A SU-76 uses cartridge weighing 10kg or less. With plenty of space to move your entire body however you want.
Same with a Sherman 75mm or 76mm that has plenty of space for the loader.
Again, what is that comparison suppose to be?
Even when the IS-3 gun could be reloaded in 9.5s, that’s one reload cycle.
A loader is never going to keep up that speed as he will get exhaused much faster than a loader who barely has to use any strenght to pick up and load a cartrdige.
That was the average reload cycle in the drill. I’m giving averages and you’re so blinded by preconceptions you didn’t even notice the passage doesn’t even give a maximum.
In IS-3 & 2 the shell is at gun level, loading the first part is comparable to loading a 90mm round. Then taking the casing from the floor.
This is like the time you read the 1940 T-34 trial where they wrote 4 RPM, but if you read the fine print the average moving shooting drill was ~8s and their best time for a round was ~5.5s.
You keep repeating surface level things because you believe it not because you read past the abstract.
Interestingly, in British trials with the Tiger 1, the best rate of fire they managed was like 6 RPM for 5 rounds, starting with 1 in the breech, because of how badly designed it is. It took over 8 seconds to free a round from the rack and maneuver it to the breech.
That dude (Tankarchives) is neat to read, but one of the MOST biased writers there is.
I hope the Panzer II gets the 1 man turret reload it deserves.
Lol whats that about? Did i hit a nerfe of you somewhere? The salt mine? XD
Anyway, you sound just as biased and of soviet dreams as Tankarchives.
Tiger reload is a British ‘dream’.
Oh not at all, I take pleasure in overwriting fraudulent beliefs with real ones.
You don’t get it it was also better vertically. Watch the video carefully.
46 trials.
Equivalent of tiger 2 h turret front penetrated by long 88 at 200-400m only.
By 122 at 1200m
1200m is better than 200-400
Doesn’t work here. The reason the 88 breaks apart at angles is the same reason it’s better at the normal. It’s extremely sharp with a very hard head.
AP for the Soviets has usually 1.4CRH but isn’t very hard, 88 has a 1.5CRH head that is extremely hard.
True, if we find the right high quality soviet test plate it won’t pen 150@30 but that’s just a given for anything else.
Actually, older 75mm PzGr 39, like what the Pz IV F2 should have, has the same problem. It won’t even put a deep dent into a Sherman glacis at 100 meters in North Africa. But because the Sherman turret is 63.5@30 (not WT 76.2@30) it pens the turret after skipping off the glacis.
Neither do i care for that or for you lol.
Have fun, tho wont change anything anyway.
Sounds like a lot of nit picking.
They are using reference demarre, probably one of the biggest improvements is to directly demarre calculate instead of by reference and to set K2000 as a generic value for penetration.
Right now WT penetration for AP is delirious, real life 2 pdr that couldn’t even pen the front of a Pz III at 820 m/s pens like 80mm.
I didn’t mean docs on german armour. I asked if you can provide sources supporting that allied armor was so soft it caused bad spalling on hits that shouldn’t cause spalling. And sources supporting that T-34 armour was ‘insanely high spec’.
WAL 710/795 from 7th Dec 1945 / ADA 954805
Historical Review of the Correlation of Ballistic and Metallurgical Characteristics of Domestic Armor at Watertown Arsenal
Armor details from RGAE folders like 8752 4-573 and the Metallurgical Examinations of Soviet Armor. The % elongation of the T-34’s high hardness armor is up to around 12-14% which is roughly equivalent to the specs set out for the cast on Challenger 2.
I asked if you can provide sources supporting that allied armor was so soft
This is a big misreading. They softened it from ~300 BHN to ~250 +/- some to prevent spalling in low alloy armors. But because making armor steel out of such low alloy armor is very difficult they had issues like:
Ah, yea i misundestood you. So to prevent spalling in armour with too low nickel and other elements decreasing brittleness, Americans instead decided on softer armour in general. Right?
I can’t find these sources by names you gave. I’m not familiar with US and soviet literature on armour, metallurgy etc. so I want to read up on it. Can you give direct links or PDFs?
Oh c’mon.
L/43 Pzgr. 39 not making a deep dent in 51mm at 56 deg AND bouncing off the UFP into Sherman turret is ridiculous.
‘primitive’. It’s hard to listen to you or your (good) arguments after being so degrading/childish. It’s counterproductive.
The problem in 1942 is that the PzGr 39 for 75mm isn’t the PzGr 39 of 1943 with the blunter nose and wide army cap. It’s actually looks much more like 88mm PzGr 39 that you see later in the war.
The result is that in British tests, with the 730 m/s velocity it won’t go through at point blank. This aligns with the German manuals for the 1942 shell, and shows that the 30 degree side angle claim is nonsense.
Being completely honest for a moment, I found his posting so objectionable I was necro’d from the grave.
I hope you can see why simulating BR-365 as a cylinder is incredibly stupid.
You can find pretty much all of them on DTIC.
Yes. In US armor they liked to use chromium iirc, like the French (who also used 300 BHN lowish alloy steel), only with less so it spalled worse. You can also see metallurgical examination into armor of M26 Pershing by the Soviets.
Generally US armor at or above ~3.5" cast is very soft, 220 BHN or so, so it provides reduced levels of protection.
From page 20 of “Catalog of Standard Ordnance Armaments, Volume I”.
Additionally using a basis armor curve we see that 30 degrees would mean 3\frac{3}{4}
3*1.25=3.75=3\frac{3}{4}, so 30 degrees checks out.
Should point out that the “turret front” in this document is not the gun shield/mantlet. The thickness for it simply isn’t specified on the Sherman 75s.
Edit: I’ve checked sources that are easily accessible online like TM 9-731B for the M4A2 and it also says 3 inches on the turret front. No basis thickness value though.
