Yu guns vs armor tests of 1960s...

[Guest bojan]

Guns vs T-34/85:

Armor on the test tank:

 

Hull is made from 350 BHN steel

Glacis - 46mm @ 60deg

Upper side hull - 45mm @ 40deg

Lower side hull - 45mm @ 0deg

Rear hull - 47mm @ 48deg

 

Turret:

Front turret - 90mm, rounded

Side turret 76mm @ 20deg

Rear turret - 50mm @ 10deg

 

57mm M18A1 RCL

M307 HEAT fails to penetrate glacis

M307 HEAT penetrates upper side hull if side angle is less then 20deg

M307 HEAT penetrates lower side hull where it is not covered with roadwheels

M307 HEAT fails to penetrate front turret

M307 HEAT penetrates side turret if side angle is less then 20deg

M307 HEAT penetrates rear turret

M307 HEAT penetrates rear hull if side angle is less then 20deg.

 

Conclusion - BsT 57mm M18A1 is not efective AT-weapon, even vs older oponents tanks.

 

75mm M20 RCL

 

M310 HEAT penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 20deg.

M310 HEAT penetrates upper side hull if side angle is less then 30deg

M310 HEAT penetrates lower side hull

M310 HEAT penetrate front turret if side angle is less then 20deg

M310 HEAT penetrates side turret if side angle is less then 45deg

M310 HEAT penetrates rear turret

M310 HEAT penetrates rear hull if side angle is less then 45deg.

 

Conclusion: BsT 75mm M20 is efective vs older oponents tanks from ambush positions.

 

 

75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT

 

M39 AP (PzGr.39?) penetrates glacis @ 1300m*

M40 subcaliber (PzGr.40?) penetrates glacis @ 1200m*

M40W** subcaliber (PzGr.40W?) fails to penetrate glacis.

M38B HEAT (Hl.38/B?) penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 20deg.

 

M39 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1750m

M40 subcalibre penetrates side hull at any efective range

M40W subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 200m

M38B HEAT penetrates side hull if side angle is less then 30 deg.

 

All rounds penetrate lower side hull at any efective range.

 

M39 AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m

M40 subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1250m

M40W subcaliber fails t penetrate front turret

M38B HEAT fails to penetrate front turret

 

M39 AP penetrates side turret @ 1750m

M40 subcaliber penetrates side turret at any efective range

M40W subcaliber penetrates side turret @ 200m

M38B HEAT penetrates side turret if side angle is less then 30deg

 

*It apears that subcaliber (APCR/HVAP) suffered more from high hardness, largely sloped glacis...

**That is a version of M40 subcaliber that had soft steel core. It was acording to the manuel to be used vs "fast, lightly armored targets"...

[Guest bojan]

76mm M1 (from M4A3E4 tank) firing AP and HVAP

 

M79 AP penetrates glacis @ 1100m

M53 subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 1200m

 

M79 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1500m

M53 subcaliber penetrates upper side hull at any practical range.

 

Both rounds penetrate lower side hull at any practical range

 

M79 AP penetrates front turret @ 900m

M53 subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1500m

 

M79 AP penetrates side turret @ 1500m

M53 subcaliber penetrates side turret at any efective range.

 

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

 

BR-365 AP penetrates glacis @ 1200m

BR-365P subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 1300m

 

BR-365 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1750m

BR-365P subcaliber penetrates upper side hull at any practical range.

 

Both rounds penetrate lower side hull at any practical range.

 

BR-365 AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m

BR-365P subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1500m

 

BR-365 AP penetrates side turret @ 1500m

BR-365P subcaliber penetrates side turret at any practical range.

 

Questions?

 

PS. More next week, probably monday...

Edited November 16, 2006 by bojan

[jwduquette1]

76mm M1 (from M4A3E4 tank) firing AP and HVAP

 

Questions?

 

PS. More next week, probably monday...

393272[/snapback]

 

Great material Bojan. Thanks for keeping it coming.

 

I don't suppose you have a feel for what sort of ballistic limit criteria was being used? Moreover, as you know complete penetration can be defined in a number of different ways. Projectile complete thru and bursting charge functions...or any sort of hole where a light can be seen on thru to the other side of the armor...or protection limit where a witness pack is placed behind the armor and any perforation of the witness pack defines complete penetration. What sort of criteria was the Yugoslavian Army using at the time of the trials?

 

Any consideration to some sort of "fair hit" criteria -- i.e. location of hits relative to other hits or location of hits relative to telescope or vision slit areas? If yes can you briefly describe the rules employed during the tests?

