Update on Armor Penetration Book

[rexford]

April publishing date was missed due to some receipt of some really great info on Tiger mantlet, which allows us to annotate a drawing of the mantlet with the thicknesses, including the recessed areas for vision openings. We have access to German manual on Tiger mantlet.

We also found a single equation that describes slope multipliers for all APCBC rounds (over 37mm) as a function of angle and T/D ratio. Another equation describes AP ammo. And a series of equations relates APBC blunt nose slope effects.

Biggest problem is nothing on Russian APBC penetration of face-hardened armor, which hurts. PzKpfw III, IV, V and VIb carry face-hardened armor on no data for majority of Russian armor piercing rounds. Inquiries on numerous sites were not productive. Anyone live close enough to Kubinka to look in their records?

Book will include armor specs for alot of tanks, designating cast, face-hardened, flawed and layered armor. Remember the Churchill thread some time back, how the armor around the MG on Churchill IV-VI was actually two 89mm plates on top of 13mm? Those Churchills can survive Panther hits at close range if the round lands on the thick, layered armor (has CM changed the Churchill nose armor yet to include the 20° angle, they show 0°).

Turns out that layered armor may be more resistant than a single plate of same thickness if certain ratio's are met, and our book will present data on this.

Book will also discuss validity of American penetration estimates for 75mm and 76mm APCBC when figures exceed TM9-1907, like CM. TM9-1907 has 90mm penetration for 75 APCBC at 0m, CM has 99mm at 100m. Makes a difference when Tigers are being hunted, due to 500m penetration of 80mm armor in TM requiring a perpendicular hit, CM allowing 500m penetration of 80mm at 20° lateral angle.

Plus the book will go into shatter gap, where 76mm with 120mm penetration shatters on 102mm armor due to nose overstressing.

We have prepared what we feel is the best single source on WW II armor resistance and projectile penetration.

Oh, book will not include anti-tank rifles and bazooka/PIAT type weapons.

[jgdpzr]

Sounds great, I'm sure Lewis will be the first to place an order.

But continue to keep us posted as to availability, I know I am interested.

[André]

Rexford, who are "we"?

Heinz

[WineCape]

A *bump* to the booklet, NOT to the over-explained "we" rexford!

Let us know when you have a firm print/publish date.

Best wishes

Charl Theron

[kipanderson]

Rexford, hi,

all sounds great. I will be after one when it is out.

All the best,

Kip.

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: kipanderson ]

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg:

Rexford, who are "we"?

Heinz<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have been assimilated. We are one.

[LimShady]

Where can we pick this up when it gets published?

Chris

[Mattias]

Put me up for a copy too! Looking forward to it.

M.

[rexford]

"Rexford" is Lorrin Bird, and the rest of "we" is Robert Livingston.

Numbered Collector Edition autographed copies will be reserved for those with the most responses to my posts, and a special suprise bonus for those who repeatedly posted similar messages.

We expect to charge about $25 postpaid for the book, in U.S. funds.

Thanks for nice comments.

[aka_tom_w]

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

"Rexford" is Lorrin Bird, and the rest of "we" is Robert Livingston.

Numbered Collector Edition autographed copies will be reserved for those with the most responses to my posts, and a special suprise bonus for those who repeatedly posted similar messages.

We expect to charge about $25 postpaid for the book, in U.S. funds.

Thanks for nice comments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

count me In I know the book does not real with "superior German gunnery optics" but I'm keen to have a copy anyway.

I suspect it will come in handy about the same time the CM2 is shipping !

-tom w

[Freak]

Count me in Rexford.

[ASL Veteran]

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

"Rexford" is Lorrin Bird, and the rest of "we" is Robert Livingston.

Numbered Collector Edition autographed copies will be reserved for those with the most responses to my posts, and a special suprise bonus for those who repeatedly posted similar messages.

We expect to charge about $25 postpaid for the book, in U.S. funds.

Thanks for nice comments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does that mean that if I say that I want one in three different posts in this same thread that I can get an autographed copy?

