Best Tank Destroyer/ self-propelled gun

[m kenny]

[glen]

You haven't proved anything Glen, Zip Nada Nothing! Late Panther glacis plates were full of flaws, plus the Panther in question was one which had already been knocked out & burned out in action beforehand, so when fired upon by the 122mm D-25T the armour had already been weakened considerably.

For D25T/APHE（BR-471), there are TWO different peroformance

1) penetrate panther glacis @650m

Further, after the first encounters between the JS-2 and German heavy tanks, it turned out that the sharp-nosed 122 mm APHE round - the BR-471 - could only penetrate the frontal armour of a Panther up to 600-700 metres

2) penetrate panther glacis @2500m+

However, in the summer of 1944, the problem of the poor AP performance disappeared. The performance of the D-25T gun of the JS-2 against the German tanks improved dramatically. The reports from the front described cases where the BR-471 APHE round 122 mm projectile fired from 2500 metres ricocheted off the front armour of a Panther leaving huge holes and cracks in it.

The D-25 122 mm tank gun manufactured at the factory #9. Its ballistic characteristics are identical to those of the following guns: the A-19 122 mm, the D-2 122 mm (factory #9) and the S-4 (Central Artillery Design Bureau), giving it a muzzle velocity of 780-790 m/s with a 25 kg projectile. This gun reliably penetrates the Panther's frontal armor at 2500 metres, and that is less than its maximum range.

The difference of penetration between 650m and 2500m for D25T is 35mm-40mm! What does this mean? AS we all known, the Panther D's amor is the best, and G version's is the worst.

Therefore, for BR-471 shell, pen. Panther D @650m, and pen. Panther G @2500m+. I'll bet that.

BTW, Panther galcis, 80mm/55 or 85mm/55, must be stronger than a 150mm vertical amor(same quality as panther 80mm plates). However, D25T BR471@650 penetration is below 150mm russian vertical plates! That's why russian target amor is better than panther glacis in spite of which version(D,A,G etc)! With regard to russian tank amor,it's another issue, I'll talk in future.

Plus American testing proved the gun (KwK43) to be effective against the Panther's glacis out past 1,000 yards.

Which version is the Panther? I'll bet it is Panther G, for Panther D, kwk43's apcbc can only pen. @650m.

Now here's my question: How come the 88mm KwK43 managed to completely penetrate both sides of a Henschel Tiger Ausf.B turret, which equates to 285mm of armour penetrated during Soviet tests at 400m, with its Std. APCBC round while the 100mm D-10T couldn't even leave a dent in the rear turret when hitting a huge weak spot on the turret's front, the gunsight ??

LOL

At first, D10T can penetrate Henschel Tiger Ausf.B turret @1000m!

5. Armor-piercing projectiles from the BS-3 (100 mm) and A-19 (122 mm) gun completely penetrated the "Tiger-B" tank's front turret plate at ranges of 1000-1500 metres.

The Russian Battlefield - Was the Tiger really "King?"

0m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
D10T *** 155mm 135mm 115mm 100mm
D25T *** 152mm 142mm 133mm 122mm

D10T@1000m=D25T@1500=around 134mm vertival russian target plates=180mm KT's front turrent!

Kingtiger's amor quality=Panther G, K=1950 whlie russian target plates K=2400.

Kingtiger's front turrent:180*(1950/2400)^1.43= 180*74.3%=134mm

Kingtiger's rear turrent: 80*74.3%=59mm Do not notice me the small obliquity of turrent amor ,apcbc shell can handle this small angle.
Oh my god, you don't know how to calculate multi amor at all! Two amor(134mm+59mm) is NOT equal to 193mm! I swear.

let total stopping power is x, there is

x^1.43=134^1.43+59^1.43 (De Marre's approximately calculation)

x=163mm
Penetration of 163mm vertical .....kwk43's apcbc can achieve that within 500 meters.

Also how come there are numerous accounts of IS-2's being knocked at ranges past 4km by Nashorn, Tiger Ausf.B and other AT personnel ???

Js2's side amor ? rear amor?

Also remember that the 88mm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated superior penetration performance in British trials as compared to the German trials, which matches perfectly well with the fact that German criteria was slightly more strict. And also remember the trials conducted at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA, all demonstrating the huge advantage in penetration performance of the 88mm KwK43/PaK43 L/71 over any Allied AT gun. Or should I take it that you, Glen, believe all these to be "cheat scores" as-well ??

British and American use 200mm+ plates, so the penetration table is cheat! For example, kwk43/17pdr can indeed pen. 260mm vertical plates(bad quality compared with 120mm plates) in spite of made in american/british/rassia, however, they can NOT 120mm/60 which is equivalent to 260mm vertical(good quality as 120mm)

Fact is that the 88mm KwK43 L/71's penetration figures are NOT overblown, they were results achieved against very high quality 250 - 265 BHN plates at close range and very high quality 300 + BHN plates at long range laid back 30 degree's from vertical. And std. criteria was 2/3'rds of the projectiles fired had to completely penetrate the plate.

