Jump to content


Detail Page: Gun Characteristics


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

Septfox #21 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 02:22

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 15614 battles
  • 201
  • Member since:
    11-16-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Sep 19 2013 - 00:01, said:

On the other hand, if a target is fleeting, it may well be better to hit him with a big gun once, instead of hoping that the target will hang around long enough for two or three shots with a smaller, faster gun.
...and this right here is why a certain tier 6 tank is regarded as overpowered by everyone except most of the people who drive it; sure, you can out-DPS it in something like a Churchill, but anyone with two braincells to rub together isn't going to sit out in the open and LET you.

Anyway, great article, very informative. The bit on shell composition in particular taught me something; I was always under the impression that shells used solid cores from the beginning, and only dedicated HE/HEAT/etc used explosives.

View PostKauris, on Nov 09 2013 - 17:43, said:

I noticed you didn't comment on acpr, which even though it's basically better AP rounds with less pen at range, I still would have liked to learn a bit about them.
I can try a bit...but I'm tired and not all too knowledgeable about it myself, nor am I particularly brushed up on my physics.

APCR is a sub-calibur round.
Basically, you have a smaller central core made of harder/denser material(s), surrounded by a softer/lighter material (or metal flanges) to fill the space between it and the barrel walls to keep the propellant behind the shell. On impact, since the core has a smaller cross section than normal full-sized AP made of typical metals, the energy it has is focused into a smaller area, giving it more ability to punch through armor. The material it's made of helps as well; tungsten carbide is very hard and very dense, depleted uranium is softer but even denser. The density in particular is important, because the much smaller penetrator would have a correspondingly much lower amount of inertia otherwise.

I believe that the increased shell speed is due to the shell being lighter and therefore reaching a higher speed, faster, before leaving the barrel. The loss of penetration and velocity over long range is because the shell, despite being partially constructed of a very dense material, is still lighter than a full-sized AP shell; air drag has a more profound effect, since you have a shell that has as much air resistance as normal AP but less overall mass.

The Chieftain could probably explain it better, and I'm probably wrong on a couple points, but that's how they work as I currently understand.

FryaDuck #22 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 02:23

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Testers
  • 10974 battles
  • 499
  • Member since:
    11-17-2010

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 10 2013 - 23:11, said:

Where do I disregard it? I point out that it doesn't try to penetrate the armor, which is true. I never said it didn't work or wasn't effective. And for the record, the munition type is still in US Army service today, we just call it "HEP" for some reason.

Basically. I could do a thorough treatise, I guess, on all the factors which affect penetration, from face hardening through blunt-nosed rounds through shatter gap, but it doesn't seem particularly relevant in a 'lite' article like this one.

Perhaps you should considering you have the access to relevant data and employment paying for you to do it in a round about way. I'd like to see to do justice to the subject because it isn't "light".

CptClermont #23 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 06:19

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 10090 battles
  • 36
  • Member since:
    01-20-2013
That was good information.  I still have a question, when do you use HE rounds vs. AP rounds?  I think i only use AP rounds, for me, they seem to work most of the time.  The HE rounds bounce off way more often, which I would expect, so when do you use the HE rounds??

The_Chieftain #24 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 07:00

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10152 battles
  • 9,596
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Generally speaking, I carry HE for three reasons.

1) For cap reset. If it really has to be done fast, HE is the best chance you're going to get.
2) To knock down obsctructions between you and a target. Eg buildings. AP will do it as well, just not as quickly.
3) If, in terms of desperation, I needed to cause damage to something which just keeps pinging my rounds.

