T34 Vulnerability

[rexford]

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.

[:USERNAME:]

The WWII bazooka had the same problems in Korea that it had in WWII against sloped armor like the panthers. They were known to ricochet off sloped armor without detonating.

[Jeff Duquette]

Rex:

Here is another AAR. Early war encounter between T34/76’s and MkIII with the short 50mm.

From: K. Macksey, “Tank vs. Tank”

This was what the AFVs of General Katukov's 4th Tank Brigade had been waiting for. Moving forward on the night of the 5th/6th to concealed positions among the woods fronting Woin, they were content to allow the Germans to advance beyond the crest before opening heavy and accurate 76mm fire. Having measured the range at leisure, they at once scored hits and kills, easily penetrating the German armor at ranges in excess of 800m, but safe against shot from the short German 50mm guns, which glanced off their thick and well-sloped armor. The unequal duel was of short duration. The German tanks retired first to hull-down positions and then back down the slope, abiding by doctrine and a technical superiority which prescribed that high-velocity field artillery could best kill tanks. But the two 88 mm guns by no means had it all their own way. No sooner had they opened fire from the crest, and each in turn claimed a victim, than they were put out of action by high-explosive from the tanks' guns, leaving the direct anti-tank defense of the river line to the battery of 105 mm howitzers of the 103rd Artillery Regiment and one 100 mm gun.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I have never heard of a single confirmed kill by 75L43 on the front hull of a T-34 beyond 1000 meters, using the standard PzGr-39 ammo (which outnumbers all other types produced by several orders of magnitude, so "averaging up" arguments about specialized 75mm ammo are quite beside the point). If any one has, please present it.

Personally, I find the German combat practice of firing at 600-800 meters compelling. I doubt very much that the L43, or even the L48, penetrated the T-34 glacis from the front, with hull hits, at distances beyond 1 km, and using standard ammo. I find the speculation to the contrary being offered here, exceedingly thin.

Incidentally, almost all the StuGs had the L48, not the L43 gun. The L43 is found on the Pz IV F2, and the early Pz IV Gs, built mostly in 1942, when StuG production was still low, because Pz IIIs were still being made. By 1943, the new tanks had the longer L48, and that is when Pz III production stops, and StuG production consequently takes off.

What do I think 1 T-34 KO'ed at 1000 meters by 3 hits means? I think the fact that the commander bothered to report it is meaningful. It means he thought the kill was rare at that distance, and he almost certainly was using the L48 gun. He does not say all three shots were from the front, and I suspect that 2 of the shots did not penetrate, and the 3rd did - side shot, weak spot, near a former hit, luck of the angle on the turret, or just because the kill was marginal but possible at that distance.

I sincerely doubt if every L48 shot routinely went through the glacis at that range, that he would have had anything particular to report. He gave no such details about the other 16 T-34s his unit took out, other than the range being 600-800 meters. I suspect the penetration was reasonably reliable at those ranges, and he knew it, and that is why the tactics were as they were, and his report was as it was.

Incidentally, the turret armor is thicker, but nothing like as sloped as the glacis. And portions of it present less slope than other portions. It is entirely plausible that occasional hits *on the turret*, at longer range, got in. The ones that happened to not get too high an angle.

Here is another item of info, a German order-announcement on combating the T-34, dated 1942 -

On 26 May 1942 the General der Schnellen Truppen beim Oberkommando des Heeres distributed the following "Instructions to units on the Eastern Front for Combating the Russian T-34 Tank with our Panzers":

"Characteristics of the T34.

The T-34 is faster, more maneuverable, has better cross-country mobility than our Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV. Its armor is stronger. The penetrating ability of its 7.62 cm cannon is superior to our 5 cm KwK. and the 7.5 cm KwK40. The favorable form of sloping all of the armor plates aids in causing the shells to skid off.

