88mm KwK 36 L/56 accuracy test and some ideas

[danielh]

Jeff,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Franz Kurowski’s Panzer Aces II (pg 207)

As there was no range-measuring device in the Tiger (nor in any German tanks) the distance to the target always had to be estimated. A shot could only be on target if the range was estimated precisely.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What does he mean ? The Tiger had a system to determine range to a target -> See Tigerfibel. But of course with some guessing still in (Not a laser of course).

After a long time i did some Panzer Elite battles again (With the Tiger I), and what did i found (I'm surely not a trained gunner...):

To hit a target up to 2000 m stationary not moving was achievable with around 4 rounds. Once i've had the range targets at around the same range needed around 2-3 shots.

At around 1000 - 800 m a non moving full visible target can be killed with around 2 - 3 the first time (And i'm really not trained to use the Zeiss system), subsequent targets with 1 round (it's really easy, the target is huge in your sight (Magnification).

Hitting moving targets is much much harder, especially in Panzer Elite where you seldom have open plain ground. I only managed to get one at under 500 m maybe out of around 15 shots and he was moving only slowly.

Now how near this is to reality is open to discussion, but i assume it quite near, since the enemy is always on the move and stops only for a short time to shoot. (The Panzerelite ground always resembles to me the ground i find in the mountains, but almost nowhere where it's flat.)

Greets

Daniel

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Dan Said

What does he mean? The Tiger had a system to determine range to a target -> See Tigerfibel. But of course with some guessing still in (Not a laser of course).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just quotes um the ways I see's um I thought Franz Kurowski is pretty well respected in this field of expertise. He has something like forty or fifty published works dealing with the German Armed Forces in WWII. He has two published titles dealing with German Panzer Aces of WWII. I see his work quoted a lot. He just published another work on German Infantry Aces of WWII. I just picked up Panzer Aces II...beautiful book. Photos are a tad bit grainy for my tastes. But it’s an interesting read. $52.00 (US) for the hardback…I suppose that puts it out of the price range for the casual WWII reader. Is his book wrong in this regard?

The same is true of Steve J. Zaloga with respect to published works dealing with Soviet WWII armor, and other published works on the Soviet Army in WWII (i.e. Red Army Handbook...the table I posted on T34's destroyed relative to range). Dare I compare Zaloga with Jentz (Zaloga being the Russian armor guru commonly seen on book covers dealing with that type of subject matter).

I recall from my days in the service -- and granted I had pretty average (or below avg) gunnery skills -- but I had a real tough time tracking my rounds as they proceeded down range. I did time in M48A5's and M60A1's back in the early to mid eighties. The tank had a "gun computer" to adjust for super elevation of the gun (I think that’s what it was called). Anyway the M48 and M60 had real range finders on board. I don’t know if WWII tanks had such an instrument.

Engaging a target went something like this: The TC would announce type of ammo to fire and type target being engaged. He would also do an initial gun lay in the vicinity of the target using his TC over ride. The gunner dials in the type of ammo and range into the gun computer which results in a slight tweaking of the gun elevation to account for the path of the round relative to path of LOS (i.e. arc as opposed to nearly straight line). Once the gunner sees the target through his own optics he yells “Identified” and takes over "fine tuning" of the gun lay on the target. The loader in the mean time has popped into the breech the type of round the TC has called out, released the gun safety and yells "UP". This tells the gunner the gun is ready to fire. The loader should be pulling a second round out from the ready racks and have it ready to pop into the breach.

When the gunner is satisfied with his aim he yells “On the Way” KA-BOOM! Now in theory the TC and Gunner are supposed to track the fall of the round…short line…over…and adjust fire accordingly. There is a tracer element on the back of SABOT and HEAT rounds (I think HEAP rounds as well), to make this process easier. In addition there should be a certain amount of “splash” as soil is kicked up from rounds that missed their mark. However, in practice when a 105 goes off there is a lot of flash and dust etc. generated. In addition the gunner and TC (as well as the rest of the crew) get jostled about from the gun going off…making their task that much more challenging to keep there eye on the round as it rockets its way down range at 1,500 ft\sec (or whatever the velocity is). I had a hard time keeping track…it takes only a second or two for a round to be down range 3,000 meters…guess that’s why I was a marginal gunner.

