George Forty on Panzers vs T34, March 1943

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Paul Lakowski:

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

3. Degradation of the Russian armour steel was not noticeable. However, the armor steel is darker and finished rougher. The tanks reveal they were produced in a short time, because there is no evidence of any close tolerance work. The turret of the T34 is not made form a single piece,; instead it is assembled from numerous pieces. In many T34 tanks the armor walls wre created from pieces of 1cm thick steel with 6cm filling of cast iron or other material and then a second piece of 1cm thick steel.

What part of the T-34s armor is 8cm thick and what other materials do they use other than steel and cast? </font>

[JasonC]

On the 1200 and 1600 bit of the report, I don't ignore it, I just don't see it settling the question. You can if you like read it as saying "everything that hit the glacis at 1600m went right in", but it does not actually say anything of the kind. If the unit in question opened at 1600m when they had a flank and at 1200m from the front aspect every word of the report could be true without any penetration having been achieved against the front glacis beyond 1200m.

It is not like the ability of the 75L43 to destroy a T-34 at 1600m from some aspect or other is in question. If it were the only evidence we had, it might be reasonable to read more into it, but it isn't. The whole thread started with a statement that the Russians were immune at 1350 yards until the Tigers showed up, and that they were surprised at that range because of it.

By the way Bastables, did you see the report in the same place that 50L60s got their kills at 150m? Also, GD was not new to the area in March. It was back after a refit, and the Tigers were new, but it had been fighting in the Kharkov area through February. It had mostly long 75 Pz IVs before the refit as well. In fact, it had long 75 IVs quite a while ago, as early as the fall of 1942, if the pictures in "Panzer Elite" have the right captions anyway (pp.75-76). Hmm, that also says the 50mm PAK was only effective against the T-34 at point blank range, not 1250m.

Rexford, your slope effect figures are higher than anyone else's, unless restricted to very high velocity rounds. The 75L70 is not the 75L43. CMBBs slope effects for 60 degrees for the ordinary velocity German 75s are 2.04 to 2.11 at 1000m, 2.21 to 2.31 at point blank. Even the 75L70 only has 2.33 at 1000m, though it is 2.84 at point blank. The only rounds with figures in your range are APCR, or the equally super velocity 88L71. The cosine itself gives 2x of course, and standard references give 2.22, which is exactly what CMBB gives the PAK 40 at point blank.

Your 107 flat figure is 3mm higher than CMBBs for the L43, and CMBBs are higher than anybody else's. 98mm and 102mm are commonly given for the better PAK 40 or 75L48. Gee, who else was saying 100mm flat? Cooper in "Panzer" has a caption to a PAK 40 picture on p. 71 that says "could penetrate 102mm at 1000 yards." The ASL vehicle site gives 98 and 102, while its range for 30 degree values runs from 72 to 85, averaging 80-1.

If I average CMBB slope effects vs. ordinary velocity German 75s with APCBC at 1000m I get 2.075 times for 60 degrees. With 100mm base performance that predicts penetration of 48mm. Over the required thickness by 3mm, with no reduction for quality. The penetration is going to drop 4-5% in another 200m, and put you right on the 45mm line. With a slope effect around 2.1, not nearly 3. And no giant countervailing 30% reduction for armor quality. Sounds like you are using a slope effect from the wrong velocity range.

Some other fun facts I've run across recently, for the faithful to chew over. In CMBB the chance of a Russian T-34/76 of the Kursk era penetrating a Tiger at any range or aspect is miniscule, as most have probably experienced. Somehow Lt. I.I. Burschick, hero of the Soviet Union, managed to get credited with 6 of them during the battle of Kursk, in a T-34.

General Lingenthal from Pz Rgt 15, 11th Pz Div, reports his Pz IIIs were ineffective against 1941 T-34s even with flank shots at ranges under 300m, all weapons were completely ineffective at 800m, and some effect was obtained only by using 75L24 HE to ignite external fuel or damage the engine compartment. 7th Pz's Rgt 25 reports Czech 37s were completely ineffective against T-34s from the front. Both from "the initial period of war on the eastern front", p. 336 and p. 174.