Combating the T-34 with the 5 cm KwK tank gun is possible only at short ranges from the flank or rear, where it is important to achieve a hit as perpendicular to the surface as possible. Hits on the turret ring, even with high-explosive shells or machine gun bullets, usually result in jamming the turret. In addition, armor-piercing shells fired at close range that hit the gun mantle result in penetrations and breaking open the weld seams. **The T-34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000 metres with the 7.5 cm PaK 40** as well as the 7.5 cm Hohlgranate (hollow-charge shells)."

Emphasis added. The PAK 40 is the 75mmL48 gun, of course.

Incidentally, here is another passage from the same, about fighting with with 50mm Pz IIIs -

"Because the 5 cm KwK can only be expected to penetrate the flanks of the T34 at short range, the following tactics have proven been to be correct in combating them:

a. Attract and tie down the opponent frontally by having a Pz.Kpfw.III take up the firefight. Choose a hull down position or drive in a zig-zag course to make it difficult for the opponent to hit the target.

b. At the same time, utilizing all available cover, two other Pz.Kpfw.llls attempt to circumvent the T34 to the right or left in order to gain a position in the flank or in the rear and knock him out at short range with PzGr40 fired at the hull or rear."

Sound familiar to any of the Sherman drivers out there? LOL. Also, notice the 50mm use do PzGr40, rather than PzGr39. The Germans made more than 1 million PzGr40 for the 50mm, compared to tiny numbers of it for 75mm. From the sides, the PzGr40 fired by a 50mmL60 should have done the job at ranges of 500 meters or less. The 50mmL42 would need a particularly flat hit, or to be even closer.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

P.S. You know, there is a reason the Germans developed the L70 gun for the Panther. And it didn't have anything to do with Churchills.

[Jeff Duquette]

S. Zaloga in “T34/76 Medium Tank” indicates the T34/76 could be defeated frontally by the long 50mm KwK 39 @ ranges up to 500m.

K. Macksey in “Tank vs. Tank” indicates the MkIIIJ could defeat the T34/76 frontally at ranges up to 500m. He also indicates that the MkIVF could defeat the T34/76 frontally out to ranges of 2,000m.

Gefreiter Rudolf Meckl, Panzer Regiment 35 of the 4th Panzer Division discusses the time in which his unit first received “Long Barreled” MkIVF’s, Early Spring 1943 (From: Byran Perrett’s Panzerkampfwagon IV, 1936 – 1945). He refers to this Panzer upgrade as the beginning of “The Happy Times for us Panzer Crews” (a reference to Meckel’s unit finally being able to deal with Red Army tanks on a more level playing field.)

Jentz in PanzerTruppen 1 indicates the 50mm L/60 (Pzgr 38) could only defeat the T34/76 via turret front hits at ranges of less than 400m. The T34/76 hull is indicated as involunerable at all ranges.

Jentz also goes on to indicate the 75mm KwK40 L/43 (Pzgr 39) could defeat the T34/76 from all angles of attack out to ranges of 1,200m. He also indicates the following:

“The T34 that was far superior to the German Panzers up to the beginning of the Spring of 1942 is now inferior to the German long 50mm KwK L/60 and 75mm KwK40 L/43 tank guns. After the Russians attacked the German Panzer Forces in several battles with the T34 and received heavy losses, they did’nt send the T34 tank against the German Panzers so long as there was a chance to withdrawl.”

Jeremejewska, February 1943 is a good example of MKIVF’s tearing a T34 formation a new A-hole (the German Kampfgruppe @ Jeremejewska was lead by none other than Kurt Meyer).

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

On the long 50mm vs. T-34 stories, do your sources specify the ammo they mean? Do they specify the hit location they mean?

I do not doubt that German tankers were happy to get the L43, because I think it was the first gun they got that could reliably kill the T-34 from the front, with standard ammo.

The claim that the L43 could KO the T-34 from "any angle, out to 1200 meters", I find contradicted by - German training documents, tactical doctrine, and published mm penetration numbers. Unless they mean 75mm HEAT or something.