I do recall during one live firing exercise at NTC (before it was NTC and just plain old Ft Irwin...2 miles south of no where) we got to fire at old tank hulks…several M26’s, the turret of an old Sherman and some M47’s. When our practice rounds actually hit these hulks...metal on metal...there was a rather dramatic flash making your process of tracking rounds considerably easier. Firing at plywood targets doesn’t give you that dramatic flash when the target is hit.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 10-23-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I just quotes um the ways I see's um I thought Franz Kurowski is pretty well respected in this field of expertise. He has something like forty or fifty published works dealing with the German Armed Forces in WWII. He has two published titles dealing with German Panzer Aces of WWII. I see his work quoted a lot. He just published another work on German Infantry Aces of WWII. I just picked up Panzer Aces II...beautiful book. Photos are a tad bit grainy for my tastes. But it?n interesting read. $52.00 (US) for the hardback?uppose that puts it out of the price range for the casual WWII reader. Is his book wrong in this regard?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Kurowski, has put out some good books thru JJ Fedorowicz, enjoyed reading them.

I guess it would depend on ones definition of range finder? the later German sights Ie, the TzF9d had adjustable range scales, granulated from 100 - 4000m for Pzgr.39 & 6000m for SprGr.43 that allowed the gunner to 'determine exact range' maybe that's the ranging process Dan was referring to?.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

The same is true of Steve J. Zaloga with respect to published works dealing with Soviet WWII armor, and other published works on the Soviet Army in WWII (i.e. Red Army Handbook...the table I posted on T34's destroyed relative to range). Dare I compare Zaloga with Jentz (Zaloga being the Russian armor guru commonly seen on book covers dealing with that type of subject matter).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, Steve is very thorough in his research, as is Jentz. That still doesn't help us establish the table parameters and how the results were tabulated, was their anymore text on the table itself Jeff?.

I plan on contacting Steve, to see if I can get more detailed background info on the table when I get time, as well.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Guest machineman]

From what I can see here the Tiger I mostly came with TZF 9b 2.5X sights and Tiger II with TZF 9d 3.0/6.0 sights. These were both monocular and there was no seperate rangefinder, except for the graticles.

From the Zeiss optics sight at Panzer Elite:

"How did they guess the distance?

Take a look at the center large triangle. That triangle was calibrated to be "4 Strich" (in German) wide, or 4 mils. On 1000 meters range one mil resembles 1 meter if the gun was properly calibrated (thats a big "if"). Lets say there is a target 4 meters wide. Align the center triangle to the target and

see if its larger or smaller and reduce the range accordingly. If the target is half the size of the triangle its twice a far away, ie. 2000 meters. If it is covering the large triangle and a small, ie. 6 mils wide,

its:4 mils = 1000 meters for 4 meter size, 6 mils = 750 meters for 4 meter size

So all you got to do is to know the targets size and match it against your sights. The small triangles are 2 mils, the large 4 mils, the distance between the small is 2 at their base, 4 mils at their tip. German gun crews knew the size of their targets from target tables and later instinctively knew

distances. They practiced with their thumb all the time. Your thumb is on average 40 mils wide on 1000 meters, if you stretch your arm. Try it and guess ranges and verify if you're right or wrong. When aiming use the left and the right eye and the thumb will switch "targets". that jump is 100 meters

or 100 mils at a distance of 1000 meters on average."

Therefore, if the gunner knew the approx size of the target, he had a rangefinder, in effect. Then resolution and magnification of the optics would come into play I imagine as far as spotting the fall of shot goes and making corrections, as follows:

"Because you can see where your shell hit you immediately know if you guessed too high or too low. If you have a good sight to the target you can even judge the exact distance you miscalculated and thus can correct your sight and refire. That's why most experienced crews on German tanks could guarantee a hit on the 2nd shot. Variation in gun powder and differences between guns allowed precise shooting under 1000 meters, while those factors added a random element beyond 1000

meters. Shots beyond 2000 meters were considered lucky hits, at 4000 meters pure luck."