Against high quality 300 + BHN plates laid back 30 degree's from the vertical the 88mm KwK43 L/71 demonstrated a penetration performance of 127mm at 2.5km. Thats more than than the 88mm KwK36 L/56 achieved at 100m.

Germany

definition of penetration:
completely penetrate

probability of penetration：
50%

target plate：
type：RHA
thickness/hardness：
5-15mm/BHN 435-465
16-30mm/BHN 338-382
31-50mm/BHN 323-368
51-80mm/BHN 309-338
81-120mm/BHN 279-309
121-150mm/BHN 235-265
151-275mm/BHN206-235

It's probably germany 84mm(kwk36 @2000m pen.) amor has better quality than German 132mm(kwk43 @2000m pen.).

The Soviet figures were on the other hand achieved against poor quality & brittle plates of BHN's varying from 250 to 350. Std. criteria varied as-well from 2/3'rds to 75% of the projectiles fired to partially penetrate the plate.

Don't forget that Roosevelt and Churchill shipped a lot of amor steel to russian. It is said that almost 50% of russian amor steel is from allied. Do you believe russian wasted those strategic material?

[Soren]

Relying on Battlefield.ru again are we glen ??

I sincerely doubt those Soviet reports, esp. considering that the Soviets never engaged in fights at those ranges.

German tests demonstrated that when hitting at a 30 degree side angle the Panther's glacis was completely immune to the 122mm D-25T, and at a straight angle the Panther had nothing to fear past 600m.

Against flawed armour many things can happen, including huge cracks being caused on impact.

[glen]

Even the picture you showed me of the Sherman Jumbo is useless as it was one which was knocked out by a 88mm Flak 18/36 L/56 AT gun ! And then you lied about it being a PaK43! For crying out loud glen!

The book said it's 88mm AT gun, AT is AT, flak is flak. There was no L56 88mm AT gun at all.

Originally Posted by Soren

Relying on Battlefield.ru again are we glen ??

I sincerely doubt those Soviet reports, esp. considering that the Soviets never engaged in fights at those ranges.

You are completely right Soren. Beyond 1200m, russian will lost their accurate aiming and the hit from 2000m,2500m from russian gun is surely LUCK. However, to measure gun penetration @1000m (for example), the technician will reduce the quantity of powder in order to get a much lower muzzle velocity to simulate the remnants velocity @1000m. Then the tested gun will fire accurately at target amor at a very close distant .

All of the large caliber gun are measured in this way besides those Navy guns. Can you image 460mm gun of battle ship firing at target plates from 30000 meters? Crazy!

German tests demonstrated that when hitting at a 30 degree side angle the Panther's glacis was completely immune to the 122mm D-25T, and at a straight angle the Panther had nothing to fear past 600m.

Against flawed armour many things can happen, including huge cracks being caused on impact.

German test is completely right. It must be Panther D.
For APHE BR-471, Straight angle, 650m pen. Panther D glacis.
30 degree side angle, impossible to pen. it.

There is a formular:

cos(γ)=cos(α)*cos(β)

For Panther glacis, β=55 degree
30 degree side angle,α=30 degree
y=60.2 deggree

That is to say, BR-471 is hiting a 85mm/60.2 degree amor which is equivalent to 216mm vertical (same quality as 85mm plate ).

85mm/55 is eqaul to 179mm vertical to BR-471, therefore, increasing 55 degree to 60 degree will gain 36mm additional stopping power! However, If u increase 10 degree to 15 degree, the stopping power will be slightly larger.That's funny trigonometric function.

To sum up, in Cold War period, russian and west often oppugn each other's data, however, both of them are NOT so evil as described by opposing side. I am inclined to trust both side's data including Germany. I don't believe there are so many liars in the world.

[Soren]

The book said it's 88mm AT gun, AT is AT, flak is flak. There was no L56 88mm AT gun at all.

Yet another example of how little you know glen!

The 88mm FlaK 18/36 L/56 was used as a dedicated AT gun since the beginning of the war glen! with special chassis and platforms being manufactured for it to fullfill this role, armored shields were even manufactured! And the Allies ALWAYS referred to the 88 as a AT gun, and with good reason seeing that it litterally slaughtered the Allied tanks sometimes at ranges past 3km in the North African desert.

88mm FlaK 18 AT gun (Notice the white stripes on the barrell, each one represents one enemy tank knocked out):

[glen]

In early period of rassian battle field, L56 88mm AA GUN is almost the only weapon to defeat russian KV tank.

American 90mm aa gun is also very powerful.However, 90mm/88mm (L50-56) is insuficient to penetrate Panther glacis.

A 90mm anti-aircraft gun on Omaha Beach shortly after the invasion, 6 June 1944.

M2 90MM ANTI-AIRCRAFT ARTILLERY

[Soren]

What's your point ?

