Russian 37mm anti-tank gun stats wrong?

[MikeyD]

I have a question for the forum. Does anyone have hard data on the early war Russian 37mm anti-tank gun?

This gun gets scant mention on Russian web sites, and I've always thought the gun specs in CMBB to be suspect. What we do know is the gun was actually a license-built copy of the famous Rheinmetall gun (also some purchases were made direct from Rheinmatall). It looked about the same as the German gun, from the few available photos. But in-game penetration stats don't seem to make sense.

The game puts the mv of the AP round as significantly higher than the German round BUT puts the penetration at VERY significantly lower! The only way this could happen would be if the Russian shot was much lighter than the German shot, which would be downright peculiar for a license-built gun.

I've noticed BFC persists in using the German 50mm gun as a placeholder graphic for the Russian 37mm. I suspect if the similar looking German 37mm gun was used as a placeholder people would start complaining over the gun's inconsistent penetration stats.

If someone has hard info on the Russian 37mm gun maybe we could convince BFC to alter the stats. They don't seem to be willing based on indirect evidence only.

[ April 28, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[flamingknives]

No hard data, I'm afraid, but a possible reason for the discrepancy.

The Soviet early war ammunition was notoriously bad - prone to shatter on impact, thus robbing the gun of it's full potential. Perhaps this is what we're seeing in the game data.

[Andreas]

They are modelled with different rounds in game. Soviet uses solid shot, German has a large HE burster.

Remember that at least some types of early war Soviet AP rounds had manufacturing trouble, and that is modelled in CMBB.

[MikeyD]

Solid shot at a higher mv shouldn't have a dramatically lower penetration. Just the opposite. The higher mv is also suspicious. High velocity anti-tank gun rounds are usually designed at their max pressure. Would the Germans have given their 37mm round a reduced charge or the Russians a dangerously high charge?

I do suspect the maddening lack of reference data on the Russian gun forced BFc to plug in some generic numbers, and if they weren't aware of the connection with the pre-war Rheinmetall gun they wouldn't have tried to match the specs.

[Andreas]

That does not address the manufacturing issues.

[MikeyD]

At the moment this debate reminds me of the old question of how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. That question was argued endlessly based solely on reasoning without benefit of any hard data, and it seems that's where this debate's headed too.

Nobody out there in the wide world has ANY hard references on the Russian 37mm gun? Is this the last frontier in WWII weapons research?

[Fishu]

You said higher muzzle velocity?

Maybe they did give it a longer shell casing and shorter projectile -> lighter projectile & higher velocity.

Or soviets could be simply using shorter shell overall, which would reduce weight.

for good example just look at browning 12.7mm and MG131 13mm shells - you'll see that 12.7mm is clearly longer and heavier.

I've also noticed that APHE rounds in the game seems to have higher penetration figures than most commonly seen penetration tables for the guns.

Maybe representing the maximum armour thickness those guns can hope to penetrate at the given angle - maybe something to do with extra spalling caused by APHE round?

(like we know, unpenetrating projectiles doesn't just scratch the paint, but can make a sizeable dent and if adds a little explosion in there, it might cause some spalling)

Although it could be also the globalization of penetration tables - about every major country used different methods in making up the penetration tables.

US vs. German testing methods are like comparing night & day for example.. quite loose requirements for penetration in US tests versus german.

I found the weights as well..

Soviet 37mm is 0.665kg and german 37mm Pak is 0.680kg

This according to a single source.

[ April 28, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: Fishu ]

[MikeyD]

The one piece of reference that I have is a tattered old WWII anti-tank gun reference book from the 70s. It lists the Russian and German guns as having the same mv and penetration. My problem is I don't judge that reference to be reliable! They might've just plugged in German stats for all I know (can't trust much that was published before 1982).

Does anyone know if the initial production export Rheinmetall 37mm gun of the 20's had different ammo/specs from the wartime gun?

One reason for the Russian gun being slightly lighter is the use of wire-spoked wheels (like the 45mm gun) instead of the German steel disk type.

[ April 28, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[James Crowley]

"Anti-Tank Weapons" 1974 WW2 Fact Files

by Chamberlain and Gander.

3.7 cm Pak 35/36, L/45

MV (AP40) 1030 m/s; penetration 49 mm at 400 yds (30)

MV (AP) 762 m/s; pen 38mm at 400 yds (30)

37mm Model 30, L/45

MV 1030 m/s; pen 38mm at 400 yds (30)

Probably the same book as quoted above.

To all intents and purposes they are the same gun and, other than problems with projectile manufature, should have the same performance.

