![]() |
| |||||||
| WW2 General Every WW2 related discussion besides aviation. |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,726
| Tiger-II front glacis vs AT guns Even if it is a few weeks behind the discussion, I submit some aspects to penetration of the King Tigers frontal 45* degrees inclined 150 mm plate (upper part, face hardened Q=0.98, elongation=13%). -It is estimated that only core hits (neglecting longitudinal impact angles) counts, hits with longitudinal impact angle will have a worser time to defeat this plate- *the actual inclination is 50 degrees but I take light "downshooting" into account to make penetration easier ------------------------CONTENDERS------------------ type--ammo---size-----shellweight-muzzle vel.---examples SU: D5----APCBC--85 mm---9,2Kg----792 m/s------T-34/85, SU-85 D10---APCBC--100 mm--15,8Kg---880 m/s------SU-100 D25---APCBC-125 mm---24,9Kg--780 m/s------JS-II US: M7----APCBC--76,2mm-7.0 Kg-----793 m/s.----Sherman (typical) M3----APCBC--90mm---10.94 Kg---808 m/s.----Pershing Britain: QF75--APCBC--75mm---6,8 Kg----620 m/s------Cromwell 17pdr--APCBC--76,2mm-7,7 Kg----900 m/s------Comet, Sherman Firefly Germany: KWK42-APCBC-75mm---6,8Kg------893 m/s.----Panther KWK36-APCBC-88mm---10,2 Kg----773 m/s.----Tiger-I KWK43-APCBC-88mm---10,2 Kg----1000 m/s.---Tiger-II, Elefant Pak44--APCBC-128 mm-28,3 Kg----920 m/s.----Jagdtiger -------------------------------------------- US : M7) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible M3) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible Britain: QF 75)- minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible 17pdr) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible SU: D5 - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (> 1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible D10 - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (~1140 m/s), no penetration ever possible D25 - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (~ 987 m/s), no penetration ever possible Germany: KWK42) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (>1200 m/s), no penetration ever possible KWK36) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (~1062 m/s), no penetration ever possible KWK43) - minimum striking velocity needed for full penetration exceeds muzzle velocity (~1062 m/s), no penetration ever possible PAK 44) - Full penetration achieved. Minimum striking velocity needed: 908 m/s. Shell suffers nose shatter. Shell suffers lower body broken up at impact, rendering the projectile ineffective. The gun will achieve full penetration at 0-170 yrds distance only. CONCLUSION: Other than via pure luck (it went through the optics, the welding is poor, etc.) or by repeated hits, no ww2 tankgun will defeat the Tiger II glacis plate, even from point blanc range. Only the 128 mm Pak 44 of the Jagdtiger has a chance to do so. The closest tank gun to achieve this is the Kingtigers 8.8cm KWK 43, only 63 m/s (mostly thanks to itīs superior AP-cap). striking velocity are missing to achieve full penetration. The soviet D 25 misses 207 m/s striking veloicty and the soviet D 10 missed it by 260 m/s (interesting. I always believed the D-10 would be better than the D-25). However, at these velocities, the projectile will always suffer full shatter, rendering the small cavity charge useless.
__________________ ---delcyros--- Last edited by delcyros; 06-06-2006 at 08:05 PM. |
| | |
| | #2 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 10,283
| Delc, interesting information. Was the US 90mm gun as specified, the same gun as used on the Pershing tank?
__________________ "Pilot to copilot..... what are those mountain goats doing up here in the clouds?" |
| | |
| | #3 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,116
| Quote:
Yes, its the 90mm M3, which is the gun on the Pershing.
__________________ ![]() It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not | |
| | |
| | #4 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,726
| Absolutely. Here some armoured vehicles (sorry for simplification) to use the guns from above: SU: D-5: T-34/85, KW-85, Su-85 D-10: T-34/100 -prototype, Su-100 D-25: JS-2 US: M3: Pershing M1/M7: Sherman Britain: QF75: Cromwell 17pdr: Sherman Firefly, Comet Germany: KWK36: Tiger I KWK42: Panther KWK43: Tiger-II / (same gun as Pak 43 used in Elefant) Pak44: Jagdtiger Does anyone out here has informations about the exact shellweightfor the soviet guns? I do used approximations for them but there might be an error up to 8% in shellweight (even in the best case = firing superheavy 65 lbs shells, excludes them from reaching striking velocity to defeat the front glacis plate).
__________________ ---delcyros--- Last edited by delcyros; 06-06-2006 at 06:37 PM. |
| | |
| | #5 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,116
| D-5, APCBC: 9.2 kg D-10, APCBC: 15.8 kg D-25, APCBC: 24.9 kg
__________________ ![]() It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not |
| | |
| | #6 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,726
| Thanks Soren. I fixed the points. Nothing really changed, the D-10 peformance improves but still is far away from defeating the glacis plate.
__________________ ---delcyros--- |
| | |
| | #7 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,116
| Ur welcome Delcyros.