Of the same period Cooper in "Panzer" says the Russian 76 could penetrate the thickest German armor (30+30 on Hs and E, presumably) at 1000 yards while the Germans had to close within 200 yards to make a kill. Anybody have to do that in CM, against .9 quality T-34s?

Checking the slope effects I also notice the curiousity that the T-34s 76mm is quite the outlier. It has slope effect 1.62 vs. 60 degrees at point blank, 1.44 at 1000m - confused? I mean if it is German (captured). Leading to the wonderful anomoly that a T-34 can penetrate another T-34 at 1000 yards - if German - but can't penetrate a StuG at any range. When with ordinary slope effects, let alone Rexford's hypervelocity ones, 45@60 is much stronger than 80 flat. Isn't that special?

The details - the German T-34 has the following penetration advantages over the Russian - +2mm flat at 1000m, +1mm vs. 30 degrees at 500m, +2mm vs. 30 degrees at 1000m. Who would notice those. But +5mm at 100m vs. 60 degree slope, and a whopping +11mm at 500m vs. 60, +12mm at 1000m vs. 60. In tests I just ran, every Russian T-34 shot that hit the upper hull of the German T-34 bounced. Every German T-34 shell that hit the upper hull of the Russian T-34 went in - in one case causing a brew up at 750m. (Either killed with lower hull hits, with the slope modeled as less than it actually is).

Slope effects if you are Russian 2.03 at point blank, 1.85 at 1000m. If you are German, 1.62 at point blank, 1.44 at 1000m. Same tank, same gun, same MV, same listing as blunt nosed APBC with large HE charge. But 45mm penetration for the German vs. 33mm penetration for the Russian. Isn't fudge delicious?

P.S. Zetterling and Frankson in "Kursk 1943", published 2000, have an appendix that gives various armor penetration ranges. Their 30 degree listings for the 75L48 at 1000m is 84mm and for 75L43 is 78mm. Not a small difference, 7.7%. That's in appendix 12 on page 212. In appendix 13 they present match ups graphically, front side and rear, low side angle or some, for each gun vs. each target.

Russian 76 vs. Tiger I side has a dashed line for 400m range, meaning can penetrate with low side angle. Same vs. Pz IV from the front. Vs. Pz III is has solid line (good penetration even with side angle) for 100m, 600m with low side angle. The Pz IV or StuG 75 is listed just as KwK 40, without specifying L43 or L48. It has a solid line for 500m (good chance vs. high side angle), dashed to 1050m. 1600m rear and 2000m side solid lines. The long 50 has point blank only with low side angle vs. front, side 600m solid and 1250m dashed (low side angle), rear 300 solid and 900 dashed. I'm not the only one that thinks the German 75 was a km range gun vs. the T-34 glacis.

The same source has useful info on L43 vs L48 mixes on the eastern front. It says there were no L48 Pz IVs on the eastern front in April, they reached parity with the L43s by August, and by the end of 1943 there were only 66 L43 Pz IVs left on the eastern front. So, roughly, through 1st quarter 43 all are L43 (and this is the era George Forty it speaking of), Kursk era and summer they are half and half, last quarter L48s are more common, 44 they are uniform L48s. StuGs made the transition sooner, and were mostly L48s through 1943. See p. 196.

[ November 25, 2003, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[White Phosphorus]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Russian 76 vs. Tiger I side has a dashed line for 400m range, meaning can penetrate with low side angle.

I read a Russian article about Kursk a while ago, and there a Soviet tanker recalled that during the briefing their unit commander specifically instructed the unit to engage Tigers only from the side below 500m and ONLY using sub-caliber ammunition. Of course the reporter could've been wrong, the tanker could've remembered it wrong his officer could've been wrong. So interpret it how will.

[Mr. Tittles]

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

The penetration tables here are for 75L70 gun. The round is coming in at an angle. It says that T34 hull can not be penetrated after 300M.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

The penetration tables here are for 75L70 gun. The round is coming in at an angle. It says that T34 hull can not be penetrated after 300M.