From what I understand the variation in gunpowder thing is the reason why snipers and long distance marksmen are keen on 'match grade ammunition'.

[This message has been edited by machineman (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Paul Lakowski]

Aren't you descibing a 'stadimetric' sight?

[Silencer]

Lewis wrote:

""

"Do you dispute this"

Steve

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course, Steve is very thorough in his research, as is Jentz. That still doesn't help us establish the table parameters and how the results were tabulated, was their anymore text on the table itself Jeff?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately there is no other text in "Red Army Handbook" associated with this rather fascinating table. I posted the thing over on the Russian Military Zone to see if any of those folks had seen the statistics associated with Zaloga’s table. Nothing. Not even a polite “sorry never seen the table before”.

I searched around the net for a possible email address or web page for either Zaloga or Ness and came up with zilch. If you succed in contacting Zaloga on this I hope you will share what ever info he passes on. I think I will try Scott Cunningham to see if he has come across this table. Hell of a nice fellow and great web site:

http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html

[Guest machineman]

Did some more reading and yes Paul, you are correct.

"This range estimate is known as a stadiametric range determining system (most World War II tank commanders binoculars also had a stadiametric range scale incorporated in them)."

AND, I guess I was wrong in a way on the rangefinding thing, although the GUNNER did not have an actual rangefinder, the COMMANDER did:

"In wartime US Army documents, the German optical rangefinder device used by Tiger tank commanders is referred to as the TZR1.....overall length 55 inches....field of view 6 degrees...coincidence type...typically used by Tiger Tank commanders to see over the flash or muzzle obscurication (dust) from firing of his tank's main gun."

Ties in to Jeff's description of the actual problems of firing and observing fall of shot.

"When in use...it enables the tank commander, with his head below the top of the cupola, to see from a point approximately 39 in. above the cupola machine gun mounting ring"

As well:

"Used together with the auxillary hand traverse, the commander could fairly accuately align the main gun onto a target that the gunner could not see."

Sounds like the first Tigers did not have this set up, but they made do with something else:

"Early production Tiger I's....used a hand held optical rangefinder used by the crews of Flak guns".

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silencer:

Lewis wrote:

I just was curious about this.

Tested it myself, did 10 shootouts.

Flat terrain.

sherm 76mm vs MarkIVL48 on 1600m. (AP)

result: 9 of the 10 times the Shermans win!!!

Steve, if you test, you need to take the same variables.

Same hight, same experience, same gun strenght, Same Ammo (IIRC the 76mm had approx. the same power as 75L48)

awaiting your testresults Steve,

S.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The germans get plinked like tin cans.

I was trying to make a point about that but got little response from BTS. My feelings are that a hit by the US against the germans at that range is a kill. The germans ricochet alot of rounds off the shermans. The germans should be smalleer targets but dont seem to be.

These are my feelings from playing the sherm 76 vs PzIVL48 test about twenty times. Since I do not have the numbers BTS is using, I can only test and surmise.

Lewis

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

I searched around the net for a possible email address or web page for either Zaloga or Ness and came up with zilch. If you succed in contacting Zaloga on this I hope you will share what ever info he passes on. I think I will try Scott Cunningham to see if he has come across this table. Hell of a nice fellow and great web site:

http://www.wargamer.org/GvA/index.html <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

well he, is not keen on haveing his E-mail tossed around, & I'm not allowed to give it out, as far as I know he has never had a webpage. Of course I'd share anything he said that was pertinent to the chart.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-24-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

The germans get plinked like tin cans.

I was trying to make a point about that but got little response from BTS. My feelings are that a hit by the US against the germans at that range is a kill. The germans ricochet alot of rounds off the shermans. The germans should be smalleer targets but dont seem to be.

These are my feelings from playing the sherm 76 vs PzIVL48 test about twenty times. Since I do not have the numbers BTS is using, I can only test and surmise.

