Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Mobius

Did you say you don't have cross-sectional drawings for these Soviet rounds?  I have them if you need them

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

http://www.scribd.com/doc/25044683/Projectile-and-Warhead-Identification-Guide-Foreign

Yes.  The 350A is very interesting.  I have read that the front was supposed to snap off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Also, since none of these rounds have a true cap, how is it that the data that was posted show better penetration against face-hardened armor?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Do you have any info on German use of T-34 against T-34>?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
The extremely sloped areas above the driver and above the ammunition area could be immune to this round. The AP round striking this area is almost 'riding' the slope with much of its side in contact with the plate. I don't even see that it would snap off the frontal 'knob' of the 350A. If anything, it might just ride up the armor itself. I can't see it cracking off the frontal piece of the AP projectile.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Would that inner core be something like tungstun? What would the outer lining be? Plus I find it interesting that there is only a small band that makes contact with the rifling of the barrel. Or at least that is what it looks like. What twist rate would we have in a 76.2mm Russian barrel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Fascinating photo.  Is that KV-1 turret off the vehicle?  Possibly upside down on the ground?  The rounds laid along the rim?  Its hard to visualize.  But those are not HE nor any HVAP.  Note the 43326 written in chalk.  March 26 1943?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
It appears that the rear fuze has been blown off those AP shells. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

An interesting data point is that the Soviets had a 'performance measure for penetration' where 75% of the actual projectile had to make it through, in some form, beyond the armor plate. 

Looking at those rounds on top of that KV-1 turret, I wonder if those count as penetrations.  If they were BR-350A rounds, they certainly would typically lose that snout piece.  In fact, those rounds look like they have almost been ground down to the HE cavity.

quote:

In March 1944, firing tests were conducted with a 76.2 mm Gun ZiS-3 firing at an JS-2 tank from 500-600 metres. The tank's armour was penetrated from all sides of the tank. Whilst while most of the projectiles did not penetrate the armour completely, they created major splintering and fragmentation inside the turret. This explains the considerable losses of JS-85 and JS-122 tanks during the Winter-Spring of 1944.

quote:

1. The quality of armor on the „Tiger-B‛ tank, in comparison with the armor on the „Tiger-I,‛ and „Panther,‛ tanks, as well as early production „Ferdinand‛ self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the „Tiger-B‛ tank. Groups of shell impacts (3–4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor..
.
.
7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.
8. The tank's hull and turret side plates were penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 85 mm and American 76 mm guns at ranges of 800–2000 metres.
9. The tank's hull and turret side plates were not penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 76 mm guns (ZJS-3 and F-34).

quote:


At the end of August, a conference was held at Factory No.112. It was attended by the People's Commissar for Tank Industry V. A. Malyshev, Commander of Tank and Mechanized Troops of the Red Army Ya.N. Fedorenko, and ranking members from the People's Commissariat for Armaments. In his introduction, V. A. Malyshev noted that the victory at the Battle of Kursk cost the Red Army a high price:
«Enemy tanks opened fire on ours at distances of up to 1,500 metres, while our 76 mm tank guns could destroy „Tigers‛ and „Panthers‛ at distances of only 500–600 metres. Imagine the enemy has a kilometer and a half in his hands, while we have only half a kilometer. A more powerful gun needs to be put into the T-34 quickly.»
In actual fact, the situation was significantly worse than Malyshev painted it, though attempts to correct the situation had been undertaken at the beginning of 1943.
As early as the 15th of April, the GOKO, reacting to the appearance of the new German tanks on the Soviet-German front, published order No.3187ss (the «ss» suffix means top secret) «Measures for improving anti-tank defenses.» This required the GAU to put all tank and anti-tank guns then in mass production through range trials, and present findings all within a 10 day period. In accordance with this order, Deputy Commander of Tank and Mechanized Forces Lieutenant-General V. M. Korobkov ordered that a captured Tiger be used for the trials, which were conducted from 25 to 30 April at the NIIBT proving grounds at Kubinka. The trial results were of little comfort. The 76 mm armored-piercing tracer round for the F-34 Main Gun did not penetrate the German tank's side even as close as 200 metres! The most effective weapon for dealing with the enemy's new heavy tank turned out to be the 85mm 52-K Anti-Aircraft Gun model 1939. It penetrated the 100 mm frontal armor at distances up to 1,000 metres.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misty

I have read the book "Sturmgeschütze-Panzer der Infantrie" 2 or 3 years ago. There was a report from StuG commander (late 1943). He said, that the StuG crews used barbed wire with concrete to reinforce the front side of their Stug´s. So a lot of the crews survived.

http://www.die-sturmartillerie.com/seite1.htm

quote:

Very common field practice was the addition of a layer of concrete added over the armor plate above the driver’s position to improve the protection.