Kyphe #25 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 10:03

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012
Chief, you have it wrong about the 17pdr, as has been mentioned.
the reasons are thus.
.
1/ The 'over powered' nature of the gun you speak of, was simply that the early versions of the sabot round, did not have a bond strong enough between the sleeve and the projectile to cope with the intense and sudden acceleration of rotational force upon the round! This led to the sleeve of the sabot losing traction with the sabot projectile and then free spinning around the projectile in the barrel during firing!
Obviously this did not impart the required spin to the projectile and the projectile then did not have the necessary spin needed for stabilization in flight!
.
This fault was fixed by designing the petals in such a way, to use forward momentum in the barrel to cause the petals to apply pressure to the projectile and so increase traction!
.
2/ Early versions of APDS had quality control issues with the separation of the petals in flight in an ordered and stable and consistent manner, this affected the flight characteristics of each round fired in a unique way making it impossible to calibrate the gun from shots fired.
.
This was resolved mainly by the simple improvement in quality control
.
Both of these issues were soon corrected before the end of the war which is why APDS was then taken up as the standard British anti tank round in even more powerful guns like the 20pdr and the L7 105.
.
This would never have happened if their was any doubt about the accuracy of APDS rounds.
.
The 77mm had nothing I stress NOTHING to do with the accuracy issues of APDS! the cut down barrel on the 77mm was primarily a balance issue due to the much shorter breach and the desire to mount the gun as far forward as possible in the cramped comet turret!
If the 77mm had been a fix for the 17pdr the 77mm would have been fitted to other tanks like the sherman and the centurion! you don't make a FIX! and then not use it!
Please please remove that claim in your post or if you have evidence to correct me regarding the development of the 77mm to back it up your post let me have a look, as right now it is you spreading a myth which has no basis in the laws of physics! or aerodynamics! under the guise of an historic authority which could well corrupt the historic knowledge of tens of thousands of people.
This is how myths like Panzergranate 44 get started
Posted Image

Edited by Kyphe, Nov 11 2013 - 11:26.


The_Chieftain #26 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 18:40

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10152 battles
  • 9,596
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
Kyphe, if it's a myth, it's coming from one of the best possible sources: A verbal from David Fletcher. However, I have deleted the line pending resolution of this issue.

The scan you have seems to conflict rather significantly with the US and British tests of only three months earlier. I can't imagine that there was much effort in those months expended in improving 6pr APDS ammunition, even if the 17pr ammunition was designed differently. I don't have access to any reports right now, but this is what I know right now.

APDS had in WWII the reputation of being notoriously inaccurate. British testing in Sept 44 indicated about 60% as accurate as APCBC for 17Pr at 400 yards. US testing proved about the same. (Plus the US gave up on trying to test effectiveness of 6pr APDS as they couldn't hit the target at 200 yards)

The British approved a modification to the APDS Marks I, II and III in early 1952 after trials in 1951 which added a sleeve to the rear of the sabots. This 'considerably improved' their accuracy when fired from the 17pr. No noticeable improvement was found when the same projectile fired with the same modification was fired from the 77mm, so the modification was not made to 77mm ammunition.

77mm was designed with the goal of fitting the gun into the tank.

Uknowns at this time:

Why the December testing you scan appears to indicate far superior APDS performance to the tests of only a few months earlier.
What the full sequence of sabot design modifications was, and their effectiveness. Especially if there was still room for 'considerable improvement' in accuracy six years after the war ended. (And how does that 'room for considerable improvement' square with the December report, which seems pretty good)
Objective accuracy of 77mm APDS. Anecdotally it did not have the same reputation for inaccuracy, but I do not have test results to hand. I shall look for them. Maybe Challenger has them to hand, I'll ask.

Inferences:
Given that the 77mm and 17pr were basically the same barrel and projectile, the only significant difference for these purposes is that of velocity. This velocity difference is presumably the root cause of the other issues. If changes to the sabot result in an accuracy difference at one velocity, but no performance difference at the other velocity, then there appears to be a 'line' over which performance is significantly affected. That line is crossed by 17pr, and not by 77mm.

The cause of the destabilization is irrelevant. If it was caused by poor sabot design, a funny shape of the projectile, or dodgy centre of gravity, the thing kept missing (And yes, we know it was ultimately sabot design). The trigger for accuracy appears to have been velocity, basically, the power of the round. Though 77mm was not designed to fix this accuracy issue, it may have fixed it anyway, as a beneficial side effect.

