Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: hazed- 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
-
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
-
Hazed, were they speaking of the JagdPanther or the Pather? The former had 88mm while the latter had 75mm gun.
Jagdpanther:
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/jgvab.jpg)
Panther Ausf D1 with PzKpfw IV Ausf H turret
(http://www.achtungpanzer.com/images/pz45_1.jpg)
-
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
-
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.
-
daflea's summary is spot on from what I recall reading a few years ago.
-
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
-
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.
-
M-36 Jackson tank had 90mm gon - they started getting them summer/fall '44
(http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/tanks/usa/med/m36/03962.jpg)
-
Originally posted by whgates3
M-36 Jackson tank had 90mm gon - they started getting them summer/fall '44
(http://ww2photo.mimerswell.com/tanks/usa/med/m36/03962.jpg)
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?
-
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.
-
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
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/usa/m36_02.jpg)
(note guy furthest to the left in beret - this proves it is france)
-
The M36 TD arrived in Europe in Sept 1944, shortly after a M36 destroyed a German Panther at 3,200yds with one shot.
-
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).
-
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.
-
I would luv to see the Jackson and the T-34. Maybe we could get an armour only arena in here??
The US tank I would like to see for the MA is the M18 Hellcat. It had the 76MM that the Sherman did but it could move up to 55MPH. Like an M-8 with a much bigger gun. Would be allot of fun in the MA or "Armour Arena". We need better damage graphic for an all armour arena though ala WW2 online.
Here is some data on the M18
1943 - USA M18 Gun Motor Carriage "Hellcat"
Armament: 1 - 76mm gun
1 - 0.5" MG AA
Engine: Continental, 9 cyl., radial air-
cooled, gas, 340 or 400 hp
Speed; 55 mph
Range; 105 miles
Crew: 5
Weight; 17 tons
Much smaller and lighter than M-10. Over 2,500 built.
Only AFV designed specifically for TD. Excellent
power-to-weight ratio. Fastest production AFV of WWII .
Used "shoot and scoot" tactics. Also used as an assault
gun and Self-Propelled Artillery. Used the same 76mm gun
as the Sherman. Light weight and a 400 hp engine gave it
excellent speed and mobility. One of the best Tank Destroyers
of WWII.
-
The Problem with the Hellcat is that it was very lightly armored. And since it was a Tank Destroyer, it had an open top that made it vulnerable to aircraft/infantry/artillery fire.
One thing I have never understood is why the US Army decided to make Shermans as an anti-infantry tank and TDs as the tank killers (or so I read).
As far as tanks being introduced in AH, I'd like to see the T-34 first (preferably the 1943 or '44 85mm one) before the Sherman. And the Panther would be a great low-perk point tank.
-
U.S did have at least 10 different rounds to be used against panzers in the 75mm class.
Germans had at least 14 different AP or HEAT rounds in same class.
Germans did also use face-hardened armor plates; when using U.S 75mm/L31 and AP ammo it penetrated 81mm of rolled homogenous armor but only 67mm of FH-armour germans did use from 500meters/0-degr impact.
Source:
World War II Ballistics: Armor and gunnery.
-
Originally posted by emodin
One thing I have never understood is why the US Army decided to make Shermans as an anti-infantry tank and TDs as the tank killers (or so I read).
Because U.S. armored warfare *theorists* thought it would work well. They were very wrong, and it cost the U.S. thousands of armored crewmen's lives.
Realizing the error of their ways, they disbanded 'Tank Destroyer Command, U.S. Army' in the late 1940s (after WW2 ended).
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by daflea
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!
This is not true.
76L51 APBC could penetrate Pz VIE (Tiger I) frontal hull armor ~50% of the time inside of 500 meters.
76L51 APCR had penetration roughly equal to 88L56 APBC out to 500 meters as well, and TDs carried much larger default loads of APCR than MBTs did (in U.S. Army at least).
Mike/wulfie
-
Originally posted by whgates3
(note guy furthest to the left in beret - this proves it is france)
he might be british, didn't Monty wear a beret?
