Sandomierz, 13 August 1944. Tiger II vs IS-2.

In early March of 1945, in a Nashorn TD, Lieutenant Beckmann from sPzJagAbt 88 destroyed a Soviet IS-2 at the range of 4600 meters near Marzdorf.

Some Nashorn crews reported that they had knocked out Soviet T-34 tanks at distances as great as 4000 meters. Nashorn crews also reported numerous kills of KV and IS-2 tanks as well as SU-152, ISU-122 and ISU-152 assault guns.

During the battle of Kursk a Elefant TD attacked and destroyed one T-34/85 at the distance of 4710m, with a single shot.....!!!!!!.

That says abit about what the 88mm L/71 gun was capable of.....

Regards, KBO

 

Yeah...

http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=657

 

Here is everything about this battle
http://www.battlefield.ru/library/battles/battle16.html

 

Great info !

Thanks Menel, and welcome to the forum.

 

Oh no...!!!! not battlefield.ru again !!

I would suggest that whoever reads something on that site about german tanks and their losses, should take it with a grain of salt....

The guy who made the site so many times says something about this "matter" and then suddenly says something intirely different about this "matter". I mean he contradics himself all the time.

For example first he says: "The KwK43 is slightly superior in AP to the 122mm D25 gun" And then he says:
"Many times I noticed some individuals tried to compare armor penetration values of the 8,8-cm KwK 43 and the 122-mm D-25T. Unfortunately, these individuals paid no attention on different nature of those values: they were calculated by different methods. In short, the difference of calculation was about 25%. Therefore, it would be better to either increase Soviet figures on 25% or decrease German figures." If i was to follow this, then the 122mm D25 would clearly be outgunning everything in ww2, even the German 128mm L/55 gun :lol: . I mean come on "25%" thats really a crazy statement.

But then i ask myself what difference in values and calculation??, the Germans didnt calculate their armor penetrations, but made tests at armor plates with normally 300BHN hardness, whereas Russia mainly tested against 250BHN hardness plates.
And then he says "in Russian tests at least 75% of the projectiles fragments had to be found on the other side of the plate if it was to be considderet a penetration, germany only needed a 50% accurance. "
Well first of the Germans only considderet it a penetration if the projectile had gone completely through the plate, wich means 100%, and a minimum of 66.6% of the projectiles fired at the plate must achieve this. So there goes that theory to.

Regards, KBO.

 

If you don't like battlefield.ru so please find a better source about this battle.

 

Menel what i am saying is that you cant trust everything on that site. And the guy who made it could easely have screwed up some numbers, either on purpose or by mistake.

Anyway im not saying its totally wrong, but take it with a grain of salt....

Best regards,KBO

 

Battlefield.ru is generally regarded as a valid source for tank battles on the Eastern front and the tanks participating in them. However, when reading the article Menel posted (welcome to the forum by the way, Menel!) it occured to me that German tank losses were described in detail while Soviet tank losses were hardly mentioned. There is hardly any better proof to be found of bias on the side of the author.

 

I'm afraid not a single russian tank was destroyed.

 

Well im affraid thats Russian propoganda in its prime :lol: :lol:

KBO

 

Hey KBO, great posts on the comparisons of the 88mm L/71 and the 122mm, we should take advantage of your expertise to settle future gun disputes. What do you make of the Sherman 76.2mm gun, How does it stack up to the 17-pounder, the T-34 76mm and 85mm, the German 75mm L/70 and 75mm L/43?

 

The U.S. 76.2mm gun is allmost a copy of the German 75mm L/48 in terms of performance. It however never comes near the 17pdr, or the kwk42 wich prooved itself superior to the 90mm M3 gun at Aberdeen prooving grounds in 45. (Read Hunnicut's book about the Pershing)

The U.S. 76.2mm gun and the Russian 85mm gun are about the same, exept the 76.2mm gun has better penetration at extended ranges, this is probably due to the bad ammunition for the 85mm gun. In terms of accuracy the U.S. 76.2mm deffidently has an edge over the 85mm gun.

Now The russian 76.2mm gun was obselete from early 42 and not really in the class of the U.S. 76.2mm gun.

In all the American 76.2mm was a adequate gun against Pz.IV's but not very effective against the German ZOO.

But still its hard to compare penetrations for guns from different country's, since each country uses different methods for testing, calculating and defining it.

Regards, KBO

 

Very good KBO, I'm glad to see you take up a moderate position instead of favouring German tanks over everything. However, wouldn't the German ZOO also include the Puma, the Hummel and Wespe and so on...

Remember that a trained and highly motivated crew can do miracles with worthless equipment where good equipment can be completely wasted on rookies. This is likely to have happened during the above battle, with gradations of course, but generally speaking.

 

When i mentioned the German ZOO i generally ment true tanks and not TD's, but your right i should have mentioned that.

Regards, KBO

 

No vehicle was named 'Puma', though, and Hummel and Wespe were self-propelled artillery, not tank destroyers. Desides, a bumble bee and a wasp are insects, not animals

 

Insects :lol: :lol: good one Christian 8)

KBO

 

Wasn't the Puma an 8-wheeled armoured car with a 50mm gun?

 

No, that was the Sd.Kfz.234/2, or schwere Panzerspähwagen 8-Rad (5 cm) (Sd.Kfz.234/2)

 

Yeah, but wasn't it called the Puma (at least unofficially), or is that another myth?

 

What it may or may not have been called unofficially is not interesting - it's official codename was never Puma.