Stuka Tank Buster for the planeset

[Tony Williams]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Anyway, I clearly remember that it was effective at all practical ranges against the majority of tanks in service with the enemy, so this only at 100m, perfect angle etc. thing is a bit of a myth.

It is not a myth that Rudel had his guns harmonised at 100m, and why would he do that if they were reliably effective at a longer range?

I have the penetration graph for the BK 3,7 in front of me. At 100m it penetrates 140mm at 90 degrees, about 70mm at 60 degrees and about 45mm at 45 degrees. At 600m (the graph doesn't show any intermediate distances) it penetrates 95mm at 90 degrees, 47mm at 60 degrees and less than 30mm at 45 degrees.

Tony Williams

[Pongo]

I was very suprised at that in your book Tony.
100 meter harmonization vs a target that is practically stationary must have made for some scary pull ups.
It also indicates that he didnt worry about attacking the top. With 140mm of penetration and a 100 meter harmonization he would have just attacked the sides and rear.

[Kweassa]

At 600m (the graph doesn't show any intermediate distances) it penetrates 95mm at 90 degrees, 47mm at 60 degrees and less than 30mm at 45 degrees.

 Wow, the 37mm AP penetration still surpasses the Panzer IV armour even at 600m.

 That's a really nasty gun!

[Urchin]

That doesn't seem all that impressive.. I think the 23mm on the IL-2  can penetrate the roof on a Panzer IV at 600+ meters, as can the Hurri-2D.  Only problem for the Hurri is actually connecting at that range.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by Urchin
That doesn't seem all that impressive.. I think the 23mm on the IL-2  can penetrate the roof on a Panzer IV at 600+ meters, as can the Hurri-2D.  Only problem for the Hurri is actually connecting at that range.

Yeah, but the Ju87G penetrates the front hull armor at 600m.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by Tony Williams
It is not a myth that Rudel had his guns harmonised at 100m, and why would he do that if they were reliably effective at a longer range?

I have the penetration graph for the BK 3,7 in front of me. At 100m it penetrates 140mm at 90 degrees, about 70mm at 60 degrees and about 45mm at 45 degrees. At 600m (the graph doesn't show any intermediate distances) it penetrates 95mm at 90 degrees, 47mm at 60 degrees and less than 30mm at 45 degrees.

Tony Williams

Heck thats much better AP performance than the Sherman's 75mm.

[Karnak]

It is just a bit worse than the 76.2mm F-34 L/42.5, L/41.51 gun on the T-34/76D firing BR-350P APCR ammo.  Noticably worse, but not horribly worse.

[Wotan]

Allied 76.2mm had a 'shatter gap' problem. Rounds with too high an impact velocity would sometimes fail even though their penetration capability was (theoretically) more than adequate.

This was a problem with the British 2 pounder in the desert, and would have decreased the effectiveness of U.S. 76mm and 3" guns against Tigers, Panthers and other vehicles with armor thickness above 70 mm.

The nose of US armor-piercing ammunition of the period was 'soft' (brittle?). When these projectiles impacted armor which matched or exceeded the projectile diameter at a certain spread of velocities, the projectile would shatter and fail.

For the a 76mm APCBC M62 the shell would shatter and fail between 50 meters and 900 meters. These ammunition deficiencies proved that Ordnance tests claiming the 76 mm gun could penetrate a Tiger I's upper front hull to 2,000 yards (1,800 meters) were sadly incorrect.

Here's one story of 2 Tigers being engaged by a mix of Soviet T34/76 and US lend lease Shermans:

The 13.(Tiger) Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland, reported on the armor protection of the Tiger: "During a scouting patrol two Tigers encountered about 20 Russian tanks on their front, while additional Russian tanks attacked from behind. A battle developed in which the armor and weapons of the Tiger were extraordinarily successful. Both Tigers were hit (mainly by 76.2 mm armor-piercing shells) 10 or more times at ranges from 500 to 1,000 meters. The armor held up all around. Not a single round penetrated through the armor. Also hits in the running gear, in which the suspension arms were torn away, did not immobilize the Tiger. While 76.2 mm anti-tank shells continuously struck outside the armor, on the inside, undisturbed, the commander, gunner, and loader selected targets, aimed, and fired. The end result was 10 enemy tanks knocked out by two Tigers within 15 minutes" (JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.).

All this considered, and analyzing the tables above, it stands clear that, "based on opposing ranges, without considering other factors, the Tiger I had only been outclassed by the Russian Josef Stalin heavy tank with the 122 mm gun" (Again, JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics; op. cit.). The rule of thumb was that it took at least five American M4 Sherman medium tanks to knock out a cornered Tiger.

