One more time....russians misvaloured??

[Bastables]

Yeh the 8,8cm Kw.K L/71 did not make an "appearance" until 4 Dec 1944 when Krupp proposed fitting one to the new Panther Schmaltrum (ausf F). Maybach was already preparing to gear up for production of the HL 234 900hp fuel injected motor engine, which with the proposed time line of improvements would have fitted it before the 8,8cm gun appeared on Panthers. The HL234 was born out of attempts to solve the weak carburettors of the HL230 700hp Panther/Tiger/Kingtiger engine.

DB had been directed in feb 1945 to develop a new turret with 10cm greater turret ring and a reworked 8,8cm L/71 as competition to the Krupp proposal.

Unlike the HL 234 though, both Krupp and DB 8,8cm were still drawing board ideas, identified on offical development time lines as something cool to do at an unspecified future date. Krupp and DB had not even got as far as wooden/soft steel mock ups.

The Panther II was a much earlier proposal (circa 1942), meant to combat the fear that the Soviets would find a gun able to punch through Panther I glacis and side armour. Those fears proved unfounded and Skirt and steel road wheels tested on Panther I where just more nails in the coffin. Still the up in the air status ment that Henschel, Werk Falkensee, Demang and Styer missed several months of actually making any sort of Panther as they waited for the arguments to end. (Styer's Nibelungenwerk complex ended up just continuing to produce PIV's and later developed the PIV ausf J).

I?m not sure that it was the engine that was the weak point, the thing was able to push a 45-50 ton veh at 55kph. Biggest failure prone equipment was the final drives that effected PIV, Hetzer and Panther chassis at similar rates as can be seen in pretty much identical operational ratios of the PIV and the Panther. Surprisingly Tiger and Kingtigers had even better operational ratios. I know that prior to Kursk, Wa Pruef 6 made several noises over the weaker metals used in final drives, yet these were forgotten in favour of economy arguments. The problem becoming so epidemic though it was brought up again in feb 1945, referring to PIV, Panther and Hetzer final drives.

As and aside the 7,5cm KwK 42 L/70 was origanlly a replacement for the Tiger's (I) 8,8cm L/56. This was to be known as the Tiger VI ausf H2 (the 101 Henschel) with a turret visually identical to that as mounted on the Panther ausf D but with a rear ball MG.

[ April 13, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[JasonC]

Rexford, I think you have wound up counting shatter gap twice for layered armor. I think the Brit range figures you used to get 69mm show the overpenetration necessary to defeat shatter, not the base resistence of the layered plate.

The base resistence of the 30+30 was probably between 53 and 55. 30+50 was probably about the resistence of 70, base. You are seeing higher implied armor resistence for reported penetrations because those are after the shatter gap not before it.

Other people's equations for multiple plates show about 0.85 efficiency compared to a single plate of the same thickness as the combination. As you make one plate thicker, this moves continuously to the resistence of a uniform plate - since obviously there is practically no difference between 1+79 and 80. Therefore, we should expect the base resistence numbers for all the combos to lie in the range .85 to 1. Closer to 1 when one plate is much thicker than the other, closer to 0.85 when they are about the same thickness.

30+30 should be between 51 and 60, closer to 51

20+50 should be between 60 and 70, closer to 70

30+50 should be between 68 and 80.

So off the cuff we'd estimate 54, 67, 74 for the respective combos.

Would the Brits report ranges you interprete as 69mm when the plate is actually resisting as 54mm? They would if shatter continues to 1.28x penetration.

Why did the Germans consider 50mm sufficient as a replacement for 30+30? Because their own analysis told them they are close in overall protection. The 85 rule from formulas agrees with that. The British range data do not imply the right ratio was 1.15 times effect, wrong in sign. Instead they suggest hardness issues modestly boosted 0.85 to more like 0.9. The rest is shatter behavior.

The Germans did not consider 30+30 worth the additional weight because 50mm still protected against 45mm guns, while neither 50mm nor 30+30 protected against 76mm guns, even out to medium ranges.

To get any real protection against 76mm, they went to 70-80mm of armor. They did not find 20+50 sufficient and went to 30+50 instead. They found 80mm uniform an improvement over 30+50. All of which fit layered plates resisting weaker than a uniform plate, and 20+50 not being sufficient against Russian 76mm.

The Russians consistently report successful engagement against 80mm front Panzers at 500m. They consistently report success for their various towed 76mm at 600-800m. None of which are consistent with the boosted resistence numbers plus immediate onset of shatter we currently see in CMBB.

You've taken 30+30 and 30+50, boosted it to 69mm and 88mm, then added up to 1.3 times shatter, and thereby turned ordinary vanilla Panzers and StuGs into Tigers. It is absurd. All the tactical evidence is against it.

[JasonC]

To John on kill claims -

One, planes are not tanks. They don't come back from missions or they do. Tanks linger in intermediate categories for months, like lost luggage, with a constant flow into and out of repair categories.

Two, the plane kill claims show that own side estimates are always high, just as I said. In their case, they ranged between a consistent 1.5 times for the Germans, and 1.1 to 1.4 in the period you gave for the Allies. The higher rate for the Germans probably reflects multiple claims against heavy bombers damaged repeatedly before going down, and the greater ambiguity of FLAK kill claims compared to fighters.

Three, your own statement of German SOP about their own kill claims during the war was that they gave all own side claims a 50% "haircut". In the period you mentioned, by Russian figures German claims were high by 1.74 times, while the Germans by their rule of thumb positively expected them to be high by 2 times.