Lewis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have had results go both ways. But any hit by either, tank frontaly, should kill the other, an L/48 bounce on a Sherman should be a very rare occurnce as the L/48 penetrated the stock Sherman 75 & 76 to over 2000m with no problems & the Sherman 76 could do the same to the PzKpfw IV. The question I'd ask is what was the crew quality for both AFVs?.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Jeff Duquette]

PzKpfw 1:

Here are some links to Zalogas pages of concern. I scanned in the actual page, as well as the page before and after the table and posted them on one of my web pages. There is reference to table 6-1 (also an interesting table on Soviet tank losses relative to type of weapon inflicting loss) but nothing for the T34 loss relative to range of engagment table. I didn’t want to post them as images directly onto this thread because there width makes forum thread a pain to pan across.

http://www.geocities.com/tigervib_2000/Crap/Zaloga1.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/tigervib_2000/Crap/Zaloga2.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/tigervib_2000/Crap/Zaloga3.jpg

http://www.geocities.com/tigervib_2000/Crap/Zaloga4.jpg

[Guest Big Time Software]

OK, I just did my own Easy 8 vs. PzIV H test. Although I only tested 10 instances of one on one (which isn't enough) I do not see how anybody can claim that the Shermans utterly destroy the PzIVs. Quite the contrary. My findings show it is a dead even match, which it should be.

Test conditions...

1 Sherman Easy 8 facing 1 PzIV H

Regular crews

Flat terrain bounded by Tall Pines

About 1650m

60 second test, repeated 10 times

Results are as follows (M = miss, X = hit, R = ricochet):

1..Sherm..MM

.....PzIV....MX

2..Sherm..MMMMX

.....PzIV....MMMM

3..Sherm..MX

.....PzIV....MM

4..Sherm..M

.....PzIV....X

5..Sherm..MMX

.....PzIV....RMR

6..Sherm..MMMMX

.....PzIV....MMMMM

7..Sherm..MM

.....PzIV....MRX

8..Sherm..MMMMMX

.....PzIV....MMMMMM

9..Sherm..MMMMM

.....PzIV....MMMMM

10.Sherm..MMX

.....PzIV....RMM

Total shots - 68

Total Hits - 13

Avg Shot to hit - 5.2

% of kills in 3 shots or less - 60%

% of kills in 4 shots - 20%

% of kills in 5 or more shots - 20%

% first shots hit - 33.3%

% first shot hits German - 100%

# Shems Killed - 3

# PzIVs Killed - 6

# Sherms Shots Hit - 7

# PzIVs Shots Hit - 6

Conclusions - At this range, in sterile conditions, each side had roughly the same chance of hitting the other. The Germans showed a tendency to hit sooner than the Shermans. However, due to the good slope of the Sherman upper hull, the Sherman had a better chance of surviving a hit. 80% of all duels were decided in 5 shots or less.

Interested to know what people think about this

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I have had results go both ways. But any hit by either, tank frontaly, should kill the other, an L/48 bounce on a Sherman should be a very rare occurnce as the L/48 penetrated the stock Sherman 75 & 76 to over 2000m with no problems & the Sherman 76 could do the same to the PzKpfw IV. The question I'd ask is what was the crew quality for both AFVs?.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, from my experience in CM the Sherman76 is the far superior system as the L/48 seems only able to penetrate the Sherman's turret at long range, rarely, if ever, the hull whereas the 76 penetrates the MkIV easily.

I tested a Regular MkIVH against a Regular Sherman Easy8 at 1500m, flat open terrain, both stationary with initial HC of 14%. I ran it 10 times, not enough I know, but confirms my playing experience.

M=miss, K=kill, R=riccochet

1..Sher..MK

...MkIV..MM

2..Sher..MMMMK

...MkIV..RRMMM

3..Sher..MK

...MkIV..MM

4..Sher..MMMMMMMK

...MkIV..RMMMRRMR

5..Sher..MMK

...MkIV..MMK

6..Sher..MMMMK

...MkIV..MMMMM

7..Sher..MMK

...MkIV..MRM

8..Sher..MMK

...MkIV..MMR

9..Sher..MMK

...MkIV..RM

10.Sher..K

...MkIV..R

MkIV:

Total shots:34

Total hits: 11(10 riccochets off hull)

Kills: 1(thru turret)

Easy8:

Total shots:35

Total hits: 10

Kills: 10

I'm curious where the MkIV's kills were located in Steve's test.