Very good webpage that you posted. Interesting.

[Mr. Tittles]

I think I have read in 'Death Traps' and other sources that there is an angle where AP rounds will all fail (if they are not so massive compared to the armor that they cave in the structure). Its 20 degrees or so.

From what I understand, the AP has to get its pointed front into the armor. If the AP shot only makes contact along the side of the armor along its ogive part, then it will not start to 'dig-in'.

So armor angled at 30 degrees that has an additional side angle from shots coming non-strait on are very hard to defeat. So would extremely sloped armor like the stugs above the driver (its like 22 degrees or something). When the stugs reinforced this area with concrete, the concrete might actually act as a lubricant rolling under the sliding round. I have read of one account of a AP strike on this area. the round slid to the top edge, bounced up over the commander and landed, spent, next to his cupola.

I would have to guess that Panzer/PAK and StuG schools would stress 'orthoganal' shooting. Trying to get as dead on a shot as possible. The T34, even if its hull/glacis was so indefeatable, would deflect the rounds upward into the overhanging turret.

[rexford]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"The whole thread started with a statement that the Russians were immune at 1350 yards until the Tigers showed up, and that they were surprised at that range because of it."

The whole thread started with the statement that during March 1943 around Kharkov T34's were felt to be immune at 1325m against panzer guns, not on all fronts.

My response was that the armor thickness and/or quality, and maybe the ammo quality, caused that penetration range impact.

"Rexford, your slope effect figures are higher than anyone else's, unless restricted to very high velocity rounds. The 75L70 is not the 75L43. CMBBs slope effects for 60 degrees for the ordinary velocity German 75s are 2.04 to 2.11 at 1000m, 2.21 to 2.31 at point blank."

My slope effects are based on analysis of actual firing test data, and are superior to anything else around.

Notice how Jason neatly side steps my example where U.S. 75mm APCBC hits 45mm at 60 degrees, and the slope effect is 2.71 for a round striking at less than 2000 fps.

Jason, as someone told me a long time ago, instead of looking at game figures get off you *** and look at the figures suggested by actual firing tests such as TM9-1907 for low and medium velocity rounds.

"Your 107 flat figure is 3mm higher than CMBBs for the L43, and CMBBs are higher than anybody else's. 98mm and 102mm are commonly given for the better PAK 40 or 75L48."

First of all, 75mm L46 Pak 40 rounds are fired at a much higher muzzle velocity than 75mm L48, and should penetrate about 8% more. 792 m/s muzzle velocity for 75mm Pak 40 Pzgr 39, 750 m/s for 75mm L48 Pzgr 39. Many published sources got that wrong.

My figures are based on German equations for proof and production rounds which were derived from firing tests.

You know the commonly quoted 30 degree penetration figures for German ammo (Chamberlain & Ellis, Panzertruppen Vol I and II, etc.), well those figures are for proof rounds that have to penetrate on five straight hits. So those figures have nothing to do with production rounds that succeed on half the hits.

My figures are for production rounds with half a chance to penetrate.

Forget about the CMBB slope effects and look at TM9-1907.

I would also note that slope effect is not a function of impact velocity, it is a function of plate thickness compared to projectile diameter for AP and APCBC rounds.

"In CMBB the chance of a Russian T-34/76 of the Kursk era penetrating a Tiger at any range or aspect is miniscule, as most have probably experienced. Somehow Lt. I.I. Burschick, hero of the Soviet Union, managed to get credited with 6 of them during the battle of Kursk, in a T-34."

What about hits on the 62mm lower hull side armor, Jason? T34 76.2mm ammo penetrates that thickness beyond 500m.

"Checking the slope effects I also notice the curiousity that the T-34s 76mm is quite the outlier. It has slope effect 1.62 vs. 60 degrees at point blank, 1.44 at 1000m - confused."

Jason, you show no understanding of Russian flat nosed APBC ammo, which has superior slope effects due to an anti-ricochet characteristic of flat nose ammo.

