Russian Firing Tests Results Against Tiger

[rexford]

Pavel posted the following on the Yahoo! Tankers site, which provides the best firing test data for Russian guns against a Tiger tank.

The source of the material is a Czech web site at:

http://fronta.cz/index.php?dokument=3

My comments are in brackets.

============================

"> Are these results estimates or actual tests?

The report says that the results are from the actual tests of Russian tank and anti-tank guns against to captured Tiger I. The source is the Russian magazine from the year 1993.

> There is a Russian pamphlet that shows penetration ranges that are similar in

> many cases to what is stated on the above page.

> If you could summarize some of the information on the above pages it would be

> helpful, especially for 45mm and 76.2mm ammo.

76.2mm F-34 tank gun

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

1) Spring 1943: The T-34/76 is able to penetrate Tiger side armor with thicknes 82mm from the max distance 600m with AP projectile. The T-34/76 was able to penetrate the front 100mm armor of Tiger from the max distance 500m with HVAP.

(my comment: the above round appears to be the uncapped 76.2mm APHE round which was undergoing trials at the time. The round was later available in limited quantities for use against Tiger tanks)

(my comment: 76.2mm APCR is given 92mm penetration at 500m so defeat of Tiger front hull 100mm plate is probably a low probability lucky success)

2) 4th May 1943: During 24th - 30th April was tested Tiger on the main tank polygon. The Tiger was shelled by many tank and AT guns of Red Army.

a) The side of Tiger (82mm) was penetrated:

- 45mm AT gun vz. 1942 (mark 1942) with HVAP from the distance 350m

- 45mm AT gun vz. 1939 (mark 1937) with HVAP from the distance 200m

- 57mm AT gun ZIS-2 with AP from the distance 1000m

- 85mm AAA gun with AP from the distance 1500m

- 57mm UK tank gun with AP from the distance 600m

(my comment: American, British and Russian penetration data for 6 pdr uncapped AP and capped APCBC suggest that the 6 pdr L43 tank gun should penetrate 82mm at 1000m)

- 57mm UK AT gun with AP from the distance 1000m

(my comment: American, British and Russian penetration data for 6 pdr uncapped AP and capped APCBC suggest that the 6 pdr L43 tank gun should penetrate 82mm at 1000m)

- 75mm US tank gun with AP (because it's US ammo so it should be APC?) from the distance 600m

(my comment: this range appears to be associated with the 75mm APCBC round)

The front of Tiger (100mm) was penetrated:

- 85mm AAA gun with AP from the distance 1000m

The shelling of side armor (82mm) by 76.2mm tank gun F-34 from the distance 200m showed, that the projectiles are weak and the projectiles have been deformed when the projectiles hit the armor of Tiger.

(my comment: 76.2mm APBC fails miserably against Tiger 82mm side armor at 200m, suggesting that penetration probably was close to zero)

76.2 mm HVAP projectiles don't penetrate the Tiger front armor (100mm) from the distance 500m.

(my comment: Russian data shows 92mm penetration at 500m for 76.2mm APCR)

On the base of these results do this:

a)Give the order to Immediately prepare the 76.2mm AP projectiles, which will be able to penetrate the Tiger side armor (82mm) from the distance 600m.

(my comment: based on tests, Russians are to start producing the new APHE ammo for use against Tiger).

b)Immediately prepare the 76.2mm HVAP projectiles, which will be able to penetrate the Tiger front armor (100mm) from the distance 500m.

> Thanks for sharing the info with us.

You're welcome, )

Yours sincerely,

Pavel"

[ December 28, 2003, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[Other Means]

slightly OT.

would there be any change in the behaviour of a plate after it has been penetrated once? would that not create an area of edge effect around the penetration? and if so, can these tests be taken to be 100% reliable? or would these tests be conducted on all the captured tigers therefore when the plate got penetrated they would use a different tank for the next test.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Other Means:

slightly OT.

would there be any change in the behaviour of a plate after it has been penetrated once? would that not create an area of edge effect around the penetration? and if so, can these tests be taken to be 100% reliable? or would these tests be conducted on all the captured tigers therefore when the plate got penetrated they would use a different tank for the next test.

Good question. Russians are probably aware of edge effects and zones of influence where penetrations into armor create strain hardening fields about impact point that extend out several projectile diameters. Plus microscopic cracking that can't be seen.

Russian 76.2mm APBC from T34 fails none the less at 200m, and other penetration ranges are in line with what would be expected (except for 6 pdr tank gun).

I think they probably spread the target areas around the tank to avoid previous hit influence.

[Mr. Tittles]

Ive seen the Tiger II that the soviets shot up. It looks like swiss cheese.