[John Kettler]

rexford, (also attention BTS and troops)

Having assiduously read every post you've made as long as I've been on this board, and actually having understood most of them (am a former military analyst, but not a physicist,ME, or metallurgist) it fairly warps my mind to think what you plan on cramming between the covers of your (jointly and severally) book. Should be quite a read. Please be sure to include a detailed glossary and as many pertinent illustrations as you can manage. These will be of great help to interested but not super technical readers. Now for some good news.

I have a source which may help you with your lack of standardized Soviet gun penetration data. Are you familiar with ANTITANK WARFARE, by G. Biryukov and G. Melnikov? It was published originally by Progress Publishers in Moscow in 1972 and reprinted in 1973. I have the English translation. Both authors were Candidates in Military Science, basically Ph.Ds. G. Biryukov was a real heavyweight, a major general in artillery; his colleague was a colonel. I believe it's safe to assert that the book was considered authoritative when published.

The book is about modern antitank warfare, but it looks at its development through a historical and military-technical lens. Not only is the book full of weapon performance graphs, for example, Soviet guns at the start of Barbarossa from 37mm AA all the way through 107mm against fronts and sides of German tanks Mks. I-IV at 500m and 90 degree strike angle, but it also goes into things like guns lost by type per tank killed, mine and obstacle effectiveness, use of artillery and air against tanks and the organization and structure of the antitank defense. There are even passages concerning Katyusha use in direct fire against tanks. In other words, the book speaks directly to weapon effectiveness and is the distillation, if you will, of Soviet combat and operational research during and after the War. It gets into things like number of shots fired and the number of hits necessary to disable a tank at different times during the war, specifically addressing the effect of heavy German armor on the hapless 45mm AT gun.

There are antitank weapon performance trend graphs which show penetration plots against armor thickness as a function of time, with schematics of how the antitank defenses were organized at different periods of the war and

lots of good historical examples taken from combat experience during the war, some of which have useful drawings to better make the

authors' points.

Judging from my review, while this book certainly isn't the final word on Soviet gun performance against German face hardened tank armor, it does give you several common baseline sets of performance data good for Barbarossa and Kursk, covering Mks I-IV for the former and Mks III-VI (Tiger I) plus the Ferdinand for the latter.

Careful reading of the text will also tease out such useful bits as performance improvements gained on certain dates by modernizing equipment, the effect of new projectiles, dates of effective weapon obsolescence and much more.

If you're currently somewhere in the data basement levels, this book should at least get you to ground level and put you in a position to make some real comparisons, since I presume you already know the shell/shot weights and the muzzle velocities for a whole bunch of guns.

Since the gun performance plots are tied to specific dates, it shouldn't be all that hard to pick the appropriate German models within a given type. For example, at Kursk you would have only Panther Ausf. Ds to consider, and you probably have a pretty good handle on German metallurgy for the Panther by now, at various periods of the War.

Within limits, the same method could be applied to other tanks at the times specified. Thus, you could pick the common variants in use at the chosen dates, run some first order calculations, then see how the results you get stack up against what the Soviets are saying their weapon performance was. This provides an extremely useful cross check against the penetration data Valera Potapov has on his site in the Artillery section and potentially could even allow you to figure out what material and hardness the Soviets were using in their test targets.

I strongly suggest you get in touch with Valera Potapov or find yourself someone who understands military-technical Russian or is a quick study when armed with the appropriate glossary of Soviet military terminology, such as TM 30-544, Glossary of Soviet Military Terminology English-Russian/Russian-English, Department of the Army, May 1955, because there are tons of data in Russian on every aspect of the War. I own, for example, a Russian book which chronicles the development and use of Russian and Soviet artillery well past the War, has lots of photos, line art, schematics, fire plans and other juicy material. Winging it, since I have no idea how to type Cyrillic here, its title is OTEYECTBEHHAR (R reversed) ARTILLERIYA (I remember that part and transformed it) 600 Let, or "something ARTILLERY: 600 Years."

I got this from Victor Kamkin in Rockville, Maryland. He used to be the official importer of all Soviet produced books into the U.S. Rockwell, my then employer, was one of a handful of companies which had standing orders

for certain types of Soviet military books. I simply picked what I wanted, piggybacked it onto the company's order, then reimbursed the firm, a process immeasurably aided by the presences of an ex-Defense Intelligence Agency analyst working on his Ph.D in Russian Area Studies at Georgetown. His dissertation? History of Soviet Air Defense. The guy's cubicle was hip deep in Russian language military periodicals. Too bad you don't have him around!

