sounds like a nice guy. U definately know what to do if u are pinned down on a beachhead , with t-80 tanks bareing down on u, and u can get naval fire support.

Not to get back on topic, but: Can anyone provide a link, or title/author of a book efrence for the T29? i'm a little curious about this beastie.

In reguards to which tank can beat the other, I have read several of the postings and have not seen this point yet: There are several factors to consider when talking about which is better. Example: Thickness of the armour is not the only factor. Number on sheets do not tell the story. One thing that needs to be considered-and this was touched on when discussing the t-80 and k-5, was the quality of the armour on said tank. For the most part, russian armour quality was poor. This means that though the IS-2 might have had 120mm frontal armour(IS-2M sloped somewhat) it was probably only as effective as 90 mm sloped at that angle and design-and due to the superiority of german slope and armour quality, the 80mm of the panther was probably better protected than the 120mm of the IS-2m and definitely the general IS-2. German armour quality-until the last days-perhaps after march was always better than the russians and mostly the us/uk. In addition, for those who do read the statistics, remember that most of the testing was done against the verticle, not sloped and of general armour plates. Few books I have read makes this distinction-I have a book: Weapons of the waffen-ss by Bruce Quarrie that attempt to give performances of german atg and tank gun with different rds and at verticle and 30degree slope. The M-26 was much better than the m-4 in almost every aspect. In general-and the first models issued, they were inferior to the panther in all but mechanical reliablity. The 90mm gun would not penetrate above 500 meters and failed staight on at 300 mm often. When new 90mm were issued-longer barrels, better propellants and different ammo(like sabot), then the penetrative power increased significantly and thusly, kills were probably normal at probably any range. As far as the KT is concerned-frontal armour was 150mm on the hull and 185 mm on the turrent front. Sloped and quality of the 150mm-I believe from what I can deduce(not read as no books I have seen back this) is that it is equal to about 345mm verticle-formula-for QUALITY german sloped armour-#x2 and then origional #x.3=verticle-so panther was 80mm....80x2 is 160mm and 80x.3 is 24mm, so 160+24 is 184mm verticle, thusly you can now see why most allied weapons could not penetrate only 80mm plate though the paper statistices say the could.....also, before I go after all this....it also depends on the angle of hit and the quality of the rd....the 122mm of IS-2 was NOT a good weapon-2 piece shot and only 22 rds carried and it relied on mass not velocity-which was low. At 1000m it was said to be able to penetrate 185mm armour-not very good for such a large round-and with a poor quality projectile-material, 185mm was often wishfull thinking. I think a panther could take a frontal shot(general) at 600+meters....

One of the other topics that was discussed was the armour on the t-80 and k-5. I dont remember the site, but I was researching the t-90, and according to the site-either DOD or a russian military site, t-90 vs t-80-the t-90 won almost every time-this is why the russians are pursuing the t-90 vs the t-80u. The t-80 has better hull armour than the t-72(rolled steel/hardened?) but not of much better quality. The t-90's hull armour is of greater quality-I dont know thickness, and I believe it has a better laminent layer, and then the era is of better quality. They tested several types of at systems-Rpg-7 with different types of warheads, Kornet atm, a disposable(like the us at-4/8) and another atm and then of course, 125mm rds with 2 or 3 different projectiles. The t-80 did fair, but the base armour was penetrated a few times with the newer atweapons and most 125mm rds. the t-90 did much better and I think only the most advance wpns penetrated the front. Then they did witht he era. The t-80 did better than base armour and survived alot better, but was still penetrated with I think a few special rpg-7 rds. I dont think the t-90 was penetrated-if so, by only 1 or so of the special rds used-and perhaps a special 125mm rd. Thusly, the t-90, in basic form is superior to the t-80, and almost so even if the t-80 has the era....