With regard to the various published penetration ranges for German and Russian guns during the Kursk battle, they are sometimes based on alot of calculations which may have used questionable data.

One site on Kursk indicates that the Russians fired APDS discarding sabot rounds during 1943, which they clearly did not have.

Practically all Russian penetration figures published during WW II were against face-hardened armor, and the Russians used those figures to predict penetration ranges against tanks with homogeneous armor such as Tiger. So they made lots of mistakes.

Jason, you need to learn more of the penetration and armor resistance basics before you try to analyze everything under the sun.

[ November 26, 2003, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

Originally posted by Mr. Tittles:

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html

The penetration tables here are for 75L70 gun. The round is coming in at an angle. It says that T34 hull can not be penetrated after 300M.

The calculations are probably based on penetration data for proof rounds succeeding on five straight hits, which underestimates performance with production ammo at 50% success.

The ranges are probably also based on a method that did not take into account the loss of resistance when high hardness armor is hit by projectiles that are wider than the armor is thick.

And finally, the calculations probably assume a 30 degree side angle from gun barrel to hull facing, so 75L70 Pzgr 39 is landing on the T34/85 glacis at 64 degrees obliquity.

The Germans also tended to use one slope effect against all armor thicknesses, while the slope multiplier depends upon the plate thickness/projectile diameter ratio.

A 300m penetration range for Panther against the T34/85 glacis plate does not seem very realistic.

[ November 26, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[rexford]

Regarding real world slope effects, our book provides actual firing test data to support our results:

75mm L40 APCBC (all hits at about 2000 fps)

2.22 slope effect against 40mm plate at 55 degrees

1.86 slope effect against 47mm plate at 50 degrees

1.73 slope effect against 51mm plate at 45 degrees

Notice that the impacts are low velocity for a WW II tank gun, proving that the slope effects are not inflated by "hyper velocity" hits.

U.S. Army TM9-1907 provides actual firing test data for various diameter APCBC rounds at angles from 0 to 75 degrees from vertical. Analysis of British and German APCBC shows that the TM9-1907 are applicable to those countries' APCBC and APC ammo.

As a check, we analyzed British firing tests with German 75mm and 88mm APCBC ammo against armor plate at 45, 50 and 55 degrees slope, and the slope effect curves derived from American TM9-1907 data closely predicted German ammo performance.

[ November 26, 2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

By the way Bastables, did you see the report in the same place that 50L60s got their kills at 150m? Also, GD was not new to the area in March. It was back after a refit, and the Tigers were new, but it had been fighting in the Kharkov area through February. It had mostly long 75 Pz IVs before the refit as well. In fact, it had long 75 IVs quite a while ago, as early as the fall of 1942, if the pictures in "Panzer Elite" have the right captions anyway (pp.75-76). Hmm, that also says the 50mm PAK was only effective against the T-34 at point blank range, not 1250m.

No Jason, The old Pz GD abt before "refit" (aka a brand new second abt arriving in feb 1943) had only 1/3 of PIV Lang, 12 of them. Most of the Panzers were PIV kurz before the abt was rebuilt to regt size. during 1942 there were just as many PII as PIV lang in Pz GD abt.

(Panzertruppen I pg239)

Pz regt 33 fighting in the same area noted that T-34s were killed by 7,5cm lang at any angle at 1200, and that the new PIV langs outranged the 7,62cm armed T-34s and KVs leading to Russian Tank units not accepting combat with PIV langs.

No it does not Jason, the report states that they only ever engaged the sides and rear of KV's and T-34s at 150m, not that 5cm rounds would fail above that range.

Pz regt 33 in 1942 note that the entire T-34 was killiable at 400-500m with Pzgr 38 except the galcis.

The wording of the 5th Panzer report means that the 7,5cm L\43 penatrated the T-34s even from the front at the engagement ranges of 1200m to 1600m. Only you could read it as side armour hits/penatrations.

1000m would allow 5cm Pzgr 40 with 79mm of penatration to punch through the 65mm of 1942 T-34 front turret armour.

