Russian AFV AT Capabilities

[Vark]

Didn't some people claim the Panther in question had been a target before, so it's armour had been pre-fractured so to speak? Still a 122 or 152 AP round will cause massive levels of shock and I expect we will see a lot of crosses next to components and crew casualties, even for non-penetrating hits.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Russia was fielding subcaliber tungsten core rounds equivalent to U.S. APCR around this time

Not quite equivalent. The tungsten carbide core in U.S. HVAP ammunition was larger than in Soviet APCR, giving it much better penetration.

Soviet 85mm

APBC penetration

100 meters: 139mm

750 meters: 114mm

APCR penetration

100 meters: 175mm

750 meters: 117mm

tungsten carbide core = 0.65 kg, 27.77mm diameter

U.S. 76mm

APCBC penetration

100 meters: 125mm

750 meters: 111mm

HVAP penetration

100 meters:

239

mm

750 meters:

191

mm

tungsten carbide core = 1.765 kg, 38.1mm diameter

[Vanir Ausf B]

Soviet 122mm hits on the Panther glacis ("upper front hull" in the game) really depend on what type of ammunition is used. Uncapped AP will only penetrate at very short ranges, like 100-200 meters tops. APBC will penetrate out to at least 1500 meters. CMBB assumed APBC to be the standard Soviet ammunition for summer '44 onward. The Panther turret can be penetrated easily out past 2 km.

152mm is a little less effective due to lower velocity but still very dangerous at typical combat ranges. If CM assumes the glacis to be at spec thickness (80mm) 152mm APBC will penetrate at least half the time out to around 1400 meters. If the glacis is modeled at typical measured thickness (85mm) that range drops to about half that. It will be interesting to run some tests to see what CM assumes about the Panther glacis.

The bottom line is that during the CMRT time period the only German vehicle that has good resistance to Soviet 122mm and 152mm guns is the King Tiger.

[Dadekster]

I don't even want to think about what that feels like for the poor SOB's inside. I would imagine just the force of it would kill them right?

It's similar to a person in an unbreakable car hitting an unmovable wall while something at a decent speed (40 mph is what I have seen/read). Even seat belted in, while your body would stop with the car seat the rest of your bodies internal organs will continue forward at 40 miles per hour until they violently stop. That's enough to cause internal tearing of organs. In the scenario we are discussing the close impact or solid hit of that much HE would make the target jerk enough that the soft bodies inside would impact something solid hard enough to cause either instant death or eventual death I'd wager. Physics is a biznatch. :cool:

Germans seemed to like to drill a nice neat hole into an eggshell to get to the yolk inside. Russians went about getting to the yolk by just dropped a hammer onto the egg.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Interesting factoid: The Soviets used a different formulation for their HE that made it more powerful but also less stable. So the shells fired by Soviet guns should have slightly more blast effect than equivalent Western guns. But also, Soviet brew ups should be a bit more likely to happen and more spectacular.

Michael

Reminds me of a story I read.

For a long time after the war I sought an answer to one question. If a T-34 started burning, we tried to get as far away from it as possible, even though this was forbidden. The on-board ammunition exploded. For a brief period of time, perhaps six weeks, I fought on a T-34 around Smolensk. The commander of one of our companies was hit in his tank. The crew jumped out of the tank but were unable to run away from it because the Germans were pinning them down with machine gun fire. They lay there in the wheat field as the tank burned and blew up. By evening, when the battle had waned, we went to them. I found the company commander lying on the ground with a large piece of armor sticking out of his head. When a Sherman burned, the main gun ammunition did not explode. Why was this?

Such a case occurred once in Ukraine. Our tank was hit. We jumped out of it but the Germans were dropping mortar rounds around us. We lay under the tank as it burned. We laid there a long time with nowhere to go. The Germans were covering the empty field around the tank with machine gun and mortar fires. We lay there. The uniform on my back was beginning heating up from the burning tank. We thought we were finished! We would hear a big bang and it would all be over! A brother's grave! We heard many loud thumps coming from the turret. This was the armor-piercing rounds being blown out of their cases. Next the fire would reach the high explosive rounds and all hell would break loose! But nothing happened. Why not? Because our high explosive rounds detonated and the American rounds did not? In the end it was because the American ammunition had more refined explosives. Ours was some kind of component that increased the force of the explosion one and one-half times, at the same time increasing the risk of detonation of the ammunition.

http://english.iremember.ru/tankers/17-dmitriy-loza.html

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

Well argued and with eye-popping info I'd not seen before. Here are the declassified Russian TOP SECRET results of wartime firing trials against the Panther.

http://english.battlefield.ru/testing-100-mm-and-122-mm-tank-guns.html

Same thing vs a brace of King Tigers.

http://english.battlefield.ru/was-the-tiger-really-king.html

Battlefield.ru used to have photos of the target tanks, but that was before the server crash some time ago. I've recently seen pics from the Panther tests. Believe it was on Flickr as indexed by google Images, but I don't recall.