I also do not doubt that German formations beat T-34 formations even with Pz IIIs, let alone with Pz IVs. But unlike some people, I do not subscribe a bit to the technical dominance story (or myth) about WW II AFV combat. I think skill, and especially the use of the tanks well above the single tank duel level, had much more to do with wins and losses than front plate penetration analysis.

I see nothing out of place, for instance, in the StuG history I cited, in which 9 vehicles that could only reliably kill their opponents around 800 meters, still accounted for 18 tanks plus 2 more immobilized.

I do have my doubts that certain wanna be modern panzer drivers in games, could duplicate the performance against a blind grandmother on a bad day, without the crutch of inflated technical specs, compared to their real historical counterparts - but that is another matter altogether.

[Paul Lakowski]

Jason; Panthers often didn't open fire on T-34s until 600-800 m range, this was more of a doctrine issue.

The German warfighting Doctrine is based on shock , so you wait until the enemy gets into a range where you can rapidly inflict massive kills and break his position.

Rexford the issue of modern ballistic test over WW-II is a moot point , they have always done this. I have a number of example where they compare test data to WW-II projectile plate interactions and no one ever makes a big deal about the distinction.

Metallugy has improved but the difference may be much smaller than you think.

BTW : 1 hit in 3 penetrating @ 1000m range is not a problem as the Ballistic limit of 1000-1200m range implies a 50-50 penetration and 3 shots is far to small of a sample to go on ...all it takes is the target to shift its position once so its more sloped and the shot ricochets off.

[This message has been edited by Paul Lakowski (edited 04-01-2001).]

[rexford]

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).

[Jeff Duquette]

Jason:

All available data in my above ref’s has been provided. Only Jentz provided ammunition types and hit locations. Presumably the General der Schnellen ref you quoted was taken from Jentz Panzertruppen 1. Proceed about 3 or 4 more pages on and you will find the info I provided above.

Rex:

I am assuming that what you are really trolling for here is German East Front Field test firing reports ala the US 1st Army Isigny tests? Hmmm. Have you inquired with the folks at The Russian Military Zone?

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Rexford, I appreciate and applaud your efforts to pin down the effect of the armor hardness on the effective range. I simply suggest that there isn't much mystery about the actual answer, because the assessments of the contemporaries and the tactics adopted by both sides leave little room for it. Those items, it seems to me, provide a useful cross check for the stuff you are trying to model.

When the German panzer force staffers and the Russian reports both say the effective penetration range was 1 km, and tactically, the Russians try to keep the range 1200 meters, and the Germans try to get the range to 800 meters and report numerous kills when they manage it - where is the room for (large scale, anyway) mystery?

Yes, the rounds cannot possibly be bouncing half the time at 500 meters. So the technical details of armor hardness, or the drivers hatch, or whatever, obviously matters. But no, they cannot amount to regular penetrations at 1500 meters, because the information from the contemporaries, and the tactics adopted, simply will not support that conclusion, no matter how many angels dance which way to suggest it.

The tactical and assessment data ought to help you constrain your model of the effectives of armor hardness, which it seems to me has considerably more "play" left in it, than the tactical history info. I know that there will be side angles, of course. The Germans aren't opening at 1000 meters, either.

Incidentally, I'd be very interested in your thoughts on 75mm HEAT vs. the T-34. There is considerable confusion in the ammo types actually available, and their penetration properties.

For whatever reason, the Germans went on a 75mm HEAT kick in the mid war, and made several million rounds of the stuff in 1942-1943. After 1943, they lose interest. That neatly coincides with the time period between facing the T-34 and fielding the Panther.

In the 1941 battles, the two reliable ways the Germans had to kill a T-34, were AP from 88mm FLAK and HEAT from 105mm howitzer.

