Wiedzmin

Ariete 

it's very old report from DTIC "Review of Soviet Ordnance Metallurgy"

white eagle...

https://thedeaddistrict.blogspot.com/2020/03/analisys-of-combat-damage-of-ukrainian.html

11 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

It is the side plate of the gun mount (i.e. the plates between the gun trunion).

i understand what it is

i talking about this

btw 

is this a turret backplate(welded over casted base) stiсking out from "cosmetic armour" damage ? or just weld seams of cosmetic armour itself ?

geometry is such a b&tch lol...

21 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

No, no I agree with you overall. I just thought the discussion of the R-975 was really odd in the context of what was going on.

maybe i had to point out that R975 is worst case.

7 minutes ago, TokyoMorose said:

for comparison's sake (it's the easiest statistical comparison to T-34s as it was operated by armies who operated enough T-34s to get good average data) and just stuck out in my mind as being very irrelevant.

thanks,  but here difference between T-34(and SU85 which is based on T-34 but not T-34, and which T-34 ? 76 ? 85 ? 76 + 85 ? ) not that big 185-190 vs 195-205 and this does not seem to contradict what i wrote about similar or worse reliability ?

and again, it all depends a lot on the level of maintenance and crew training.

5 hours ago, TokyoMorose said:

 

I hate to barge in with a late reply, and this is a side point - but why would the poor lifespan of the R-975 have any relevancy in a discussion comparing to the GM 6046 on the M4A2? All of the other sources earlier posted comparing T-34 engine life to Sherman engine life were using the 6046-equipped M4A2 as that is what the Soviets had.

Sherman is not one model A2 right ? and T-34 is not only early war period 76mm version, so it's comparsion of all what is out there, as for M4A2 lifespan for it was 300 hours by factory IIRC, during trials M4A2 76mm in USSR right engine dead after 949km due to hard road conditions, second engine 2126 km and needed light repairs, suspension start to break after 1339 km, as for average lifespan of M4A2 from early 75mm version to late war 76mm never saw any good reports, maybe you have some ?

55 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

And the glacis of that T-72M1 was able to stop this round ?

Centurion with some addon plates(spaced steel, not very thick) could stop L23A1 point blank for example, it's not about "wow that's can penetrate over 9000mm at distance over 9km", but about specific round design, alloy, weaknesses etc.

but again 

- strange articles and holes on real tank

- no any details on distances etc

- the presence of indirect confirmation of the problem with penetration by the Austrian docs

3 hours ago, Pascal said:

 

What you are talking about is the second wave for the 76mm guns.

 

The first one was this:

https://litl-bro.livejournal.com/22260.html

 

 

thats interesting, considering the fact that firing trials 1942 with HE and APHE from F34 doesn't have any problems vs III and IV, thank you, will read

p.s even with bad ammo F34 penetrate 50mm/30deg from 800 meters in 1940, so...

35 minutes ago, Pascal said:

 

There was actually a think regarding the 76 mm(L-11,F-32,F-34) and 45 mm cannons and their poor capabilities against Panzer IV and Panzer III armor. The firing ranges of these tanks against tanks with 76 mm were pretty much the same until the Autumn of 1941, after that ammo for 76 mm cannons got better.

only problem what 45mm has was 50mm plates IIRC, 76mm doesn't have any problems with Panzer IV or III even when firing HE at 900 meters, with up-armoured III(spaced armour) and IV(welded/bolted 30mm plate over 50mm and solid 80mm) yes there was problems for 76mm guns.

thank you, wish there be more details on any T-72M1 tests...

21 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

As per R. M. Ogorkiewicz, the NP 105 APFSDS penetrates 473 mm at 1,000 meters distance at normal impact (i.e. the armor is not sloped).

that's quite high for 105mm....

btw

https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XX/I/I_01286/fname_140175.pdf

Quote

Die nicht vorhandene Durchschlagsleistung der vor kurzem an T72 erprobten Pfeilmunition ist Faktum (hier wird mit politischem Restrisiko spekuliert). Die Kaufoption der NL Armee zum Verkauf von modernisierten 114 Leopard 2A4 sollte so rasch als möglich realisiert werden.

some more about problems with T-72 ?