[ November 27, 2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Caesar]

An excellent debate gentlemen. I am thoroughly enjoying it, while learning quite a lot. My knowledge of such things is a little too limited to enter this debate.

I do have a question about the two layer armour though. I have read accounts of British 2pdrs encountering such armour in the desert (Pz 111s??? - can't remember for sure). The account I read noted that the British gunners were dismayed by the fact that the shells appeared to bounce off. The author noted however, that often what was actually happening, was that the outer layer of the armour was coming off and that the target could well be incapacitated. My apologies I have been unable to find the book that mentions this, (nor many of my books since the kids took an interest in 'the books with the big tanks in them' )

My question is though, if this was the case with a pop gun like the 2pdr, what was the state of the stugs after a hit with a gun like the 76mm. From what I have read (and assuming I am understanding this correctly), that the 2 layers of face hardened armour were causing the shell to shatter on the second layer. If this is the case, surely the top layer would be basically wrecked or blown off. How many of these upgraded Stugs were wandering around with only one layer remaining.

[rexford]

Jason brought up a very good question, why do the published slope effects for German 75L43 APCBC look so much lower than what is found during U.S. firing trials with 75mm ammo. A very good question that took me awhile to figure out.

CMBB presents penetration stats vs typical enemy armor, and Russian plate used two distinct hardness levels during 1943, very high hardness for 65mm and below, and medium hardness for above 65mm.

When 75mm APCBC hits high hardness plate the plate will lose resistance relative to medium hardness plate.

So here's the scoop for 75L43 APCBC penetration:

The 0 degree penetration stats are against medium hardness plate, the 60 degree figures are against high hardness.

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

100m

128mm at 0 degrees in CMBB (medium hardness)

58mm at 60 degrees in CMBB (high hardness)

47mm at 60 degrees with slope effect from U.S. firing trials (medium hardness)

So CMBB is saying 58mm of high hardness armor = 47mm of medium hardness when it's hit by 75mmL43, so the high hardness plate is 81% as resistant as medium hardness.

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

500m

117mm at 0 degrees in CMBB (medium hardness)

55mm at 60 degrees in CMBB (high hardness)

44mm at 60 degrees with slope effects from U.S. firing trials (medium hardness)

So CMBB is saying 55mm of high hardness armor = 44mm of medium hardness when it's hit by 75mmL43, so the high hardness plate is 80% as resistant as medium hardness.

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

1000m

104mm at 0 degrees in CMBB (medium hardness)

51mm at 60 degrees in CMBB (high hardness)

40mm at 60 degrees with slope effects from U.S. firing trials (medium hardness)

So CMBB is saying 51mm of high hardness armor = 40mm of medium hardness when it's hit by 75mmL43, so the high hardness plate is 78% as resistant as medium hardness.

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

2000m

82mm at 0 degrees in CMBB (medium hardness)

43mm at 60 degrees in CMBB (high hardness)

33mm at 60 degrees with slope effects from U.S. firing trials (medium hardness)

So CMBB is saying 43mm of high hardness armor = 33mm of medium hardness when it's hit by 75mmL43, so the high hardness plate is 77% as resistant as medium hardness.

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

Our calculations indicate that 45mm plate at 60 degrees should resist 75L43 APCBC with 76% of the resistance of medium hardness armor, so CMBB is in line with our equations.

[rexford]

Originally posted by Caesar:

I do have a question about the two layer armour though. I have read accounts of British 2pdrs encountering such armour in the desert (Pz 111s??? - can't remember for sure). The account I read noted that the British gunners were dismayed by the fact that the shells appeared to bounce off. The author noted however, that often what was actually happening, was that the outer layer of the armour was coming off and that the target could well be incapacitated. My apologies I have been unable to find the book that mentions this, (nor many of my books since the kids took an interest in 'the books with the big tanks in them' )

My question is though, if this was the case with a pop gun like the 2pdr, what was the state of the stugs after a hit with a gun like the 76mm. From what I have read (and assuming I am understanding this correctly), that the 2 layers of face hardened armour were causing the shell to shatter on the second layer. If this is the case, surely the top layer would be basically wrecked or blown off. How many of these upgraded Stugs were wandering around with only one layer remaining.