[OZ77]

I demand a new patch for CMBB :mad:

[OZ77]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Ive seen the Tiger II that the soviets shot up. It looks like swiss cheese.

The site battlefield.ru has a few nice stories and pictures about the way Russians were dialing with Tigers. Unfortunately it is not represented in the game.

:mad:

[OZ77]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

Ive seen the Tiger II that the soviets shot up. It looks like swiss cheese.

The site battlefield.ru has a few nice stories and pictures about the way Russians were dealing with Tigers. Unfortunately it is not represented in the game.

:mad:

[OZ77]

sorry for double post

[Reozil]

Originally posted by OZ77:

I demand a new patch for CMBB :mad:

agreed. They could also make Jagdtiger to carry 12,8cm L60 Gun May 45.

[Mr. Tittles]

The Tiger I side armor should be specified.

Was it the upper hull? lower hull (which was thinner?)

What about the turret?

[Karl_Smasher]

Originally posted by rexford:

[QB] Pavel posted the following on the Yahoo! Tankers site, which provides the best firing test data for Russian guns against a Tiger tank.

The source of the material is a Czech web site at:

http://fronta.cz/index.php?dokument=3

"> Are these results estimates or actual tests?

The report says that the results are from the actual tests of Russian tank and anti-tank guns against to captured Tiger I. The source is the Russian magazine from the year 1993.

First, didn't John Walters clear up this article months back. This czech site has the same dated article as the Instructions on fighting tigers, taken from the Russian magazine.

The report is a set of Instructions on dealing with the Tiger E. The 45mm so called penetration on the tiger are estimates made using the De Marre/ARTKOM formula. The instructions were issued 5 days prior to the Actual LF tests vs the Tiger E conducted by NIIBT @ Kubinka April 25 - 30th 1943. 45mm HVAP and 75mm AP failed against the side amror in the actual tests.

John Walters also posted the Russian firing tests of September 1943 which were fairly conclusive where 76mm APBC failed at 0degrees 200m.

[ January 04, 2004, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Karl_Smasher ]

[rexford]

Originally posted by Karl_Smasher:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rexford:

[QB] Pavel posted the following on the Yahoo! Tankers site, which provides the best firing test data for Russian guns against a Tiger tank.

The source of the material is a Czech web site at:

http://fronta.cz/index.php?dokument=3

"> Are these results estimates or actual tests?

The report says that the results are from the actual tests of Russian tank and anti-tank guns against to captured Tiger I. The source is the Russian magazine from the year 1993.

First, didn't John Walters clear up this article months back. This czech site has the same dated article as the Instructions on fighting tigers, taken from the Russian magazine.

The report is a set of Instructions on dealing with the Tiger E. The 45mm so called penetration on the tiger are estimates made using the De Marre/ARTKOM formula. The instructions were issued 5 days prior to the Actual LF tests vs the Tiger E conducted by NIIBT @ Kubinka April 25 - 30th 1943. 45mm HVAP and 75mm AP failed against the side amror in the actual tests.

John Walters also posted the Russian firing tests of September 1943 which were fairly conclusive where 76mm APBC failed at 0degrees 200m. </font>

[Mr. Tittles]

I have a question about the soviet guns. the F34 and ZIS5 guns were about the same in performance and fired the same rounds (they were basically technically different due to other mechanisms.

But what about the SU76 gun? Is it a cut down ZIS3 regimental gun? Did it share ammo with the T34s and KV1s?

[Karl_Smasher]

The data Pavel posted is different from the info that John Waters discussed, compare the two. I did.

It appears that the Russians fired rounds at a Tiger to verify the penetration ranges listed in the earlier guidance, which did not address the U.S. 75mm round or the British 6 pdr.

Pavel mentioned that the Czech article was based on firing tests against a Tiger that was placed in the polygon and shelled.

Lorrin [/QB]

The czech site is referencing sereral reoprts from 1943-44. Search the page, the part he copied has 'Ve dnech 24.-30. dubna' which is at the start of the report he selected, translated means 24-30 April. The exact same date as the kubinka trials.

[ January 04, 2004, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Karl_Smasher ]

[rexford]

Karl,

Do a weapon and ammo comparison of all the data provided by Pavel and the info John Waters provided. They are not the same.

76.2mm APCR penetration against Tiger FRONT armor is in the data mix from Pavel, and it penetrates in one case at 500m and fails in another at 500m. The info John Waters has does not provide the two different cases for 76.2mm APCR against Tiger front armor.

The 350m penetration range for 45mm M42 APCR against Tiger side armor is not in John Waters' pamphlet.