-
a churchhill mkv or higher would be nice,,95mm gun:)
-
Originally posted by hyena426
a churchhill mkv or higher would be nice,,95mm gun:)
It's a 95mm howitzer. Very low AP capability except for a few HEAT rounds carried by the crew, which are low velocity (i.e. defensive) rounds.
Mike/wulfie
-
As for the 3" M10 gun performance theres always this from the
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WW II "Events would prove that no tank destroyer could reliably stop a Tiger at any more than fifty yards" "Firing test conducted in Normandy, utilizing Panther hulks were to demonstrate that only the 90mm antiaircraft guns and the 105mm howitzer, firing shape charges, could penetrate the Panther's frontal armor with any regularity"..And as a former tanker with over 20 years of service time, 50 yards from the pointed end of a Tiger or Panther is "resting" the muzzle on the frontal plate!
-
churchhill could penatrate 120mm at 1000 meters at 1,050 with hecf rounds,,,at 1500 with heat rounds,,could get threw 110mm of hardend armor,,,not too shabby for a big old beast,,about the heaviest tank british had during ww2
-
Originally posted by daflea
As for the 3" M10 gun performance theres always this from the
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in WW II "Events would prove that no tank destroyer could reliably stop a Tiger at any more than fifty yards" "Firing test conducted in Normandy, utilizing Panther hulks were to demonstrate that only the 90mm antiaircraft guns and the 105mm howitzer, firing shape charges, could penetrate the Panther's frontal armor with any regularity"..And as a former tanker with over 20 years of service time, 50 yards from the pointed end of a Tiger or Panther is "resting" the muzzle on the frontal plate!
I don't know where this data came from (the data you quoted).
There are numerous easily located copies of armor penetration tests from WW2, conducted by both the Germans and the Americans, that show that the 76mm APBC and APCR rounds fired by the M10 were capable of penetrating the Pz VIEs hull at 500 meters or so.
Pz VIE turret and Pz VG turret could be penetrated ~50% of the time by 76L51 APCR at 500 meters.
The killer was that German TDs and MBTs could effectively engage U.S. TDs and MBTs at over 1000 meters. The reverse is not true (both in terms of gun sight accuracy/quality/ease of use and gun penetration performance vs. armor at ranges of 1000 meters or more).
I'll say it again - the 76L51, firing APBC or APCR - could penetrate the hull of the Pz VIE at 500 meters. By 'could', I mean ~50% of hits resulted in a penetration that had a decent chance of causing catastrophic damage to the Pz VIE.
http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns5.html
http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/german_hull8.html
Mike/wulfie
-
I don't know where this data came from (the data you quoted).
If you had been member of the U.S. military or a NATO military and had attended the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Combat Studies Institute, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas you would be very familiar this data, one of the first things you are given is a paper carton containing 12 pubs, in the military circles these are known as the "Leavenworth Papers".
..By the way the HVAP round (that the one you'er talking about) at the time of the D-day landing were not issued and you can't shoot what you don't have.;)
-
An M16 should not be able to kill a Tiger with 2 or 4 50 cal mgs.
-
we need this US tank, M26, Nov 44.
whels
-
Have to agree with deflea here, everything I read cleary said even the longer 76mm in Shermans and the 3 inch in the M10 could not deal with Tiger I even at ridiculous short range circa D-Day. HVAP of course helped but the tankers had to steal it from the TD crews who also never had enough, and it prolly wasnt available to anyone in time for D-Day..
-
Uhhm whels there was no T26E3 anywhere near Europe in November 1944. They only arrived direct from the USA into Antwerp in February and first saw combat in early March 1945...
-
Originally posted by hazed-
unfortunately yesterday I was told that a m16 managed to kill a tiger by constant shooting at the turret.
Having done a lot of shooting at Tigers, I find this incredible. All my MG bullets were actually ricochetting (a neat visual effect btw) off the Tiger turret (perhaps even as many as 1/3rd of my AP 37mm) at nearly point blank range. in this instance I was so close his engine sounded almost as loud as my own, I mean CLOSE range.
I think all the M16 you heard about could have possibly got was a proxy kill or some other wierd scoring thing gave it to him.
I have had Tigers (and m16's too come to think of it) shoot thier own MG at my M8, and I am yet to take damage that way even in a M8.
