Could America have used heavy tanks?

[glen]

The relatonship between thickness and quality, as delcyros said:

Also keep in mind that thinner plates such as used on the Panther slopes were treated more carefully in production than thicker plates and generally offer more *relative stopping power due to higher hardness while still beeing ductile. Applying any formula here is tricky to say at least, cause You would come in the uncomfortable situation that your basic assumption would be that the effective stopping power euqitations of the thick and thin plates are identic, the difference is beeing defined by thickness alone, which by any means are not!


The 120mm armour plate tested for the KWK 36 was manufactured according to specifications calling for a BRH of 279-307 Brinell (Specification PP793 and PP7182 for thicknesses of 85mm to 120mm, date unknown. The two specifications were slightly different alloys but had the same BHN). It was of very tough quality compared to the 200mm armour plate of the latter tests
which was manufactured according to a specification (E43 is a bit on the late side but there was a preceeding specification calling for the same BHN) requiring a BRH of 220-265.

There is nothing like a most effective BHN level for armour plates. The higher, the more stopping power it has. Diminishing returns for overhard plates exist in manufacturing constraints and britellness (esspeccially hydrogen embrittelment and cast armour) and the ductility against large calibre impacts (large starts with 8" and more), the latter hardly beeing a factor against tank guns.
A 200mm, 260 BHN plate has less stopping power than a 120mm BHN 300 scaled up to 200mm thickness of the same quality, if it would be possible to treat such a plate without quality loss wrt laminations and ductility, which is the limiting factor. Otherwise they would have produced them.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by glen

The real test of kwk43 is 232mm+ @ 100m, it's completely true. however, you havn't understand what I mean or my expression is not clear, my opinion is that: the real thick target plate (>>150mm even>200mm) is quite inferior to those thin ones! Therefore, the penetration of 232mm,285mm etc...is of overvalued numbers. Wehn kwk43 fires at 80mm/55 or 60mm/60, we will find kwk43 insuficient.

For D25T, there was another test on thick plates(>>150mm), and the penetration is quite high: 220mm@blank point/180mm@1000m whilst common test on thin plates is 142mm@1000m.

glen,

The thinner the plate the higher BHN, that's universal for all WW2 armour, be it test plates or the armour on the tanks. During WW2 it wasn't possible to produce 200mm thick plates of high BHN levels. This is something which you seem not to understand.

So while it is true that the 232mm plates penetrated by the KwK43 were of lower BHN levels than the thinner ones penetrated further away, the very same applies to the plates all other guns were tested against.

In the German tests the 88mm KwK43 consistantly penetrated 132mm 260 BHN RHA plates at 30 degree's impact angle at 2,000m, and 139mm of 270 - 280 BHN armor under the same conditions. These plates were of a higher BHN than those at closer ranges which were thicker.

As for quality, well the quality of the German test plates were always excellent throughout the war, the acceptance criteria beeing very strickt.

Fact is the 122mm D-25T wasn't capable of penetrating 200 + mm plates, even at point blank range, while the KwK43 penetrates plates of over 238mm at 100m. Thus the 88mm KwK43 is the better performer, nomatter the distance.

Also take a look at how much energy the 88mm KwK43 L/71 concentrates on its target, it's WAAAY higher than that of the 122mm D-25T at all ranges. Hence the KwK43's much higher penetration performance.

just 46 degree's....Soren,your math is not very good.

Pershing gacis is 102mm/46degree, the straight distant of this plate is 102mm/cos(46)=147mm. Furhermore, the extra slope effect of 46 degree is much greater than 30 degree!

102mm @ 46 degree's is 147mm, and the 88mm KwK43 L/71 will punch through 153mm at 3km.

So the point stands.

[glen]

The thinner the plate the higher BHN, that's universal for all WW2 armour, be it test plates or the armour on the tanks. During WW2 it wasn't possible to produce 200mm thick plates of high BHN levels. This is something which you seem not to understand.

I completely understand this, and this is our consensus, isn't it?

So while it is true that the 232mm plates penetrated by the KwK43 were of lower BHN levels than the thinner ones penetrated further away, the very same applies to the plates all other guns were tested against.

In the German tests the 88mm KwK43 consistantly penetrated 132mm 260 BHN RHA plates at 30 degree's impact angle at 2,000m, and 139mm of 270 - 280 BHN armor under the same conditions. These plates were of a higher BHN than those at closer ranges which were thicker.

Our difference is here.Let's check this test on thick plates(>150mm)(see picture below), do you find that D25T can pen. about 152mm @2000meters?