The evidence concerning armor quality is that Russian armor material was as good as anyone else’s, type for type, thickness for thickness, day for day. At times, the Russians suffered from defective welds (evidence of bad welds on JS-2 castings found at Sandomierz), but the vast majority of T-34 (all years) had properly heat-treated rolled or cast armor, even if crudely manufactured. Very early M4s seem to have suffered from casting problems, and very late Panthers may have had weaker armor (no alloys, problematic heat-treatment). Individual tanks may have suffered from armor defects, but this problem is generic to all armies. The Russian 122mm gun is an ex-field artillery gun that fires APHE. Not the best choice for speed loading in a cramped turret, but the Russians needed something with more performance immediately, and they had 122s available. The Russian 100mm gun appears to be descended from a Russian naval 100mm gun circa 1934. Had they upgraded to their 130mm L50 (also from a naval design) first, all German tanks would have been vulnerable, as it is more powerful than the German 128mm. This gun is used on the ISU-130 (same chassis as the JUS-122 and 152) and is apparently also available on a T-55 chassis as the SU-130 (as per Zaloga). Both the 100mm and 122mm are pre-war designs, and are designed with barrel life in mind. This is also essentially true for the 85mm, the US 90mm AA gun and the German 88L56. The 88L71, and its close relative, the Pak 43/42 (if I recall correctly; they can’t swap ammo due to different cartridge dimensions), were designed after the war started, based upon war experiences. As previously discussed on this thread, their cartridge cases were very much larger than the 88L56 (or the 90 or the 85). The 88L71 was essentially firing “hot” loads; performance was notably higher and barrel life was correspondingly short. Comparisons between the 88L71 and other guns, for a given type of projectile, should include this. For comparison, the British 3.7” AA gun used a necked-down 4.5” cartridge, so it too falls in the “hot” load category, even though it is slightly pre-war (~1936) and the decision was chosen to sacrifice barrel life. It seems to outperform the 88L71 by about 200fps, and with a heavier projectile, so as the 32-pounder, it would have been a very potent AT gun. Upgrade to a later version with Probert rifling, and design a correct APDS round, and it might have been as good as the 105mm L7 possibly better. However, the round was quite large and heavy (a 1936-technology 4.5”gun cartridge). I think that the 20-pounder with APDS achieved essentially the same result with a much smaller cartridge (~1945-technology: metal science, propellants, gun working pressure). This may belong in the “20-pounder . . .” thread, but I’ve included it here for comparison. See “http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo.html” and look around at the many pictures of small caliber (mostly 20mm-57mm) rounds. Apparently, this guy collects brass and projectiles, and has an extremely wide and impressive selection. There is a picture (that I’ve also seen published elsewhere) of complete rounds for the Pz IV, Panther Tiger I and Tiger II (side by side). Other pictures show 2pdr, 6pdr (and APDS), and 17pdr, and there is yet another picture of AP projectiles (a 17pdr core, . . .). The 2pdr APSV round would have made the 2pdr much more competitive through 1942. The Panther is not the best choice of tank to take a 100mm or 122mm APHE hit. It seems to have been designed with the Russian 76mm and 85mm in mind. The 80mm hull might have been able to cause hits at 1500m+ to ricochet; not sure, but the slope angle gives about a 140mm direct line, not 160mm, and the 120mm turret mantlet is vulnerable out to maybe 1500m. A hit is likely to severely damage the gun elevation mechanism. The 40mm sides and rear are vulnerable at visible range. The undeveloped state of large caliber tank guns in the US and Britain in 1944 is due to internal problems, lack of vision, failure to heed intelligence reports, etc. I’m curious about your formula. In the “Sloped Armor” thread, Mikkoln gives a different ballpark formula for a 50mm plate 60 degrees off vertical. I’m unsure of his 30-degree example and less certain of my formula, since I get about 100mm line but need energy for 200mm. Actually, I expect a ricochet. Also, as previously mentioned on this thread, any information or links on calculating ballistic critical angles would be appreciated.

