Panther Vulnerability at Kursk

[Schrullenhaft]

Lewis - you're correct. That's what I get for using a quirky software calculator with weird keystrokes for calculating and not double-checking.

However... I still look like a math-imbecile.

Though I believe Russia has some of the largest deposits of tungsten in the world. What kind of availability was there for tungsten core ammo on the 45mm & 76.2mm anti-tank gun platforms ?

[Username]

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

[QB]

However... I still look like a math-imbecile.

QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You were only off by a factor of four.. Ive seen PHD "scientists" do absolutely STUPID crap and get paid 6 figures. Dont feel bad.

Lewis

[rexford]

76.2mm Russian APCR not available till October 1943, so none at Kursk.

Our figures for Russian APCR penetration are based on three data sources:

1. comparison of all published figures we can find

2. DeMarre estimates for all sizes from most valid figure (45mm would be estimated from 76.2mm, if 76.2mm looks the best)

3. Correlation with listed penetration ranges in Russian and German sources, which is usually (but not always) a calculation based on best available info.

We took what looked like the best after reviewing all three lists. At one time we had core diameters and weights for Russian tungsten core ammo, so DeMarre estimates were probably very good and they turned out close to other figures that seemed creditable.

[Geier]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Those Russians were some gamey bastards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. It was time for a new sig line.

[Roksovkiy]

The TDI has an informative thread about the The Panther losses, returns at Kusk.

http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000003.html

Was APCR available for the Russian 45mm guns during kursk.

[rexford]

45mm guns had APCR during Kursk battle.

[rexford]

If one looks closely at the Russian assessment of Panther penetrations at Kursk, see where they assume 85mm for Panther glacis and 65mm for nose.

We always assumed that Russians measured alot of Panthers and found that the actual thicknesses were greater than 80mm and 60mm.

Brits use 85mm and 65mm, Americans use same. Seems only the Germans regularly used 80mm and 60mm.

This is what we found when we went over actual measured thicknesses on German tanks with 80mm and 60mm armor, the actual thickness was much larger (and greater than the 5% max allowable deviation that the specifications supposedly imposed).

[Jeff Duquette]

Over thickened production plate correlates well with both German manufacturing specs (typically production plate in excess of I think 30mm or thicker…nominal thickness would be accepted if plate was nominal thickness or up to 5% more of nominal).

In addition each production lot of armor plate was subjected to random ballistic testing. And although thickness tolerance had to be adhered to for the test (i.e. nominal or plus 5% or 6% thicker), apparently only nominal thickness of plate was indicated in ballistic test results (This according to the extensive acceptance specifications laid out in BIOS).

In addition, as the war progressed critical alloy availability decreased, plate hardness was also reduced. HOWEVER! SPECIFICATIONS ON BALLISTIC TEST ACCEPTENCE CRITERIA FOR PRODUCTION PLATE REMAINDED THE SAME (oophs…sorry was I shouting? ). This could imply that armor manufacturers were deliberately over thickening plate in order to pass various stringent acceptance criteria.