Then please check this link:
The Russian Battlefield - Tank Armament

D25T can only pen. 152mm @500 meters!

How can this strange thing happen? The reason is that: these two 152mm plate are of different quality!
Can you image technichers use dfferent quality plates in one test?

Let's check the kwk43's penetration:

α=30

88mm PaK 43 L / 71

PzGr.39 / 43 ( APCBC)
weight velocity 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
10.2 kg 1000 m/s 202 mm 185mm 165mm 148mm 132mm

You can find that the penetration of kwk43 decline steadily while the distant increases. If they use high quality target plates @>1500meters, you will find a sharp drop of kwkw43's penetration, however, the fact is NOT. If kwk43 can pen. 148mm good quality @1500, it should pen. 185mm bad quality @1500m also, not @500m. The technichers won't do that silly thing: use different qaulity plate in one test.

Fact is the 122mm D-25T wasn't capable of penetrating 200 + mm plates, even at point blank range, while the KwK43 penetrates plates of over 238mm at 100m. Thus the 88mm KwK43 is the better performer, nomatter the distance.

Also take a look at how much energy the 88mm KwK43 L/71 concentrates on its target, it's WAAAY higher than that of the 122mm D-25T at all ranges. Hence the KwK43's much higher penetration performance.

LOL, 100mm D10T has 25% more energy than kwk43's apcbc projectile, D25T's advantage is more: 150%+......Compared to D10/D25, kwk43's energy is quite low.

102mm @ 46 degree's is 147mm, and the 88mm KwK43 L/71 will punch through 153mm at 3km.

So the point stands.

One 102mm/46 amor consumes same weight of 147mm vertical amor, if 102mm/46 can't provide more protection than 147mm vertical, all slope amor designers are rubbish/idiot.

My calculation is 102mm/46=165mm vertical when hit by 88mm apcbc. (188mm for 88 AP sharp tip shell).
This "calclulated" 165mm vertical amor is of good quality same as a real thin 102mm amor, therefore, it is estimated to be euqal to about 210mm+ real thick vertical amor(bad quality as kwk43's target plate)!

As for quality, well the quality of the German test plates were always excellent throughout the war, the acceptance criteria beeing very strickt.

If you say panther's glacis is only 80mm/cos55=140mm vertical, those german designers will kick your ass soren! ---"Do you think we are idoits!?"

Panther glacis is around 170-180 depending on the cailiber and shell type, for apcr, it is equal to 200m+!

However, D25T has only 149mm vertical pen. ability @650m, and it acutally pen. PantherD galcis(170-180mm). German tank amor quality is not very good except for Tiger and StugIII.. Panther benifit from it excellent design not amor quality. For exmaple. 80mm/55 is equal to 200mm+ vertivcal facing APCR(Low T/D), and this 200mm+ has the quality of 80mm thin plates, so it is equal to 250mm+ vertical real thick plate, that explains why allied APCR besides German APCR are insufisient in front of Panther.

[plan_D]

I still believe 90 tons to be too heavy, Soren. The Panther F would have been more than good enough against the new Allied and Soviet armour and it certainly would have been the most practical. I think the modern development of the tank speaks for itself on this issue.

On the Pershing vs. ? issue, it was a good tank for development but I don't believe it was on par with the Tiger or Panther - and in a straight shooting match certainly not the King Tiger. The Super Pershing is a completely different machine (in my opinion) because the increased firepower gave the German AFVs something to fear as it was perfectly capable of destroying the Panther and Tiger at combat ranges. The King Tiger was still above the Super Pershing in a straight shooting match despite the fact a King was the Super Pershings first victim; bad handling on the Kings crew.

The optical equipment on the German armour was exceptional - it was THE best in the world, there should be no doubt. The optical equipment gave accurate ranging up to 5km; something the Allies could only dream of. Unfortunately for the Allies the German guns that accompanied these optics were powerful enough to inflict damage 5km away - I believe the longest kill in World War II was an Elefant vs. T-34/76 at 4.8km away ? I'm open to corrections on that. sys, while 4.8 certainly was extreme and 'bizarre' I wouldn't discount long distance kills (2 - 3km) being unique so much so that they should be discounted as luck and not worth mentioning in a discussion.
The reason combat ranges were 400 - 600 metres was simply because both Soviet and Allied armour were closing on the German armour in an attempt to inflict damage ! The ranges would have been further out if the Allies had something capable of doing serious damage that far out. You say there was no line of sight for those ranges - open Pontic steppes, desert (Pz.IV F/2 & Tiger), fields of [parts of] France... all wide open spaces - Tigers were inflicting damage while the enemy was closing in to "combat" range.