Conclusions:
None solid to be made at this time. We really need comparative figures of 77mm and 17pr APDS accuracy to put it to rest. In effect, nothing so far seems to indicate that my statement in the article was wrong, but yes, that is not the same as proving it to be correct either. So I'll leave it off for now.

akoaih #27 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 19:02

    Captain

  • Players
  • 26662 battles
  • 1,619
  • Member since:
    07-30-2011
Your efforts are appreciated, Chieftain.  It is all to easy (and I'm including myself here) to read a simple, reasonable-sounding explanation for something and then assume it is fact.  After a while we can be very resistant to challenges to our "knowledge."  A little bit of widespread misinformation goes a long way; the mutiny on HMS Bounty comes to mind.  It is difficult but necessary to always be just a little unsure of what we think we know.

Myeq #28 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 21:40

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 3947 battles
  • 491
  • [TOON] TOON
  • Member since:
    04-02-2013

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Nov 10 2013 - 23:11, said:

Where do I disregard it? I point out that it doesn't try to penetrate the armor, which is true. I never said it didn't work or wasn't effective. And for the record, the munition type is still in US Army service today, we just call it "HEP" for some reason.


...

First off Chieftain, as an engineer and military technology buff I look forward to reading your articles more than anything else on these forums, so thank you and +1 and more.

Second, I think it's called HEP for High Explosive Plastic, which I'm guessing is referring to the plastic deformation of the warhead as it squashes against the armor.

Kyphe #29 Posted Nov 11 2013 - 21:56

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012
Chief i would not dispute that the 77mm did not have the same problems  as the 17pdr! just that it was not designed for that reason and it was thus not a fix! it was simply an unintended benefit of the gun exerting far less stress on the rounds when fired compared to the 17pdr, due to having less total energy produced and exerted on the sabot.
.
As you have stated that the solution to the problem was to modify the sabot design to improve performance not to change the design of the projectiles aerodynamics or to change the velocity of the round in flight regarding the 17pdr, this as due to the basic physics which does not impair accuracy due to velocity but due to the forces exerted in the barrel under propulsion.
.
Basically if the velocity of the round is the same but the accuracy is improved due to a new design of sabot sleeve then velocity of the round in flight is not the factor causing inaccuracy of shot!
.
Greater energy exerted requires greater engineering tolerances to cope with that energy, so the 17pdr needed a better engineered sabot than the lower energy 77mm. just as higher velocity rounds need to be made of better materiel not to shatter under the forces of their own impact inducing lower penetration than a lower velocity round.
.
British results of the 17pdr apds varied quite a lot over time and even at the time of the US trials the brits made a lot of noise about how accurate they believed it to be and gave a number of reasons why the results of the trials were not as good as they had expected, including the wrong ammo sent idea.
.
A bit like the challenger 2s failure in trials to perform as expected in terms of its shooting.
TBH I am not surprised that a few months under wartime conditions can produce huge differences in results given the speed of advancement in all fields.
.
I believe David Fletcher may simply have been using informal artistic license in his language! he does like a good turn of phrase.
Edit/ As i had begun to respond before finishing reading your response fully I apologize if I appear to have ignored items which you actually addressed in your post, sorry it is a bad habit of mine.

Edited by Kyphe, Nov 11 2013 - 22:30.


kriegspiel57 #30 Posted Nov 12 2013 - 18:16

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 29019 battles
  • 233
  • Member since:
    07-08-2011

View Postanimosity242, on Nov 11 2013 - 01:06, said:

I like the write-up. Thanks for sharing. In regards to damage after penetration, I think the damage should be much more significant. A single penetration should cause a significant emotional event to the players as well. My suggestion would be to reduce "Hit Points" significantly to about a maximum of about 600 for a Maus and scale everyone else accordingly, as well as killing/injuring crew members and equipment much more easily. It'd keep people from complaining about the drastic differences between tiers.
  I enjoy your posts, keep them coming

