Author Topic: History channel....correct or wrong again?  (Read 1345 times)

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« on: December 19, 2002, 09:03:06 AM »
I watched a programme on history channel that ran through a few tanks used during the Normandy battles and two of the points shown were:

Sherman M4's 75mm  could penetrate 60mm of armour at 1000 yards.
Panzer V (panther) 88mm could penetrate 113mm of armour at 1000 yards


have they got this correct?

if so doesnt this mean that the 75mm of the panzer IV we have should not be able to penetrate the Tigers armour until it is really close, ie within 1000 yards?

tiger armor mm/angle:
Front Turret: 100/8
Front Upper Hull: 100/10
Front Lower Hull: 100/24
Side Turret: 80/0
Side Upper Hull: 80/0
Side Lower Hull: 80/8
Rear Turret: 80/0
Rear Hull: 80/8
Turret Top / Bottom: 25/81-90
Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 25/90
Gun Mantlet: 100-110/0

as you cn see the only place on the tiger that is =< 60mm is the turret top armour and the upper and lower hull top armour.

The rest should be impervious to all but the closest of shots.

unfortunately yesterday I was told that a m16 managed to kill a tiger by constant  shooting at the turret.
surely this means something isnt right? could we have some tests done to see if this plays out in AH?

tony williams come and help us out :D

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
Re: History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #1 on: December 19, 2002, 09:36:29 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by hazed-
Panzer V (panther) 88mm could penetrate 113mm of armour at 1000 yards
if so doesnt this mean that the 75mm of the panzer IV we have should not be able to penetrate the Tigers armour until it is really close, ie within 1000 yards?
 


The Panther had a 75mm, not an 88.  The Panther also was a high-velocity job special for that tank and was not the same 75mm that was used on the MkIV.

Everyone thinks that tanks were somehow impervious in WWII to anything short of a death blow from something extremely powerful, but that isn't exactly accurate.  

In AH, it is likely that there is a cumulative effect from so many hits that deteriorates the tank or kills it.  

Sakai
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #2 on: December 19, 2002, 10:02:08 AM »
Hazed, were they speaking of the JagdPanther or the Pather?  The former had 88mm while the latter had 75mm gun.

Jagdpanther:


Panther Ausf D1 with PzKpfw IV Ausf H turret

Offline hazed-

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2467
      • http://combatarena.users.btopenworld.com
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #3 on: December 19, 2002, 10:18:15 AM »
ah youre correct i meant to put 75mm the 88 was on the tiger , the one you have pic of at the bottom rip

I realise that tanks taking hits has some culmalative affect but if you have seen the report on the German tiger ace who made a record when he killed something like 14 allied tanks in one battle they said his tank had something rediculous like 20 hits on its armour, none of which penetrated.

there was also an interveiw with an allied(brit) tank gunner who describes how he and his friends were parked up in a field in normandy and he looked out the hatch to see a man with blonde hair sitting on a tank some 400 yards away combing his hair.
The gunner got an enourmous shock when the man put on his cap and he suddenly realised he was German!!
he says the german also noticed their tank at that same instant and strang into action. He then describes how he traversed the turret and fired as the german tank (a tiger) tried to traverse his gun.
He said he was astounded as their own shell hit the turret and bounced off high into the sky.The commander immediately ordered them to reverse and as they did so the tiger fired.

'well that was our lot!' was his words. He then describes how the tank filled with acrid black smoke and he and his mates bailed out.

So this is a 75mm shot from 400 yards which failed to penetrate!

However i have recently been to the British museum and they are lucky enough to have a King Tiger on display that boasts several holes still from when it was knocked out.
I examined these holes and they were amazing!
there must have been 8 or 10 cm of armour and there were holes around the 75mm size right thru them like a hot poker had peirced the side.
There were also marks on the barrel of the gun where shells had hit and glanced off.Amazing to see.
I guess all thicknesses CAN be penetrated if the shot is a lucky or good one but it isnt always too easy to kill these huge tanks.
The story of how this tank was taken out is on a plaque nearby and describes how they had to surround this vehicle and continue to fire as even after it had been disabled it continued to fire.
They must have been a daunting enemy to fight.