Your point is very well taken.

The Germans found that placing two face-hardened plates next to each other, 32mm/30mm on PzKpfw IIIH, presented great resistance to 2 pdr and 37mm AP rounds. On the other hand they found that the combination was a maintenance nightmare, angled hits tended to shear off the bolts or crack the welds (depending upon how the two plates were connected: PzKpfw IIIH used bolts and armor upgrades on older tanks used welds).

British firing tests found that the 32mm/30mm layered in contact armor on PzKpfw IIIH resisted 37mm thru 75mm hits with the same effectiveness, equal to one face-hardened plate of 69mm thickness.

During the British firing tests with no side angle, guns pointed directly in line with hull facing, the plates held together well even after 6 pdr and 75mm hits. From what I've read it was angled hits that created the headaches.

Would a 75mm round create more connnection (bolt or weld) damage than a 37mm hit at 30 degrees side angle on a hit that failed to penetrate? Depends.

The British found that when uncapped rounds failed against the PzKpfw IIIH the ammo broke up, while defeated hits with capped rounds like 75mm APCBC caused quite a bit of damage to the inside plate.

The Germans gave up on two plates in contact on the PzKpfw III series with the PzKpfw IIIJ model (late 1941), the two plates in contact was the only way they could get out alot of tanks with more than 30mm armor while getting into gear with 50mm front plate production (or so I've read).

It is interesting that after all the problems with PzKpfw IIIH the Germans kept on using layered armor with PzKpfw IV and StuG III.

[rexford]

Just guessing, but it may be that the two plates in contact on PzKpfw IV and StuG III were fastened together better than PzKpfw IIIH, and thus were able to survive hits by larger rounds.

When PzKpfw IIIH came out, the biggest British tank and anti-tank guns were usually the 2 pdr (2.38 pound 40mm shot) and the Stuart 37mm (1.92 pound shot). The 25 pdr fired a 20 pound 87.6mm shot, but most British hits on PzKpfw IIIH might be by 40mm and smaller ammo.

PzKpfw IIIH came out about the same time as Barbarossa, so the Germans may not have considered hits by 76.2mm ammo (just under 14 pounds).

By the time PzKpfw IV's and StuG III's with 30mm-over-50mm face-hardened arrived, hits by 75mm and 76.2mm rounds were expected to occur on a regular basis. So I'am guessing that the level of connection strength was improved.

It is interesting ot note that the Germans went to 20mm homogeneous spaced infront of 50mm face-hardened on the front of PzKpfw IIIL, M and N, and used something similar on PzKpfw IVF.

Desert war vets state that after a few hits the 20mm high hardness spaced plate would crack up, and they suggested that I look at pictures of spaced armor PzKpfw III's to see how many were missing either the turret or hull front spaced plate.

Many were missing a 20mm plate.

While Russian (122mm ammo) and British (75mm ammo) tests showed that the 20mm spaced plate set off the HE burster in rounds, leading to defeat of the fragments by the 50mm hull plate, spaced 20mm armor did not become a fixure on PzKpfw IV. Possible maintenance problem.

[rexford]

The following summarizes everything that was found on T34 armor thickness, quality and resistance to German 75mm hits, using much information posted by others on this thread:

NOTES ON PzKpfw IV 75mm L43 GUN AGAINST T34

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

"Characteristics of the T34.

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

The T-34 can be penetrated at ranges up to 1000 metres with the 7.5 cm PaK 40 as well as the 7.5 cm Hohlgranate (hollow-charge shells)"

My notes:

=======

Comments regarding sloping of armor leading to shells to skid off and 1000m penetration range by Pak 40 suggests German guns may have been firing with poor angles to target, leading to highly angled hits against the front and side armor.

Interesting to note that Russian cross-country races with Russian and captured German tanks showed PzKpfw III to be superior to early T34 and comparable to later T34 models, which is contrary to above statements.