 

Also -- how were the shoots conducted? Was it a fixed gun position and fixed target position with quantity of propellant being altered to simulate range changes? Or was the gun being moved to differing ranges?

[Guest bojan]

I don't suppose you have a feel for what sort of ballistic limit criteria was being used?

 

50% in this case. Yugoslavia switched to 80% criteria in '70s.

 

Moreover, as you know complete penetration can be defined in a number of different ways.  Projectile complete thru and bursting charge functions...or any sort of hole where a light can be seen on thru to the other side of the armor...or protection limit where a witness pack is placed behind the armor and any perforation of the witness pack defines complete penetration.  What sort of criteria was the Yugoslavian Army using at the time of the trials?

At least 50% of the projectile solid mass (eg in case APHE steel mass only, minus fuse/tracer/charge) had to be behind armor. How was it colected/measured - I don't know, but I guess it was a witness plate method.

 

Any consideration to some sort of "fair hit" criteria -- i.e. location of hits relative to other hits or location of hits relative to telescope or vision slit areas?  If yes can you briefly describe the rules employed during the tests?

 

In case where fabricated plates were used (most of T-54 glacis tests) plate was subjected to 10 hits (10 hits were fired with every type of round).

In other cases - location was examined after one set of testing if changes were substantial that they would affect furter testings. In case of 90mm T33 AP vs T-34/85 you will note in coments that substantial damage of armor happened.

In case of 90mm M431 HEAT vs T-54 glacis at off angle only two hits where rounds fused were discounted as in one case round hit a tow hook and in other case drivers periscope so compaunded angles of impact were not >60deg...

In case of hits on coax-ports/telescopes it apears that those were ignored and not counted in statistics.

 

Also -- how were the shoots conducted?  Was it a fixed gun position and fixed target position with quantity of propellant being altered to simulate range changes?  Or was the gun being moved to differing ranges?

393335[/snapback]

 

That I do not know, but will ask how was it usualy done.

[Gille]

76mm M1 (from M4A3E4 tank) firing AP and HVAP

 

M79 AP penetrates glacis @ 1100m

M53 subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 1200m

 

M79 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1500m

M53 subcaliber penetrates upper side hull at any practical range.

 

Both rounds penetrate lower side hull at any practical range

 

M79 AP penetrates front turret @ 900m

M53 subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1500m

 

M79 AP penetrates side turret @ 1500m

M53 subcaliber penetrates side turret at any efective range.

 

Thanks for posting this fascinating data. I'm wondering why the testing of the US 76mm gun didn't include the M62 APCBC shell as well as the M79 shot? Was it not available to the Yugoslav Army?

 

I know the M62 performed a bit better during the US test shoots against captured Panthers and I've read accounts by M10 crewmen saying that the M62 was regarded as improved over the M79.

Edited November 16, 2006 by Gille

[Guest bojan]

Thanks for posting this fascinating data.  I'm wondering why the testing of the US 76mm gun didn't include the M62 APCBC shell as well as the M79 shot?  Was it not available to the Yugoslav Army?

 

Well, all matherial I am posting was salvaged from attic - there are some missing pages so it is not imposible that M62 was tested but I have no results...

EG. In 75mm PaK40 testing whole page about M40S subcaliber ammo (whatever german ammo it was) is missing...

 

I know the M62 performed a bit better during the US test shoots against captured Panthers and I've read accounts by M10 crewmen saying that the M62 was regarded as improved over the M79.

393587[/snapback]

 

Well, if it would behave same vs T-34/85 that would be enough improvement to push 76mm M1 right to the 75mm PaK40 level... So much about "great 75mm PaK" and "patheticly armed Shermans"...

[jwduquette1]

50% in this case. Yugoslavia switched to 80% criteria in '70s.

At least 50% of the projectile solid mass (eg in case APHE steel mass only, minus fuse/tracer/charge) had to be behind armor. How was it colected/measured - I don't know, but I guess it was a witness plate method.

In case where fabricated plates were used (most of T-54 glacis tests) plate was subjected to 10 hits (10 hits were fired with every type of round).

In other cases - location was examined after one set of testing if changes were substantial that they would affect furter testings. In case of 90mm T33 AP vs T-34/85 you will note in coments that substantial damage of armor happened.

In case of 90mm M431 HEAT vs T-54 glacis at off angle only two hits where rounds fused were discounted as in one case round hit a tow hook and in other case drivers periscope so compaunded angles of impact were not >60deg...