supertsar #31 Posted Nov 12 2013 - 23:53

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 24195 battles
  • 62
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011
  • Another great piece - thanks Chief.
I would say the greatest flaw (playability wise as well as historically)  in the game is the big gun vs little gun damage inflicted. Those Russian big guns have a huge advantage, as you always seem to have a rock or house to cover your reload.
I know many people who hate the Panther (widely regarded as one of the best of WW2) yet love the KV-1S 122 (never even worth producing!) because of the huge advantage to the bigger gun. I wish they would lessen the difference and not base damage so heavily on the projectile diameter.
WW2 AP base fuzes were notoriously unreliable - and there was a huge shift towards smaller penetrators as time went on. Take your later 105 sabot round - the penetrator was only about 50mm in diameter - yet a very effective killer!
And then they let you mount the 122 on everything - SU100, SU152... I feel like I am being hit over the head with Russian propaganda every time I play (those Russian tanks were the best weren't they)! Uuuuughh!
There is no doubt more people play the KV-1S 122 than the Panther. Should it really be like that?

Edited by supertsar, Nov 13 2013 - 00:50.


Xlucine #32 Posted Nov 13 2013 - 00:01

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
Spoiler                     

Since when was the panther was one of the best?

supertsar #33 Posted Nov 13 2013 - 00:55

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 24195 battles
  • 62
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostXlucine, on Nov 13 2013 - 00:01, said:

Spoiler                     

Since when was the panther was one of the best?

Thanks for illustrating my point - too much WOT would lead someone to post that statement and that prototype photo. Chalk up another Russian propaganda victory!

Xlucine #34 Posted Nov 13 2013 - 02:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
:eyesup:  Panther has abysmal side armour protection, would suffer a major failure in the drivetrain before emptying a tank of fuel on average, and has a terrible armour efficiency because it is so huge, which is partly responsible for the breakdowns. The gun is terrible for a tank that size as well when you consider the IS-2 had a far larger gun and was much better protected. This leads into why the KV-122 was never accepted for serial production, because the IS was a damn good tank design, especially when compared to the german white elephants. Do you have anything to back up your argument, or are you going to keep spouting MAN propaganda?

Kyphe #35 Posted Nov 13 2013 - 21:02

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012

View PostXlucine, on Nov 13 2013 - 02:38, said:

:eyesup:  Panther has abysmal side armour protection, would suffer a major failure in the drivetrain before emptying a tank of fuel on average, and has a terrible armour efficiency because it is so huge, which is partly responsible for the breakdowns. The gun is terrible for a tank that size as well when you consider the IS-2 had a far larger gun and was much better protected. This leads into why the KV-122 was never accepted for serial production, because the IS was a damn good tank design, especially when compared to the german white elephants. Do you have anything to back up your argument, or are you going to keep spouting MAN propaganda?
The 75mm L70 is considered the best gun of WW2 by most authority's and the best thing about the panther.
Russian tanks were far less reliable than even Panthers due to poor build quality, the KV122 was dropped after just 1 prototype due to it being utter crap.

Xlucine #36 Posted Nov 13 2013 - 22:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
The L70 good, but not better than the 17-pdr which matched it's performance in a much more compact gun, which also fired smaller ammunition meaning easier handling in vehicles. That it's considered the best thing about the panther is quite a nice analogy for the panther as a whole, I feel.

The KV-122 was not mass produced because the IS was entering production, and had a more efficient armour design. I'd love to see if you have any proof the KV-122 was rubbish, the lack of large scale production merely shows the IS was better.

As for claiming russian tanks were unreliable due to build quality, that's complete rubbish with no basis in fact. US reports on russian equipment are clear that the finishes on bearing surfaces are as good as can be made, and MTBF for t-34's were regularly in the 1000's of km - easily an order of magnitude better than that of the panther.