I think AH should do its best to reflect this.After all its really the whole reason these tanks have become such legends.The Tiger especially is always described as a tank that the shells bounced off.
This after all is a game we are playing and most of us want to see in AH what we read about in the stories about them.Its why i play AH myself.I want to get the feeling im in a war film :D hehe

can we please have some of our shots on tiger frontal armour richochette off? If AH armour modelling adds each shot until it gets to a certain number and then makes it a kill.
And all tanks have this, can we please have the better armoured tanks deflecting SOME of these shots that land?
It would also be cool if im in a sherman or smaller type tank (or even the m8 armoured car :)) and i see my shells bounce off the tiger!. much like the mg's do now
« Last Edit: December 19, 2002, 10:28:57 AM by hazed- »

Offline daflea

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #4 on: December 19, 2002, 10:19:22 AM »
Yes, the M4 armed with 75mm gun (M2,M3, or M6) firing a APC M61 projectile could penetrate  2.4" (60mm) of face-hardened armor(the type used by the Germans) at 1,000yds. The muzzle velocity was 1,930fps from the M2 gun and some what higher (2030 fps) with the M3 and M6. The Panther's  75mm/70cal gun could penetrate the M4 Shermans frontal plate (84mm) at over 2,000yds, The Tiger I could  produce the same performance with its 88mm/56cal gun. None of the US Army tanks or tank-destroyers deployed on D-Day could penetrate the Panthers or Tigers frontal plate at point-blank range, the only tank landed that could deal with these German tank as far as gun power went was the Brits "Firefly" a modfied M4 rearmed with a 17pdr which could penetrate 120mm of armore plate at 500yds with a AP shot or 186mm with an APDS projectile.

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #5 on: December 19, 2002, 10:32:14 AM »
daflea's summary is spot on from what I recall reading a few years ago.

Offline Sakai

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1041
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #6 on: December 19, 2002, 10:47:32 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
daflea's summary is spot on from what I recall reading a few years ago.


Yes, the stubby barreled M4 had poor penetration.  The E8 (or English Firefly) with 76mm was deadlier.  However, I watched on History a US Tanker talk about fighting the Germans and he said that they learned they were outgunned hopelessly early on so in the M4 they went into the woods and the German high velocity, long bareled guns were there a liability and they would tie them up and shoot the enemy tanks in the bellybutton which he said would sometimes kill them.  

I thought the US had a high velocity 90mm tank destroyer?  Wasn't that effective on German Armor?  Did that weapon  emerge after D-Day?

Sakai
"The P-40B does all the work for you . . ."

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #7 on: December 19, 2002, 11:11:44 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Sakai

I thought the US had a high velocity 90mm tank destroyer?  Wasn't that effective on German Armor?  Did that weapon  emerge after D-Day?

Sakai


Are speaking of the M36? I don't think any of those were immediately available in '44 until November, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I do know that the 100th Infantry Division wasn't equipped with the M36 until January 1945.(776th TD Battalion Sluggers )

"Jacksons" had the M3 90mm gun. Its turret was open-topped, to facilitate maximum observation for the commander and crew at the long ranges at which engagements with enemy tanks were envisioned by the designers. Unfortunately, it also meant that the turrent crews were vulnerable to shrapnel from above.

776th TD Battalion Sluggers scored the first kill of a Hunting Tiger (Jagd Tiger) ever recorded on the Western Front in the first week of January 1945, just outside Rimling.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2002, 11:30:16 AM by Ripsnort »

Offline whgates3

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1426
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2002, 11:24:29 AM »
M-36 Jackson tank had 90mm gon - they started getting them summer/fall '44

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27260
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2002, 11:31:22 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by whgates3
M-36 Jackson tank had 90mm gon - they started getting them summer/fall '44


Sakai said: "Did that weapon emerge after D-Day? "

So its safe to say they did not come over on D-Day? But a month or two later?

