Sherman v T34 in Korea

[Bronk]

You really do just yammer to hear yourself yammer, don't you?

LOL I think this is about the closest I've seen you get to berating someone.
Look out akak here comes ltarget.

[Lusche]

On typical tank combat ranges in Korea:

About half of the engagements took place at ranges of 350 yds or less (...) About 20% of the engagements took place at 350-750 yds, and a similar number at 750-1,150 yds. (...). The shortest engagement range was 10 yards, and the longest known successful engagement by an M26 is 3,000 yards.

http://warandgame.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/sherman-vs-pershing-in-korea/

[E25280]

LOL I think this is about the closest I've seen you get to berating someone.

Umm . . . I've had a bad day?   

[Squire]

The T-34/85 and the M4A3(76) are very close in gun, armor, and other specs, there are of course differences but nothing like some folks seem to think.

As for the 76mm Sherman gun, it could do @116mm of armor at 500 yards with APCBC ammo and could kill a T-34/85 frontally. The T-34/85s 85mm BR-365 APBC round would do @111mm at 500 yards and likewise could kill a Sherman. Both tanks offered @ 100mm of actual protection frontally, the T-34 with 45mm of armor sloped and the Shermans 51mm of sloped armor, giving both tanks approx 100mm of protection (give or take). Certainly at ranges greater than 500 yards, the rounds would often not score a kill if they struck the front armor.  Armor is designed after all to protect the vehicle otherwise all the tanks in WW2 would have just been canvas covered trucks with guns on the back. The special tungsten based ammo that both tanks had from 1944 would of course do better, US HVAP (not included in AH) would do 200mm of armor to the Soviet 85mm APCR (which is in the game) 140mm of armor, and thats at 500 yards (0 degree slope).

M26 Pershing vs T-34? well the M26s armor is vastly better, and so is its gun, any specs will quickly indicate that. The M26 is a heavy tank.

Some of the best books out there are Ospreys "New Vanguard" series on specific WW2 tanks. Lots of great info, sans the nationalistic BS and half baked crap that are in a lot of posts and some web sights. Not that its going to do any good, cuz dumb myths and grossly exaggerated statements are almost unkillable imho. If it can fit on a bumper sticker it usually wins out over real info, every time.

[Nemisis]

You really do just yammer to hear yourself yammer, don't you?

Point is, the 76mm gun would not struggle with the frontal armor of the T-34 at typical combat ranges.  Period.

According to squire, the M4 could penertate 116mm of armor at 500yds, add in that extra slope, and it might be enough to let the T-34/85 survive. 16mm isn't that much thicker, and could easily be aquired, hell, just pile some sand bags on the front. Of course he also made the point that ranges were likely more than 500yds, and so the rounds would likely have been bouncing off the front, regardless of the added slope.

[E25280]

According to squire, the M4 could penertate 116mm of armor at 500yds, add in that extra slope, and it might be enough to let the T-34/85 survive. 16mm isn't that much thicker, and could easily be aquired, hell, just pile some sand bags on the front. Of course he also made the point that ranges were likely more than 500yds, and so the rounds would likely have been bouncing off the front, regardless of the added slope.

You really need to learn to read and comprehend rather than yammer.

Squire is using figures that equate to a 90 degree strike for both the gun and armor.  116mm penetration vs. roughly 100mm equivalent protection at 500 yards still equals penetration.  You know, because 116mm is greater than 100mm.  Hopefully that fact at least you understand.

Lusche pointed out that 50% of engagements were at 350 yards or less.  350 yards is less than 500.  Hopefully that also sinks in.

So, at typical combat ranges, the 76mm gun HAS NO PARTICULAR PROBLEM PENETRATING THE FRONT HULL ARMOR OF THE T-34, is what I said.  Nothing either of these gentlemen posted contradicts that statement.

And to that you offer . . . . well, maybe they had sandbags??

 

[E25280]

As for the 76mm Sherman gun, it could do @116mm of armor at 500 yards with APCBC ammo and could kill a T-34/85 frontally. The T-34/85s 85mm BR-365 APBC round would do @111mm at 500 yards and likewise could kill a Sherman. Both tanks offered @ 100mm of actual protection frontally, the T-34 with 45mm of armor sloped and the Shermans 51mm of sloped armor, giving both tanks approx 100mm of protection (give or take).

Squire, would you use this method rather than test data against a sloped plate?  My recollection of the subject is that a shell with sufficient mass has less trouble with slope of armor -- so 45mm armor at 30 degree slope offers more protection against a high velocity 37mm round than it does against a lower velocity 75mm round even if both rounds have the same penetration rating against a flat plate.  Opinion?

[humble]

As a general rule once the diameter of the shell exceeds the thickness of the plate the likely hood of the round shattering is greatly diminished. Slope still effects richochet but rounds of less then a 1/1 ratio are much more likely to not penetrate even at higher velocities and close range where they "theoretically" should. One major element not well represented here is spalling which was a major source of tank loss in WW2. Basically a large diameter round (1/1 or greater) or a very high speed round would cause the inner portion of the plate to shed splinters that bounced around the tank and killed people and started fires etc....

[Nemisis]

E25280, did I do something to offend you, or are you just in a pissy mood?

And humble, wouldn't spalling just kill the crew in the area that the round stuck (under the gun = commander, loader, and gunner killed, with driver/hull gunner still alive), leaving the tank able to drive away, or at least shoot back?