The 88mm FlaK 18/36 L/56 was a dedicated AT gun, the US 90mm M2 wasn't.

[MacArther]

If I recall correctly, the 88mm gun was originally used at Arras because Rommel's tanks and anti-tank guns couldn't knock out the Matilda and Matilda IIs coming there way. Therefore, Rommel an ANTI-AIR unit deploy their 88mms against the tanks.

[Soren]

Nope, the 88 was used as an AT gun since the Spanish civil war. The 88mm FlaK 18/36 was used as an AT, AA & artillery piece and functioned well in all roles, but it excelled as an AT gun, as which it was referred to by the Allies.

The FlaK 18 was as the name says originally intended as an AA gun however experience with using it as an AT gn in the Spanish civil war proved it massively powerful in this role, and so future pieces were fitted with different chassis, platforms & targeting equipment converting them into extremely lethal AT guns.

[Juha]

Soren
if Flak 18 was a Pak why it was almost entirely used by Luftwaffe not by Heer? And why it was Flak and not Pak 18 or 36. IMHO Wehrmacht knew best what the gun was, so lets call it Flak or AA gun. British 3.7" AA gun was also capable to ground fire as was at least most of AA guns.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by Juha

Soren
if Flak 18 was a Pak why it was almost entirely used by Luftwaffe not by Heer? And why it was Flak and not Pak 18 or 36. IMHO Wehrmacht knew best what the gun was, so lets call it Flak or AA gun. British 3.7" AA gun was also capable to ground fire as was at least most of AA guns.

Forget it Juha, the gun would need an entirely new configuration to become a part of the PaK series. That doesn't mean it wasn't an AT gun however, hence its std. use in this area. There's a reason the shield & new sighting system was put on it buddy!

Also the FlaK 18/36 wasn't almost entirely used by the Luftwaffe, I can't even imagine what ever gave you that idea, esp. considering that the Wehrmacht litterally used thousands of FlaK 18/36's almost exclusive in the AT gun role, and with dramatic success, which is how the gun established its fearsome reputation. Undoubtedly the most successful AT gun of WW2.

88mm FlaK 18/36 L/56 AT gun (Again notice the stripes on the barrel)

[Juha]

Soren
have You any info how the 88s were divided between LW, Heer and KM or are you just thinking that you know? IMHO most were used by LW Flak Abtailungen, some by KM Flak units and some by Heer. For ex. all/almost all Flak 88s in Normandy belonged to a Flak Korps ie were LW guns and those fought under 4th PzD in 1941 belonged to I/FlakRgt 11 even if many times used in AT role. I don't have now time to check the histories of 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th PzDs.

On the other hand I remembered today a genuine 88mm L/56 AT gun. That was those 12? Flak guns put on 12t SdKfz 8s half-tranks and used in Poland and France in 1939-40. They belonged IIRC schPzJgAbt 8 and at least some fought in France under 1st PzD.

Juha

[Soren]

Your point being ??

Like I said the 88mm FlaK 18/36 was used extensively by the Wehrmacht for AT purposes, it was modified for this role with an armored shield & revised sighting system. And finally it was ALWAYS referred to by Allies as an AT gun, esp. when one of their tanks had been knocked out by one!

[Juha]

Soren
my point
Quote: "Also the FlaK 18/36 wasn't almost entirely used by the Luftwaffe, I can't even imagine what ever gave you that idea, esp. considering that the Wehrmacht litterally used thousands of FlaK 18/36's almost exclusive in the AT gun role"

I would like to know from what you based that claim. Please give some numbers/percents how big slice of 88s served in Heer units. So were you get the idea that huge numbers of Flak 18/36 served in Heer units especially in AT units?

"And finally it was ALWAYS referred to by Allies as an AT gun"

Seriously Soren do you claim that all those fliers telling the deadliness of 88 fire claimed that they were fired at AT guns, all stories I have read talk on ack-ack, AA or Flak.

To me the use of Flak 18/36 in anti-tank role shows the tactical flexibility and good co-op between Heer and LW at unit level. But it also showed the old aciom that Germans were good operationally but not always so good logistically. With British it was sometimes opposite. They thought to use their 3.7" AA gun in AT role in Desert but then decided to keep them in rear to protect their logistical bases from LW.

Juha

[Soren]

Seriously Soren do you claim that all those fliers telling the deadliness of 88 fire claimed that they were fired at AT guns, all stories I have read talk on ack-ack, AA or Flak.

LoL Juha! Allied pilots didn't call them anything ! The pilots had no idea what weapon was firing at them other than it was a heavy Flak piece, it could be anything from 88 to 105 or even 128mm Flak pieces.

By 1944 the Allied ground would almost always refer to the 88mm FlaK 18/36 as an AT gun, esp. since they lost countless tanks to this gun.

Btw, its 'Acht Acht' not Ack Ack.

As to my sources, do you know Ian V. Hogg ??