T-34 and KT vulnerability issue solved (was: narrow turret front)

[Jarmo]

AAIIIEEEEHHH!! What's happening to me!!??? :eek: :eek:

I'm reading Rexford posts and understanding them!!

My eyes! My eyes! *whimper*

[Ligur]

Heh heh, I know what you mean and its alarming, I actually carefully read (and tried to comprehend) rexford posts in this thread since I've been thinking about the 37mm, 50mm and T-34 by myself.

.

.

.

*gouges eyes out for good measure*

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by rune:

I have some photos still of some of the kills, taken after the battle.

Rune,

Do you think you could get a copy of those photos in some way ?

Very interesting interview.

regards

[Amedeo]

Browsing through Glantz's book 'Stumbling Colossus: the Red Army on the eve of World War' I found the following interesting quote (the autor is describing some observations from Maj. Gen. Morgunov, Chief of Southwestern front Armored Forces: "Curiously enough, even at this stage of war, he noted that KV and T-34 tank armor needed to be augmented for defense against German antitank guns".

Could anyone provide the text of this report? I've found Morgunov's report dated 15 and 17 July 1941 but this one should have been written on July 13.

BTW I found a website that has the complete report from the 10 TD commander I was quoting earlier, you can read it here (unfortunately it's in Russian).

It's interesting to note that he says that the hull armour is penetrated by 37mm rounds at 300-400m (so it was not a translation error, he's talking about the hull not the turret), while the vertical side armour plates are penetrated also by 20mm rounds.

Regards,

Amedeo

P.S. Rune, thanks for sharing with us your uncle's answers.

[Pantherbait]

Yeah, I know thanks It was more of a rhetorical question.

Originally posted by Renaud:

Originally posted by Pantherbait:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> For that matter, if that kind of hitting was possible, why was it sop to be firing from a stationary position at a stationary target with WW2 armor.

This was necessary because German WWII AFV's did not have gun stabilization, which is unrelated to gun accuracy. That is to say, the ballistic accuracy of the gun is a seperate issue from the rangefinding, targeting and stabilization technology used to point the weapon: if you manually lay either a modern M256 smoothbore or WWII 88L56 correctly and apply the proper elevation you will hit with both reliably at ranges well over 1500 meters. Obviously, using the modern targeting devices, today's tank gunners are expected to get first round hits EVERY time even at long (1500+) ranges. You don't get the same accuracy if you must use the regular auxilary optical sights and no rangefinder. It may take you several shots, maybe only 1 or 2 if the TC has time to find range with the .50. However, my point is that the guns themselves are essentially the same in regards to ballistic accuracy, and that crews specifically trained in manual rangefinding (a skill in which modern US crews are poorly trained, but hardly need) as were those in WWII will hit regularly well beyond 1250m. I think if you stuck Bobby Woll in the gunner's seat behind a M256 120mm (a german designed gun btw) and asked him to only use the Gunner's Auxilary Sight, he would probably compare favorably to me using the full hi-tech works. Of course the standard Tiger I optical sight is vastly better than the M1 GAS which is extemely 'auxilary'...

On a side note, I believe a major contributor to the legendary long range AT effectiveness of the LW 88 Flak units was their high level of gunnery training particularly in manual rangefinding techniques.

Ren</font>

[rune]

Thanks guys....I have a lot of respect for my uncle and don't like to push him on a subject he never has talked about, even to his own family. I am the only one he ever answered questions to.

As for the pictures, I will certainly ask. However, be warned the entire process will take about 2 weeks untill I get a reply, so remind me, my email is in my profile. I will talk to my mom when I get home from work.

Rune

[Andreas]

Rune, if there are technical terms your mother can not translate, I'd be happy to do that.

[rune]

Andreas,

I may take you up on that. Obviously my mom isn't German Military savy. Will get the words when I call her tonight.

I THINK one of the terms was Das Gewehr manlet. I assume it means gun manlet, but not sure. The other was the description of so many Russian tanks, will see if I can find out what the term was.

Rune

[ October 21, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

[Amedeo]

Someone has any idea about what could have caused these turret penetration on a T-34 model 1940?

Bye

Amedeo

[Renaud]

Nice! My guess would be high verticle angle strikes by 50L42 or L60 AP at a roughly 90 degree angle to that turret surface. In CMBB you can do it pretty regularly from range if you are on a slightly higher elevation firing down on the T34.

Rune: I think on behalf of everyone I can extend sincere appreciation for the information conveyed by your grandfather. It's not every day that you get to hear 1st-hand (OK, 3rd hand in our case, counting your mom's translations) personal accounts like that.

As an added bonus his comments seems to validate several assumptions in CMBB, including the front T34 turret weak spot (I'm guessing when a near 90-degree vertical/horizontal AOI strike on the rounded turret face (gun mantlet?) occurs).

Whether a 37mm could achieve this in reality as it does in CMBB is still being debated I suppose. But looking at the numbers and other arguments so far, I tend agree that yes a 37mm will barely penetrate if you get a near 90-degree AOI hit right on the rounded turret front from within a few hundred meters. This is what we see in the Yelnia scenario, for instance. Not very reassuring to the door-knocker crew however: "Yes, you MAY penetrate the front turret if you get a hit dead center, assuming you don't get machine gunned or HE'd first. Oh, and it may not cause much damage so you will have to hit several times in that exact spot".