Kyphe #37 Posted Nov 27 2013 - 01:13

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012
Basic lesson in gun ammo 101 The 17pdr is generally classed as a close second to the 75l70 ( I am a brit BTW) having 2mm less penetration at 500m with its standard APCBC rounds than the German Panzergranate 40 APCR which flew 320ms faster. even the 39 apcbche flew 200ms faster though had less pen due to being hollow and filled with HE! Also the 17pdr having larger more cumbersome ammunition than than the 75mm! the 17pdr round is 583 mm long the 75mm L70 only 495 mm that is 8.7cm shorter and it is slimmer too.
.
this a fact that any 10yo with access to the internet could check before making a bogus claim on a forum.
That kind of says something about the reliability of anything else you claim does it not?
.
Similarly Your claim that Russian tanks of WW2 were anything but unreliable has no basis in fact or history. Russian reports often credit the t34 of breaking down every 50km some regiments lost half their tanks before getting to a battle.
The tracks would throw under any circumstance the engine was from an airship and though light and powerful was not designed in any way to cope with heavy duty work on the ground, the suspension which forced wide tanks with cramped fighting compartments was easily damaged and both UK and USSR forces abandoned it for the same reason.
.
The panther is a flawed tank, not deserving of its myth, but it was still powerful and not deserving of scorn either.
The panthers main fault was not even its reliability but its maintainability and this was due to its original design being lighter and with a sealed hull so it could ford rivers! this meant that there were no easy service hatches to maintain and fix the engine and transmission so minor breaks put tanks out of action for many hours even days, Their were NO really reliable tanks in ww2, even the vaunted reliability of the Sherman is more due to the way the tanks could be maintained and fixed before any fault could effect the service in the field. as long as the mechanics could get it running in good time no records or a breakdown would be recorded.
.
PS Don't demand proof until you show some yourself mate as I could easily demand you show some proof that it was anything but crap, what you fail to understand is that the KV85 was already classed as sub standard and the fitting of the 100 and 122 was only an experiment in case the IS delivery program was delayed or interrupted and they needed a fallback to get the bigger guns into the field it was never seriously considered for production. Why on earth would it be, the KV1s it was based on had worse effective armor than a t34 and could be knocked out by any pz4 or stug in the field in 1944 frontally, that is one seriously crap heavy tank!
The IS1 was built and being delivered at the end of 1943, the KV122 prototype was not created till early1944 using the turret of the IS1 on a 1s hull that was already being phased out of service,

Edited by Kyphe, Nov 27 2013 - 02:35.


Xlucine #38 Posted Nov 27 2013 - 02:59

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostKyphe, on Nov 27 2013 - 01:13, said:

Basic lesson in gun ammo 101 The 17pdr is generally classed as a close second to the 75l70 ( I am a brit BTW) having less penetration with its standard rounds due to a round with more mass in a gun which produced less energy, and also having larger ammunition than than the 75mm! the 17pdr round is 583 mm long the 75mm L70 only 495 mm that is 8.7cm shorter and it is slimmer too.
.
this a fact that any 10yo with access to the internet could check before making a bogus claim on a forum.
That kind of says something about the reliability of anything else you claim does it not?

Ok, this is too rich. Even wikipedia gets this one right:
Posted Image

Quote

37x249R (3,7 cm Pak / Kwk AP), 50x289R (5 cm L/42 Kwk Pzgr 40), 50x420R (5cm L/60 Pak 38, Kwk), 75x243R (7,5 cm L/24), 75x495R (7,5 cm L/43 and L/48: later Pz IV), 75x640R (7,5cm Kwk 42 L/70: Panther tank), 88x571R (8,8 cm L/56: Tiger 1), 88x822R (8,8cm L/71: Tiger 2).
47x376R (3 pdr Hotchkiss, similar to but slightly longer than 47x351R interwar tank), 40x304R (2 pdr AP), 57x441 (6 pdr APDS), 75x350R (US/British 75mm HE), 76x583R (17 pdr APDS), 76x420R (77mm mm in Comet tank), 76x134R (3" Howitzer for close-support tanks), 95x206R (95mm Howitzer for close-support tanks).
http://www.quarry.ni...k/tankammo2.htm

Now, tell me - do you see the 75x640 round next to the yellow 88mm shell? And do you see the 76x583 round with the blue APDS? Here's a simple question for you: Which one is longer? Feel free to find a 10yo to give you a hint. The width of the round can be literally ignored for these purposes, since length is the biggest issue when loading a gun.
As for the performance, they are close enough for all intents and purposes - GER, RU, UK and US sources generally agree on 130-140mm pen at 500 yards or so and 30 degrees for both of them.