Offline daflea

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #10 on: December 19, 2002, 11:55:05 AM »
The US Tank destroyers that landed on D-day were M10 armed with a 3" (76mm), before they landed they were issued a "paper" informing them that their 3" guns could penetrate the front armor plate of a Tiger I at 2,000yds, saddly this gun couldn't punch a hole in the Tiger Is  front armor if it was resting on it! Some far sighted engineers during 1943 at Ordnance Department after reading the combat reports from North Africa and Italy concluded that a better armed TD was needed and on their own put togther a modified M10 with an 90mm gun, this vehicle was to become the M36 TD. This was done against the wishes of the Tank Destroyer Cernter who had assured the AGF that the existing TDs were adequate and there was no need to equip the TD Battalions with an improved vehicle, 30 days after the D-Day June 6th landing the European Theater of Operations requested (dated 6 July 1944) that all TD Battalions be re-equipped with M36 90mm gun Tank destroyers . In the mean time back in the states the US M26 armed with a 90mm gun heavy tank was sitting in limbo on a back burner.

Offline whgates3

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1426
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #11 on: December 19, 2002, 12:09:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sakai said: "Did that weapon emerge after D-Day? "

So its safe to say they did not come over on D-Day? But a month or two later?


i dont know anything other than 1st combat for the Jackson was during "2nd half of '44" & 1st production models rolled out of the factory in april '44 - i dont even know who it was named for (andrew jackson or stonewall? - if named after stonewall does that mean the manufaturers support slavery?), but i do have this picture of it from "Frankrijk" (thats dutch for france, right?). my book says 1st action for M36 oct '44, M36B Dec '44, but my book has errors, so i dont trust it 100%...wwiivehicles.com says July '44 & they have the same picture from france

(note guy furthest to the left in beret - this proves it is france)

Offline daflea

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #12 on: December 19, 2002, 12:13:32 PM »
The M36 TD arrived in Europe in Sept 1944, shortly after a M36 destroyed a German Panther at 3,200yds with one shot.

Offline daflea

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 63
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #13 on: December 19, 2002, 12:31:52 PM »
whgates3...the vehicle in your pic is a M36, the M36B used the M4A3 hull with the M36 turret mounted, M36B2s use the M10 hull powered with  diesel engines (two mounted side by side).

Offline Grendel

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 877
      • http://www.compart.fi/icebreakers
History channel....correct or wrong again?
« Reply #14 on: December 19, 2002, 12:51:53 PM »
As noted,


Panzer IV
G models: 7.5 cm. Kw. K. 40 L/43, L/48
H models: 7.5 cm. Kw. K. 40 L/48

Panzer V
A & D models: 75mm KwK 42 L/70

Okey. Take note: all of the tanks here are equipped with 75 mm cannons - but all models have DIFFERENT 75mm cannons.

Also, whole M4 is armed with yet another 75mm cannon, it is wholly different thing to the guns above.

M4's original 75mm cannon was not designed for anti-tank use. It lacked punch and had quite low velocity. It was completely useless against tanks in long and medium ranges and was capable of punching hole from front only from close ranges. No wonder their tactics were to rush enemies with larger numbers and attempt flank / rear shots.

On the other hand the Panzer IV and V cannons were dedicated anti tank weapons. High velocity.

So the Kw. K. 40 in earlier Panzer IV tanks is capable of better penetration than M4 cannon.

The extremerely high velocity cannon of Panzer V and 88 mm of Tiger, ooooo. Now THOSE are efficient guns!

Remember that it doesn't matter how many mms and cms the cannon barrel is. What counts is the velocity and ammuniation. And that's why the 76mm gun put to Sherman Fireflys was so good - it was designed for anti tank use and had high velocity.