The Germans had exactly the unit by unit, date by date breakdown of claims you say is necessary for a detailed analysis, but they did not believe their own numbers on that basis. On the contrary, they knew to a certainty that they were high, they just did not know how much. Having all the detailed info, right at the time, did not enable them to refine their estimate of the overclaiming to 1.74 times. They just knew they were high, by something like a factor of 2. Which is exactly what not you, but I, have been maintaining through the whole discussion.

Four, you say that it is "easy" to make up ratio claims that get the math to fit. You are wrong. It is not easy. Just about every set of ratio claims anybody actually advanced can be shown by the math to be wrong. They persistently result in too many dead enemy claimed.

The most detailed studies suffer if anything the most. The best control on "local exaggeration" is precisely the *global* control of an overall budget.

This is a principle readily understood in all matters of pedestrian accounting. Until you've closed the "general ledger", even if inaccurately, you can have no faith in any of the subcategory figures. It is not at all the case that the subtotals must be more accurate than the overall ones. On the contrary, very often the overall numbers are known with great certainty and precision, while the subcategorizations are subject to all kinds of additional error.

Take your Russian ATG kill ratio claims. They are implausible on their face. Their obvious meaning is as a *norm*, what the Russians *hoped* units would achieve, or what a commander would have to report in the way of "selling his men dear" in order for his losses not to be seen as blameworthy. That they cannot be remotely true as literal accomplishments can be easily seen by just taking them literally, and applying those ratios to the ATGs the Russians fielded.

The Russians built around 10K 57mm ATGs. At 3 each, that is 30K kills. The Germans only built 45-50k AFVs. Did 57mm ATGs alone kill 2/3rds of them? THe Russians built over 60K 76mm guns. Most were used as div arty. But if even 1 out of 4 acted as an ATG and accounted for 2.5 each, they score 37.5K kills. Did 76mm towed guns account for 3/4 of all German AFVs? Overall, the Russians fielded on the order of 150K ATG and field guns. If even the 1/4 figure given for the 45mm were correct for the whole park rather than the weakest member of it, that leaves 1/4 or less of the German AFVs to all the western allies, air, infantry, and just as an afterthought the entire Russian tank fleet. There is no way that actually happened.

What they were really doing was piously wishing that a 45mm ATG battery was worth a Panzer, tactically speaking, while a 76mm battery was supposed to be able to stop a tank platoon without getting wiped out in the process. They probably used such ratios to estimate what counted as an "adequate" level of anti tank defense thickness for a given frontage or against a given enemy formation size.

But there is no way they actually achieved such kill ratios. They produced over 100K tanks and 150K artillery systems, at least half of them direct fire, and the Germans only had 50K tanks. Ergo, the average Russian major AT system did not account for a single German AFV. 1/4 for a tank and 1/8 for a gun is more like it. With light tanks and 45mm guns lower than those figures, T-34s and 76mm guns near them, and heavier tanks and 57mm ATGs somewhat above them.

Find me any actual Russian ratio claims that are that low and I'll eat a hat. Everybody's ratio claims are way too high. Going into minutae of unit and date will not remove the problem, only highlight it. As your 50% German SOP "haircut" should tell you.

So no, it is not easy to fit ratio claims to the math of an overall accounting of AFV losses. Any realistic effort with the numbers shows this. And puts severe limits on the uniformly outsized claims everybody and his brother peddles about weapon effectiveness. All weapons are not above average. And no obscure figures are needed to establish the fact.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC:

To John on kill claims -

One, planes are not tanks. They don't come back from missions or they do. Tanks linger in intermediate categories for months, like lost luggage, with a constant flow into and out of repair categories.

Did i imply anywhere they were?. That was not the point that was an example of proper research.

Three, your own statement of German SOP about their own kill claims during the war was that they gave all own side claims a 50% "haircut". In the period you mentioned, by Russian figures German claims were high by 1.74 times, while the Germans by their rule of thumb positively expected them to be high by 2 times.

Jason you were given that example again to show proper research, Ie, you were given actual claims for June - Sept 1943, & actual Soviet losses. The same research you should be citeing when you make these unsubstatntiated claims In that I mean you have cited 0 sources for your claims here, and presented them as fact.

by date breakdown of claims you say is necessary for a detailed analysis, but they did not believe their own numbers on that basis. On the contrary, they knew to a certainty that they were high, they just did not know how much. Having all the detailed info, right at the time, did not enable them to refine their estimate of the overclaiming to 1.74 times.

Jason it does not matter what thte Germans thought at the time, two wrongs dont make a right. You have acess to data they never had, yet you confine yourself to their methods, and present it as fact, yet the Germans did not have all the data, the data I gave you was actual Soviet tank losses over that date vs actual claims, the Germans had no access to it.

Four, you say that it is "easy" to make up ratio claims that get the math to fit. You are wrong. It is not easy. Just about every set of ratio claims anybody actually advanced can be shown by the math to be wrong. They persistently result in too many dead enemy claimed.

Exactly Jason, except most ppl advanceing these ratios back up their wrireings with hard data. You have not given us access to how you derived your data, and as we saw it was flawed concerning Tiger claims, this as I said brings all your posts content into question alone.

Take your Russian ATG kill ratio claims.

Correction Jason the ATG efficiency is from an Soviet report not 'my claims'.

The Russians built around 10K 57mm ATGs. At 3 each, that is 30K kills. THe Russians built over 60K 76mm guns. Most were used as div arty.