That's my point, Pavel's info is much more comprehensive and provides many important aspects such as the Russian decision to start producing 76.2mm special ammo and APCR on the basis of the April 1943 tests, which is the first time I've been aware of the timing.

There is nothing about 6 pdr against Tiger side armor in John Waters' posts.

This is not to say that John Waters' posts were not valuable and informative, just that Pavel's post provided many more details.

Lorrin

[Karl_Smasher]

Originally posted by rexford:

Karl,

Do a weapon and ammo comparison of all the data provided by Pavel and the info John Waters provided. They are not the same........ snip

45mm M42 APCR against Tiger side armor is not in John Waters' pamphlet.

Lorrin

Lorrin, note, the John Walters' soviet Pamphlet also said in Russian the tests were firing Trials.(later showed to be estimetes by the issue date) Is the report on the Czech site Verified. So far we don't even having this Russian 1993 magazine. We don't even know what source is used for the article IN the magazine.

With regard to the czech data(if indeed it is verified as firing test), how is this data any more comprehensive than the Russian September 1943 firing trials on a Tiger E. (which took place 5 months later)

Copied below from John Walters post/

In the September trials vs the Tiger E with the following guns:

ZIS-3

F-22USV

F-34

PaK-36®

57mm M1 gun

85mm obr.1941 AT gun.

At ranges of 500 - 600m @ 0^ & @ 30^ not 1 gun defeated the Tiger E side hull/turret armor. Next range was 0^ @ 100m, again all guns failed. The only 2 Soviet guns that defeated the Tiger E side hull/turret armor was 57mm obr.1941 gun (ZIS-2) and 85mm obr.1941 AT gun. Both guns obtained partial penetrations, & penetrations on the 82mm side armor @ 500m @ 0^. only by useing

"improved round"s. None of the Soviet guns were able to defeat the Tiger E frontaly.

Regards, John Waters

Have you read the full report on the september tests from john walters.

[ January 05, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Karl_Smasher ]

[rexford]

Originally posted by Karl_Smasher:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rexford:

Karl,

Do a weapon and ammo comparison of all the data provided by Pavel and the info John Waters provided. They are not the same........ snip

45mm M42 APCR against Tiger side armor is not in John Waters' pamphlet.

Lorrin

Lorrin, note, the John Walters' soviet Pamphlet also said in Russian the tests were firing Trials.(later showed to be estimetes by the issue date) Is the report on the Czech site Verified. So far we don't even having this Russian 1993 magazine. We don't even know what source is used for the article IN the magazine.

With regard to the czech data(if indeed it is verified as firing test), how is this data any more comprehensive than the Russian September 1943 firing trials on a Tiger E. (which took place 5 months later)

Copied below from John Walters post/

In the September trials vs the Tiger E with the following guns:

ZIS-3

F-22USV

F-34

PaK-36®

57mm M1 gun

85mm obr.1941 AT gun.

At ranges of 500 - 600m @ 0^ & @ 30^ not 1 gun defeated the Tiger E side hull/turret armor. Next range was 0^ @ 100m, again all guns failed. The only 2 Soviet guns that defeated the Tiger E side hull/turret armor was 57mm obr.1941 gun (ZIS-2) and 85mm obr.1941 AT gun. Both guns obtained partial penetrations, & penetrations on the 82mm side armor @ 500m @ 0^. only by useing

"improved round"s. None of the Soviet guns were able to defeat the Tiger E frontaly.

Regards, John Waters

Have you read the full report on the september tests from john walters. </font>

[Karl_Smasher]

Originally posted by rexford:

Have you read the full report on the september tests from john walters.

I have not read the full report from the September tests, do you have it to share?

The report broken into parts is in the following long thread

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006743;p=2

I'm' surprised you forgot(or lost) the report because later in the thread you reply to many of Jonh Walter's posts.

Saenko, Melnikov, Satel

Verified: Ustinov, Voronov

September 11, 1943"

PAK 40:

"In spite of the fact, that this captured artillery system reliably penetrates the armor plates of 80mm and 85mm thickness from the

testbench at the virtual distance of 600m, during the firing at "Tiger" tank by two pieces with 30 AP rounds each from a distance of 600-500m no full penetrations of side armor were obtained."

About the above excerpt, did the soviet use high- hardness cast armor as test plate when testing their guns?. The report above has Pak 40 reliably penetrating their own 85mm testing plate, but failing on RHA armor on a Tiger side. Would you put this down to shatter gap and/or higher quality tiger plate compared to there own test plate.

