Yu guns vs armor tests of 1960s...

[Guest bojan]

To start with T-54:

75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT

 

Fails to penetrate glacis with any kind of ammo even @100m.

Fails to penetrate front turret with any kind of amm even @ 100m.

M39 (PzGr.39?) APC penetrates side hull @ 1000m.*

M40 (PzGr.40?) subcalibre penetrates hull @ 1000m.*

M38B (Hl.38/B?) HEAT failed to penetrate side hull.

Fails to penetrate frontal part of side turret with any kind off ammo.

M40 subcalibre penetrates rear part of the side turret @ 300m.

M39 APC and M38/C HEAT rear part of side turret.

Conclusion - 75mm M40 ATG is obsolute when used vs newest foreing tanks - to be witdrawn to reserve use. Gunners should be instructed to aim for side hull at close ranges.

 

 

85mm ZiS-S-53 (from T-34/85) firing AP, HVAP and HEAT

 

Fails to penetrate glacis with any kind of amm even @ 100m.

Fails to penetrate turret front with any kind off ammo even @ 100m.

BR-365 AP penetrates side hull @ 1000m.*

BR-365P subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 1000m.*

Fails to penetrate frontal part of side turret with any kind off ammo.

BR-365P subcalibre penetrates rear part of the side turret @ 350m.

BR-365 AP penetrates rear part of side turret @ 150m

Conclusion - 85mm tank gun with ammo in use can not fight efectively vs new foreing tanks. New ammo developement is recomended.**

 

*It apears that a gun was not tested at distances greater then 1000m.

**Later (in 1963.) newer BR-367 AP, BR-367P HVAP and BK-367 HEAT were tested but I have no info about those tests.

 

More tomorrow.

[jwduquette1]

Excellent. Thanks Bojan

[Mk 1]

Very interesting. Can't wait for more.

 

Thanks, Bojan.

 

-Mark 1

[Djuice]

Were there any 85mm HEAT test carried out? EG: BR-367P/PZ, BK-2M and so forth..

[Guest bojan]

Were there any 85mm HEAT test carried out? EG: BR-367P/PZ, BK-2M and so forth..

389921[/snapback]

Yes, , as I noted HEAT round (BK-367 was tested) but I have no results for those tests.

[Guest bojan]

88mm PaK43 firing AP and HVAP

Fails to penetrate glacis with any kind of ammo even @100m

 

M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates front turret @600m.

M54 subcalibere (US 90mm HVAP fitted to 88mm) penetrates front turret @800m.

 

Both rounds penetrate side hull at any practical range

 

M39 AP penetrates frontal part of the side turret @1250m.

M54 subcaliber penetrates frontal part of the side turret @1750m.

 

Both rounds penetrate rear part of the side turret at any practical range.

 

Conclusion - 88mm M41/43 is very efective vs new foreing tanks in ambush positions. It's efectivenes vs frontal aspect of the new foreing tanks is insuficient.

 

90mm M3A1 (from M-36 TD) firing AP and HVAP

 

Fails to penetrate glacis with any kind of ammo even @100m

 

T33 AP fails to penetrate frontal turret even @ 100m.

M304 subcalibre penetrates frontal turret @ 600m.

 

Both rounds penetrate side hull at any practical range.

 

T33 AP penetrates frontal part of the side turret @250m.

M304 subcalibre subcaliber penetrates frontal part of the side turret @1500m.

 

T33 AP penetrates rear part of the side turret @ 750m

M304 subcalibre penetrates rear par of the side turret at any practical range.

 

Conclusion: SO-90 M-36 can ony be efectively used vs new foreing tanks from ambush at range less then 1500m, with subcalibre ammo.

Adition 1: Developement of HEAT ammo suitable to be fired from M3A1 gun mounted on SO-90 M-36 is recomended.

 

90mm M36 gun from M-47 tank firing AP, HVAP and HEAT

T-33 AP fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m

M304 subcalibre fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m

M431 HEAT penetrates glacis, but fails to fuse if side angle is more then 20deg.

 

T33AP penetrates front turret @ 350m

M304 subcalibre penetrates front turret @ 750m

M431 HEAT penetrates front turret

 

T33AP penetrates frontal part of the side of the turret @ 850m

M304 subcalibre penetrates frontal part of the side turret at any practical range

M431 HEAT penetrates frontal part of the side turret

 

All round penetrate rear part of the side turret at any practical range.

 

Conclusion:

Amount of M431 HEAT rounds in ammo load should be increased, and load of T33 AP be reduced.

Frontal engagement of the new foreing tanks is to be done only with M431 HEAT round.

Engagement from ambush position can be done with M304 subcalibre and M431 HEAT at any range and T33 AP at ranges less then 1000m.

Problem of M431 round failing to fuse at angles more then 60deg is to be fixed with production of domestic HEAT.

That round should be also capable of being fired from M3A1 gun mounted on SO-90 M-36. without sagnificent modifications to the gun or vehicle.

[Guest bojan]

To me realy surprising fact is differance to T33 AP performances when fired from M3A11 and M36 gun...

 

BTW, tests vs "T-54A" glacis and side hull for all guns except 90mm M36 were not done vs actual vehicle but vs equivalent test plate.

 

Edit:

BTW,

T-54A glacis was 101mm@60deg on the tested example, side hull was 80mm@0deg, frontal turret is on average 195-203mm LOS thickness, frontal part of the side turret is on average 150-170mm LOS thickness, while rear part of the T-54A side turret is on average 100-120mm LOS thickness.

Edited November 9, 2006 by bojan

[jakec]

To me realy surprising fact is differance to T33 AP  performances when fired from M3A11 and M36 gun...

It does seem rather odd. What could explain it?