Overall, the Russians fielded on the order of 150K ATG and field guns.

This is exactly what i'm talking about with your data in these posts, you throw these numbers out, Ie, 10k 57mm etc, the Soviets produced a little over 5000 57mm AT guns in WW2, yet your useing 10,000 as a benchmark. errors like this bring your posts unsupported content into question.

*Soviet 45mm M1932/M1937/M1942 ATG Production June 22 1941 - May 9 1945:

1941 - 2,100

1942 - 20,504

1943 - 21,500

1944 - 4,100

1945 - 600

Total = 48,804

Soviet 57mm M1941/M1942 (Zis-2) ATG Production June 22 1941 - May 9 1945:

1941 - 400

1942 - 0

1943 - 1,900

1944 - 2,300

1945 - 800

Total = **5,400

Total Soviet AT gun Production June 22 1941 - May 9, 1945 = 54,204.

*See: Sharp Charles C. Red Thunder p.14

**Total does not include 400, 57mm M1, & 96, 6lb AT guns recieved lend lease.

Soviet 76mm Gun/Howitzer Production June 22 1941 - May 9 1945:

1941 - 6,500

1942 - 23,339

1943 - 16,600

1944 - 17,300

1945 - 4,800

Total = 69,539

122mm M1931/37 (A-19) Cannon Production June 22 1941 - May 9 1945:

1941 - 300

1942 - 300

1943 - 500

1944 - 200

1945 - 100

Total = 1,400

By the end of the war *73% of the Artillery Regts were used in the antitank role, compared to 27% being used as divisional artillery. For every divisional artillery Regt their were 3, AT Regts.

*See: Dunn Walter S. Hitler's Nemesis p.203

Would you like me to list Soviet Artillery production, piece by piece so you can adjust your numbers accordingly?.

As to the rest its been covered, as I said you can dispute official reports, that dont fit in with your opinion Jason, the report was on the efficiency of a single AT gun/type.

This is an example of how they judged their wpn system, you do not have to agree with it etc, it was provided, so readers here can see actual reports vs unsupported opinion. Same with how actual German claims were halved, as an example. The data is out their to make an imformed post on this subject. one just has to look for it, & it would help to make an imformed anlyss on this subject, compared to the unsupported conjecture

thats been been posted here.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 17, 2003, 12:12 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[rexford]

Jason C posted "You've taken 30+30 and 30+50, boosted it to 69mm and 88mm, then added up to 1.3 times shatter, and thereby turned ordinary vanilla Panzers and StuGs into Tigers. It is absurd. All the tactical evidence is against it."

Horsefeathers.

British firing tests against PzKpfw IIIH armor showed the 32mm/30mm combo resisted like 69mm, where all plates are face-hardened. The report I read stated that the shots were straight at the PzKpfw IIIH horizontal armor facing.

Naval face-hardened armor is different from tank armor, so I would toss out the naval experience when we are talking tanks. Naval face-hardened armor experience shows that face-hardened is inferior to homogeneous rolled armor at angles like 55 degrees, U.S. firing tests against tank grade face-hardened show that that armor is better than homogeneous on 55 degree hits by 90mm APCBC rounds.

Where does shatter gap enter into this at all?

I previously posted all of the reasons why layered armor is not a good idea on the front of a PzKpfw IIIH. Why wouldn't the Germans just put 70mm face-hardened on the front of PzKpfw III? Here's why:

Russian tests on a cross-country track showed that PzKpfw IIIG was the fastest tank, faster than Panther, T34 and everyone else. Why was it so fast?

Because it was light and probably because it had a multi-speed transmission that kicked butt. Plus all the other little niceties.

When the Germans uparmored PzKpfw III by putting 20mm spaced on the driver plate and turret front, they did not add anything to the lower hull front like they did on PzKpfw IIIH. Adding 20mm spaced to the PzKpfw III turret front addressed the previous lack of added protection, but nothing for the lower nose area.

I would guess that weight considerations kept the armor thicknesses down and ruled against adding 20mm to the front lower hull, plus policy decisions. Even though 32mm/30mm was effective the Germans went with 50mm on the front of PzKpfw III and IV even though T34 hits would penetrate the armor at 1900m.

Speed may have been as important as armor protection.

Several folks have e-mailed my home address saying that German armor experts indicate that 32mm/30mm face-hardened layered armor was about as effective as a single 50mm plate. Maybe it was.

The British test report I read suggested the shots were straight at the armor, not at 30 degrees side angle. And the PzKpfw IIIH front armor was supposed to have given 2 pdr armed tanks and ATG the fits.

If 32mm/30mm resists like 50mm than 2 pdr AP should penetrate at 500 yards.

Right now we have differences of opinion on 32mm/30mm. If the tests were at 30 degrees side angle, then instead of 69mm single plate equivalent resistance we would have 69mm/1.25 or about 55mm.

I would say that the burden of proof is on the people who say the tests took place at 30 degrees side angle, and my interpretation is incorrect.

If Jason C has "tactical evidence" to prove his case let him show us!

[ April 16, 2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

Jason C sez: "The Russians consistently report successful engagement against 80mm front Panzers at 500m."

Please share with us the source of the above statement, and what guns and ammo were used.

Russian equation for face-hardened penetration of 76.2mm APBC has 500m figure of 76mm for 50% penetration probability. Against 80mm face-hardened armor the penetration probability per hit would be about 24%.

Of course, if the Russians were using solid shot AP instead of APBC the penetration and success probability would climb.