That said, I must admit that the Sherman was not a 'bad' tank. It was no worse than the T-34 ... which is funny because everyone loves the T-34 (best tank in WWII blah, blah, blah) while hating the Sherman... fact of the matter is there's some numbers out there that claim for every Panther there were 15 T-34s destroyed ... or 9 Shermans. The T-34 and Sherman were 'medium' tanks , or best put by the British 'cruiser' tanks - (best 'cruiser' was the A34 Comet !) the idea was to rush through the gaps of the enemy line and wreck the rear echelons - simple ! Guderian wrote that idea in Achtung! Panzer! ... so the Allies and Soviets had the right idea...what they failed to grasp was "the main enemy of the tank is another tank" - the Allies and Soviets forgot that the enemy (Germany) was going to have a mobile ARMOURED reserve... terrible shock when they were more capable armour vs. armour. And also upsetting to discover that the Germans used this magical thing called a 'heavy' tank that was used to punch the original hole, and allow the 'cruiser' (Pz.IV in Germanys case around '43, Pz.III before then) to wreck the rear lines. The heavy tanks in Germany were also used to engage the enemy armour ... which effectively eradicated the T-34s and Shermans ... which did not have such support. Tank destroyers were a good thought, but really - one hit wonders... any infantry around and they're in trouble.

The Allies could , and SHOULD, have used heavy tanks. With the Pershing punching the original hole and aiding the 'cruiser' (sherman) in the battle against the enemies armoured counter- attack ... the Allies would have had an easier time (and the Sherman would have had a better name for itself). The British idea of the breakthrough tank was the 'infantry' tank ...matilda II unfortunately showed this idea to be a good one by being a great tank and only stoppable by the dreaded '88' FlaK 36 in '40 - '41. That led to the Churchill ... being a 'good idea'. It was a good idea in cities ... but certainly no good in open ground. Given a year or so on top of the war and Britain would have been splitting lines apart with Centurions and chewing up the supply lines with Comets. Much praise for the British armoured corps then ! But no...

[syscom3]

Good points plan_d

The Sherman got a bad reputation for being forced (by circumstance) to perform the role of a tank destroyer, when it wasn't intended to do that.

Lets not forget that the Sherman had one advantage over the Tiger and Panther... its was reliable enough to do the deep penetrations of the battlefield, neither of which the German tanks could do.

The long range shots of the era were lucky ones, in conditions of good weather and unobstructed lines of fire. That is not the norm.

[syscom3]

Didnt the Pershing have a turret transverse rate of 24 degrees/sec, almost 4 times faster than the Panther or Tiger?

[plan_D]

The Tiger was never intended for deep penetrations; it was a breakthrough tank. The reliability of the Tiger was not an issue, the lack of support vehicles and spare parts was the real issue. I cannot remember which Tiger unit it was but I remember reading an article than stated the unit, when properly supplied, maintained an 86% combat ready state - that's extremely high.

You must also remember that the Pz.Kpfw IV was the tank for deep penetrations - it was the Germans equal to the Sherman and, unfortunately, still superior. The Pz.Kpfw IV and III made up the larger part of the Wehrmacht armoured forces; the Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers were in the minority.

Define norm and then define long range? At 4.8km it could be luck, but at 1.5km it was more likely the high skill, excellent optics and great guns that made the kills. More armoured conflicts were fought out in the open than in the streets; and defending Tigers normally had a long time to aim and kill before being compromised.

The Panther A could fully traverse its turret in 15 seconds (quickest time); this relied on the engine speed and hydraulic gearing. I cannot remember the Tiger's rotation speed but it was slow; this was normally made mute by the fact that the Tiger could rotate on the spot quicker than any other tank because it's width to length was practically 1:1.

[davparlr]

Heavy tanks were not needed to win the war. By the time the US realized the good medium Sherman tank was no match for the latest German heavy tanks, everybody realized that the war was inevitably over and that the quickest war winning strategy did not include the need for a heavy tank. While we may grimace at the decision relative to the losses of too many good men, the conclusion is inescapable. Within a year, the remnants of German war machine, including their “superior” tanks were scattered in pieces across Europe, both east and west.

From ’42 on, the German tank philosophy was a disaster, passing up on building outstanding tanks, and military equipment in general, in quantity for bigger and better, giving up time they did not have, materials they were short of, and military advantage they desperately needed. In general, the top level of German command fiddled away their tactical advantage.