Regards,

John Kettler

[akd]

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/suisu-152-vs-german-big-cats.html

[John Kettler]

akd,

That wasn't where, but I have been to the site before, then somehow had forgotten about it. Thank you much for those pics at the link. Now, if he'd provide translated captions adjacent to the pics…

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

In the scenario we are discussing the close impact or solid hit of that much HE would make the target jerk enough that the soft bodies inside would impact something solid [and likely as not with sharp corners and edges] hard enough to cause either instant death or eventual death I'd wager.

*Bold added*

Michael

[Dadekster]

Yep. There's a good reason I never took my helmet off inside of my track. So many sharp objects to smack into.

[John Kettler]

Dadekster,

I'd expect the suspension would, depending on impact geometry, absorb a significant portion of the strike shock. I'd be a lot more concerned about a dinner plate sized spall event or worse, rather than fretting about translational injury. I've never served on an AFV, but I did have two multi hour outings in an M48A5, which I found surprisingly roomy and hazard free (was TC for a day for missile seeker tests in a sensor tower), have been in a T-62 (not good at all when 5"11" and with no body or head protection--full of all manner of sharp steel edges, got gored) and a 76mm Sherman (in turret only, static tank; not bad, but not great, either). None of my experiences can possibly match being inside a tank in battle, and well do I know it. If you go back to the SU-122 vs Tiger 1 story at Battlefield.ru, the weld shattering hits didn't turn the occupants into meat paste. Would check the specifics, but am having issues with accessing the SPG page.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Seedorf81]

Ehm, lot of info and discussion on the effects of SU-122's and SU-152's vs. Panthers and Tigers, but has anybody some info on the frequency of such engagements?

I mean, how often did they meet in battle? And are there any reliable statistics available on the results of such engagements?

It seems to me that those head to head confrontations were (very) rare. Of course, a Panther being struck by a 152mm would probably feel like putting your head on the working end of a pile driver, but wouldn't the only way for an SU-152 crew to achieve a direct hit on a German tank be from a prepositioned ambush position?

[76mm]

akd,

Now, if he'd provide translated captions adjacent to the pics…

He does provide translations for most of the pictures (the text in quotes).

[John Kettler]

76mm,

I know he provides info at the blog proper, but it would be most helpful were the Russian captions translated in the enlarged images. I have the nagging feeling we're getting the shorthand version of what's actually said, rather than the full content.

Seedorf,

The SU-122 I mentioned was specifically operating as a tank destroyer. I don't have a whole lot of info from which to work, chiefly because almost all of what's out there is in Russian. If I could get into anything other than the homepage for Battlefield.ru, I could produce some ISU engagement accounts as well. One I know of involved King Tigers. That one did involve poor German tactics, smart Russian tactics and multiple ambushes. Only a fool would sit out in the open in the face of the 88 L/71, and the Russians didn't.

Regards,

John Kettler

[76mm]

76mm,

I have the nagging feeling we're getting the shorthand version of what's actually said, rather than the full content.

His translations for photos 37-40 are pretty much word-for-word, then he:

--skips 41-42 (41 is a "pre-test" picture of the elefant, 42 is after being hit by two 152mm rounds);

--gives captions for "Shot 8", "Shot 10", and "Shot 11" which don't seem to be in the article;

--give a caption for "Shot 9" which is longer than what is shown with the photo in the article;

--Paraphrases the brief captions for photos 14-15.

[Skwabie]

Well... sure, I was just doing some test in a self-made scenario, called 3 x AS-90 155mm on one of my own Abrams. The howitzers ended up killing the tank.

You gotta wonder why tank guns never went to those calibers!

[Michael Emrys]

You gotta wonder why tank guns never went to those calibers!

Ammo storage for one thing I guess. Having to stop in the middle of a battle and resupply after firing a dozen rounds might be...inconvenient.

Michael

[Maarten]

Russian post-cold war designs, that never materialized, were incorporating 152mm guns.

[wokelly]

Despite the presence of some big guns, I think the Russians will sit somewhere between the Americans and British for AT capability. The tanks with the big cat killing guns (IS2, ISU-122) are simply too rare at this point to see them in game in any real numbers, the I/SU-155 is not really designed to kill enemy tanks (low velocity gun, low rate of fire), nor will it be effective at long range to compensate for the lack of a long range tank killer. Even then, as far as Russian standards go it was not a machine built in large numbers (~6000). Except in specific situations where these things are attached to Soviet tank units, they won't be seen often.

The bread and butter of Soviet forces are still T-34/76's with about a third T-34/85s. The 85mm is not really better in the AT department then the American 76mm (better HE shell), nor is the SU-85 going to be better than say the M10 at killing enemy tanks. The APCR will help, but unlike HVAP, it loses velocity rapidly and is only really useful within 1000 yards. Terrain in Russia allowed for longer range fighting and the Soviets don't have any real capability to accommodate that fact. 85mm not really comparable to the 17 pounder though obviously a much better HE shell.