And maybe they were using special APBC, or were firing APCR.

Give us some more from your source and it may win your case. I'am flexible on this stuff, you know, but you have to do better than unsupported claims.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The Russians consistently report successful engagement against 80mm front Panzers at 500m. They consistently report success for their various towed 76mm at 600-800m.

The M1939 USV 76mm gun which was the mainstay of Soviet divisional artillery fired a standard 6.3kg AP round with a MV of 676m/s according to Soviet docs it penetrated 70mm of armor @ 500m.

The 57mm M1941 fired an 3.14kg round with an MV of 990m/s that penetrated 100mm of armor @ 500m. The only Soviet dedicated AT gun that could defeat 80mm of armor @ 500m on paper was the 57mm gun.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 17, 2003, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[JasonC]

Smash mouth and counter, not even listening...

Rexford, I said "shatter behavior", not "30 degrees side angle". You are arguing against a position the man in front of you did not take.

I am suggesting the Brit reports failure of 2 pdr etc were shatter failures, not insufficient penetration failures. That those failures go away again only when the round has more than enough overpenetration (of 50-55mm combined plate effectiveness) to overcome shatter.

If that is still not clear enough, the 2 pdr is marginally overpenetrating 30+30, but with low diameter to thickness and against hard armor. It breaks up. That is why the Brits see 69mm effectiveness. That is the far side of the shatter, not the base resistence of 30+30.

John, did you even think about actually looking at your production numbers and whether they are consistent with the ratio claims you report? I get 150K claimed German AFV kills by the ATGs alone, from your numbers rather than mine, counting the 76s as only 1/2 ATG. Did you even bother to look?

It does not change the falsification of the ratio claims at all. I am perfectly willing to accept more detailed production numbers. But they don't change the conclusion, that the Russian ATG ratio claims are obviously false. Multiply them out. It is not rocket science. You just have to be willing to do something with your head (or fingers and a calculator) instead of just cutting and pasting and saying "official".

You profess a lot of interest in method, reports, and data, but precious little in the true numbers for kills by various weapons. You will never find it in the places you are looking for it - things like the Russian ATG ratio claims. They are all way, way too high. I don't look for accuracy in historical kill claims because I know to a certainty, from own side overall accounting, production etc, that they are way off.

You might at least address the obvious logic - are all weapons above average? If not, can the average weapon have a kill ratio greater than 1 when the weapons fielded equal or exceed the enemy items claimed as destroyed? If the average one does not, can any appreciably outperform without some appreciably underperforming unity? Must not practically all weapons dramatically underperform 1 kill each, when there are far more of said weapons than of the things it is claimed they have killed?

"I don't care. If an official report says 7 kills per Tiger, or 2 kills per ATG, then it is an official report." So what, when you know it is wrong?

Show me my own ballpark estimates of 1/4 per AFV and 1/8 per gun for Russians are off by any appreciable amount, and I'll call it instruction. Show me how an average, vanilla German AFV of 1943 to 1945 could have accounted for multiple dead Russian ones, and I'll call it instruction. Ignore the argument instead, and I'll call it pedantic evasion.

[ April 17, 2003, 05:15 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

More on Russian 76mm -

The 1939 USV was not the mainstay of Russian div arty, it was a comparatively rare gun. The ZiS-3 was. Just a quibble, it does not matter to the actual argument before us.

CMBBs own formulas give the various Russian 76s 77, 78, 79, and 81mm penetration at 500m (Zis-3, USV, F-22-36, tank L42).

The Russian field manual BTS sells on this website gives the effective range of 76mm ATGs against all German panzers besides Tigers and Panthers as 600m. That is the range they opened up, according to doctrine. 76mm ATGs formed the front of kill sacks with 45mm on flanks, into the late war. Hardly sensible if the average German AFV was practically invunerable from the front.

Every Russian source I've seen for T-34 doctrine fighting 1943 vanilla Panzers and StuGs says the T-34 is effective at 500m. The Russian battlefield site agrees. The latter gives the following values for initial penetration of vertical plate at 500m - 350A - 78mm, 350B - 84mm, 350P - 92mm.

The CMBB figure is the straight average of the 350A and 350B round figures given at RB. Incidentally, when you were looking at this stuff last summer Rexford, you gave numbers of 71mm for the 350A and 75mm for the 350B at 500m. Those agree with the RB numbers if they are meant to be for 30 degree angle, or for complete penetrations rather than partials. The figures for initial penetrations are 7-9mm higher. For those in Rio Linda, only the P is subcaliber T ammo (APCR). The B is just capped.

No tactical source I've seen, German or Russian, says 76mm was "ineffective even at point blank" against vanilla Panzers or StuGs. Panzertruppen says of Tiger invunerability from the side "at ranges over 800m". Tiger sides were actually 82mm, and higher quality than most other German plates of similar thickness. So it is of course possible for 76mm to fail against Tiger sides without failing against StuG fronts.

One Russian test report has been presented to me saying 76mm failed against Tiger sides at 500m, but it also says that 75mm PAK failed, when that has 135mm-140mm penetration at that range. Not a believable claim on its face.

And now I really will let the faithful return to their labors...

[ April 17, 2003, 05:03 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Brigadier]

Good LORD I must say, the knowledge base of the readers of this forum, never cease to amaze me!

[rexford]

Originally posted by PzKpfw 1:

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

The Russians consistently report successful engagement against 80mm front Panzers at 500m. They consistently report success for their various towed 76mm at 600-800m.