In my opinion, the outstanding WWII tank war machine was the T-34. It was clearly superior to anything the Germans had when it came out and blunted the German offensive momentum. By the time the Germans developed a response, the quantity they face was overwhelming. It was an excellent combination of armor, firepower, mobility, reliability and manufacturability that the Germans could never quite answer.

[glen]

Medium tank and heavy tank play different roles. Tigers/KTs and Panther are heavy tanks! Some believe the panther is medium tank, it's unreasonable.. Panther is even stronger than Tiger when they shoot each other from front.

German standard is always changing, at first Pz.Kpfw IV was defined as "heavy tank". So is US standard, after WWII, Pershing was called medium tank, not heavy tank.

It's unfair to compare T34/Sherman with Panther! How about comparing a cruiser with battle ship? Germany has no 70000tons class battle ship, so 40000tons Bismark should be compared with Yamato class in order to prove Japanese tech is higher than Germany?

Pershing was on par with the Tiger or Panther. The proof is below:

1) 90mm gun is as good as kwk36 even kwk42 if APCR used.
2) 102mm/46 glacis of is much stronger than tiger's and on par with panther's.
3) 102mm/0 turrent front is on par with tiger' but inferior to panther's. (sb. says tiger's turrent front is 140mm, if so, pershing's is the worst)
4) side amor of pershing is between tiger and panther.
5)optic of pershing is good. Britain tanks' optic is inferior to US.

Pershing's APCR can pen. Pz IV from 3000m away, so US tank is greatly better than german's?

German has a lot of heavy tanks, panther 6000+,tiger, 1500,kingtiger,800....But soviet has only 2000+ Js2. allied has only 200 pershing. German "battle ship" is stronger than enemy's cruiser, therefore, german "ship" tech is better, what a ridiculous logic.

[Soren]

Glen,

You don't understand, you've proven that once again.

A thicker plate, while having a lower BHN, also benefits from its thickness creating as much resistance pr. lenght as a thinner higher BHN plate. You don't understand this glen, you've just proven that.

That the penetration figures are close to linear is completely normal, infact it would be rather strange if they were not, since a projectile has a certain ballistic coefficient the drop in speed and thus energy will always be linear.

Look at the Soviet penetration figures, they're linear as-well, so are these fake according to you as-well glen ???

Now do you see that you're making no sense at all glen ??

As for the energy put on the target you didn't understand once again. The total KE doesn't matter, it's the concentration of that energy which matters! (The reason a needle has an easier time penetrating your skin than a soda bottle)

88mm KwK43

Projectile weight: 10.4 kg (APCBC)
Muzzle Velocity: 1000 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 85.49 KJ

100mm D-10T

Projectile weight: 15.88 kg (APBC)
Muzzle Velocity: 887 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 6250 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 79.57 KJ

122mm D-25T

Projectile weight: 25 kg (APBC)
Muzzle Velocity: 780 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 7605 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr cm^2: 65.05 KJ

As you can see the 88mm KwK43 concentrates a far higher amount of energy than any of the other guns, hence its much better penetration performance. Simple physics glen, something which doesn't change and something you can't run away from.

So the below results at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates are no surprise:

88mm KwK43 L/71 & 88mm KwK36 L/56


122mm D-25T L/46

[Soren]

Originally Posted by plan_D

I still believe 90 tons to be too heavy, Soren. The Panther F would have been more than good enough against the new Allied and Soviet armour and it certainly would have been the most practical. I think the modern development of the tank speaks for itself on this issue.

On the Pershing vs. ? issue, it was a good tank for development but I don't believe it was on par with the Tiger or Panther - and in a straight shooting match certainly not the King Tiger. The Super Pershing is a completely different machine (in my opinion) because the increased firepower gave the German AFVs something to fear as it was perfectly capable of destroying the Panther and Tiger at combat ranges. The King Tiger was still above the Super Pershing in a straight shooting match despite the fact a King was the Super Pershings first victim; bad handling on the Kings crew.