Ren

edit: Oh, and gewehr means 'rifle' or 'gun' so yes he must have meant the gun mantlet (the 'curved' portion of the turrent front, like the curved front of the panther mantlet).

[ October 21, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[rexford]

Following is from a British report on the analysis of German data after WW II, which deals with long range fire by 88L71:

A report from Wa A (Administration, East) Southern Russia in October 1943 said of the 8.8cm gun 41.43 that is was difficult to camouflage and to move but was outstandingly accurate. The best fighting range was said to be 2500-3500 metres.

A report on the tractor drawn equipment from the Heavy Anti-Tank Battalion B said

"The manoeuvravility proved better than expected. Accuracy was so good that, in some cases, A.F.V.'s were knocked out at ranges up to 5km."

[rexford]

The following penetration data for 50L42 and 50L60 APC are reduced to consider HE burster size and to be more consistent with British and American figures:

50mmL42 APC

75mm at 0m, 71mm at 100m, 66mm at 250m, 58mm at 500m, 45mm at 1000m, 35mm at 1500m

50mmL60 APC

99mm at 0m, 94mm at 100m, 88mm at 250m, 77mm at 500m, 59mm at 1000m, 46mm at 1500m

The above data results in a very low penetration percentage for 50mm L42 APC against 75mm KV-1 armor at all ranges except point blank.

The 50mmL60 APC penetrated the KV-1 75mm/30° at 100m and failed at 200m in spring 1942 tests by Germans. The 75mm/30° armor resists 50mm APC like 95mm vertical, the 50mmL60 APC penetration is 94mm at 100m and 89mm at 200m using the above figures.

It is suggested that CMBB use the revised figures I've presented for 37mmL45 AP, 50mm L42 and L60 APC and 75mmL24 APCBC, which would improve combat results against T34 and KV-1/KV-2.

Data for 37mm L45 AP suggests very inferior projectile metal quality compared to 75L43 APCBC, and will not allow penetrations of T34 except at very close range (45mm vertical or near-vertical plates). 50mm L42 AP and APC will penetrate T34 vertical or near vertical 45mm plates out to fairly good ranges.

[ October 21, 2002, 06:20 PM: Message edited by: rexford ]

[Pantherbait]

Any idea what caused the jagged edges to the holes ? All such pics I've seen before had very smooth edges.

Originally posted by Amedeo:

Someone has any idea about what could have caused these turret penetration on a T-34 model 1940?

Bye

Amedeo

[Renaud]

Maybe cause it was a weak or partial penetration. Which would make sense if it was a German 50L42 at a distance especially. Or maybe it was early 75mm shaped-charge. That could account for the blackened holes, or maybe it just burned out. Holes look kinda small for 75mm tho.

Ren

[offtaskagain]

It could well be the effects of a shaped charge. The hole made by a shaped charge is actually quite small. Somewhere on the Russian battlefield site there is a quote about 'Fausts leaving a hole about the size of a cent, so in the area of 1-2 cm in diamter.

[Andrew H.]

Are you sure that those hits on the T-34 are actual penetrations? They look more like gouges to me. Maybe they're 20mm or 37mm hits that didn't penetrate, but that burned off the paint near where they struck.

[illo]

Looks exactly like shaped charge penetrations to me.

[ October 21, 2002, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: illo ]

[offtaskagain]

It looks like theres a 75mm/88mm size hole right next to the gun. Either that or it's a really big coax or sight hole.

[offtaskagain]

Found another with similar holes. Magnetic mines perhaps?

[rexford]

When combat reports are analyzed for T34 kills, Model 42 had 65mm turret front and side, which obviously changes results compared to earlier models.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Pantherbait:

Any idea what caused the jagged edges to the holes ? All such pics I've seen before had very smooth edges.

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

Someone has any idea about what could have caused these turret penetration on a T-34 model 1940?

Bye

Amedeo

</font>

[rune]

Information about the American review of the T34:

Armor

A chemical analysis of the armor showed that on both tanks the armor plating has a shallow surface tempering, whereas the main mass of the armored plating is made of soft steel.

In this regard the Americans consider that by changing the technology used to temper the armored plating, it would be possible to significantly reduce its thickness while preserving its protective ability (the situation with American armor was even worse. Engineers in Aberdeen have criticized their armor on Shermans. Soviet engineers have agreed with them because during the comparative trials Soviet ZIS-3 gun could penetrate Sherman's galcis from 1100 metres - Valera). As a result the weight of the tank could be decreased by 8-10%, with all the resulting benefits (an increase in speed, reduction in ground pressure, etc.)

Rune

[Pantherbait]

Ok, thanks for the hole info. guys. I was like Andrew's post; wasn't sure if they were actual penetrations or not.

[ October 21, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Pantherbait ]

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

It looks like theres a 75mm/88mm size hole right next to the gun. Either that or it's a really big coax or sight hole.

I've seen the same hole in pictures of (apparently)functioning T-34 obr.1940 tanks, so it was a port made in the factory, not a result of combat activities.

Regards,

Amedeo

[Jagdratt]

Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

[/QB]

I've noticed in many photos of burned out tanks - like this one - that there's a large accumulation of sandy looking material between the wheels. Is this debris from burned rubber and paint or ?