The M1939 USV 76mm gun which was the mainstay of Soviet divisional artillery fired a standard 6.3kg AP round with a MV of 676m/s according to Soviet docs it penetrated 70mm of armor @ 500m.

The 57mm M1941 fired an 3.14kg round with an MV of 990m/s that penetrated 100mm of armor @ 500m. The only Soviet dedicated AT gun that could defeat 80mm of armor @ 500m on paper was the 57mm gun.

Regards, John Waters </font>

[rexford]

When the British fired against PzKpfw IIIH in the desert, the penetration ranges were all associated with vertical penetration of 71mm face-hardened armor (target was driver plate at about 9 degrees vertical slope). Guns and ammo included 2 pdr AP, 37mm APCBC, 6 pdr AP, 75mm AP and APCBC.

If we assume that the tests took place with a 30 degree horizontal side angle, then the 32mm/30mm face-hardened combo on the PzKpfw IIIH resisted like a single plate thickness of:

56mm vs 6 pdr AP

55mm vs 37mm APCBC

58mm vs 75mm AP

58mm vs 75mm APCBC

This assumes British tested for 50% penetration range. If they tested for furthest range that allowed any penetrations than the above resistances would be reduced by about 4% or so.

Does Jentz' Panzertruppen Vol. I present data for these tests, which could have taken place during early 1942. Perhaps Jentz has something on the side angle that was used.

I had the original British firing test report and my take from reading the document was that the tests against PzKpfw IIIH hull front were conducted at 0 degrees side angle.

Can anyone help out on this?

Thank you.

[rexford]

"If we assume that the tests took place with a 30 degree horizontal side angle, then the 32mm/30mm face-hardened combo on the PzKpfw IIIH resisted like a single plate thickness of:

56mm vs 6 pdr AP

55mm vs 37mm APCBC

58mm vs 75mm AP

58mm vs 75mm APCBC"

The above figures correspond to a naval type equation for layered armor resistance of:

0.84 times outer plate thickness plus inner plate

where the outer plate was assumed to be 32mm.

If we assume the outer plate is 30mm thick the equation changes to:

0.89 times outer plate thickness plus inner plate

So 30mm/50mm on PzKpfw IVG and IVH would be estimated at (takes average of about above two equations):

30mm x 0.86 + 50mm = 76mm single plate thickness

This would be the case if British tests in desert were held at 30 degrees side angle.

Several years ago we obtained an American report which analyzed the ballistic resistance of German 30mm face-hardened plates, and the resistance was all over the place. In many cases the 30mm plates resisted like alot less than 30mm face-hardened. Decreases in German face-hardened plate resistance could contribute to increased effectiveness of Russian ammo.

The Russians assume in their calculations that APBC and AP rounds penetrate the same thickness of face-hardened armor at the same velocity, diameter and weight, which may be a simplifying assumption to make calculations easier. So there is a chance that APBC penetrates 5% to 10% more than the calculated figure, which would change the wargame model.

If we had good info on penetration ranges for Russian guns and ammo against German 80mm armor (both 30/50 and 80 single plate), we could make more sense out of all this and perhaps resolve the British firing test issue.

[ April 17, 2003, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

More on Russian 76mm -

CMBBs own formulas give the various Russian 76s 77, 78, 79, and 81mm penetration at 500m (Zis-3, USV, F-22-36, tank L42).

The Russian field manual BTS sells on this website gives the effective range of 76mm ATGs against all German panzers besides Tigers and Panthers as 600m. That is the range they opened up, according to doctrine. 76mm ATGs formed the front of kill sacks with 45mm on flanks, into the late war. Hardly sensible if the average German AFV was practically invunerable from the front.

No tactical source I've seen, German or Russian, says 76mm was "ineffective even at point blank" against vanilla Panzers or StuGs. Panzertruppen says of Tiger invunerability from the side "at ranges over 800m". Tiger sides were actually 82mm, and higher quality than most other German plates of similar thickness. So it is of course possible for 76mm to fail against Tiger sides without failing against StuG fronts.

?During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountred about 20 Russian tanks to their front and several more behind??Both tigers were hit 10 and more times at ranges from 500m to 1000m?..Not a single round penatrated through the armour?..also hits in the running gear, in which suspension arms were torn away did not immobilise the Tigers. (1996 Jentz P39)

?unlike the Tiger the sides are not invulnerable to 76mm Pak.? (1996 Jentz P96)

Which page if any have Jentz showing/translating routine 800m vulnerability to 7,6cm guns again. I can't find it. I mean there is a bit that has SU-122 having problems penetrating 8cm Tiger armour yet nothing there crying about the weakness of side armour versus 76mm Paks. There is talk of 8cm invunrability at "close" and "short" range.

Higher quality? You do know the same steel works that made 8cm tiger plates made the 8cm plates for all other AFVs, simply they came off the same lines of production. The only problems they had with 8cm plates was the large FH ones needed for the Panther glacis, which offred problems in quenching due to the sheer size.

Wa Pruf 1 reports also have tables showing Tiger side vunrability at sub 100m ranges.

?According to captured orders the tank crews (Russian) have been forbidden to combat German StuGs? 22 Sep 1943. (1993 Spielberger P242)

[ April 17, 2003, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Andreas]

Some tactical evidence that could be interpreted to mean that all was not well with the 76mm gun.

From Battlefield.ru

[...] the gun on the Valentine was really excellent! It could easily penetrate Tiger's side armor! And Valentine itself turned out to be a very successful vehicle, low, literally human height.