Quote

Ende des Jahres 1989 und anfangs 1990 traten aufgrund von Schießergebnissen mit dem Kampfpanzer M60 A3 Zweifel bei der Truppe hinsichtlich der Erfüllung der an die Pfeilmunition gestellten Erwartungen auf, die auch in Medienberichten ihren Niederschlag fanden. Der Bundesminister für Landesverteidigung setzte hierauf eine interne Untersuchungskomrnission ein, die für werkstoffkundliche Untersuchungen auch ein österreichisches Universitätsinstitut einschaltete. Nach eingehenden Untersuchungen und achgesprächen sowie zahlreichen Präzisionsschießen stellte sich immer mehr heraus, daß die schlechten Trefferergebnisse eher auf einen waffenseitigen Fehler als auf eine übermäßige unitionsstreuung zurückzuführen wären. Diese Erkenntnisse wurden aber offensichtlich nicht von allen befaßten Stellen des BML V geteilt, was dazu führte, daß immer wieder neue und kostspielige Schießversuche stattfanden. Im Juli 1991 kamen aber alle Beteiligten dann doch zu dem Ergebnis, daß die Pfeilmunition den gestellten Anforderungen entspreche.

https://www.parlament.gv.at/PAKT/VHG/XVIII/III/III_00146/imfname_547596.pdf

but what written here(menthos posted) ?

4 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

I was aware of that and did take into account. I was just surprised that the rated value against APFSDS threats and the given penetration value were off like that. Just like in the case of the Swedish tank trials I would expect to be given resistance figures or at least a certain range with a given margin of safety. 

the problem is "470mm pen" could mean anything, for example 160mm/70 deg is almost 470, and 235/60 is 470, and so on, what kind of steel was used etc, so it's very hard to compare "some penetration numbers" with "some protection numbers" IMHO

14 minutes ago, Laviduce said:

I read that the NP105A2 has the ability to penetrate 470 mm RHA at 1000 m. How was it not able to penetrate the glacis ? I thought the T-72A/M1 hulls had a KE resistance rating of around 400-420 mm RHAe

numbers have nothing to real protection/penetration on complex structures capability, every APFSDS will work different against different structures and will give different "numbers" due to design features of each round, for example conqueror APDS often quted as "400+mm pen" but it can't penetrate T-72 with more ore less "same" numbers for protection level.

 that's why correct way of showing protection level for tank is indicate striking velocity for specific round at which tank will be penetrated/not penetrated.

as for article, it's strange, holes doesn't look like APFSDS hits IMHO

same tank

Strange article from AFV News Vol.35 No.2

and other strange from AFV News Vol.40 No.2

48 minutes ago, Pascal said:

I do hope you are not referring to the panzer III...

and ? if you referring to escape hatch on transmission roof plate, well, good luck to crew trying to escape from these hatches(especially when full radio set is in place) lol

18 hours ago, heretic88 said:

and according to the french post war experience

yeah, super reliable, stronk engineering skills 

10 hours ago, JDyer said:

Some Tank Archives links pertinent ot the discussion. 

Height available to crew for various vehicles

T-34/Su-85 engine life 10 hours less than M4A2  

5 speed Gearbox reportebly lasted 1700km

 

 

https://earlesspierre.livejournal.com/275281.html

https://earlesspierre.livejournal.com/111253.html

and more.

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

I didnt encounter any reports about serious ergonomic problems with Panzer III/IV

did you encounter ANY reports on Panzer III/IV ?:) because i'm not, only that it have shitty optics before long barelled gun was installed(+ some other british test on tank)

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Bovington's Panzer III is complete

nope, there is no complete tanks.

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

btw, PzIII didnt have a single round in engine compartment..

oh really ?

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

In Pz.III the lack of rotating platform isnt a big problem, since the

since the Chieftain said it lol ? 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

the loader had an uneven footing,

he has seat, and doesn't need to dance around any shaft's, and no one is rotating turret during loading procedure, so if it's not a problem for shitty Pz3 ergonomic, it's not a problem and for T-34.

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Watch Pz.IV video

i don't need to watch video of empty Panzer IV, i know exactly how it look like when all ammo, spare, MG, MP is inside,but "famous youtubers and book writers" don't want to mentoin it somehow. 

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

 5 speed gearbox wasnt common in WW2

started from 1942 IIRC, and your conclussion came from where ? if you maintain gerbox normaly, it woudn't be any problems, if you doesn't maintain it, well sledgehammer for genius.

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

of polish units who received them in late 1944, by hungarian reports (we had lots of T-34s post war)

polish + hungarian T-34 units it's a 80% or RKKA tank fleet or what ? level of maintenance in this units ?