So here are my questions for you which are very important:

1. the Russian 57mm and 85mm guns obviously could penetrate more than 100mm homogeneous armor at 100m and 500m-600m, why did they fail against Tiger 82mm side armor at 0 and 30 degrees and the Tiger front armor at same ranges?

The data you have for 85mm and 57mm guns may come from high quality 'test rounds' while the September test are production ammo what the front troops got. Also the shatter gap against Tiger armor seems be a big issue, not just with Russian as shown in British and U.S Tests.

In reply to the the 85mm results, do you have the German report of firing trials using a captured T34/85 tested April-1944(wolfgang Fleischer book "WEAPONS TESTING") at Kummersdorf. The T34/85 failed against front hull and turret at 500m0degrees. Penetrations by 85mm were obtained against the side armor of the Tiger at 500m@0degrees by 85mm BR-365K. Note BR-365 (flat nose) failed at all ranges, rounds rounds broke up. It mentions BR-365K was more effective against the vertical tiger armor than the other flat 85mm nose rounds. Again these rounds tested were all captured from the inside the tank.

2. what are "improved rounds"?

Eiter high quality 'test rounds' that are not availbe to front line troops, or 85mm BR-365P. and 57mm gun is odd, or is it british 6lb or US 57mm.

[ January 07, 2004, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: Karl_Smasher ]

[rexford]

First, here is John Waters' recent post on Yahoo! Tankers site regarding firing tests versus Tiger:

"Lorrin in the first live fire tests against the Tiger E armor conducted by NIIBT at Kubinka April 25 - 30th 1943. The 76.2mm F-34 reportedly failed to penetrate the Tiger E side hull and turret armor "even 200 at meters".

During the second live fire tests conducted in September 1943 the 76.2mm F-22 USV, F-34, and Zis-3 reportedly failed to penetrate the Tiger E side hull and turret armor at 500 meters & 100 meters.

These are 2 live fire tests with basicly the same results. To bad we dont have access to the complete text of both reports etc. & it was a US 57mm IIRC.

Regards, John Waters"

The post from John supports the firing test origin of the info posted by Pavel. Pavel's reading of the Czech article states that a Tiger was positioned on a polygon and shelled. I believe it was.

I will get to the rest of your statements in a follow-up post.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Karl_Smasher:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rexford:

Have you read the full report on the september tests from john walters.

I have not read the full report from the September tests, do you have it to share?

The report broken into parts is in the following long thread

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006743;p=2

I'm' surprised you forgot(or lost) the report because later in the thread you reply to many of Jonh Walter's posts.

Saenko, Melnikov, Satel

Verified: Ustinov, Voronov

September 11, 1943"

PAK 40:

"In spite of the fact, that this captured artillery system reliably penetrates the armor plates of 80mm and 85mm thickness from the

testbench at the virtual distance of 600m, during the firing at "Tiger" tank by two pieces with 30 AP rounds each from a distance of 600-500m no full penetrations of side armor were obtained."

About the above excerpt, did the soviet use high- hardness cast armor as test plate when testing their guns?. The report above has Pak 40 reliably penetrating their own 85mm testing plate, but failing on RHA armor on a Tiger side. Would you put this down to shatter gap and/or higher quality tiger plate compared to there own test plate.

So here are my questions for you which are very important:

1. the Russian 57mm and 85mm guns obviously could penetrate more than 100mm homogeneous armor at 100m and 500m-600m, why did they fail against Tiger 82mm side armor at 0 and 30 degrees and the Tiger front armor at same ranges?

The data you have for 85mm and 57mm guns may come from high quality 'test rounds' while the September test are production ammo what the front troops got. Also the shatter gap against Tiger armor seems be a big issue, not just with Russian as shown in British and U.S Tests.

In reply to the the 85mm results, do you have the German report of firing trials using a captured T34/85 tested April-1944(wolfgang Fleischer book "WEAPONS TESTING") at Kummersdorf. The T34/85 failed against front hull and turret at 500m0degrees. Penetrations by 85mm were obtained against the side armor of the Tiger at 500m@0degrees by 85mm BR-365K. Note BR-365 (flat nose) failed at all ranges, rounds rounds broke up. It mentions BR-365K was more effective against the vertical tiger armor than the other flat 85mm nose rounds. Again these rounds tested were all captured from the inside the tank.

2. what are "improved rounds"?

Eiter high quality 'test rounds' that are not availbe to front line troops, or 85mm BR-365P. and 57mm gun is odd, or is it british 6lb or US 57mm. </font>

[rexford]

Based on what we've discussed there is no inconsistency between 85mm penetrations of Tiger armor at 1000m and 1500-2000m and failures at 100m and 600m, if shatter gap, exceptional armor and possible inferior ammo is considered.

