dalem

I would theorize that it's because all armor (80mm for the Ausf H) and penetration (about 73mm for the 75mm AP at <500m) values have some play, that many tank battles in WWII were fought at closer ranges than we think, the turret armor was thinner as you say, by late war 76mm Shermans and 85mm T-34s were also in play, and that many panzers were engaged by higher-caliber/penetration ATGs, TDs, and the like.

So 80mm was just not enough to make a splash in 1943+.

-dale

leib10

Also take into effect the fact that by that stage of the war, the Germans were hard pressed to find the right alloys to make good armor.

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

zraver

I would not call them soon over come, the UK kept HESH as its primary anti-armor round long after the advent of spaced armors and anti-spall liners. The L27A1 CHARM 3 did not enter service until 1999.

Officer of Engineers

It's inert in terms of radiation but it is still a heavy metal. You can't eat a pound of it and still expect to live.

__________________
Chimo

zraver

Depleted Uranium and the IAEA says the stuff "might" damage the kidneys. Any way my point was the stuff is not going to burn the hands of handlers.

Foremost

Zraver's post is pretty close to mine as regards it's content don't you think?, & you say ".....people want to put you on ignore" "people" is plural, I saw one, please tell me who the others are?, [besides you, no doubt]

Stan187

Sir, it is beyond me how one would go about stuffing a pound of it down the esophagus, let alone death and all that "good stuff".

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

fitz

That would make two now wouldn't it?

Zraver's posts by comparison with yours are highly accurate and detailed. The only bit he got wrong was that KE rounds are far more prevelent in the British L11 tank gun than he believes. L15 APDS-T rounds were used in large quantity in the Iran-Iraq war by the Kuwaiti's against the Iraqi invasion. L23A1 APFSDS-T was used by the British in GW1 (Challenger 1). Typical ammunition mix for a Chally 1 was 20xL23A1 and 44xL31 HESH or L34 Smoke.

zraver

Hrmm, thanks for the info. I always figured KE rounds were less effective and thus not really used by the UK prior to the CHARM rounds becuase the bagged charge system prevented proper penetrator length.

fitz

L23A1 and the APDS round that preceeded it were Tungsten core rounds. CHARM used Depleted Uranium penetrators but came after ODS.

The British preferred to carry HESH as a general purpose round post-war while most other NATO nations went for a combination of HEAT and HE. Up until the advent of APFSDS penetrators in the 1970's HEAT rounds generally had better armor penetration than KE rounds. Then composite armors and eventually ERA came into play and APFSDS really became king.

HESH works great as an anti-armor round against vehicles not equipped with advanced composite armors or ERA. It is also a great bunker buster but a lousy general purpose HE round due to the poor fragmentation effect it produces. The UK hung onto rifled guns and HESH probably a bit too long and are now of course looking at retrofitting NATO standard smoothbore guns to the C2 fleet.

zraver

Oh I know what the rounds do, I was referring to UK APFSDS that had a limited penetrator length due to the bagged charge system.

Triple C

Sorry to resurrect this zombie.

Dalem, I am at lost as to believe which one of the numers I have read about M3 75mm or Pz IV armor are correct. The US official statement at the time was that the 75mm could penetrate 3 in. of face-hardened steel at 1000 yards (!). Another popular floating the net is 66mm at 1,000 yards and 60mm at 5,000 yards. Steel Panther the armor tatcial sim's maker decided that the 75mm M3 should punch about 91 mm of armor at 500 yards. Some of game's claims are wierd. I would have ignored that out of hand, until I saw another book, with authoritice sources, actually invalidated the research of the game.

In the tac sim is right that will actually mean that Pz III would be vulerable Anythought on this? When exactly when the Pz IV's front hull becomes vulnerable? I have read too often about lesser Panzers getting knocked out by the scores by the Americans to be convinced that Pz IV is actually proof against 75mm fires in all except long range.

I must be missing something, though.

__________________
What benefits the body is called medicine; what benefits the soul, discipline.
-Augustine of Hippo

Bowman

Being human, I can't even eat a pound of tinfoil without getting a little queasy. I generally prefer sausages to depleted uranium, but maybe I'm missing the point? Maybe in Canada folks are tougher?

zraver

IIRC Mortain saw mostly M3 gun equipped M4's knock out 55 AFV's mostly Pz IV for the loss of only 14 US tanks. This backs up the mistaken beleif that the M3 gun was good enough. With the Sherman's other advantages it was only truly lacking vs the Pz V VI The much weaker gun the M2 could knock out any tank Rommel had in mid 42. I tend to fall on the side of US claims- the evidence seems to back it up. Plus the 30mm appligue on top of the 50mm base on the turret was not as effective as a whole 80mm plate: IIRC is was a lesser quality steel. the tank only gained 2.5 tons from the G model.