[...]

Sometimes you could approach a Tiger unnoticed on a Valentine. There was such a case during the Kamenets-Podol'skii Operation. A tank platoon went to reconnoiter -- three T-34 tanks. In the bushes, they ran into a German Tiger in an ambush, which shot them up after letting them approach to the distance of 500 meters. Then we sent a 57mm Valentine, which outflanked the Tiger, moved stealthily through the bushes to the distance of 250-300 meters, and destroyed it with only one round.

Some food for thought - I'd be interested to see some source info for Jason's claims other than 'a report I have seen'.

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by rexford:

[qb]

Lorrin my post dealt with Soviet wartime published penetration data for the 2 weapons. I undrstand it can be low etc, from your & Robert's research, but the Soviet ordinance ppl used the data. In no way, were they advocateing the 76mm USV or Zis-3 could defeat 80mm of plate @ 500m useing an standard AP round.

Regards, John Waters

[JasonC]

The Jentz quote does not say vunerable under 800 (I never said it did), it says invunerable beyond 800. It is from the Tigers book not Panzertruppen, my mistake. "The Tiger's armor was invulnerable to attack from most tank guns firing normal armor-piercing shells or shot at ranges over 800 meters, including the American 75 mm and the Russian 76 mm." Note the exclusion of sub caliber ammo from the statement. In CMBB, even the sub caliber 76mm needs point blank and flat shots.

As for the tactical report of 2 Tigers hit 10 times and not penetrated, it is perfectly believable. The ranges are given as varying betwen 500 and 1000m, and some of those are front shots. And in all such tactical firefights, there is bound to be side angle.

You cannot conclude that e.g. 350B ammo could not penetrate 80mm at 500m with a flat hit, from a report of unknown ammo at 500-1000 hitting front and sides at unknown side angles a modest number of times, without one of them being a penetration. Maybe half the hits were front or to the running gear. Maybe half of the remainder had high side angle. Maybe all of them were 350A rather than B.

As for underperformance of Russian 76mm in present CMBB, I wonder if you guys are playing the same game I am. The 30+30 front Pz III Js of 1942 outperform the T-34, 1943 model with 70mm turret. *30+30* bounces practically all 76mm AP as close as 500m, today. Let alone 80mm.

Only the LH is vunerable on a IIIJ, and it typically sees only partials and occasional ricochet successes beyond 500m. Meanwhile the IIIJ penetrates the LH of the T-34 at 500m sometimes, the turret front irregularly out to 650m with AP, and out to 900m occasionally, and 750m regularly, with APCR.

This is at a time when German reports of Russian doctrine was that they stood off at 1000m plus, while the Germans were trying to close. The Russians didn't switch to closing tactics until they faced 80mm fronts in 1943.

Set up any 1942 hull down duel between IIIJs and T-34s at any range, from 500 to 1250m, frontal armors only exposed. The IIIJs will win. 30+30 will bounce all the 76mm hits, with at worst an occasional "internal armor flaking". The IIIJs will get turret partials in the bottom half of that range window with APCR, lower hull and turret partial at the bottom end of it with plain AP. They will also hit sooner and more often at any range, accumulating gun damage and immobilizations sooner.

CMBB has Russian 76mm basically ineffective against 30+30 at 500m (like a 2 pdr) when the debate should be about its effectiveness against 30+50 at that range. The Russians start closing and flanking a year early, and need flanks instead of flank or close against vanilla AFVs at mid war.

[ April 17, 2003, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB]

Realy Jason would you care to present your source that the USV was not the mainstay, as Dunn, & Budur, & Samsanov all disagree with you. Ie, in 1944* 48% of the 76mm Divisional artillery Regts excludeing AT Regts,

consisted of M1936 (F-22), M1939 (USV), M1942(Zis-3), & M1943 guns.

See: Dunn Walter S. Hitler's Nemesis p.193

The USV was the upgrade to the F-22 reduceing the barrel length to L/42 & reduiceing the weight to 1,483kg, with a strengthened recoil system & carriage, which made i6t easier to manhandle then the F-22.

Its interesting in Lorrins past posts concerning US tests with the Tiger E, that its 80mm @ 0^ side hull armor resisted as if. it was an greater thickness Ie, in one case the 80m plate resisted 90mm APCBC hits as if it was actualy 91mm thickness. British tests in North Africa showed that the Tiger's 80mm side armor resisted as if it was 82mm of British plate.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 17, 2003, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC:

John, did you even think about actually looking at your production numbers and whether they are consistent with the ratio claims you report? I get 150K claimed German AFV kills by the ATGs alone, from your numbers rather than mine, counting the 76s as only 1/2 ATG. Did you even bother to look?

What Soviet claim ratios did i report Jason?. The Soviets credit 2/3rds of all German armor lost on the Eastren front to Artillery.

It does not change the falsification of the ratio claims at all. I am perfectly willing to accept more detailed production numbers. But they don't change the conclusion, that the Russian ATG ratio claims are obviously false. Multiply them out. It is not rocket science. You just have to be willing to do something with your head (or fingers and a calculator) instead of just cutting and pasting and saying "official".

Ok Jason why dont you present us with actual Soviet claims, with actual AT guns deployed Ie, as of Jan 1 1945 the Soviets had 8,400 AT guns deployed in 59 Tank Destroyer Brigades & Regts

list your sources, etc & we can look at the sources data & validity & then break out calculators, be alot more imformative then multiplying production numbers.