The optical equipment on the German armour was exceptional - it was THE best in the world, there should be no doubt. The optical equipment gave accurate ranging up to 5km; something the Allies could only dream of. Unfortunately for the Allies the German guns that accompanied these optics were powerful enough to inflict damage 5km away - I believe the longest kill in World War II was an Elefant vs. T-34/76 at 4.8km away ? I'm open to corrections on that. sys, while 4.8 certainly was extreme and 'bizarre' I wouldn't discount long distance kills (2 - 3km) being unique so much so that they should be discounted as luck and not worth mentioning in a discussion.
The reason combat ranges were 400 - 600 metres was simply because both Soviet and Allied armour were closing on the German armour in an attempt to inflict damage ! The ranges would have been further out if the Allies had something capable of doing serious damage that far out. You say there was no line of sight for those ranges - open Pontic steppes, desert (Pz.IV F/2 & Tiger), fields of [parts of] France... all wide open spaces - Tigers were inflicting damage while the enemy was closing in to "combat" range.

That said, I must admit that the Sherman was not a 'bad' tank. It was no worse than the T-34 ... which is funny because everyone loves the T-34 (best tank in WWII blah, blah, blah) while hating the Sherman... fact of the matter is there's some numbers out there that claim for every Panther there were 15 T-34s destroyed ... or 9 Shermans. The T-34 and Sherman were 'medium' tanks , or best put by the British 'cruiser' tanks - (best 'cruiser' was the A34 Comet !) the idea was to rush through the gaps of the enemy line and wreck the rear echelons - simple ! Guderian wrote that idea in Achtung! Panzer! ... so the Allies and Soviets had the right idea...what they failed to grasp was "the main enemy of the tank is another tank" - the Allies and Soviets forgot that the enemy (Germany) was going to have a mobile ARMOURED reserve... terrible shock when they were more capable armour vs. armour. And also upsetting to discover that the Germans used this magical thing called a 'heavy' tank that was used to punch the original hole, and allow the 'cruiser' (Pz.IV in Germanys case around '43, Pz.III before then) to wreck the rear lines. The heavy tanks in Germany were also used to engage the enemy armour ... which effectively eradicated the T-34s and Shermans ... which did not have such support. Tank destroyers were a good thought, but really - one hit wonders... any infantry around and they're in trouble.

The Allies could , and SHOULD, have used heavy tanks. With the Pershing punching the original hole and aiding the 'cruiser' (sherman) in the battle against the enemies armoured counter- attack ... the Allies would have had an easier time (and the Sherman would have had a better name for itself). The British idea of the breakthrough tank was the 'infantry' tank ...matilda II unfortunately showed this idea to be a good one by being a great tank and only stoppable by the dreaded '88' FlaK 36 in '40 - '41. That led to the Churchill ... being a 'good idea'. It was a good idea in cities ... but certainly no good in open ground. Given a year or so on top of the war and Britain would have been splitting lines apart with Centurions and chewing up the supply lines with Comets. Much praise for the British armoured corps then ! But no...

Good post Plan_D, I agree 100%.

As for the 95 ton E90 Ausf.L, yes it was very heavy, too heavy for many bridges. But the fording capability was to be very great, thus small rivers could be crossed easily. Still the Panther F was a better tank to mass produce, no doubt about it. However the E90 would've been a great asset on the Battlefield, assisting the Panthers.

[glen]

I admit that Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2 of kwk43 is the highest( L70/90mm is another), but the issue is not so simple, Energy pr. cm^2 is NOT direct proportional to penetration for same projectile and this factor shouldn't abused among different cailiber projectiles.

1)I need the velocity of kwk43's projectile of 0m,500m,1000m,1500m....

2) There is one strange thing about 88mm KwK43/122mm D-25T. According to your data, the velocity retain ability of kwk43's projectile(apcbc 10.2kg) is BETTER than D25T's(APBC 25kg):

at close range, 232/206=113%, and then 196/152=129%, at last, @3000m, 153/108=142%

10.2kg projectile's penetration advantage over 25kg projectile INCREASES with distant. Very strange!

D25T's penetration 0 degree

0m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
AP (162mm) 152mm 142mm 132mm 122mm

pen. decrases 10mm every 500m,

α=30

88mm PaK 43 L / 71

PzGr.39 / 43 ( APCBC)
weight velocity 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
10.2 kg 1000 m/s 202 mm 185mm 165mm 148mm 132mm

pen. decrases 20mm+(α=30) every 500m.

Therefore,kwk43 pen. decrease faster than D25T. However, Aberdeen proving grounds USA test has told us a total different story: D25T pen. decrease faster！

That the penetration figures are close to linear is completely normal, infact it would be rather strange if they were not, since a projectile has a certain ballistic coefficient the drop in speed and thus energy will always be linear.

Look at the Soviet penetration figures, they're linear as-well, so are these fake according to you as-well glen ???

off course, penetration figures are close to linear, but if they use different quality target plates, the linear relationship between pen. and distant will be changed!

