Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

the problem is "470mm pen" could mean anything, for example 160mm/70 deg is almost 470, and 235/60 is 470

 

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 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).

Yeah, i saw that. Wonder what the penetration figure would be for a 60 degree inclined standard RHA plate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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) ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

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

 

Yes, I believe it is either exaggerated or based on some really weird test criteria. NP 105 has a relatively high length-to-diameter ratio for a 105 mm APFSDS of 22 to 1, but even 105 mm DM63/M426 falls short of 473 mm...

 

2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

some more about problems with T-72 ?

 

No, it says: "The lack of penetration performance against the T-72 of the recently tested APFSDS ammunition is a fact (there is speculation with residual political risk). The option to buy 114 modernized Leopard 2A4 from the Dutch Army should be taken as soon as possible."

 

I.e. it seems that some people doubted that the 105 mm APFSDS was incapable of dealing with the T-72, but the Rechnungshof answered in its report that the inability to defeat the T-72 with 105 mm APFSDS rounds is a fact and that the Leopard 2A4 should be purchased. If "modernized" means "Leopard 2A4 tanks to be modernized" or "Leopard 2 tanks that recently were modernized to the 2A4 configuration" isn't clear.

 

2 hours ago, Wiedzmin said:

but what written here(menthos posted) ?

 
"At the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990, the firing tirals with the M60A3 main battle tank resulted in doubts among the troops regarding the ability to meet the expectations placed on the APFSDS rounds, which were also reflected in media reports. In response, the Federal Minister of Defence set up an internal commission of inquiry, which also inlcuded an Austrian university institute for material science investigations. After detailed investigations, professional discussions and numerous firing trials, it became more and more apparent that the poor firing results were more related to a fault on the part of the weapon system than to an excessive dispersion of the ammunition. However, these findings were obviously not shared by all the involved departments of the MoD, which led to further costly firing trials being scheduled again and again. In July 1991, however, all those involved came to the conclusion that the APFSDS ammunition met the requirements.
 
I.e. this paragraph mentions that the accuracy of the M60A3 was bad and some people blamed the new Austrian APFSDS for this, but after various investigations that lasted until July 1991, it was proven to be a fault of the M60A3 and not of the NP 105 APFSDS round.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2020 at 3:25 AM, heretic88 said:

Bigger gun is worthless if the commander/gunner cant see a damn thing out of the tank. Which was a real and crippling design fault of the T-34/76. The often quoted case, when a german 37mm AT gun hit the tank more than 20 times perfectly illustrate this problem. And also other combat reports.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

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.

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

81-12104-9-2copy.jpg

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI , concerning the NP 105 A2 round:  "Land Forces of the World" (Christopher Chant, 1990, Crescent Books / Crown Publishers / Brian Todd Publishing House Ltd, ISBN 0-517-69128-0),
 on page 146 the book describes an NP 105 A2 tungsten APFSDS round with a complete weight of 19.3kg (mid-1980s Jane's A & A suggests a penetrator length of 980mm and penetrator weight of 3.7kg Tungalloy T176FA) and a muzzle velocity of 1485m / sec, giving 150mm @ 60degrees @ 5800m performance (almost 6 inches at just over 3 & 1/2 miles).

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Pascal said:

Some statistics regarding crew loss, T-34, 4 crew versions and Sherman, of course the latter has 5 crew members but even with that it has fewer crew losses.

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/365699.html

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/360075.html

https://rostislavddd.livejournal.com/359840.html

 

Sorry for nitpicking but your statement is mathematically incorrect. 

 

The tables state average percentage for each crewmember occupation loss (the average value of all crew position values is 25,3% for T-34-76 and 24,6% for Sherman) but like you said such comparison doesn't take into account the number of crew members. If I count right it tells that for killing one hundred crewmen you needed to destroy in average 99 T-34-76 tanks or 81 Shermans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Beer said:

 

Sorry for nitpicking but your statement is mathematically incorrect. 

 

The tables state average percentage for each crewmember occupation loss (the average value of all crew position values is 25,3% for T-34-76 and 24,6% for Sherman) but like you said such comparison doesn't take into account the number of crew members. If I count right it tells that for killing one hundred crewmen you needed to destroy in average 99 T-34-76 tanks or 81 Shermans. 

It's not nitpicking, the post exists for many reasons, for reply's too.

 

It's straightforward, in a shot T-34, one crew member dies from 4.

In a shot Sherman, probability of one crew member dying is 0,85% from 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Pascal said:

It's not nitpicking, the post exists for many reasons, for reply's too.

 

It's straightforward, in a shot T-34, one crew member dies from 4.

In a shot Sherman, probability of one crew member dying is 0,85% from 5.