If the armor is extremely hard, that makes HEAT much less effective, right? Were the Germans throwing 75mm HEAT at ranges beyond 1 km? I bet they at least tried it.

So the Russians don't really want soft armor, because they are worried about reducing the effective range of the best enemy shell. Go soft, and maybe the PzGr39 is stopped down into somewhat closer ranges. But then perhaps the HEAT would get them at 1500-2000 meters - bad move. But make the armor hard, and the HEAT is marginal or ineffective (from the front), and the PzGr only gets them at 1000 meters.

The Germans might still want the HEAT for long range shots at the flanks, or the off chance of a turret hit with a good angle.

For what it is worth...

[Claus B]

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

Incidentally, I'd be very interested in your thoughts on 75mm HEAT vs. the T-34. There is considerable confusion in the ammo types actually available, and their penetration properties.

Can you elaborate on this confusion?

Penetration stats for the different Gr.38 Hl types seems fairly consistent and introduction dates for the different models can to a large extent be deduced from various combat reports.

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

For whatever reason, the Germans went on a 75mm HEAT kick in the mid war, and made several million rounds of the stuff in 1942-1943. After 1943, they lose interest. That neatly coincides with the time period between facing the T-34 and fielding the Panther.

In the 1941 battles, the two reliable ways the Germans had to kill a T-34, were AP from 88mm FLAK and HEAT from 105mm howitzer.

Dont forget the 10cm K18 - it appears they actually fired more AP rounds in 1941 than did the 8,8cm Flak.

Originally posted by jasoncawley@ameritech.net:

If the armor is extremely hard, that makes HEAT much less effective, right? Were the Germans throwing 75mm HEAT at ranges beyond 1 km? I bet they at least tried it.

So the Russians don't really want soft armor, because they are worried about reducing the effective range of the best enemy shell. Go soft, and maybe the PzGr39 is stopped down into somewhat closer ranges. But then perhaps the HEAT would get them at 1500-2000 meters - bad move. But make the armor hard, and the HEAT is marginal or ineffective (from the front), and the PzGr only gets them at 1000 meters.

The Germans might still want the HEAT for long range shots at the flanks, or the off chance of a turret hit with a good angle.

While 7,5cm KwK 40 Gr.38 Hl/x could be used at long range, it was fired at an M/V of only 450 m/s which cannot have been good for accuracy.

Still, gunnery manuals suggest that Gr.38 Hl/x could be used at range up to about 1000-1200 meters at which point bracketing would be necessary.

On the other hand, combat reports suggests that Gr.38 Hl/x was to inaccurate at ranges beyond 500-800 meters, resulting in high ammunition expenditure in order to achieve a result.

If Gr. 38 Hl/x was really an improvement over the PzGr. 39 at longer ranges, why terminate production at a point in time when the 7,5cm PaK/KwK 40 was beginning to lack in punch (1944/45)?

Claus B

[mensch]

how come my glacis at 88 degrees hurts everytime I come in these Grog threads and read them?

-----------

www.derkessel.com Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

"So if it is a coy of flamethowers lighting up everything in sight like a Mongolian barbecue chef gone postal, and your opponent is OK with it, PLAY ON!"

-The_Capt

[Paul Lakowski]

Originally posted by rexford:

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.

So do modern test with variations in hardness and resistance being consistant with historical WW-II variations.

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.

There are scaling laws that govern this too but the end result often appears to be similar to your figures.

For example , with Jeffs velocity figures for 75L48 , I got a 50-50 penetration @ 1000 meters against 45mm RHA @ 60o. When I factor in an adjustment for T/d Vs 400BHN plate [ 94%] I get 75l48 penetrating @ just over 1600m

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.

[Padre]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

One frequently overlooked fact about the T-34/76 is that it had a two-man turret with the commander having to carry out gun control tasks as well as "fighting" the tank through the battlefield. This meant that the TC in a '76 was busier than a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

CM2 will have to find a way to adequately model this unique failing of the basic T-34 design as it is easily overlooked.