You profess a lot of interest in method, reports, and data, but precious little in the true numbers for kills by various weapons.

Jason please point me to your post where you listed actual Soviet claims, please point me to your post where you listed documented kills by

each weapons system. With your refrence citations, & i'll be happy to look at them.

"I don't care. If an official report says 7 kills per Tiger, or 2 kills per ATG, then it is an official report." So what, when you know it is wrong?

Obviously you dont Jason, my posting of this data is to give readers the benifit of documental evidence vs your unsubstatiated ramblings.

Show me my own ballpark estimates of 1/4 per AFV and 1/8 per gun for Russians are off by any appreciable amount, and I'll call it instruction. Show me how an average, vanilla German AFV of 1943 to 1945 could have accounted for multiple dead Russian ones, and I'll call it instruction. Ignore the argument instead, and I'll call it pedantic evasion.

Show us where your data comes from, how it was derived & cite the refrences, as we have repeatedly asked & we can start a comparison from their until you do wouldn't that be an example of 'pedantic evasion'.......

Regards, John Waters

[ April 17, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[JasonC]

John, you are getting too scattered to sustain a conversation, and continue to ignore the actual argument being made by the man in front of you. So this is my last round of responses.

I said the Zis-3 was the div arty mainstay rather than the USV. You respond by saying a list of 4 guns combined, including both, compromised half of div arty. Which completely fails to address the question, itself no more than a quibble, since all it says is the combined 76mm types were the backbone of div arty, which was not in dispute. The Russians fielded roughly 4 times as many Zis-3s, the 1942 model 76mm, as USVs, the 1939 model 76mm.

You ask what Russian kill ratio claims you reported. You need me to tell me what you have already said yourself? You cited Russian numbers of 3 AFV kills per 57mm, 0.25 AFV kills per 45mm, etc. Which account for too many dead German AFVs. All weapons are not above average, in case everybody forgot, was the whole point. The numbers you listed would account for 150K dead German AFVs (5K 57s each 3 + ...) . If that is supposed to be 2/3rds of AFVs killed in the east, the implied claim is 225k dead AFVs - 5 times what the Germans fielded.

You can't field 150K arty systems, kill 30K tanks with them (an upper bound, 2/3rds of all German AFVs), and get an average kill per gun of 2 out of it. There is a zero missing. The Germans can't field 60K AFV and heavy PAK 43-45, kill 60K Russian tanks over the same period, and get an average kill per weapon system of 5 or 10 out of it.

If the Russians field 100K AFVs and 150K direct fire guns (more than that for all field caliber guns, but some used indirect) and the Germans lose less than 50K tanks to all causes including them, then the average kill per Russia AT weapon system fielded is less than 1/5. If the Germans field 60K AFVs and direct fire guns 43-45 and the Russians lose 60K tanks to all causes including them (with losses in west under losses on all fronts to infantry, etc), then the average kill per German AT weapon system is 1 or less.

I don't need any official anybody to tell me these things. It is math, the definition of "average", and perhaps the oh so slippery nature of that elusive concept "less than". I've lost patience trying to get you in particular to wrap your mind around so obvious a point, so bye now.

[JasonC]

John, you are getting too scattered to sustain a conversation, and continue to ignore the actual argument being made by the man in front of you. So this is my last round of responses.

I said the Zis-3 was the div arty mainstay rather than the USV. You respond by saying a list of 4 guns combined, including both, compromised half of div arty. Which completely fails to address the question, itself no more than a quibble, since all it says is the combined 76mm types were the backbone of div arty, which was not in dispute. The Russians fielded roughly 4 times as many Zis-3s, the 1942 model 76mm, as USVs, the 1939 model 76mm.

You ask what Russian kill ratio claims you reported. You need me to tell me what you have already said yourself? You cited Russian numbers of 3 AFV kills per 57mm, 0.25 AFV kills per 45mm, etc. Which account for too many dead German AFVs. All weapons are not above average, in case everybody forgot, was the whole point. The numbers you listed would account for 150K dead German AFVs (5K 57s each 3 + ...) . If that is supposed to be 2/3rds of AFVs killed in the east, the implied claim is 225k dead AFVs - 5 times what the Germans fielded.

You can't field 150K arty systems, kill 30K tanks with them (an upper bound, 2/3rds of all German AFVs), and get an average kill per gun of 2 out of it. There is a zero missing. The Germans can't field 60K AFV and heavy PAK 43-45, kill 60K Russian tanks over the same period, and get an average kill per weapon system of 5 or 10 out of it.

If the Russians field 100K AFVs and 150K direct fire guns (more than that for all field caliber guns, but some used indirect) and the Germans lose less than 50K tanks to all causes including them, then the average kill per Russia AT weapon system fielded is less than 1/5. If the Germans field 60K AFVs and direct fire guns 43-45 and the Russians lose 60K tanks to all causes including them (with losses in west under losses on all fronts to infantry, etc), then the average kill per German AT weapon system is 1 or less.

I don't need any official anybody to tell me these things. It is math, the definition of "average", and perhaps the oh so slippery nature of that elusive concept "less than". I've lost patience trying to get you in particular to wrap your mind around so obvious a point, so bye now.

[rexford]

German estimates of penetration ranges are often not very creditable, being based on penetration data and armor resistance calculations of questionable source and reliability. The British and Americans also produced some fantastic pieces of military fiction when it came to penetration ranges.

Is there something in writing that states that 76.2mm Russian guns could penetrate the front hull 80mm on StuG III's and PzKpfw IV's, which was face-hardened?