Ron

[Guest Big Time Software]

Turret front and upper hull I think. I don't think it is possible for the the PzIV to penetrate the lower hull at 1600m.

The situation that gives the Allies a slight advantage in terms of lethality (note: lethality has NOTHING to do with accuracy) is as follows:

1. The practical abilities of both guns, at this range vs. each other, are almost an even match. The Germans have a slight advantage though. In my tests this was shown by having a greater chance of hitting on the first shot.

2. When you match the armor vs. the enemy's gun you can see that the Sherman can easily defeat lower, upper, and turret front armor of the PzIV. However, the PzIV can NOT defeat the lower hull armor of the Sherman and only just barely penetrate the upper hull. It can knock through the turret front armor OK, but this is a rather small % of the total target.

3. Ricochet potential - the chances of a Sherman bouncing a round off of the near vertical plate of the PzIV is practically nil. However, the PzIV has to contend with the fact that the largest portion of his frontal target is heavily sloped. Because of that, and the fact the armor is a good match for the gun, the chance of a hit "slipping" off is fairly good.

Overall... if the Sherman hits the PzIV it is almost assured a kill. However, if the PzIV hits the Sherman (roughly) 20% of the potential target will defeat the round, 50% will likely cause a ricochet, leaving only 30% (the turret) as an assured kill. So in an even shoot out, the PzIV has to hit 2-3 times as much to achieve the same kill results. And since the PzIV's gun is not 3x as good vs. the Sherman's, it should be clear why they don't fare so well in terms of lethality.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-24-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron:

Hmm, from my experience in CM the Sherman76 is the far superior system as the L/48 seems only able to penetrate the Sherman's turret at long range, rarely, if ever, the hull whereas the 76 penetrates the MkIV easily.

Ron

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very interesting results, this should not be occuring Pzgr.39 had no problems with the standard Sherman's armor, frontaly at any range according to combat reports, Ie, an 76mm Sherman was KO'd at 1800yrds by an PzKpfw IV, the round cleanly penetrated the glacis thru to the crew compartment.

When Shermans did survive it was found to be due to add on armor, Ie, layered sandbags across the glacis, 1 Sherman survived 3 glacis hits from an L/48 at 800yrds in a US Tank Bn.

Basicly a Sherman was dead at any range on the frontal arc, vs Pzgr.39 APCBC as was a PzKpfw IV vs a 76mm Sherman using AP-T who ever got the 1st hit decided the engagement.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[Guest Big Time Software]

John wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But any hit by either, tank frontaly, should kill the other, an L/48 bounce on a Sherman should be a very rare occurnce as the L/48 penetrated the stock Sherman 75 & 76 to over 2000m with no problems<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You forgot that the slope of the armor increases the chance of a deflection instead of a penetration. If the Sherman's armor was near verticle, then what you say is correct. But the Sherman's frontal armor is sloped at around 50 degrees, which is pretty steep.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

John wrote:

You forgot that the slope of the armor increases the chance of a deflection instead of a penetration. If the Sherman's armor was near verticle, then what you say is correct. But the Sherman's frontal armor is sloped at around 50 degrees, which is pretty steep.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can only go by what I've read Steve, the AA reports I've read never mention a glacis defelection on any German AT or tank gun, other then a 5.cm PAK & the 5.cm L/60.

Have you found any US reports that tell of an 7.5 cm lang deflection? all I've been able to find is sandbag effectivness statements, and that APCBC was less suceptible to slope deflection effects because it takes a direct shorter path thru the armor then AP-T, APCR-T, or APDS..

