Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Communist German/Soviet Pact against Allies in 1939

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by 1979 View Post
    and 7.5 mph for r-35 , so while it scores better in protection it's mobility and firepower it's not superior .
    wrt to b-1 bis, the t-28 model 1939 tank has a gun capable of dealing with the b-1.
    I think you mean the T-28 M1938. And no it could not. The 10 caliber gun was no better at punching armor than the L-24 on the Pz IV. The Char B1 bis 47,m high velcoity AT gun could knock the T-28 out at range while remaining effectively immune to return fire even at close range. At 500m, the L11 gun not the L10 only had 62mm of penetration if it could get a 90 degree impact strike.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      I think you mean the T-28 M1938.
      yes, the tank produced in 1939.

      Originally posted by zraver View Post
      And no it could not. The 10 caliber gun was no better at punching armor than the L-24 on the Pz IV. The Char B1 bis 47,m high velcoity AT gun could knock the T-28 out at range while remaining effectively immune to return fire even at close range. At 500m, the L11 gun not the L10 only had 62mm of penetration if it could get a 90 degree impact strike.

      the gun on the panzer IV had 385 m/s muzzle velocity firing a 6.8 kg shell.
      the L-10 on the t-28 had 555 m/s muzzle velocity and fired 6.3 kg shell .

      the kinetic energy = 954.8 KJoules for l-10
      ke= 503.9 KJoules for kvk-37 .

      the gun on the t-28 is almost twice as powerful as the gun on the early panzer iv, and all data i had sean gives it comparable penetration with the L-11 mounted on KV-1.

      even in a b1 bis vs pz-IVd setup, the french tank was not immune to shots in the tracks or the radiator.
      Last edited by 1979; 08 Apr 12,, 09:31.
      J'ai en marre.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by 1979 View Post
        yes, the tank produced in 1939.

        the gun on the panzer IV had 385 m/s muzzle velocity firing a 6.8 kg shell.
        the L-10 on the t-28 had 555 m/s muzzle velocity and fired 6.3 kg shell .

        the kinetic energy = 954.8 KJoules for l-10
        ke= 503.9 KJoules for kvk-37 .

        the gun on the t-28 is almost twice as powerful as the gun on the early panzer iv, and all data i had sean gives it comparable penetration with the L-11 mounted on KV-1.

        even in a b1 bis vs pz-IVd setup, the french tank was not immune to shots in the tracks or the radiator.
        Even using the data for the KV1 the tank both the KV and T-28 need to be within 500m to even have a chance of BAE if they can get a 90 degree impact. The T-28's 30mm of armor could be punched at well over 1000m. Even the sides of the B1 bis were all but immune to the Soviet gun outside 500m.

        Comment


        • #94
          If remember trigonometry right it does not need to be 90 deg precisely
          anywhere between 85 deg and 105 deg is fine (15 deg deflection on a 60 mm plate only increases LOS by 2 mm)


          .
          J'ai en marre.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by 1979 View Post
            If remember trigonometry right it does not need to be 90 deg precisely
            anywhere between 85 deg and 105 deg is fine (15 deg deflection on a 60 mm plate only increases LOS by 2 mm) .
            The penetration figures i found for the L11 were 62mm at 500m at a 90 degree impact although I think the site meant 0 degree deflect against a 90 degree plate. The B1 bis had 60mm sloped at 20 degrees which causes two problems for the Russian gun. First it makes the effective thickness more and second the slope can cause ricochets or fuse malfunctions.

            Comment


            • #96
              AFAIK
              60 mm @ 20 is the drivers plate, the hull front is sloped even more making it
              safe at 500 m from the front.

              however the sides are flat and the turret is less armored (46mm @ 22 deg = 50 mm LOS on the sides ) and to that the awkward placing of the radiator.

              with aplique armor plates the t-28 is also safe from the front.
              J'ai en marre.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                AFAIK
                60 mm @ 20 is the drivers plate, the hull front is sloped even more making it
                safe at 500 m from the front.

                however the sides are flat and the turret is less armored (46mm @ 22 deg = 50 mm LOS on the sides ) and to that the awkward placing of the radiator.

                with aplique armor plates the t-28 is also safe from the front.
                Uhm no, well more accurately maybe. Some sources claim 80mm thick after applique, others 30mm, no production data is known.

                Comment


                • #98
                  the sources i had saw (even Russian Wikipedia has the applique scheme )
                  said 50-60 mm front ( 30 original +20 to 30 mm plates ) 40 mm sides ( 20+20 )

                  except the upper front hull who retains the original 30 mm but that was sloped at very steep angle.
                  J'ai en marre.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by 1979 View Post
                    the sources i had saw (even Russian Wikipedia has the applique scheme )
                    said 50-60 mm front ( 30 original +20 to 30 mm plates ) 40 mm sides ( 20+20 )

                    except the upper front hull who retains the original 30 mm but that was sloped at very steep angle.
                    Just saying there is some question as to the real thickness of the plates which reflects both the loss of records and perhaps uneven application based on local materials. We don't even know if the plates were armor grade.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X