[Guest bojan]

It does seem rather odd. What could explain it?

390039[/snapback]

 

IIRC ammo for M36 gun operated on higher preasure and it was IIRC forbidden to use ammo from M-47 in M-36.

[jwduquette1]

Thanks for taking the time to post this material Bojan. Very useful information. Would it possible to get the name of the report and author (or authors) name for the original document?

[Guest bojan]

Would it possible to get the name of the report and author (or authors) name for the original document?

390199[/snapback]

 

M.M., P.V., and A.V. I am asked not to publish full names, as a material was newer formaly declasified...

Edited November 10, 2006 by bojan

[Guest bojan]

100mm D-10TG (from T-54A) firing BR-412B APBC, BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT

 

BR-412B AP fails to penetrate front hull even @ 100m.

BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT penetrate front hull.

 

BR-412B AP penetrates front turret @500m.

BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT penetrate front turret.

 

All rounds penetrate side hull at any practical range.

 

BR-412B AP penetrates frontal part of the side turret @1000m.

BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT penetrate frontal part of the side turret.

 

BR-412B AP penetrates rear part of the side turret at any practical range.

BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT penetrate rear part of the side turret.

 

Conclusion:

BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT is best anti-tank ammo available. With it T-54A tank can fight vs any modern tank from any angle. BR-412B AP is usefull only from ambush situations at ranges less then 1000m.

 

105mm M27A1 RCL

 

M52 HEAT* penetrates any aspect of T-54A tank, but fails to fuse if compaunded angle exceeds 60deg.

 

Conclusion:

Standard AT-guns in AT-company of the infantry brigade should be replaced with 105mm M27A1 RCL, as it is much more efective vs new foreing tanks.

New domestic HEAT ammo should be developed that will reliably fuse at angles of mote then 60deg.

*This is a strange designation as I failed to find a US HEAT with such designation (and JNA always used US and UK original ammo designations), and that is definetly not domestic ammo...

 

105mm M2 FH firing M67 HEAT and experimental HESH round that will later become M69 HESH.

 

M67 HEAT panetrates side hull.

M67 HEAT fails to penetrate any other aspect of T-54A tank.

 

HESH round produces sagnificent spalling that is enough to disable tank with any hit other then frontal turret. In case of frontal turret hits spalling is enough to disable crew but tank will remain operational.

 

Conclusion:

All M67 HEAT ammo for 105mm howitzers is to be changed for HESH ammo on 1-1 basis.

 

 

More on Monday.

Edited November 10, 2006 by bojan

[jwduquette1]

M.M., P.V., and A.V. I am asked not to publish full names, as a material was newer formaly declasified...

390470[/snapback]

 

 

Understood. Thanks anyway.

[jwduquette1]

100mm D-10TG (from T-54A) firing BR-412B APBC, BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT

 

More on Monday.

390481[/snapback]

 

Excellent. Thanks

[gnocci]

That's just me, or the T-54 was a very nasty beast?

[jwduquette1]

That's just me, or the T-54 was a very nasty beast?

390633[/snapback]

 

The cast armor isn't really much to write home about.

[Djuice]

Back in the 50's and 60's you dont want to mess with it.

[jwduquette1]

Back in the 50's and 60's you dont want to mess with it.

390686[/snapback]

 

yes -- and to be fair the M47's cast armor is also not something worth writting home about either.

[Guest bojan]

yes -- and to be fair the M47's cast armor is also not something worth writting home about either.

390698[/snapback]

 

M-47 armor realy suffered from being only 210 BHN... You will note some realy strange results regarding it's glacis when I post it... Things like 100mm AP penetrating it @ 900+m despite everything saying it is imposible...

 

On contrary T-54A cast armor was 270 BHN (rolled parts were 290 BHN) and was judged to be of excelent quality... Total diferance to the WW2 standards...

[Guest bojan]

That's just me, or the T-54 was a very nasty beast?

390633[/snapback]

 

As I understand 60deg sloped glacis was designed to withstand any gun of the time - and it definetly did...

 

It's HEAT ammo was relatively simple (some would even say primitive) in design - simple percusion spitback fuse (vs piezo on US HEAT) but it worked at larger angles reliably.

[jwduquette1]

M-47 armor realy suffered from being only 210 BHN... You will note some realy strange results regarding it's glacis when I post it... Things like 100mm AP penetrating it @ 900+m despite everything saying it is imposible...

 

On contrary T-54A cast armor was 270 BHN (rolled parts were 290 BHN) and was judged to be of excelent quality... Total diferance to the WW2 standards...

390811[/snapback]

 

I'll get into the nitty gritty of what I am refering to later -- it's fairly detailed. Right now I'm more interested in all the raw data your posting. Thanks again.

 

Regards

JD

[Gille]

Bojan

 

where you give a range at which penetration occurs is that assuming a side angle of 30 degrees or 0 degrees?

 

Thanks.

[jwduquette1]

Bojan

 

where you give a range at which penetration occurs is that assuming a side angle of 30 degrees or 0 degrees?

 

Thanks.

391551[/snapback]

 

Good question. I had assumed that the shots records reflected straight-on hits, and that the obliquity of interest was only that of the particular aspect of the target vehicle being fired upon.

[Guest bojan]

Bojan

 

where you give a range at which penetration occurs is that assuming a side angle of 30 degrees or 0 degrees?

 

Thanks.

391551[/snapback]

 

All side shooting was done 90deg angle to the target - so straight on.

[Guest bojan]

Good question.  I had assumed that the shots records reflected straight-on hits, and that the obliquity of interest was only that of the particular aspect of the target vehicle being fired upon.

391596[/snapback]

 

Yes - that is corect. Only part of testing when aditional side angle was introduced was with HEAT ammo.