Everyone has seen this image:

[MiloMorai]

The first Tiger captured by the British was one of 2 knocked out on the Robaa Rd in NA by 6pdr(57mm) AT guns at ranges from 500 to 800yds. This Tiger was penetrated 4 times. It was then transported to the UK while the other was blown up.

The full report is in this book, ISBN 0-11-290426-2

[Karnak]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The first Tiger captured by the British was one of 2 knocked out on the Robaa Rd in NA by 6pdr(57mm) AT guns at ranges from 500 to 800yds. This Tiger was penetrated 4 times. It was then transported to the UK while the other was blown up.

Yes, that is the gun that was modified to be aurofeeding and was installed on the Mosquito FB.Mk XVIII "Tse Tse".

[Tony Williams]

The problem with the BK 3,7 Hartkern rounds is that they were easily disrupted, e.g. by the addition of extra stand-off plates, which would cause the shot to yaw so it didn't hit point-first. Against such targets, ordinary solid shot was recommended, but that had a much lower performance.

It's also worth bearing in mind that only a small tungsten core penetrated the tank, and it was a matter of luck whether or not it hit anything vital, so even a penetrating hit might not knock the tank out. The bigger the lump of metal you could penetrate with, the better.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[GScholz]

Perhaps if we get this Stuka it will need to get perked?

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by MiloMorai
The first Tiger captured by the British was one of 2 knocked out on the Robaa Rd in NA by 6pdr(57mm) AT guns at ranges from 500 to 800yds. This Tiger was penetrated 4 times. It was then transported to the UK while the other was blown up.

The full report is in this book, ISBN 0-11-290426-2
 

Somewhat hard to believe the Tiger was penetrated in combat, given that the Brits laters tested the 6pdr against the Tiger I with live fire, and it proved rather disappointing with the normal rounds being incapable of hurting it at all but suicide ranges, even from the side (the detailed report is recited by Jentz). The first Tunis Tiger was IIRC not penetrated, the 6pdr crew got a lucky hit on the turret ring, that jammed the turret and the crew bailed out. The very reason the tank was captured intact by the Brits and was not blown up by German engineers as standard procedure was that the tank was not seriously hurt, just momentarly put out of action. If the common 6pdr had been a capable weapon against the Tiger, I`d see no reason for why would it create that massive fear in CW tank crews, that only had the 6pdr or the even worser (AP-wise) US 75mm in their tanks, why the need for the 17pdr gun and so on.

[Kurfürst]

Originally posted by Tony Williams
It is not a myth that Rudel had his guns harmonised at 100m, and why would he do that if they were reliably effective at a longer range?

[/B]

For a zillion other reasons other than the gun being ineffective penetrating armor, like a tank being an even smaller target to hit than a s-e fighter, for which already less than 2-300 m was preferred, or because of the sights limitations, low ammo count so that not one would miss, or because the stuka was slow enough to conviniently stay so close to the target before firing for maximum effect. Besides, harmonizing at 100m still gives an X pattern for the LOF, with greater chance to hit at a wider range (200m) than just concentrating them at 200m.

I have the penetration graph for the BK 3,7 in front of me. At 100m it penetrates 140mm at 90 degrees, about 70mm at 60 degrees and about 45mm at 45 degrees. At 600m (the graph doesn't show any intermediate distances) it penetrates 95mm at 90 degrees, 47mm at 60 degrees and less than 30mm at 45 degrees.[/B]

47mm at 60 degrees at 600m, in other words a typical T-34 is vulnerable anywhere expect the front at _very_ long distances to the BK 3.7, even at less than perfect angle, the sides being 45mm thick, then top armor hardly more than 20mm...

[MiloMorai]

Originally posted by Kurfürst
Somewhat hard to believe the Tiger was penetrated in combat, given that the Brits laters tested the 6pdr against the Tiger I with live fire, and it proved rather disappointing with the normal rounds being incapable of hurting it at all but suicide ranges, even from the side (the detailed report is recited by Jentz). The first Tunis Tiger was IIRC not penetrated, the 6pdr crew got a lucky hit on the turret ring, that jammed the turret and the crew bailed out. The very reason the tank was captured intact by the Brits and was not blown up by German engineers as standard procedure was that the tank was not seriously hurt, just momentarly put out of action. If the common 6pdr had been a capable weapon against the Tiger, I`d see no reason for why would it create that massive fear in CW tank crews, that only had the 6pdr or the even worser (AP-wise) US 75mm in their tanks, why the need for the 17pdr gun and so on.

No Barbi, the Robaa Rd Tiger is not the Djebel Djaffa Tiger. The Djebel Djaffa Tiger had been engaged by Churchills, not AT guns, and had its turret jammed. This Tiger was captured approx 2 months after the Robaa Rd Tiger.