Quote

Similarly Your claim that Russian tanks of WW2 were anything but unreliable has no basis in fact or history. Russian reports often credit the t34 of breaking down every 50km some regiments lost half their tanks before getting to a battle.
The tracks would throw under any circumstance the engine was from an airship and though light and powerful was not designed in any way to cope with heavy duty work on the ground, the suspension which forced wide tanks with cramped fighting compartments was easily damaged and both UK and USSR forces abandoned it for the same reason.

Posted Image

Quote

"T-34: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
IS/ISU-122: 1200-1800 km, 230-280 hours
M4A2: 2000-2500 km, 250-300 hours
SU-76: 1200-1800 km, 180-200 hours
Individual tanks made it as far as 3000 km, and their motors functioned for 300-350 hours."

Or perhaps

Quote

The corps traveled 400-450 km from the state border, and an additional 200 km in two night marches up to Yarmolintsy. This march loaded the unit's materiel heavily, not to mention the training performed by the whole corps prior to the march. In total, the vehicles traveled 700-800 km from August 30th to today. Despite the pressure and high speeds of the march, only 30 BT-7 tanks [out of 370 or so - xlucine] fell behind due to technical problems, part of which required very light repairs.
http://tankarchives....-in-poland.html

The V-2 was first used on the BT-7M, not an airship. In my experience the V-2 is pretty damn bulletproof, and will happily run with a minimum of maintenance (completely unlike tiger, which will throw a fit if you treat it like I've seen t-34's treated). It's a funny thing about aircraft engines, because their output is constantly rated they are generally quite good at working under high load for long periods. The christie suspension is incredibly hard to damage, since it's behind the side armour, and funnily enough even with the suspension intruding the T-34 still has far more space inside for the crew than panther does. No tank is roomy other than a few american ones, T-34 is certainly par for the course.

Quote

The panther is a flawed tank, not deserving of its myth, but it was still powerful and not deserving of scorn either.
The panthers main fault was not even its reliability but its maintainability and this was due to its original design being lighter and with a sealed hull so it could ford rivers! this meant that there were no easy service hatches to maintain and fix the engine and transmission so minor breaks put tanks out of action for many hours even days, Their were NO really reliable tanks in ww2, even the vaunted reliability of the Sherman is more due to the way the tanks could be maintained and fixed before any fault could effect the service in the field. as long as the mechanics could get it running in good time no records or a breakdown would be recorded.

It failed at just about everything a tank has to do, so I'd say it's deserving of scorn. The sealed hull also lead to fires as any leaked or spilled fuel would gather in the bottom, and you seem to have forgotten that ensuring a tank can be easily worked on is an important part of reliability. The sherman also doesn't have any parts overstressed as much as the final drives in the panther.

Quote

PS Don't demand proof until you show some yourself mate as I could easily demand you show some proof that it was anything but crap, what you fail to understand is that the KV85 was already classed as sub standard and the fitting of the 100 and 122 was only an experiment in case the IS program was delayed and they needed a fallback to get the bigger guns into the field it was never seriously considered for production.

With such great designs as the T-34 on the books it seems the russians had higher standards for tanks. You realise the fact that the KV-122 was only considered as a backup to the IS merely means it was a worse choice than the IS, not that it was a bad tank, right?

Xlucine #39 Posted Nov 27 2013 - 03:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011
And another thing or two:

View PostKyphe, on Nov 27 2013 - 01:13, said:

... having 2mm less penetration at 500m with its standard APCBC rounds than the German Panzergranate 40 APCR which flew 320ms faster. even the 39 apcbche flew 200ms faster though had less pen due to being hollow and filled with HE!

You do realise how dumb that comparison is, since 1: you're ignoring the 17-pdr's APDS and 2: the germans had a hell of a time getting enough tungsten for APCR rounds and machine tools. If the 17-pdr APCBC can match the performance of the kwk42 firing APCR then german APCR must have been utter garbage, just what the germans should have been doing with their precious tungsten.