I hope you find this useful to you in your fascinating researches and that the Amatol composition I provided before the board switch was also of benefit.

Sincerely,

John Kettler

[Nabla]

Sounds very interesting. Should you perhaps email this message also directly to BTS? I don't know if they follow every thread.

[Dittohead]

Sounds like Rexford will need a second volume

to cover CM2. :cool:

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

rexford, (also attention BTS and troops)

I have a source which may help you with your lack of standardized Soviet gun penetration data. Are you familiar with ANTITANK WARFARE, by G. Biryukov and G. Melnikov? It was published originally by Progress Publishers in Moscow in 1972 and reprinted in 1973. I have the English translation. Both authors were Candidates in Military Science, basically Ph.Ds. G. Biryukov was a real heavyweight, a major general in artillery; his colleague was a colonel. I believe it's safe to assert that the book was considered authoritative when published.

The book is about modern antitank warfare, but it looks at its development through a historical and military-technical lens. Not only is the book full of weapon performance graphs, for example, Soviet guns at the start of Barbarossa from 37mm AA all the way through 107mm against fronts and sides of German tanks Mks. I-IV at 500m and 90 degree strike angle, but it also goes into things like guns lost by type per tank killed, mine and obstacle effectiveness, use of artillery and air against tanks and the organization and structure of the antitank defense. There are even passages concerning Katyusha use in direct fire against tanks. In other words, the book speaks directly to weapon effectiveness and is the distillation, if you will, of Soviet combat and operational research during and after the War. It gets into things like number of shots fired and the number of hits necessary to disable a tank at different times during the war, specifically addressing the effect of heavy German armor on the hapless 45mm AT gun.

John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This certainly sounds like a good read I wonder where I can get a hold of a copy?

Lorrin , I recal that Kip Anderson reported on this board a year ago that he go ahold of a 1000 page british post war report on Russian weapon performance...try asking him?

[John Kettler]

Paul,

I think I inherited mine from a deceased fellow analyst at Rockwell, but I'm by no means sure, for that was long ago. I don't know where you live, but there are several things you could try, including eBay, the Russian embassy, Victor Kamkin, book search services, contacting the Library of Congress to see about a discarded copy. If you live anywhere near Washington, D.C. or can get there it would be worth your while to haunt the used bookshops, for they contain all sorts of Cold War treasures. I lived in Fairfax Station, Virginia, and the used bookstore near me had far more info junkie goodies than I had money.

That British report you mention would probably be of great value to rexford's work.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Bumping this one in hopes that we'll get some sort of response from rexford before this thread sinks out of sight.

Regards,

John Kettler

[rexford]

We have good data for Russian homogeneous penetration, but the book with penetration ranges sounds like a possible answer for face-hardened performance. If the curves are based on firing tests or combat reports, instead of some calculations made 500 miles from the front.

Thanks for the lead.

[rexford]

What would be a good start would be penetration ranges against the front of some 1942 and 1943 panzers by a limited number of guns, say:

45mm and 76.2mm guns

PzKpfw IIIH, IIIJ, IVF2/G and IVH.

1942 penetration ranges would cover IIIH and IIIJ and IVF2/G, 1943 would cover IVH and reinforced IVG.

Would it be possible to have a small amount of data posted, since it may indicate whether homogeneous penetration data is acceptable against face-hardened, or requires adjustment.

Thanks.

[rexford]

In general, AP rounds without armor piercing caps penetrate less face-hardened armor than homogeneous. Armor piercing caps sit on the projectile shoulders with a little air space just above the nose, when the round hits face-hardened armor the impact is spread over the ammo shoulders instead of being concentrated on the nose.

Since face-hardened armor defeats hits by shattering the nose before it digs in too far, anything that protects the nose is good.

Ballistic windshield caps are too light, and too far from the projectile nose and shoulder, to do much.

Anyway, Russian APBC does not have an armor piercing cap, but it does have a blunt nose which greatly increases the impact forces on the face-hardened layer (which is brittle). So we guess that Russian APBC penetrates about the same face-hardened as homogeneous, maybe more for 76.2 because blunt nose is higher percentage of total width.

