, or something like that. Could 75mm consistently penetrate T34 front hull at 1250 to 1500m? Granted that the situation would not occur very often, but the most distant ranges helps to pinpoint overall vulnerability at closer ranges with lateral side angles cranked in. Thanks for help.