One more time....russians misvaloured??

[JasonC]

So, a Russian report says 45mm routinely defeated Tigers, and that is obviously horsefeathers. Another report says 75mm PAK 40 with German ammo could not penetrate at 500m from the side with zero side angle, and that report is supposedly trustworthy. (That is the same report that says Russian 76s failed). The difference between the two is? Both are obviously physically impossible, both are documented in Russian reports.

Claims made in the same document as the first say Tigers could be penetrated by 76s. Claims made in the same document as the second say they could not be. The German and Tiger lobby believes as gospel the latter - without apparently wanting to revise downward the penetration of the PAK 40 at 500m to less than 80mm flat. The same lobby ignores the reported success of 76s against Tigers in the first.

Meanwhile the most detailed Russian info, as opposed to anecdotes in reports we know to contain physical impossibilities (whether 45mm kills or PAK 40 failures), are incorporated in the Russian battlefield site numbers. But those can't be right, because Russian 76s must fail at 100m flat from the side with any ammo.

Meanwhile, Rexford quoted a source of his own that a Tiger II, sloped, was penetrated from the side by Russian 76mm at ~300m, but now wants to believe 80mm flat never was at 100m. Because of "great news" from the same report that said PAK 40s with German ammo couldn't kill them at 500m, flat.

What is the practical bearing of all of the above? Simple. Do not play CMBB scenarios with Tigers in them. Or StuGs. I sure won't. When they fix armor cower I might.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC:

So, a Russian report says 45mm routinely defeated Tigers, and that is obviously horsefeathers.

Actualy as pointed out previously to you, repeatedly the T-VI Instructions that claim 45mm penetrations etc are not an report it is an set of instructions for dealing with te Tiger E. Penetration estimates un T-VI were made useing the De Marre/ARTKOM formula. Actual LF tests were not conducted till 5 days after the T-VI instructions had been issued.

Another report says 75mm PAK 40 with German ammo could not penetrate at 500m from the side with zero side angle, and that report is supposedly trustworthy. (That is the same report that says Russian 76s failed).

Jason as you well know, we have many questions about the PAK-40 results ourselves Ie, did the Soviets manufacture ammo? etc. Regardless the September tests are consistant with the April tests concerning Soviet weapons ammunition failures.

Claims made in the same document as the first say Tigers could be penetrated by 76s.

Yes & s pointed out (yet again) the T-VI Instructions results are calculated not actual results.

The German and Tiger lobby believes as gospel the latter - without apparently wanting to revise downward the penetration of the PAK 40 at 500m to less than 80mm flat. The same lobby ignores the reported success of 76s against Tigers in the first.

Wow theirs a Tiger Lobby?, is that like the 76.2mm Lobby?. Problem is Jason as your analogy so conviently ignores; you keep refering to T-VI Instructions calculated estimates, as if it contained actual penetration results.

As you have been told repeatedly before, the T-VI pamplet was issued 5 days prior to the Actual LF tests vs the Tiger E conducted by NIIBT @ Kubinka April 25 - 30th 1943.

Now if you can provide a refrence for 76.2mm penetrations in either of the NIIBT LF tests conducted in April & September 1943 to support your position please do so.

See you seem to be of the opnion ppl are closed minded here concerning the Tiger which i think is horsefeathers.

All the hard data we have states thre 76.2mm ammunition failed in the live fire tests, not one reference has been presented to date that contradicts these tests, only unsupported allegations made by you, that the test data is false etc. Provide me with a refrence that solidly contradicts the 2 LF tests & I'll be the first person to look seriously into it.

I already personaly believe the 76.2mm did penetrate the Tiger E armor on occasion in WW2, as a battery putting concentrated fire on a single Tiger would eventualy compromise the armor at some point depending on range as well as the quality of the plate, which their is evidence was varied. but I cant find one bit of hard data to support it.

So heres our choices on this topic A), we accept actual documented live fire test data or , we accept your unsubstatiated opinion that the test data is flawed, false etc. Or c), we accept A, until contradictory evidence is found.

Regards, John Waters

[ May 03, 2003, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

also, the side armor of the tiger should generally not be lumped in with the frontal armor on the stug... the tiger had some special 'nickel anodized' armor or somesuch... this might help explain its 80mm of side armor being stronger than 80mm front on the stug... just a thought... or at least a brainfart...

[PzKpfw 1]

manchildstein the Watertown Arsenal report(WAL 710/542) on the Tiger E armor, points out a few instances where the armor was ballisticly not up to par with previous German plate examinations Ie, the PzKpfw III, and indicated a decline in German quality control.

Concerning the Tiger E armor*:

Two General types of compositions were employed: A high carbon Cr-Mo-V steel fairly high in maganese was used for the one inch armor; and a high carbon 2.5% Cr, .5% Mo was used for the heavier sections.

The hardness and carbon content of the heavy armor manufactured are considerably higher then that employed in armor manufactured in this country. This practice may be employed in an effort to achieve maximum resistance to penetration of undermatching projectiles or overmatching projectiles at high obliquities.

As a result, the shock resistance of the armor and the structural integrity of the vehichles are undoubtedly impaired. In two of the four plates, the notched bar toughness was defintely inferior and this brittleness should be manifested under ballistic attack.

Inferior steel quality was observed in one of the plates. Since this is the first plate examined by arsenal in which poor quality was observed, it may reflect a trend toward accepting inferior steel or permitting a decrease in quality control.

The Tiger E examimined was from a captured Tiger E from Tunisa.