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

John wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Can only go by what I've read Steve, the AA reports I've read never mention a glacis defelection on any German AT or tank gun, other then a 50mm PAK & the 5.cm L/60. Have you found any US reports that tell of an 7.5 cm lang deflection? all I've been able to find is sandbag effectivness statements. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The absence of such reports doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, the 75 lang can certainly kill a Sherman from the front at long ranges, through the upper hull armor. There is only a chance of slippage. Also depends on the particular Sherman in question, as the slope and armor thickness varried by about 10mm and 10 deg between different models.

Also interested in how the sandbags could be responsible for aiding in the deflecting of AP rounds. We have had several lengthy discussions on the physics involved and it was very soundly concluded that they would have no tangible effect. There were some sources cited that agreed with that. These discussions were a while ago, so a Search would be necessary to dredge them up.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 10-24-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

John wrote:

You forgot that the slope of the armor increases the chance of a deflection instead of a penetration. If the Sherman's armor was near verticle, then what you say is correct. But the Sherman's frontal armor is sloped at around 50 degrees, which is pretty steep.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But I think what John is trying to say is that his understanding of AAR's and Real life WWII tank comabt leads him (and myself ) to believe the "L/48 penetrated the stock Sherman 75 &76 to over 2000m with no problems"

is that not correct John?

-tom w

[L.Tankersley]

John, I wonder if richochets wouldn't be underreported in AARs compared to penetrations?

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But I think what John is trying to say is that his understanding of AAR's and Real life WWII tank comabt leads him (and myself ) to believe the "L/48 penetrated the stock Sherman 75 &76 to over 2000m with no problems"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Against the frontal armor of something like the Easy 8? Sorry, I don't buy it. Against the side armor or perhaps other Sherman models that had less frontal armor, I don't see why not. But remember... the Sherman was not just one lump of metal that was constant throughout the war. It changed over time and was fielded in various forms all throughout the war. So a generalized statement like this must be taken with a grain of salt.

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

The absence of such reports doesn't mean it didn't happen. However, the 75 lang can certainly kill a Sherman from the front at long ranges, through the upper hull armor. There is only a chance of slippage. Also depends on the particular Sherman in question, as the slope and armor thickness varried by about 10mm and 10 deg between different models.

Also interested in how the sandbags could be responsible for aiding in the deflecting of AP rounds. We have had several lengthy discussions on the physics involved and it was very soundly concluded that they would have no tangible effect. There were some sources cited that agreed with that. These discussions were a while ago, so a Search would be necessary to dredge them up.

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, that was my point, when I said the reports I have read, & asking if you had read any bounce reports on the glacis.

Well the supplemental armor practice debate is a bit like the, dare I say it gyro effectiveness, some Sherman crews thought helped, others had no use for it, US Tankers Ie, the 743rd placed a very high value on sandbagging their Shermans & cited survival instances where German AT rounds failed and attributed it to the AP rounds encountering the sandbags on the glacis.

Are these instances fantasy or placeing false security in sandbags, I have no idea but those men lived & died in the Sherman and its clear they believed sandbagging helped & it's related their experiences.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

"We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the

German Royal Tiger come up on the field".

Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-24-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

John/Tom,

Also keep in mind that these test range results are artificial since there is no cover, no flank shots, and no element of surprise. All of these things would, in real life, swing the advantage to the tank in a pre-existing defensive position. I would suspect that the Germans would more often find themselves in such a position that the Allies, and therefore would have had more chances to take advantage of these factors.

Just some more thoughts

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

John wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are these instances fantasy or placeing false security in sandbags, I have no idea but those men lived & died in the Sherman and its clear they believed sandbagging helped & it's related their experiences. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but these same tankers thought wood, roadwheels, extra track, etc. had an effect. I think the evidence is clearly not in favor of these opinions. What I see is that a Sherman with some sandbags got lucky and the guy said "gee, it must have been the sandbags". If there was significant evidence that sandbags etc. helped defeat German AP rounds *all* tanks would have had this stuff loaded on. But in fact, it was a minority that did. On top of that, I am pretty sure that there were studies done that found that there was no appreciable benefit, but in fact made the tank more likely to break down or get stuck.

The science and the anecdotal evidence does not convince me that these extras did anything positive in terms of defeating AP rounds. Like I said, check out the previous discussions on this topic for more info.

Steve