 

From which numbers did you get the 0,85 value (not percent)? Did you count KIA and MIA (letter M?) together divided by number of tanks (171+59)/274? Not saying it's wrong, just asking. Anyway I clearly read the table wrong at first, sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2020 at 2:12 AM, Wiedzmin 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

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 ?

There has already been a CAMD report linked, translated handily by Samsonov, listing both the V-2 in the T-34 and the 6046 in the M4A2 as having ~200 hours (the numbers are slightly different but well within a reasonable margin of error of a few hours) average lifespan. That was from the second guards' tank army in 1945.

 

Your points on the other Shermans having various models of engines is of course valid, as is the various T-34 derivatives. But the posts you were replying to for the R-975 post were discussing the M4A2 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.

 

T-34-85+reliability+1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wiedzmin said:

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.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2020 at 8:28 AM, SH_MM said:

"At the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990, the firing tirals with the M60A3 main battle tank resulted in doubts among the troops regarding the ability to meet the expectations placed on the APFSDS rounds, which were also reflected in media reports. In response, the Federal Minister of Defence set up an internal commission of inquiry, which also inlcuded an Austrian university institute for material science investigations. After detailed investigations, professional discussions and numerous firing trials, it became more and more apparent that the poor firing results were more related to a fault on the part of the weapon system than to an excessive dispersion of the ammunition. However, these findings were obviously not shared by all the involved departments of the MoD, which led to further costly firing trials being scheduled again and again. In July 1991, however, all those involved came to the conclusion that the APFSDS ammunition met the requirements."

 
I.e. this paragraph mentions that the accuracy of the M60A3 was bad and some people blamed the new Austrian APFSDS for this, but after various investigations that lasted until July 1991, it was proven to be a fault of the M60A3 and not of the NP 105 APFSDS round.

 

I'm calling BS on this one...the M60A3 is a very accurate weapon system, day or night. In fact, when it first appeared, it was probably the most accurate night-fighting tank on the planet. I was a qualified tank crewman on the M60A3 TTS (along with the M60A1 RISE (Passive) and M1 (105mm)  tanks), and I know the 105mm gun and fire control system on the M60A3 very well. Actual proof the M60A3 was to blame here simply doesn't exist...the generalized conclusion reported here missed the point. The reality is that the round was under-performing and something else had to be blamed.        

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

 

I'm calling BS on this one...the M60A3 is a very accurate weapon system, day or night. In fact, when it first appeared, it was probably the most accurate night-fighting tank on the planet. I was a qualified tank crewman on the M60A3 TTS (along with the M60A1 RISE (Passive) and M1 (105mm)  tanks), and I know the 105mm gun and fire control system on the M60A3 very well. Actual proof the M60A3 was to blame here simply doesn't exist...the generalized conclusion reported here missed the point. The reality is that the round was under-performing and something else had to be blamed.        

I think it's a matter of interpretation. My understanding after reading the german text was that the weapon system used for the trials was faulty, not the M60A3 in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Jim Warford said:

I'm calling BS on this one...the M60A3 is a very accurate weapon system, day or night. In fact, when it first appeared, it was probably the most accurate night-fighting tank on the planet. I was a qualified tank crewman on the M60A3 TTS (along with the M60A1 RISE (Passive) and M1 (105mm)  tanks), and I know the 105mm gun and fire control system on the M60A3 very well. Actual proof the M60A3 was to blame here simply doesn't exist...the generalized conclusion reported here missed the point. The reality is that the round was under-performing and something else had to be blamed.        

 

That is a very emotional response to the topic. You cannot call bullshit without knowing the Austrian requirements and test conditions. Maybe the Austrian military used smaller targets, wanted an acceptable hit probability while firing on the move, wanted to engage targets at longer ranges or where expecting firing performance closer to the Leopard 2 or M1A1D/M1A2?

 

That the fire control system of the M60A3 wasn't on par with the newer tanks is well known. In CAT it managed to get a third, an eight and a ninth place...

 

6 hours ago, Jägerlein said:

I think it's a matter of interpretation. My understanding after reading the german text was that the weapon system used for the trials was faulty, not the M60A3 in general.

 

It isn't really a matter of interpretation. The NP105 APFSDS wasn't tested with one single gun, it already was accepted for service in 1985 after demonstrating its ability to defeat the required targets (including an arrangement of three spaced steel plates). The complaints about the unsatisfactory dispersion with the NP105 lead to the investigations criticized by the Rechnungshof.

 

The waffenseitiger Fehler either refers to  all M68A1s being faulty or all M60A3s being considered faulty in regards to meeting the Austrian requirements. Not the single (?) M68/M60A3s in the trials, as otherwise the common soldiers would never have complained about the lack of accuracy in 1989 and 1990.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...