Search the Community

From my analysis of this data, I believe the penetration of the soviet 45mm gun can be described using DeMarre coefficient of 2640. For the 76mm one, the K coefficient would be 2300. For the 85mm blunt tipped shell the K is ~2400. Using this data I've compiled these penetration tables against german RHA using modified DeMarre equation: 45mm L/66 ATG should be able to perforate the Panther's lower side at up to 1200m at 0° (700m for the L/46 gun) and the rear armor at up to 950m (450m for the L/46 gun). https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?p=2355589#p2355589 I remind you that Pz.III and IV had face hardened armour at the front and these values are not directly applicable to them. We can see that this gun will halfway reliably perforate the Tiger I upper side (82mm/0°) only from 200m. Lower side, where it's not protected by the running gear, can be pierced from up to 600mm at 30° angle. British testing seems to agree with this data, giving the W/R for 75mm/0° RHA of 2000fps(610m/s). The 85mm BR-365 shell would be able to perforate the Tiger II superstructure side at +-30° from within ~1200m. Although I believe these shells were much rarer than the BR-365K ones, as I haven't seen them captured in T-34/85 in N.Korea nor fired during those famous testing in Yugoslavia. One thing to note: by now it's clear, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the soviet blunt tipped shell are less affected by slope of the armour, at least between 0 and 45° and the T/D ratios investigated here. The slope multiplier between 0° and 30° is only ~1,1 as opposed to the commonly accepted value of ~1,23 for sharp tipped shells. Though this trend doesn't continue past ~45° and at higher angles these shells start to loose their penetration faster. I wonder, if perhaps the sharp tipped shells would be less affected by slope as well when striking under such conditions where their nose shatters, as for example against face hardened armor. Too bad that currently I have little testing data to tell one way or another. Excel spreadsheet: https://mega.nz/file/eSwwyKQD#57WrHmHs91-Brdhc607upVaSksWhvkuTsTslAq6JPQg the report itself (in russian): https://mega.nz/folder/fLRmmSiD#ZrnkDPzyMthz7RmA7VfN-Q

I think it's generally agreed here that the Maus was one of the most shockingly wrong-headed AFV designs ever conceived, much less prototyped. What's never been clear to me is what the thinking behind it was. Why did anyone think a 180+ tonne tank was a good idea? Faulty analogy to naval warships? I've always found it surprising how little the Maus actually delivered for being that heavy. The 128mm was a pretty serious cannon, but on a tank that heavy I would expect rather more. Maybe a monster building demolition gun like the sturmtiger/T30 were envisioned to carry, or maybe have it bristle with secondary armament like a proper land battleship so it could be a one-vehicle breakthrough spearhead. But a single 128mm and a secondary 75mm? Seeing as they crammed that same cannon into a jagdtiger, surely the maus looked rather poor in the weight/armament area. Was there any particular logic behind this monster, or did Hitler just say to Porsche "I want a tank that goes to 11!" ?