Quote

Why on earth would it be, the KV1s it was based on had worse effective armor than a t34 and could be knocked out by any pz4 or stug in the field in 1944 frontally, that is one seriously crap heavy tank!

The IS1 was built and being delivered at the end of 1943, the KV122 prototype was not created till early1944 using the turret of the IS1 on a 1s hull that was already being phased out of service,


Demonstrating the superiority of the T-34 does not prove the KV-122 was worse than what the germans made. No tank is immune to enemy tank fire, and a significant amount of the german stable was armed with weapons weaker than the kwk40. Not forgetting of course that the presence of any german armour at all at a given battlefield is fairly unlikely.

Kyphe #40 Posted Nov 28 2013 - 08:49

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 315 battles
  • 843
  • Member since:
    01-27-2012
First off i will hold my hands up, my regular site had the 495R shell so close to the L70 specs I looked at the wrong number.

I am not normally aggressive in my posting so it serves me right a lesson learned even if you did wind me up.

Now then the V2 was basically a modified version of the Hispano Suiza 12y aero engine! which the Russians got from the french by way of rigid airships and then went on to use them for both tank use with the BT 7M (BT8) and in some of their fighters, I got that from David Fletcher, you may have heard of him. Unlike the British meteor engine which was derived from the Merlin aero engine the V2 remained mostly aluminum which kept it light but made it very very noisy and prone to anything which messed with lubrication like dust it was also one of the few parts of the tank which could not be repaired in the field with a hammer a spanner and a welder. however aluminum does not rust in water like iron which is one reason engines pulled out of muddy river beds after 80 years can just start up and drive off.

Now can you say those figures you posted are from how long the tanks ran without incident or how long they ran before they could not move or be repaired by the crew and needed a repair truck or how long they were expected to run before a service?

BT7s which were much lighter so having less ware and tear on the same engine also being a pre war design and pre war build with reasonably trained polish crew and is most likely of much higher build quality than the wartime tanks which were often built to last a single battle drove straight from the factory to the front lines with untrained crew and a very short life expectancy.

T34 which are a totally over rated tank were being built so fast it was often more cost effective to destroy damaged or broken down tanks as new ones would be on the way anyway, which contributed to the figures for Russian destruction to German ratio.

The panther did everything any other tank of the day could do, and it was cheaper to produce than a panzer 4 which was an excellent tank, its side armor was no more of a liability than the t34-85s or any UK or US tank but what they did not have was its ability to confront frontally not only any other tank but also most anti tank guns unlike any contemporary Russian tank.

Virtually all post war tanks followed the same design philosophy of maximizing the frontal armor at the expense of side and rear as the panther, this includes the Russians who were just as influenced by the panther as the panther was by the t34.

How could I have forgotten about the maintenance and the hull what I actually told you? strange!

When I heard at bovington that the L70-75mm is considered the best all round tank gun of the war, being a brit i was a little taken aback, how dare they put my 17pdr in second place! but the energy of that gun was far greater, and its actual battlefield use against tanks was far greater too, the 17pdr fired many many times more HE than it ever fired AP APCBC or APDS, the anti tank crews and crews of the Achilles tank destroyers were complaining that they would ruin their barrels performing bunker busting and infantry support.

The 17pdr fired APDS very rarely in fact each gun only had a 4 or 5 shots of APDS, and lets be honest, It is not the rounds we are on about bu the gun!, if the rounds had been the same the 75mm with its superior energy longer barrel and shot speed would always perform better in both accuracy range and penetration. The laws of physics demand it!

And lets not forget that unlike the firefly the panther had a roomy purpose built turret for the gun.

The KV1S was not a success, it was not even a good idea! as it was basically a way to let the KV keep up with the T34 by removing the only advantage it had over the T34, the KV85 at least gave it a gun that gave it a reason to exist, but since the 34-85 could fulfill the same role and Russian experience with German firepower given that the most common German armored vehicle the stug and most of the German anti tank guns coming into service could take them out at any combat range in one shot convinced them that a high cost low armor tank like the KV1s hull was not a viable platform, it was phased out of service and any work after that fact was pure experiment in redundancy.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users