*See WAL 710/542 pp. 8-9

Regards, John Waters

[ May 03, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

so even as early as tunisia at least some of the tigers had some faulty plates?

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

so even as early as tunisia at least some of the tigers had some faulty plates?

Yes at least in this example. Their is more:

Hull Side plate: 3.2in thick 352 BHN.

All Plates except one, the hull side plate, were of acceptable quality steel. Excessively large ammount of segregated nonmetallic inclusions, which appeared as laminations in the fracture test, were observed on examination of this plate.

Main Front plate 4.0in 321BHN

Improper heat treatment of the main front plate and the hull side plate was reflected in poor notched bar impact strength which,in turn, would be associated with poor resistance to cracking under ballistic attack.

Heat-treating tests were conducted which revealed that approximately the same notch bar impact strength could be obtained by a normalize and draw of a small section as was observed in the 4" main front plate as recieved.

The report goes into detail on German welding practices as well:

Welding and Joint design:

The Joint design is characterized by grooves machined in the heavy section of each weld joint to give a fitted or mortised joint which is in compression on impact from the direction of principal ballistic attack. Fit-up is fairly good.

Rough surface appearence, severe undercutting, and failure to completely fill the joint grooves with weld material indicate inexperience or carelessness on the part of the welders.

All welds were made up of multiple overlapping beads and appear to have been deposited, without preheat, on the armor in the final heat-treated condition. Very ex tensive base metal cracks were present in the heat affected zones of the three weld joint samples and sections from the samples break through these cracks on light impact with a hammer.

This examination revealed an amazeing lack of concern by German fabrication and inspection facilites, for base metal cracks which (1) would ordinarily be expected in welding of this high carbon armor plate, (2) must have occured soon after welding and were so extensive that they probably could have been detected by any of the usual inspection methods,and (3) are universally recognized to have a very serious effect on shock ressistance of the welded structure.

The Plates examined were:

Hull Roof Plate - 1.0in 363BHN

Turret Roof Plate - 1.0in 321BHN

Hull Side Plate - 3.2in 352BHN

Turret Side Plate - 3.2in 352BHN

Main Front Plate - 4.0in 321BHN

Front Glacis Plate - 2.4in 352BHN

Regards, John Waters

[ May 03, 2003, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[tabpub]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

so even as early as tunisia at least some of the tigers had some faulty plates?

Yes, that was one of the batch that came out on a Monday following a long weekend of celebrating der Fuhrer's Geburtstag...of course there would be some "manufacturing errors".....

[rexford]

Jason C said: "Meanwhile, Rexford quoted a source of his own that a Tiger II, sloped, was penetrated from the side by Russian 76mm at ~300m, but now wants to believe 80mm flat never was at 100m. Because of "great news" from the same report that said PAK 40s with German ammo couldn't kill them at 500m, flat."

Come on Jason, you missed the point. And you got the details all wrong. Here is a brief summary. )

My past posts said that:

1. 76.2 APBC failed against the King Tiger side in one series of tests, but maybe the specially treated round with 10% more penetration could explain a reported success in another test effort.

2. firing tests against 82mm side plates on early Tigers could have resulted in failed 76.2mm APBC hits because the unusually hard armor may have been a little bit more effective than the 82mm thickness

3. Some Tigers carried less effective plates on the side which the British termed "bad", probably easier to penetrate

4. At 100m against 82mm Tiger side armor, 76.2mm BR-350B has 81mm penetration and should succeed on about half the hits in the absence of a side angle.

5. With specially treated 76.2mm APBC (BR-350B), T34's and 76.2mm field guns should penetrate 82mm Tiger side plate on almost half the hits at 500m.

6. In two cases out of fourteen that we studied for early Tiger 82mm plate, the 82mm plates would resist like 77mm and 78mm, which standard 76.2mm APBC could penetrate at about 250m on a good percentage of hits.

So, in conclusion, nothing I posted stated or even suggested that Russian 76.2mm APBC NEVER penetrated the Tiger 82mm side plates at 100m, or even 500m.

And a 76.2mm APBC could penetrate the Tiger II's sloped side armor (80mm at 25 degrees) at 300m in one trial, and fail against 80mm vertical in another. It's a function of probability, different ammo characteristics and varying armor resistance.

Lorrin

[Andreas]

I own the history of Stug Brigade 276 (at least I think I do), and I had a quick glance through it earlier when we discussed this. The Brigade was formed late, and there does not appear to be the detail needed to distinguish the T34-76 from the 85 version. One account of a knife-edge fight early on in the history of the Brigade mentions a frontal penetration at what appears to be point blank range where the author says that it penetrated because it hit a weak spot near the mantlet.

It does not say what type of Stug it was, although we can assume it was a late 80mm armoured one, or what kind of T34 hit it, IIRC.

These sort of combat reports are not very helpful.

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by Andreas:

"Viva il Re Fernando!" Napolitans greeting Vittorio Emmanuelle of Savoy in their city, 2003

[nitpicking mode on]

The late king of Sicily was Ferdinando, not Fernando and the correct spelling of that I-am-not-the-king-of-Italy-but-I-would-like-to guy is Emanuele (Emmanuelle is a French name, famous for... well you know )

[nitpicking mode off]

Regards,

Amedeo

[Andreas]

Heh - the Italians are out in force today Thanks for that. Audace already emailed me on it. Corrected the name of the Savoy wannabe king. The 'Fernando' was explained to me as referring to the large number of Fernandos in the Kingdom of the two Sicilys. Maybe my ears had not cleared yet though.