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

Far, far inferior to the Sherman,

better optics(1943 report on Sherman in Italy), better or same REAL reability than almost any modification of M4(read reports on tankarchives) and ?

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p4013coll8/id/3344/rec/206

Fire control.-(1) Because of the excessive dispersion which occurs with the M4 periscope, firing of tank guns is confined almost entirely to the artillery method of sensing and locating bursts and giving corrections in mils to the gunners. The average dispersion which occurs as a result of slack in the periscope holder and linkage extends 4 mils in both planes. This dispersion is so great that guns do not stay bore-sighted with the telescope after any operation. The modification consisting of a spring between the periscope holder and turret will be greatly welcomed. The officers who saw the M4A1 periscope liked it extremely, but all were emphatic in saying that only one reticle pattern should be used and that if these new periscopes are used the telescope mounted on the gun mount should have the same reticle.

(2) There is very little use of the coaxially mounted telescope; the dispersion which results from its use is even greater than that experienced with the M4 periscope. In addition, the optics of the M55 telescopes are unsatisfactory, resulting in unsatisfactory light-transmission characteristics. Furthermore, most gunners report that it is very difficult for them to get their heads into proper position for sighting through the coaxial telescope. When tanks are operating in combat, the crash helmet is always worn; in most cases, the steel helmet without liner is worn over the crash helmet.

(3) About 75 percent of the tanks in England are equipped both with azimuth indicators and with the M9 range quadrant. Less than half of the tanks in Italy are equipped with the azimuth indicator, and few have the M9 range quadrant. Both of these items are essential equipment in this theater

h. Ammunition stowage.-Except for the ready rounds in the turret, the ammunition stowage is unsatisfactory and should be improved. Experience in Italy indicates that 2 rounds out of every 40 in the stowage bins will separate, creating a very serious fire hazard and making it difficult to remove the rest of the rounds from the stowage bin. When going into combat, the crew invariably puts a full complement of ammunition in the floor of the turret basket because they are anxious to carry a very large quantity of ammunition. Tank crews are very little concerned with protection of ammunition and consider accessibility and quantity of primary importance.

2 hours ago, heretic88 said:

T-34 was not a bad tank

it was bad tank, with many flaws as any other, but main problems often was it's crew and people who command operations, but all this old shitty myths about "bad soviet sights" etc only a myths...

2 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

 

 

He also said that the lower section of the hull (where the armor is curved) is more complicated, as the thickness is variable there.

yes it's seen on photo, near to bended area it's get thicker, but this area is track tension system IIRC, so it could be very tricky 

2 minutes ago, SH_MM said:

50 mm is the confirmed result of measurement with an ultrasonic probe.

but no any photos of this measures ? 

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Panzer III was very ergonomic, check video with Nicholas Moran.

i researched III, IV, 34, VI and V much closer tnan that videos in empty tanks 

as for "very ergonomic panzer III" loader doesn't have turntable, and will dance around cardan shaft 

or "gunner position is not bad" with open side hatch, no commander in place lol, superb! 

driver and radiooperator don't have hatches 

and it has a 50mm little gun vs 76mm, well...

loader site, tank doesn't have MG which will reduce free space in turret...and again open hatches(vision block on hatch again will reduce free space)

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

T-34/76 was absolute horror for its crew. Tank was designed with utter disregard of crew comfort.

with 

this turret has some problems.

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Everything you do needs huge amounts of physical force.

same level of force was needed on Sherman steering levers , 30-35 kg max for T34 and Sherman, as for gearshift on 4 speed gearbox it was fixed on 5 speed gearbox

and human memory never was and never be a good source.

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

since commander also had to fire the gun

it's not problem of a turret, but basic idea of that tank at the moment.

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

Loader's place again extremely bad, horrible ammo placement

horrible in what term ? or in comparison with what tank ? Panzer III with commander sitting on ammo bin ? or Panzer III rack in engine room ? or Panzer IV  gunner have ammo oh his foots ? maybe Comet where loader can't load gun without hurting himself ?

39 minutes ago, heretic88 said:

of the low combat effectiveness of the T-34 in any wars it fought in.

great conclusion

and again, all of that it's not in protection of "holly T-34", just hate tons of stupid old myths and new made by Chieftain sitting in empty tank and making conclusions out of nowhere.