Hardly unique. Two-man turret was a quite common pre-WW2 design. Besides, it is not a failing. It is a trade-off. Tank designing is an exersise in a compromise. T-34 had arguably the smallest turret that can still hold a 3" gun. Smaller presentable target should compensate for its slower rate of fire more or less. Oversized T-34/85 turret looks ridiculously huge on the same hull.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

To Claus B -

Yes, I can elaborate on the confusion. Incidentally, the accuracy and range figures in practical use are very welcome information about this puzzle. The more you have on it that is definite - e.g. training info or combat reports on the ranges to use the slow HEAT - the better.

Part of the confusion is terminology. Some sources mentioned a KwK-38 round, and it is not clear if this is a general reference to all forms of Gr38 HEAT, or a different type of round. It is also not clear whether it refers to a HEAT round or what. One source I've seen said there was such a round with a 1.3 kg bursting charge, which is frankly not very credible. That is twice the size of the bursting charges listed for all the other types of 75mm HEAT.

Then there is the issue of the A-C varieties of GR38 HL. Some sources have no specs on the C variety. Some sources say that the C variety could be fired from the 75L24, and others say that it wasn't, without making clear if this was in practice or by the shell design. It is unclear which sources are right. I have not seen data on the actual dates of combat introduction of each round, which it seems you have - it would be welcome. I also have not seen any data on the critical question of how many were made of each, and actually supplied, to the towed guns, the panzers, the StuGs, the Marders, and when.

Without such production run info it is not possible to estimate the real effectiveness it might have had in the field, since the A type is hopeless against the T-34, the B is marginal and probably needs flank or turret hits, while the C ought to be effective unless it got a poor angle.

Also, if is not clear how angle and hardness issues changed HEAT penetration in practice. Combat reports give good results with 105mm HEAT, certainly, and that is confirmed by later reports (e.g. Korea) and easily believable from technical specs. We know the Schreck, with an 88mm HEAT round, penetrated them.

But the practical effectiveness of 75mm HEAT is much harder to pin down. The Germans were making the stuff, and presumably not on a lark. But against 60 degree slope very hard armor, plus side angles, the B type for instance seems likely to have been ineffective. (I've seen it rated as able to penetrate 75mm at 30 degrees, but variations by hardness and slope aren't so readily available). U.S. reports on 75mm HEAT from recoilless rifles in Korea are in the negative, but the rounds may be quite different, and the targets T-34/85 not T-34/76.

On the issue of why they would stop making it, there are three obviously possibilities. It may be that it was only effective, for reasons of accuracy, down to ranges that were exceeded by the PzGr39 fired from the 75L48, while still being useful as late as the 75L43. This is somewhat doubtful, though, since the penetration of those two types is so close, beyond the closest ranges.

The second possibility is that it was being lobbed at ranges at which PzGr was ineffective, but needed rare turret hits, and was abandoned because that involved high ammo use exactly as you described, or perhaps after the Russians uparmored the turret front.

The third possibility, that I myself consider the most likely, is simply that the availability of the Panther changed tactical doctrine. The Russians were no longer trying to stay out as 1.2-1.5 km ranges, because they would get picked off by superior long range guns without being able to reply effectively. They needed to close and increase angles along the line to get flank shots themselves. This brought them down into the effective range of the 75L48s on the other Germans AFVs.

It is true that the Russians might have continued to try standoff tactics when Panthers were not present, but I consider it quite likely that they simply did not make such distinctions, tending to lack the local info about the types faced, and just switched their doctrine to "close", more or less in all circumstances.

If so, there would have been no role for a round inferior to the PzGr39 at close ranges. Obviously, the kill is more likely with a higher velocity round that does not depend on flukes of detonation angle, *if* the high velocity round is going to do the job, at the range actually involved.