[rexford]

"Moreover, note that the report specifically states that some of the guns tested were found to be sufficient to penetrate the corresponding thickness test plate, but still failed on the Tiger's side, so this shatter gap was suspiciously selective."

Shatter gap may be a function of the interplay of projectile and armor, and it is possible that the characteristics of the Tiger armor (hardness, ductility, strain hardening, inertial resistance, ballistic resistance, etc.) were such that the armor promoted shatter while Russian armor plate did not.

Suspicious is not the word to use here since the difference can be explained.

[rexford]

Here is a post I just added to the Matrix Games web site:

Vasiliy Fofanov posted results of a September 1943 firing test by Russians against the 82mm side armor on a Tiger tank:

76.2mm guns fail at 100m and 500m with 0 and 30 degree side angles

And at 100m and 500m to 600m:

U.S. 57mm anti-tank gun fails

U.S. 75mm fails

Russian 85mm fails

German 75mm Pak 40 fails

It is further noted in a post by karl smasher that 75mm Pak 40 routinely defeated 80mm to 85mm of Russian plate during virtual test bench trials at a simulated range of 600m:

"Saenko, Melnikov, Satel

Verified: Ustinov, Voronov

September 11, 1943"

PAK 40:

"In spite of the fact, that this captured artillery system reliably penetrates the armor plates of 80mm and 85mm thickness from the

testbench at the virtual distance of 600m, during the firing at "Tiger" tank by two pieces with 30 AP rounds each from a distance of 600-500m no full penetrations of side armor were obtained."

The above suggests to me that the armor was attacked at an angle. The 75mm Pak 40 APCBC would defeat 130mm on half the hits at 600m, so 85mm plates would only be a challenging target at an angle.

If Russians used face-hardened, high hardness or flawed armor, the impact angle of 75mm Pak 40 against 85mm plate would be about 44 degrees.

Now, if Tiger 82mm resisted like 92mm due to above average resistance (in tests against U.S. 90mm APCBC, Tiger 82mm resisted like 89mm effective), and it was more resistance than Russian test plate, hits at 44 degrees would routinely fail.

So Tiger defeat of all rounds might be due to combination of above-average resistance of 82mm plates and lowered resistance of Russian test plates that were used to set test angles for other than 76.2mm ammo.

Analysis of Allied firing tests against five captured early production Tigers indicates that Tiger 82mm plates averaged 3.3% more resistance than good quality American plate, with a maximum advantage of 9% over U.S. armor.

The following was posted by karl smasher on the Combat Mission Barbarossa to Berlin site, and in this case shatter appears to be the culprit:

" In reply to the the 85mm results, do you have the German report of firing trials using a captured T34/85 tested April-1944(wolfgang Fleischer book "WEAPONS TESTING") at Kummersdorf. The T34/85 failed against front hull and turret at 500m0degrees. Penetrations by 85mm were obtained against the side armor of the Tiger at 500m@0degrees by 85mm BR-365K. Note BR-365 (flat nose) failed at all ranges, rounds rounds broke up. It mentions BR-365K was more effective against the vertical tiger armor than the other flat 85mm nose rounds. Again these rounds tested were all captured from the inside the tank."

[ January 09, 2004, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[Karl_Smasher]

Originally posted by rexford:

" In reply to the the 85mm results, do you have the German report of firing trials using a captured T34/85 tested April-1944(wolfgang Fleischer book "WEAPONS TESTING") at Kummersdorf. The T34/85 failed against front hull and turret at 500m0degrees. Penetrations by 85mm were obtained against the side armor of the Tiger at 500m@0degrees by 85mm BR-365K. Note BR-365 (flat nose) failed at all ranges, rounds rounds broke up. It mentions BR-365K was more effective against the vertical tiger armor than the other flat 85mm nose rounds. Again these rounds tested were all captured from the inside the tank."

The September 1943 test is the more significant one to be analysed. Ignore the Fleischer excerpt, the book is 1989, it appears he has a 1997 edition out and re-examining the book from the Library it appears to be penetration estimates based on the captured tank T34/85 tank.

[ January 10, 2004, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Karl_Smasher ]

[rexford]

"The September 1943 test is the more significant one to be analysed. Ignore the Fleischer excerpt, the book is 1989, it appears he has a 1997 edition out and re-examining the book from the Library it appears to be penetration estimates based on the captured tank T34/85 tank."

Not true.

The April 1943 test is the more significant one because it showed actual penetration ranges that make sense, while the September 1943 test results are highly questionable and are difficult to explain (my explanations are not universally accepted).

Lorrin