Josef Stalin-II vs The World

60 degrees from horisontal or vertical, and at what range?

 

It should be from the horizontal, as in the T-54/55 (LOS=200mm). And it fails to penetrate the glacis at any range.

More data on:

http://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?sh ... ntry389416

Regards.

Alejandro.

 

60 degrees from horisontal gives a multiplier of 1.1547.

As I recall, the T-54/55 has reactive armour, unlike WWII vehicles.

 

Ops, I meant from the vertical, just as in this diagram (for the IS-2):

http://www.battlefield.ru/tanks/is2/is2_16_1.gif

No, ERA was introduced in the 1980s.

Alejandro.

 

OK.

If course, other tests show that it could penetrate that thickness.

 

Do you have any?

I have never seen any test for the 88mm gun at 60°, and the slope will have a huge effect on the round performance. Also the quality of the steel employed in the test.

Regards.

 

Is the steel quality in the other test mentioned?

 

Hi,

just a handful of observations, written in no particular order.

I have never seen a table that states the 75mm L/46 or L/48 could not penetrate the T-34's hull... are you sure on that?

I am a little suspicious that none of the guns tested proved capable of penetrating the front glacis...

In your link about the T-54/55 the 88mm L/71 could penetrate the turret with relative ease, which presents a strong argument that it could do the same on the IS-2's turret - and it had a big turret...

Also, could you provide some kind of source or link for what you are posting?

 

Ricky

Yes, check on Osprey-Vanguard title on the StuG, on page 22 there is a table and you can read "StuGIII 7.5cm KwK penetrates T-34/85 up to:

Front turret: 700 meters.
Mantle: 0 meters.
D.F.P: (Driver front plate) 0 meters.
Nose: 0 meters

On the Tiger-II title, by the same publishers, the data is something like:

Tiger-II penetrates frontal armour of IS-2 from 2600 meters...

Well, on those tests it is capable of penetrating the turret from 600 meters (without HVAP), which is a fairly small distance. The whole point of setting a relatively thick 100mm plate at 60° is to cause ricochetting and make it hard to fuse (check other tests). And this proved a success because NATO had to go to 105mm to have a gun which could reliably penetrate the T-54/55 frontally at good distances.

It is a general comment.

The 100 and 90mm guns were capable, but in any case it was a tough target.

Regards.

 

Not really - it was the average engagement range measured by the British on the Western Front. Besides, as long as one has range superiority, the advantage is present.

 

Which actual gun? I would not be surprised f the early model StuGIII's with the short-barrelled 75mm guns could not do so, as they were close-support guns, not anti-tank guns.

That's not what your link says - under all of the guns it says they were unable to penetrate the front glacis at any range.


what are your sources?

 

It should be 74L48, the table was published on 5th October 1944.

Read the link carefully:

90mm M36 gun from M-47 tank firing AP, HVAP and HEAT

T-33 AP fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m
M304 subcalibre fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m
M431 HEAT penetrates glacis, but fails to fuse if side angle is more then 20deg.

100mm D-10TG (from T-54A) firing BR-412B APBC, BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT
BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT penetrate front hull.

Regards.

 

Those are post-war ammunition types.

 

.
Hate to do that to you guys ,
have you considered the balistic drop of the shell , it would have to be added to the initial angle of the armor
I.E a 60dg angle hit by a shell with a 3dg would be an effective 63dg colision
it would only matter at longish distance I guess .

.

 

The decent angle of anti-tank ammunition is insignificant. At normal combat distances, the decent angle would be below two degrees, and it would only rarely be above three degrees at very long distances.