It sounds like the Germans were beat bad by the Russians and the report is using excuses to cover up possibly poor tactics.

Based on my calculations 75mm Pak 40 APCBC penetrates about +10% more than 75mm L43 at all ranges, so 75L43 would penetrate T34 front at less than 1000m.

2. Jentz Vol 1 243

Pz regt 33

"Penetration Ability of the 7,5cm Kw.K 40 L.43 Pzgr 39 against the T-34 (31 July 1943)

The T34 is cleanly penetrated at every angle that it is hit at ranges up to 1200m."

The report also notes that the advent of the 5cm and 7,5cm lang has meant a definite superiority to the T34.

3. Page 41 in the English edition of Jentz, where it explicitly states in a report from 5.PD, dated 20. March 1943:

" 7,5cm Kw.K. L/43 in 4 Pz.Kpfw.IV

[Knocked out] 17 KW-I, 26 T34, 1 T26, 1 Mark II, 3 Mark III, 1 General Lee

Pzgr.39 was fired at ranges from 1200 to 1600 meters. Every hit caused a destructive effect with the tank going up in flames. Two to three Pzgr.39 were expended per tank killed."

4. Jentz says on pages 36 and 37 in Vol. 2

"In the period from 7 March to 20 March 1943, 250 T34, 16 T60 or T70 and 3 KW-1 tanks were knocked out.

The number of kills scored by each type of weapon were:

* 188 by Pz.Kpfw.IV 7,5cm lang

* 41 by Sturmgeschuetz 7,5cm lang

* 30 by Pz.Kpfw.VI (Tiger)

* 4 by 7,5cm Pak (mot Zug)

* 4 by 7,5cm Pak (Sfl)

* 1 by a direct hit from a sIG

* 1 using a Hafthohlladung

(PR GD began with 5 Pz II, 20 Pz III 50L60, 10 Pz IV 75L24, 75 Pz IV 75L43, 9 Pz VI 88L56, 2 PzBefWg 50L42, and 26 Flammpanzer III. Their losses and total write offs amounted to 1 Pz III 50L60, 1 Pz IV 75L24, 11 Pz IV 75L43 and 1 Pz VI Tiger).

Degradation of the Russian armour steel was not noticeable. However, the armor steel is darker and finished rougher. The tanks reveal they were produced in a short time, because there is no evidence of any close tolerance work. The turret of the T34 is not made form a single piece, instead it is assembled from numerous pieces. In many T34 tanks the armor walls wre created from pieces of 1cm thick steel with 6cm filling of cast iron or other material and then a second piece of 1cm thick steel."

5. Forum discussion of Russian firing test report by Valera Potapov where 75L43 penetrates T34 front hull at 1000m with 30 degree side angle.

6. George Forty presentation of report from U.S. Department of the Army pamphlet No. 20-233 entitled German Defense Tactics against Russian Breakthroughs, published October 1951.

"Normally the Russian tanks would stand in ambush at the hitherto safe distance of 1,350 yards (1,235m) and wait for the German tanks to expose themselves upon their exit from a village. They would then take on the German tanks under fire while the panzers were still outranged."

Since PzKpfw IV with 75L43 guns were in the area, the above suggests that T34 front hull was proof against 75L43 hits at 1,235m.

Reported combat results in 34 T34 kills by two Tigers.

7. Jeff Duquette measures T34 glacis thickness through opened hatch door, 50mm to 55mm range (supporting picture posted on Yahoo! Tankers site).

8. When Germans duplicate T34 armor for spring 1942 firing tests, they use plates with 42mm to 53mm thickness which suggests the possibility that a wide range of field measurements were experienced although it is not conclusive evidence.

9. Americans measure actual thickness of SU 100 lower front hull as 60mm although design spec is 45mm.

10. Americans analyze 45mm armor plates from T34/85's found in Berlin ruins, plates measure close to 45mm but vary in quality from excellent to poor. Firing tests compared resistance of Russian high hardness armor to American medium hardness plate, 45mm Russian high hardness armor is inferior to U.S. medium hardness.