Arbalest. Read carefully the doc. I sent you. the section on armor angle is very brief but contains some important hints. The remark about shape of the nose/ogive of the projectile suggests the deflctive angle of any armor will vary depending on the projectile shape. The remarks on the relationship of armor hardness and behavior when failing under a projectile impact suggest a significant variable there too.

Carl – The article you sent does indeed provide a clue or two about ricochet mechanisms, but I suspect that it might be a subset of possible events. Looking at the ballistics data on “navweaps.com” (and following several of the links as well), a lot of data suggests that getting the projectile to “bite” may happen at larger angles than the article suggests. Several pictures show a different cap shape. Nathan Okun’s data, and his articles, suggest that naval projectiles may not ricochet at 45degree impact angles. However, the impact velocities are between 1500 and 2500 fps, and the projectile weights are up to 3,219 lbs. (1,460 kg, Yamato 18.1”). There are also battle reports hidden among the links; the reports of the USS Massachusetts shelling the Jean Bart seem to supprot his data. However, this may be a question of scale and/or “regime”. The naval projectiles have a lot of kinetic energy (.5 mV^2), and they also have a lot of momentum (mV), BUT the relationships between these projectiles (~2200lb,1600fps impact) and their targets (~300mm face hardened plate) are very different from a 77 or 88 (<25 lb) shooting at a JS-2 (160mm turret front). The impact velocities differ by at most a factor of 2, the armor thicknesses, hardnesses and tensile strengths differ by at most a factor of 2 (worst case difference is a factor of 16) but the projectile weight difference is a factor of about 100. There are probably other factors as well. I’m collecting as much data as I can.

Ok. we are in sync here. My point is the formula may vary widely depending on these other two variables, projectile shape & armor composition. Of course the aurthor of that artical may not know anymore than so many others we've seen. but what I suspect is, the artical derives from a combination of lab tests or field trials in Britian circa 1930-1943, and a collection of observations of wrecked tanks in Africa between 1940 & 1943. A few times I've run across remarks about British ordinance experts collecting a very large body of data on German & Brit AP ammo & effect during the African campaign. If my conjectures here are correct then this data collection, or some sort of summary may still exist.

I've plenty of useful data in this debate, but what I have not seen is a judgement as to which tank is better BY WHICH STANDARDS? This is important because a lot of the debate can go to pointless places. For example, there has been a lot of debate on penetration vs. armor. However, it is possible for a tank round to destroy a tank without penetrating the armor. A high-velocity round might hit a tank with enough energy to kill the crew and destroy interior mechanisms without penetrating the armor (like scrambling an egg without breaking the shell). Okay, the armor wasn't penetrated, but the crew it dead and engine destroyed, so it's useless. If one compares the Sherman to the Tiger, the Tiger was a superior tank in virtually every way. So why did US commanders continue to use the Shermans instead of something more capable? Because the the Sherman was easy to mass-produce, transport & maintain. By this standard the Sherman was a superior tank. These standards proved decisive in historic fact. In short, logistics won this battle. Another comparison would be (I know this is a bit wild, but bear with me) Southwest Airlines. SW makes a profit (they are virtually the only US airline that does at present) because they standardize. SW uses only 737's while other airlines use a wide variety of planes. The parts of these various planes may not be compatible, so the airline has to keep, store, & ship parts for each type of jet they have. This adds substantially to expenses. Going back to the Sherman, by using only one basic medium tank for the entire war, the US didn't have worry about parts, training, shipping, storage, etc... It didn't matter if you had an M4 or an M4A3E8, you would have the parts you needed to fix and maintain it, and your people would know how to fix it without having to learn anything new. Okay, so if a Tiger faced a Sherman on the battlefield, the Tiger would probably win. In reality, however, the Sherman was roaming free on the battlefield, while the Tiger was in the motorpool waiting for essential parts to arrive. What would we find if we compared the T-29 to the Tiger by these same standards? Neither would have been very good from the logistics point-of-view. So which would have been worse?

Have to say good points but in the end if you had to serve as a crew memeber in Sherman or Tiger whcih would you chose? T-29or Tiger?