__________________ ![]() It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not |
| | |
| | #8 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: City of the Angels California
Posts: 809
| Delcyros- Got no idea why anyone would imagine the Tiger could be defeated by any available guns in the field at the time. There are simply too many accounts of ordnance bouncing harmlessly off them.
__________________ |
| | |
| | #9 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,726
| It has been matter of discussion some weeks earlier. Based on post war evidence I read that the later SU guns (D10 and D-25) could defeat the glacis plate (there exist a photo showing a defeated Tiger-II glacis). I had to collect much information on specific shell and AP-capdesign and armour properties to perform these computations. Now I am pretty sure that the plate was defeated by repeated heavy shell hits from very close range and not by a single hit.
__________________ ---delcyros--- |
| | |
| | #10 |
| Senior Member | You could have just asked me that, delcryos. If it's the same King Tiger that I'm thinking of, it was turret #502 and was captured by the Russians and used for extensive testing. It was shot repeatedly by various Russian cannon, but mostly by the A-19 122mm at all ranges. I haven't got the images, but they do exist of the King Tiger's plate and it is punctured but you can see dent marks all around the hole. Clearly, the King Tiger had been shot over and over again.
__________________ "When you go home tomorrow, don't expect anyone to know what you have been through. Even if they did know, most people probably wouldn't care anyway. Some of you may get the medals you deserve, many more of you will not. But remember this, all of you are now members of the front-line club, and that is the most exclusive club in the world." - Lt. Col. Matthew Maer CO 1st Battalion, the Princess of Wale's Royal Regiment. Camp Abu Naji, Oct. 2004 |
| | |
| | #11 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,726
| Thanks for clarification, Plan_D! I believe, we have the same sample in mind.
__________________ ---delcyros--- |
| | |
| | #12 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 384
| Quote:
Secodnly, why no apds for the 17 pdr? It was widely used post D day, and offered far superior performance (over 1200 m/s, iirc) | |
| | |
| | #13 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Berlin (Kreuzberg)
Posts: 1,726
| I still have my problems with APDS and APCR calculations. Big obstacle are the design specifications for them avaiable in the net. I know about the performances, only. However to compute with some degree of reliability I need more specific informations, such as CAP-shape datas, cross sectional density, rate of deceleration, Brinell hardness of the projectile nose / APcapnose (very important if You want to penetrate any face hardened type of armour) and core diameter for sub calibre and / or rigid core ammo. I could compute approximations for them but the differences are significant, so I leave it until I get the datas fixed for them. Personally, I cannot imagine, how a APDS shell may defeat the glacis. At these velocities the shell will always suffer full shatter as well. The inclination of the glacis makes it to difficult to defeat with APDS at least for a 76,2 mm gun. It still remains interesting if the subcalibre may offset the disadvantages in impact weight. Theoretically spoken, halving the weight and increasing the impact velocity by 50% remains the same in terms of armour penetration (with all other factors beeing identic). However, the subcalibre delivers some additional benefit, but the question remains if this would reduce the +300 m/s minimum striking velocity to a point to defeat the glacis.
__________________ ---delcyros--- Last edited by delcyros; 06-10-2006 at 06:52 PM. |
| | |
| | #14 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,116
| Well considering that the 17pdr's APDS rounds would often shatter on impact with the Tiger Ausf.E's frontal armour, even at close ranges, I think we can be pretty sure that it had no chance what so ever of penetrating the Tiger Ausf.B's frontal armour.
__________________ ![]() It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not |
| | |
| | #15 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 580
| This is very interesting delcyros, the results are interesting thankyou! Here is what you are looking for: http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?...id=123&lang=en Please be aware that the Soviet 122mm didn't work by penetration, it used other kinetic factors like internal spalling and mechanical shock etc. You can actually use mechanical shock to start an engine too! (Cockney screwdriver). Also the test example was of poor quality. It was hit a number of times, but if you're going to say 'armour failure' then you cannot discount 'work hardening'. Also if plunging fire was used against the glacis (the D25 was a howitzer after all) the damage would be more severe, though you have mentioned this. Also if the MG ball mount or seams were hit... It doesn't look like you've counted skate angle, this would make the 17pdr innefective. delcyros, would it be possible for you to calculate the max range the Tiger II's turret front can be penetrated by the Soviet 100mm?
__________________ Like WW2 tanks? Then please visit the Panzer Front: http://p208.ezboard.com/bthepanzerfront |
| | |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Italy v. England - Air to air | DAVIDICUS | Aviation | 193 | 07-22-2009 01:58 PM |
| Michael Wittman, Germany's Best Tank Commander.... | lesofprimus | WW2 General | 77 | 11-12-2007 09:29 AM |
| James Edgar Johnson, Leading British Ace | Maestro | Stories | 31 | 10-07-2007 02:27 PM |
| Best tank killer aircraft of WW2 Part I | Lightning Guy | Old Threads | 887 | 01-23-2005 05:11 PM |
| Best Aircraft in many different roles | Yeomanz | Old Threads | 551 | 01-21-2005 10:29 AM |