On the general issue of the difficulting of hitting at range with such a low velocity round, I understand that the PzGr39 would be more accurate. But that hardly matters, if it can't get through the glacis at 1200-1500 meters. One of the advantages the Germans had with their 3 man turrets was rate of fire. Another advantage they had was optics. They also stressed tactics that were many-on-one, building a "base of fire", not simply dueling.

It seems to me entirely possible that a hail of even marginal 75mm HEAT at long range was the riposte to Russians standing off. The change of a hit does not have to be particularly high, and even the kill per hit does not need to be. The tactical effect would still be to deny impunity to a Russian force standing off. Another German group may have tried to close the range to more like 800 yards in the meantime, too. Or even closer - in the summer of 1943, at least 1/3rd of the German AFV fleet still had 50L60 or 75L24 guns, so some of them would have been looking for 500 yards or less and a flank.

It seems to me that sort of coordinated larger scale tactic is exactly the kind of thing the Germans must have been relying on, to a large degree, in late 1942 and early 1943, and on many parts of the front through the rest of 1943. It may have originated in a division of labor between the short-75 Pz IVs and the long-50 Pz IIIs, with a 75mm HEAT base of fire covering a flank charge with 50mm APCR.

Anyway, the more info you can provide to clear up the actual ammo types, when introduced, available to which German weapons systems in what numbers, how effective against the T-34s slope and hardness, and tactical doctrine on its use - would be most interesting to me.

[Olle Petersson]

From what I've read somewhere else, the face hardened armour on the T34 was pretty good at bouncing off AP.

But if an AP managed to penetrate the resistance dropped considerably. Almost like a glass surface...

Cheers

Olle

[rexford]

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. ??????????????

[rexford]

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?

[rexford]

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.

[Jeff Duquette]

This is kind of interesting…from the other side of the coin. This is a Russian report regarding impressions of their own tanks.

From: “German Panzer Tactics in WWII” by Charles Sharp.

NOTE: It is always instructive to look at a problem from both sides. There are many well-known German accounts on how difficult it was to fight against the KV and T-34 tanks in 1941. Here is something different: excerpts from a reportby the acting commander of the Soviet 10th Tank Division dated 2 August 1941:

Characteristics of the KV and T-34 Tanks "KV and T-34 tanks basically possessed high combat qualities: strong armor and good armament. On the battlefield KV tanks smashed enemy armor and in every instance their tanks retreated. The division's soldiers and commanders spoke of their tanks as very reliable machines. But along with these qualities they had the following defects:

1) For the KV tanks:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>a) Under the impact of shells and large-caliber bullets, the turret ring and armored cupolas can jam.

b)The diesel engine has little reserve power, resulting in it being overloaded and overheating.

c)The main and side clutches break down.

2) For the T-34:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>a) Hull armor is penetrated at 300 to 400 meters by a 37mm antitank round. Side armor is penetrated by a 20mm antitank round. When crossing ditches the low set (NOTE: low ground clearance) ofthevehicle causes its nose to dig in, and traction with the ground is insufficient due to the relative smoothness of the tracks.

b)With a direct hit by a shell the driver's front hatch collapses.

c)The vehicles's treads are weak - any round takes them off.

d) The main and side clutches break down."

AUTHOR'S COMMENTS: As the commander's comments indicate, both the KV and T-34 were plagued by weak clutches, which, since they both used clutch-and-brake steering, meant too-frequent mechanical failure of the entire steering and transmission system. The T-34 was surprisingly vulnerable, at least from the side, and it is no coincidence that the 1942 models of that tank had a 15mm increase in side and hull armor.

[This message has been edited by Jeff Duquette (edited 04-03-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Sandwich on the turret might mean bolted on plates for uparmoring. The turret was uparmored in 1942, and perhaps again, though reports differ on the second. Many of the 1941 production models were probably gone, but some of those, perhaps some early 1942, or later mods if there was a second round of uparmoring, may have plates bolted or welded onto the front. Why soft metals? Maybe for welding? I don't pretend to know, as it is the first I've heard of it.