α=30

88mm PaK 43 L / 71

PzGr.39 / 43 ( APCBC)
weight velocity 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
10.2 kg 1000 m/s 202 mm 185mm 165mm 148mm 132mm

Tell me which plates is high of quality. 132mm? If 132mm plates is high quality and the others are low quality. pls tell me what the difference is between 132mm(high quality) and 148mm(low quality)?Note that there are no more than 20mm gap between every 500m. Do you know what I mean?

Is the kwk43's penetration constant from 1500m to 2000m？

To be frank，I don't trust Aberdeen proving grounds USA test on D25T because I believe 25kg projectile's velocity retaining ability is better than 10.2kg or 15kg.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by glen

I admit that Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2 of kwk43 is the highest( L70/90mm is another), but the issue is not so simple, Energy pr. cm^2 is NOT direct proportional to penetration for same projectile and this factor shouldn't abused among different cailiber projectiles.

Directly proportional, no, but close.

The higher the energy concentration, the higher the penetration power, simple fact. Hence why the SABOT round is the std. AT projectile today.

1)I need the velocity of kwk43's projectile of 0m,500m,1000m,1500m....

I can tell you that the velocity is ~775 m/s at 2,500m.

2) There is one strange thing about 88mm KwK43/122mm D-25T. According to your data, the velocity retain ability of kwk43's projectile(apcbc 10.2kg) is BETTER than D25T's(APBC 25kg):

at close range, 232/206=113%, and then 196/152=129%, at last, @3000m, 153/108=142%

10.2kg projectile's penetration advantage over 25kg projectile INCREASES with distant. Very strange!

Strange ? No.

The projectile's BC (Ballistic Coefficient) is what determines the loss in velocity & penetration as range increases. So obviously the Pzgr.39/43 has a higher BC than the projectiles fired by the 122mm D-25T.

[glen]

1)You believe Energy pr. cm^2 is nearly proportional to penetration, and kwk43's apcbc shell is better than kwk36's apcbc, how can u explain the pen. ratio of kwk43 to kwk36 is only 143%(232mm/162mm) while the Energy pr. cm^2 of kwk43/kwk36 is 164%? 164% isn't close to 143% at all, De marre's theory is more accurate.

2)official kwk43 pen.

α=30

PzGr.39 / 43 ( APCBC)
weight velocity 100 m 500 m 1000 m 1500 m 2000 m
10.2 kg 1000 m/s 202 mm 185mm 165mm 148mm 132mm

official d25t pen.

0m 500m 1000m 1500m 2000m
AP (162mm) 152mm 142mm 132mm 122mm

I can't explain two issues below:

a) Official tests said kwk43's apcbc pen. decrease 20mm+ every 500m while d25t's ap decrease 10mm. However, US test told us that kw43's apcbc decrease 8mm while d25t'ap decrease 10-12mm every certain distant. What's the problem?

b)according to official tests, @blank piont, "advantage" of kwk43 over d25t is 202/162= 125%, @1000m, the ratio is 116%, @2000m, the ratio is 108%. Official tests want to say the advantage of kwk43 DECREASES when distant becomes greater and greater. However, the US test said a opposite story:

at close range, 232/206=113%, and then 196/152=129%, at last, @3000m, 153/108=142%


The official tests of German and Russian are totally opposite to US test. What's the problem?

[Juha]

Plan D
I really doubted that ” fact of the matter is there's some numbers out there that claim for every Panther there were 15 T-34s destroyed ...” those numbers were very trustworthy.
And IMHO more important in the loss ratio. Allied decided to mass-produce simple smaller more reliable 26 – 35 ton mediums when Germans went to more complicated, more expensive 45 ton tank, which was more difficult to recover, more fuel-thirsty etc. IIRC Germany produced appr. 6000 Panthers and SU a little under 40000 T-34s and T-34/85s. I guess that at least some 4000 Panthers were lost on Eastern Front. So I guess that max 5, probably less T-34s were lost because of Panthers to one Panther lost because of T-34s because I believe that a greater portion of Panther losses were because of T-34s/T-34/85s than T-34s/T-34/85 losses because of Panthers. In other words I believe that greater portion of T-34s were lost because of Pz IIIs, IVs, VIs, StuGs, PzJgs, JgPzs, PaKs, mines, Panzerfaust etc than Panthers because of KVs, JSs, SUs, A/T-guns, mines, Molotov cocktails etc.

Soren, how one recover 10