-
daflea, GRUNHERZ:
Have either of you looked at the table?
Compare the penetration values for AP and APBC vs. the hull armor of the Pz VIE. Make note that the penetration data is vs. armor at a slope of 30 degrees. Most of the hull armor on the Pz VIE is sloped at around 10 degrees.
Show me some penetration test data. Scan me some from Leavenworth. I've never seen a single test documented where the hull armor of a Pz VIE could withstand a 76mm AP round at 50 meters.
"If you had been member of the U.S. military or a NATO military and had attended the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Combat Studies Institute, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas you would be very familiar this data, one of the first things you are given is a paper carton containing 12 pubs, in the military circles these are known as the "Leavenworth Papers"."
I guess the "Leavenworth Papers" don't contain any penertation test results for U.S. 76mm guns?
Show me a test from anywhere (internet address or scanned document) that backs up what you are saying.
Mike/wulfie
-
As for Shermans and D-Day:
The big deal was that there were barely any 76 (as opposed to 75) armed Shermans available on D-Day. Even at the end of WW2 only 50% of all deployed Shermans had the 76mm MA.
Mike/wulfie
-
I think theres a fairly good reason to keep the axis tanks as the 'top gun' in AH as tanks are introduced.
By this i mean generally on the battlefields the German tanks were superior in firepower but inferior in numbers.
AH should try to reflect this i feel.Otherwise if we add now the latest 1944-45 allied tank buster we will see the tiger suddenly become nothing special! rather than have it appear as unusually durable/Tough opponent like it was when the allies came up against them, it will seem just like any other tank.
I feel we really need to let the tiger have its time in the limelight.
Shouldnt we first experience the panzer IV vs sherman M4 fights as the norm with the odd perk tiger appearing to strike a bit of dread into the fights?
If we suddenly add the firefly or M10 , fairly rare compared to shermans etc, we will see just the arcade like tiger vs m10 slogging fights.We know these engagements were less common but we would see it constantly in AH.
Id like to see what a sherman is like first and then see how much better the m10 or firefly is LATER. :)
The t34 for the same reason I think should be added after the sherman so we have the western front simulated before the eastern one as we have less of the eastern front planeset.
If I could choose some tanks these are what i would like and why:
American Sherman M4 .....The main/most common tank for the allies.(OR british version of same tank)
British Matilda tank ........For desert warfare with the panzer IV (very durable! but weak gun)
German armoured car ....to have parity with allies M8 or M3
Russian T.34................... for Eastern front model set
Japanese and British Light tanks from asian theatre or pacific (US light tank chafee?)
If during the addition of these tanks HTC decide to add something rare for the allies like the tank destroyers that can penetrate the tiger Id hope HTC introduce the even more formidable King tiger (with appropriate high perk cost) so the Axis can field another formidable tank but it costs them resourses just like the real ones did.
anyone else agree this would be a good way of doing it?
-
Sounds great...with M3 or/and M5 U.S. light tanks, Ger Pz III (short 50mm), Brit A-13s, eight wheel Ger armored cars and some arty, towed and SPs. I would love to see an all armore area..well maybe some air support...JU-52 and light recon aircraft (eye in the sky with no guns or bombs)
-
Stumbled on some useful information regarding these 75mm cannons.
See http://www.achtungpanzer.com/pz3.htm
for comparison between the mentioned 75mm KwK 40 L/48 German cannon versus M4 cannon in Shermans.
About halfway down on the page.
-
btw this is the German armoured car id like to see:
-
with a figure?
ooo, what kind of figure?
-
Is that the 50mm Puma?
-
No its not..
that is a 20mm gun. not much parity with an M8
-
Originally posted by F4UDOA
I would luv to see the Jackson and the T-34. Maybe we could get an armour only arena in here??
I thought the "Pizza" Map was an armour only arena..lol
-
Originally posted by hazed-
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.
i see ricochets off tigers all the time.
-
Originally posted by hazed-
btw this is the German armoured car id like to see:
(image of SdKfz 232 deleted)
Nahh. The SdKfz 234/2, with the 50mm turret gun:
(http://www.wwiivehicles.com/images/germany/sdkfz_234_2_01.jpg)