This bit about Russian tanks sitting back and waiting for panzers to attack (until they started carrying 80mm frontal armor) is baloney, one little anecdote stretched to cover an entire front.

During 1942, T34 attacked German units that had PzKpfw III and IV with 50mm frontal armor, there are several accounts of this in Jentz' Panzertruppen Vol. I.

A copy of the original British report on various guns and ammo against PzKpfw IIIG and IIIH is being sent to me to replace the copy I lost. I'll look it over and see if it suggests something I missed before.

[ April 17, 2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[PzKpfw 1]

Originally posted by JasonC:

John, you are getting too scattered to sustain a conversation, and continue to ignore the actual argument being made by the man in front of you. So this is my last round of responses.

Realy Jason, you present unsubtantiated posts, I ask for refrences to back them up, you refuse to present refrences, Hmm who's ignoreing who.......

I said the Zis-3 was the div arty mainstay rather than the USV. You respond by saying a list of 4 guns combined, including both, compromised half of div arty. Which completely fails to address the question, itself no more than a quibble, since all it says is the combined 76mm types were the backbone of div arty, which was not in dispute. The Russians fielded roughly 4 times as many Zis-3s, the 1942 model 76mm, as USVs, the 1939 model 76mm.

And I asked you for the refrence that substatiates your claim, I presented 3 authors that disagree with your unsubstantiated opinion, & as on par, the refrence requests go unanswered.

You ask what Russian kill ratio claims you reported. You need me to tell me what you have already said yourself? You cited Russian numbers of 3 AFV kills per 57mm, 0.25 AFV kills per 45mm, etc. Which account for too many dead German AFVs. All weapons are not above average, in case everybody forgot, was the whole point. The numbers you listed would account for 150K dead German AFVs (5K 57s each 3 + ...) . If that is supposed to be 2/3rds of AFVs killed in the east, the implied claim is 225k dead AFVs - 5 times what the Germans fielded.

Realy I presented a Russian report on the efficency of their AT systems concerning the performance of a single gun of each type, nothing more nothing less. You imply that represents a kill ratio for each gun produced of 3 etc, please post where ythe excerpt stated that.

Also you conviently ignore my last posts content 5k guns produced does not mean 5k were serving on the front. Ie, I gave you exact totals of AT guns on the Russian front for Jan 1 1945, a lil over 8,000 of all types.

I don't need any official anybody to tell me these things. It is math, the definition of "average", and perhaps the oh so slippery nature of that elusive concept "less than". I've lost patience trying to get you in particular to wrap your mind around so obvious a point, so bye now.

Thats obvious Jason, as you arn't interested in facts, other then your opinion stated as irrefutable fact.

It's obvious you are incapable of discussing this unless, we accept your unsubstantiated comments as fact. Not once did you provide a refrence for your claims, yet you were given and ignored reports & refrences, your theories errors were corrected Ie, Heer Tiger claims, 57mm AT production. You were given an example of actual German claims from all servicesfrom June -Sept 1943, etc. All this could have been used to help make an imformed post or as a starting point, but you chose to ignore it, because it didn't fit your vision of claims totals.

Anyway all your posts in this thread remind me of the classic strawman argument, so asta Jason.

Regards, John Waters

[ April 17, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[PzKpfw 1]

IIRC, their was 1 report in Panzer Truppen concerning the T-34-76 engageing PzKpfw III 5. cm L/42s at 1200m because it was impreviuos to 5. cm L/42 fire at that range while the PzKpfw III kz was vulnerable frontaly.

Another Soviet report in Dunn's HN stated the 76mm gun outranged the German 5. cm L/60 PAK and was on par with the 7.5 cm lg

Regards, John Waters

[ April 18, 2003, 01:08 AM: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[rexford]

There is a report in the U.S. series on Eastern Front combat where T34/76 used to linger outside villages and German positions at 1200 yards or so, because at the range the 76.2mm could destroy German armor but the panzers were pretty much useless. This particular case took place early during 1943 and was the first effective use of Tiger tanks.

The Tigers came out of hiding and blew away the T34, leading to the expression that Mr. T34 raises his hat when he meets a Tiger (the T34 turrets were apparently being thrown clear of the tanks after 88mm hits).

Anyway, this suggests in a way that the 75L43 gun on PzKpfw IVG was ineffective against the T34 hull front at 1200 yards (about 1100m), which is consistent with some reports in Jentz' Panzertruppen Volume I. While 75L43 could easily pierce the T34/76 turret front and mantlet at 1200 yards, most hits would land on the front hull.

My calculations have 75L43 penetrating T34 front hulls at 1600m or so on half the hits.

Another report in Jentz (same volume) indicates that 75L43 penetrated T34 at any angle to 1200m, and had a max penetration range of 1600m. This is consistent with my estimates.

So why do the reports vary so much for 75L43 against T34 front hull?

Possibilities include:

1. ammunition quality varied

2. armor quality varied

3. T34 had thin extra plates welded onto hull front in one of the cases

American armor analysis for T34/85 found in Berlin ruins after WW II showed that 45mm plates varied widely in impact resistance, from 4 to 14 foot pounds Charpy notch impact resistance.

When the Germans test fired against T34 like armor during early 1942, the results varied widely. In some cases the armor resisted with considerably more success than the average, while in other cases the armor was really substandard.

Maybe the production care and attention varied between the T34 armor which beat back 75L43 hits beyond 1000m, and the armor which was defeated at 1600m.

I will look into this further and start a separate thread.