For all intents and purposes, they will be better off than American units in this time frame for killing panzers (very few 76mm Shermans, nothing with 90mm guns), but worse than the Brits who have relatively high numbers of 17 pounder guns, and even 57mm guns with APDS.

[Bastables]

Despite the presence of some big guns, I think the Russians will sit somewhere between the Americans and British for AT capability. The tanks with the big cat killing guns (IS2, ISU-122) are simply too rare at this point to see them in game in any real numbers, the I/SU-155 is not really designed to kill enemy tanks (low velocity gun, low rate of fire), nor will it be effective at long range to compensate for the lack of a long range tank killer. Even then, as far as Russian standards go it was not a machine built in large numbers (~6000). Except in specific situations where these things are attached to Soviet tank units, they won't be seen often.

The bread and butter of Soviet forces are still T-34/76's with about a third T-34/85s. The 85mm is not really better in the AT department then the American 76mm (better HE shell), nor is the SU-85 going to be better than say the M10 at killing enemy tanks. The APCR will help, but unlike HVAP, it loses velocity rapidly and is only really useful within 1000 yards. Terrain in Russia allowed for longer range fighting and the Soviets don't have any real capability to accommodate that fact. 85mm not really comparable to the 17 pounder though obviously a much better HE shell.

For all intents and purposes, they will be better off than American units in this time frame for killing panzers (very few 76mm Shermans, nothing with 90mm guns), but worse than the Brits who have relatively high numbers of 17 pounder guns, and even 57mm guns with APDS.

It seems the fall off and the lighter/smaller APCR of the 85mm made it irrelevant if one used the APBC shell or the APCR at 1000m or even at 750 metres. Looking at Vanir's info

Soviet 85mm

APBC penetration

100 meters: 139mm

750 meters: 114mm

APCR penetration

100 meters: 175mm

750 meters: 117mm

tungsten carbide core = 0.65 kg, 27.77mm diameter.

biggest improvement is the ability of the T34 to actually penetrate the sides of the Tiger, and pen the driver front plate at 1000m ranges of the StuG's and PIV's without having to drive down to 200m. This means that as you point out that they;'re much better off verses the profusion of vertical 8cm armoured german afv's

Soviet APCR (like US HVAP) will be better off than the APDS as it won't yaw like the early Sabot rounds and will generally hit where you're aiming. Yawing of subcaliber was not solved until well after the war with the development of long fin-stablised darts.

[Michael Emrys]

...nor is the SU-85 going to be better than say the M10 at killing enemy tanks.

On the other hand, it is better armored and able to withstand return fire, so might hang around longer to deliver more salvos without having to run and hide. How all that worked out in practice where other factors also weigh in I have not yet discovered.

Michael

[John Kettler]

Skwabie,

They did. MBT-70 (Abrams ancestor) prototypes 152mm gun/Shillelagh IR beamriding ATGM launcher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBT-70

M60A2 152mm gun/missile launcher. ~540 fielded.

M551 Sheridan 152mm gun/missile launcher. 1662 produced. Gun was so powerful that recoil from firing it decollimated the IR beam transmitter for the Shillelagh. Chassis way too iight!

Maarten,

That would be the T-95, which was canceled in 2010 as Russia was in the midst of an acute economic crunch. See especially third pic.

http://defensetech.org/2011/03/18/new-details-on-russias-t-95-tank-emerge/#idc-cover

Not only is 152mm on the T-95 well suited for delivering tremendously powerful KE and HE blows, as well as TOW size gun launched ATGMs, but there is also apparently a SAM capability.

Unlike the hulking IS-122, ISU-152, the even more massive Jagdtiger and such, the T-95 is low slug, fast and agile. For starters.

Regards,

John Kettler

[wokelly]

On the other hand, it is better armored and able to withstand return fire, so might hang around longer to deliver more salvos without having to run and hide. How all that worked out in practice where other factors also weigh in I have not yet discovered.

Michael

I dunno, 45mm sloped won't stop much.

[Michael Emrys]

I dunno, 45mm sloped won't stop much.

Might stop a bit more than 37mm.

Michael

[dsf]

Ammo storage for one thing I guess. Having to stop in the middle of a battle and resupply after firing a dozen rounds might be...inconvenient.

Michael

Bigger gun = longer recoil = bigger turret ring = bigger tank.

The T-34 turret ring was increased to the maximum to accommodate an 85mm gun. That was the practical limit of the hull. When the 100mm D-10T came available, several T-34s were modified to house it, but the the gun was too large for the turret to be practical. By then it was late in the war and the T-44 was about to begin production.

Regards

Scott Fraser