On the "penetrate any angle", including 30 degree side angle at 1200 yards, I have to say that I think that is completely out of line with the combat reports from both sides. I still haven't heard of a single confirmed kill from the front, on the glacis, with AP, above 1 km. More on this below.

As for HEAT, 10% variation for hardness hardly sounds "extreme" to me, especially compared to your model suggesting penetration ranges varying from <500 meters to >1600 meters for AP, depending on hardness effects. But to answer your questions - the "B" model Gr38-HL is rated to penetrate 75mm of armor at 30 degrees, and the "C" model is rated to penetrate 100mm of armor at 30 degrees. I would think the former was borderline, and may have needed turret hits. They second of those, I expect was effective. Nobody has been able to tell me how many of which type were produced or fielded, or which arms got how many of them (towed PAK, PzJg units, Pz, StuG, etc).

As for the comments from 1941, yes the lower side hull was flat, vertical armor, not sloped. 300-400 yards isn't exactly a long way. Incidentally, the 1941 and earlier models are ~4k tanks all told, out of 34k T-34/76 produced. 1942 and 1943 are the peak production years, and the armor is not as thin. In 1944-45 you get 16k T-34/86 with better armor again, as well as the better gun and 3 man turret, of course.

For comparison, the German tanks in 1941 had a maximum of 30mm of armor sloped 25 degrees or less. Penetration by the T-34s main gun, at any range or aspect from which hits were likely in the first place, was almost certain. This changed later on, as the German uparmored their tanks - though the Russians put a better 76.2mm in the 1942- versions, and added souped up ammo later on (including some sub-caliber). In 1942 and early 1943, the effective penetration range was probably around 1200-1500 meters, longer against the turret fronts. Tactical doctrine and publish penetration stats agree. The later model Pz IVs had 80mm hull armor, which were probably penetrable at 1 km, though the turret remained 50mm and was penetrable at greater range.

So you can understand, that very serious distortions would be introduced by getting this wrong. The German training statements say the T-34 outranged them. With the L48 and 80mm armor, the mutual penetration ranges were comparable, ~1 km. With the turret vunerable at longer ranges in both cases. Essentially, the better L48 German gun, plus much heavier armor, achieves parity with the better slope of the Russian armor, by 1943.

Making the L43 penetrate any angle of the T-34 at 1200 meters, and front-flat shots at 1600 meters, means completely ignoring not only the details of the reports of the participants, but the much more basic question of range choices. It implies the Germans were flat too dumb to figure out that they outranged the Russians, and could have merrily blown them all away at 1.5 km without reply, when in fact the Germans were trying to get to 600-800 yards and the Russians were trying to stay at 1200-1500 yards.

This simply makes no historical sense. The participants do not do everything bass ackwards with their lives at stake, because they are flat wrong about empirical penetration capabilities, only to be corrected 56 years later by someone's toy armor penetration model, for a wargame.

No model that says the Germans outranged the Russians pre-Panther, can be accurate, because they simply didn't and we know it. The training and tactics stuff agrees, both sides, that the Pz IV and StuG with L48 gun, could penetrate the T-34 at 1 km (turret farther), and the published data say that the T-34 could do the reverse (again, turret farther), after the full uparmoring of the Pz IV was done. This makes obvious sense - the Germans continued to modify the Pz IV until it could hold its own.

[rexford]

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.

[rexford]

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

[Jeff Duquette]

This is a contemporary German Army report I found at the tail end of: Walter Speilberger’s “Panzer IV & Its Varients”

APPENDIX 5

Wa Pruf ( l/W-2b Hillersleben, March 23, 1944

Comparison of German tanks with the new Russian T 34-85 and JS 122 tanks

Compared are the penetrating ranges of the German

Pz.Kpfw. Panzer IV with 7.5 cm KwK 40

Panther with 7.5 cm KwK 42

Tiger I with 8.8 cm KwK 36

Tiger I with 8.8 cm KwK 43, and

Tiger 2 with 8.8 cm KwK 43

with the new Russian T 34-85 and JS 122 tanks with the penetrating ranges of the two Russian tanks as opposed to the German tanks listed above.