[tracer]

No hard data, but I seen a site on the web that was selling one. The only russian weapons I know anything about is the SVT40 rifle, Nagant pistol, and the Nagant rifle and that's just because I own them.

[OZ77]

The Soviet early war ammunition was notoriously bad - prone to shatter on impact, thus robbing the gun of it's full potential. Perhaps this is what we're seeing in the game data. [/QB]

[OZ77]

GERMANY :eek:

[Sergei]

Not

[Sergei]

again

[OZ77]

Originally posted by OZ77:

GERMANY :eek:

see the full version of this article on new topic

[Fishu]

OZ77,

What exactly does the bad ammunition have to do with gigazillion tanks and artillery prepared for offensive war?

They can still have bad ammo, like they did :>

[OZ77]

yes they still can have bad ammo.But does the "good ammo" help to German panzer crew then they meet KV?

[rune]

Hey look, revisionist claptrap.

500,000 paratroops? From russia themselves, they say:

Russia's airborne troops celebrate Thursday their 71st anniversary.

The history of the airborne troops commenced on August 2, 1930, when at the exercises of the Moscow military district near Voronezh 12 soldiers baled out for the first time.

The first airborne troops subdivision was the aviation motorized assault detachment (164 men) in the Leningrad military district. The creation of mass airborne troops was stipulated by the ordnance of the Revolutionary military council of December 11, 1932.

By the start of 1933 special aviation battalions had already been formed in Belarussian, Ukrainian, Moscow, and Volga military districts. By the summer of 1941 the formation of 5 airborne corps, each with a strength 10,000 people, had been completed.

A lot of those were used in normal units, so you are off by a factor of say...10.

Also see the Red Army Handbook.

Only thing I'll bite on so others don't buy that BS.

Rune

[OZ77]

In 1930 on many Russians factories were established parachute circles. Untill 1941 they've prepared 500.000 young men.You are write only 50.000 of them were at the army in june 41, but the rest 490.000 were potential paratroopers.

Soviet HQ just was needed to conscript them and after short time they could have huge number of well trainded paratroops

[Fishu]

Originally posted by OZ77:

yes they still can have bad ammo.But does the "good ammo" help to German panzer crew then they meet KV?

1. with certain gun, you have better capability of penetrating the KV

- Good example is 5cm KwK 39 - with bad ammo it wouldn't have a hope of penetrating KV.

However it can do it, thanks to the 'good' ammo for the gun.

2. with certain tanks, you won't get the field address changed to "6ft down" after the first hit by KV.

- good example being the uparmoured PzIII's, which could withstand a hit from KV, without instantly breaking up.

With well designed and manufactured ammo, there would be far lesser chance of surviving a hit.

In any case, KV's had higher reputation than production numbers

So you'd have to make the example with more common lighter tanks.

[ April 29, 2003, 09:10 AM: Message edited by: Fishu ]

[rune]

Potential Paratroop? What does that mean?

Any soldier could be a potential paratroop. Let's look at reality.

1. They did not have the air transports available to move 50,000 men, much less 500,000 men.

2. They did not have the parachutes themselves in enough numbers.

3. Of the 50,000 officially deemed a paratroops, 10,000 were sent to fill out infantry units.

Look at the amount of aircraft/sorties it took at Arnhem. The Russians were not even close to that. Potential means nothing.

Rune

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by rune:

Potential Paratroop? What does that mean?

Rune

In addition the Russians had:

10,000 potential jet pilots

25,000 potential nuclear submariners

11,000 potential cosmonauts

Sometimes I think you guys get a little too picky about your requiring facts and stuff.

[MikeyD]

Focus boys, focus. 37mm anti-tank gun?

As a compromise I'd like to see the Russian gun in the game given slightly lower muzzle velocity than the German instead of higher (to factor in the heavier solid shot) and an increased tendency to shatter than the German. This would give the gun somewhat lower penetration than the German gun but not as laughably bad as it currently is.

...and a German 37mm gun placeholder

[ April 29, 2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[illo]

No info on russian 37mm ATG?

Ps. Please go to fight your personal battles about KVs, soviet offensive and uparmored Pz III to another thread.

[ April 29, 2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: illo ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by illo:

No info on russian 37mm ATG?

[snips]

In the absence of anything better, I submit the following snippets from the PRO documents cited:

From WO 281/135, "Notes on Red Army", 1940

Amn nature, armour type and angle and penetration criterion unspecified.

Range (m) Penetration (mm)

50_____________80

300____________45

500____________38

1000__________20-30

WO 208/5189, "Short notes on the Red Army", 1943.

AP amn against homo armour, penetration criterion unspecified.

Range (yds) Angle Penetration (mm)

400_________normal_____51

500_________30 deg_____36

All the best,

John.