The Russian Battlefield site has a report on captured Panthers at Kursk with some penetration data. Info suggests that 76.2 penetrates more face-hardened than homogenous armor.

That is all we know at this point. Not much.

Since Eastern Front matches Russian APBC ammo against a horde of face-hardened armor carrying panzers (cept for a few like Tiger E), it becomes a guessing game. The most important front has the least accurate data.

[Username]

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

"Rexford" is Lorrin Bird, and the rest of "we" is Robert Livingston.

Numbered Collector Edition autographed copies will be reserved for those with the most responses to my posts, and a special suprise bonus for those who repeatedly posted similar messages.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since you often have the most responses to your own posts; what do you win? Will you make a speech like:

"We have decided to give me (Half of we), the winner of the prestigious "Postus Oftenimous" a self autographed copy numbered 1". "And as a surprise additional bonus to meself, we have decided to throw in a signed autographed copy of a color poster of me to me (half of we)."

By the way. Is the book going to only be about armor penetration or will you finally explain your vertical dispersion data/theories?

Lewis

[John Kettler]

rexford (also BTS and troops)

Interpolating from the 1943 Kursk plot in the referenced book (fig. 9, p 44), I get the following values for 500m, perpendicular strike:

M1942 45mm gun AP shell 44mm

AP shot 70mm

APCR 80mm

The M1942 (AP shell) thus defeats the side armor of Mks III (30mm), IV (40mm) and V (44mm), matching it in the last example, while failing to penetrate any of the listed tanks frontally. The Mk III (50mm), IV (60mm), and V (86mm) are effectively immune frontally.

The M1942 (AP shot), by contrast, cleanly defeats frontal and side armor for Mks III and IV, plus the side armor of the V. It still fails against the front, nor is it enough to get through the VI's side armor (80mm).

The M1942 (APCR) cleaves the Mks III and IV, punches through the V's side armor, still no frontal penetration, matches the VI's side armor and is a few mm shy of piercing the Ferdinand's 85mm side armor.

This is an example of what's in the book. This particular chart goes all the way through 122mm gun.

Will post more if my fried brain permits.

Regards,

John Kettler

[rexford]

Thanks for data sample. AP shot usually penetrates about 12% more than shell, Russian data shows giant difference. 70 vs 44.

Data does not appear to differentiate between face-hardened and homogeneous armor penetration, PzKpfw III side armor is homogeneous, PzKpfw IV and V side is face-hardened.

Maybe Russians didn' test against face-hardened armor, although some quoted figures for anti-tank rifle penetration state that it is against case hardened armor.

Thanks for data.

[John Kettler]

rexford (BTS & troops),

I just lost the longer version of this reply when I hopped briefly to get a URL I needed. I'll therefore summarize:

Contact the Russian embassy and ask for the military attache. Explain to him that you are

looking for documentation on direct fire weapon performance data and technical characteristics (called by Russian military types tactical-technical characteristics) against armor during the Great Patriotic War . Ask for referrals to and assistance in contacting the appropriate museums, proving grounds, archives, military schools (probably the Frunze Academy among them), former design bureaus. etc.

FYI, the Soviet era OKBs (design bureaus) for artillery development were in Perm. This was true for tank cannon, field artillery and, I believe, aircraft cannon. Valera Potapov's site has information on the cannon developments for tanks under the individual tanks (T-34 = Filipov for longer 76mm, for example), and I think has the same information in the Artillery section for antitank guns.

Another approach would be to contact www.milparade.com an online and hardcopy magazine devoted to Russian weapon development. Many of the articles (written by the leading Russian authorities) available have historical sections, but more importantly, the whole site is tied to Russian weapon exports. Hence, the people who run it just might be disposed to help you and can certainly connect you with the movers and shakers in the military, academia and the now private weapon design bureaus, the very connections you need to quickly pull together the data you seek. The data assuredly exist somewhere, for the Russians have a mania for record keeping which rivals the Germans.

Another idea is to contact Russian veterans' associations like the ones whose banners are on Valera's sites. The pool of surviving AT and tank gunners from the War dwindles by the day. I believe much of great value could be gleaned in this way.

Will have more later

Regards,

John Kettler