Since no test firing results are available, all penetration figures have been calculated. The calculations have been based on the armor strengths and plate angles stated in Appendix 2. According to information available here, the Russian 8.5 cm gun (L.51) fires an armor piercing projectile that weighs 9.2 kg at an initial velocity of 792 m/sec and the Russian 12,2 cm gun fires an armor piercing projectile with a weight of 25 kg at an initial velocity of 800 m/sec. The penetration curves of the Russian weapons used here are taken from

Russian information. All the penetration curves were available to a distance of only 2000 meters and had to be estimated to distances up to 3500 meters. The penetrating performance for a combat distance of 1000 meters at a 60-degree angle of impact are stated here:

7.5 cm KwK 40 with 7.5 cm Pz. Gr. 39 -99 mm

7.5 cm KwK 42 with 7.5 cm Pz. Gr. 39/42 -138 mm

8.8 cm KwK 36 with 8.8 cm Pz. Gr. 39 -120 mm

8.8 cm KwK 43 with 8.8 cm Pz. Gr. 39/43 -202 mm

8.5 cm KwK ® with 8.5 cm Pz. Gr. ®. -109 mm

12.2 cm KwK ® with 12.2 cm Pz. Gr. ® -134 mm

These calculations are based on an assumed angle of impact of 60 degrees from the horizontal. The armor material was all equated to the plate material for test firing; in the case of cast steel, a plate strength decreased by 14% was calculated. For strongly arched armored parts (such as weapon mounts), an angle of inclination of 60 degrees was assumed. The accuracy of the individual weapons was not taken into consideration in this comparison. A compilation of the penetration ranges calculated for the individual surfaces of the tanks is included in Appendix 1. In brief, it can be said that the

Panzer IV is far inferior to the T34-85 and JS 122.

The Panther is far superior to the T34-85 for frontal fire, approximately equal for side and rear fire, superior to the JS for frontal fire and inferior for side and rear fire.

The Tiger I with KwK 36 is superior to the T 34-85 and inferior to the Js 122,

The Tiger I with KwK 43 is superior to both the T 34-85 and the JS 122.

The Tiger 2 is far superior to the T 34-85 and the JS 122.

The data appears to confirm that the Pz IV with 7.5cm KwK 40 was capable of knocking out a T34 at a substantial range. German doctrine, however, for medium panzers like the Pz IV, was to wait and engage at ranges of around 600-800m. Superior tactics, officers trained to make decisions themselves, smokeless charges, etc, etc, made the German in ambush far more dangerous than mere figures might have you believe.

Examples of combat from Spielbergers' Sturmgeschütz and Kurowski's Sturmgeschütz vor! (using virtually the same Kwk 40 cannon) prove the effectiveness of this weapon and the range should not be the only critical consideration:

"Großdeutschland" in combat around Kharkov 7-20 March 43, total number of tank kills:

71 Pzkpfw IV L/43 knocked out 188 'tanks'

35 StuG (long) knocked out 41 'tanks'

9 Tiger I knocked out 30 'tanks'

The 'tanks' break down into:

230 T34, 16 T60/T70 and 3 KW1

Panzer Regiment 36, 7 Dec 1943:

49 Pz IV (long) knocked out 136 'tanks' for 20 combat total-losses

44 StuG (long) knocked out 75 'tanks' for 19 combat total-losses

Panzerjägerkompanie 1045:

9 StuG (long) knocked out 16 T34 and 1 KW1 (+ 2 T34 immobilized) in just three hours. One T34 is said to have been destroyed at 1000m with only 3 rounds.