In case of hits on coax-ports/telescopes it apears that those were ignored and not counted in statistics.

That I do not know, but will ask how was it usualy done.

393531[/snapback]

 

Thanks Bojan.

[Gille]

Well, if it would behave same vs T-34/85 that would be enough improvement to push 76mm M1 right to the 75mm PaK40 level... So much about "great 75mm PaK" and "patheticly armed Shermans"...

 

IIRC the main problem with the US 76mm gun was that both the M79 AP and M62 APCBC ammunition had insufficiently hard noses so that they were liable to shatter when hitting the thick frontal armor of the Panther and Tiger.

 

The US Army had predicted based on US testing (on softer BHN plates) that the M79 ought to be able to frontally penetrate the Tiger out to over 1000 yards yet in real life it could not beyond about 300 yards.

 

However, when the 76mm is fired at the much thinner glacis of the T-34 (only 46mm thick) shatter wouldn't be a problem because as I understand it shatter is only an issue if the t/D ratio is at least about 0.85.

[jwduquette1]

IIRC the main problem with the US 76mm gun was that both the M79 AP and M62 APCBC ammunition had insufficiently hard noses so that they were liable to shatter when hitting the thick frontal armor of the Panther and Tiger.

 

The US Army had predicted based on US testing (on softer BHN plates) that the M79 ought to be able to frontally penetrate the Tiger out to over 1000 yards yet in real life it could not beyond about 300 yards.

 

However, when the 76mm is fired at the much thinner glacis of the T-34 (only 46mm thick) shatter wouldn't be a problem because as I understand it shatter is only an issue if the t/D ratio is at least about 0.85.

394440[/snapback]

 

 

Shatter gap isn’t really needed to explain inability of M79 or M62 to penetrate the front of a Tiger-1. About 25-degrees of side angle to a shot by either projectile pretty much puts 102mm of armor into the realm of can’t be penetrated. Course the other question has always been just how many Tiger-1s did the US Army actually encounter in Africa, Sicily, Italy and\or Northwest Europe. There is a time and space thing here. A Wolverine (or whatever) needs to have been in the same vicinity as a Tiger-1 to be able to shoot at it.

[Guest bojan]

Answers for the question:

At ranges less then 1000m real distance between gun and target was used, and at ranges more then 1000m charge was reduced to simulate velocity loss, usualy in 1250/1500/1750/2000m increments.

 

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

 

T33 AP penetrates glacis at any efective range*. After seven rounds fired glacis failed criticaly** and furter testing was stoped.

M304 subcaliber penetrates glacis at any efective range*

 

T33 AP penetrates both upper and lower side hull at any efective range*.

M304 penetrates both upper and lower side hull at any efective range*.

 

T33 AP penetrates turret from all aspects at any evective range*.

Side turret criticaly failed** after 8th hit and testin was stopped.

M304 HVAP penetrates turret from all aspects at any efective range.*

 

*Efective range - 2000m

*Failed criticaly - large cracks apeared and plate shetered at places.

 

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

 

T33 AP and M304 HVAP - same results as from M3A1 gun

 

M431 HEAT - penetrates all aspect.

Fails to fuse vs glacis if side angle is more then 20deg.

Fails to fuse vs upper side hull if side angle is more then 45deg.

 

Conclusion - when firing at older tanks T33 AP and M304 subcaliber should be used in preferance to HEAT ammo.

 

105mm M27A1 RCL

M52 HEAT penetrates all aspects.

Fails to fuse vs glacis if side angle is more then 20deg.

Fails to fuse vs upper side hull if side angle is more then 45deg.

 

105mm M2 FH firing M67 HEAT and experimental HESH round

 

M67 HEAT penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 20deg.

M67 HEAT penetrates upper side hull if side angle is less then 45deg

M67 HEAT penetrates lower side hull

M67 HEAT penetrates front turret if side angle is less then 20deg.

M67 HEAT penetrates side turret if side angle is less then 45deg.

 

HESH round produces sagnificent spalling and failure of armor plates at any angle of hit.

Glacis criticaly failed after 2nd hit.

Side turret criticaly failed after 3rd hit.

[Alvaro]

Bojan, very interesting post.

 

Some questions:

 

Do you know how much armor thickness was considered for frontal-side and rear-side of T-54A side turret?

 

German ammunition belonged to WWII? or was it made for Yugoslavian army after?

 

Was measured the muzzle velocity of these guns, or known their wear state?

 

Best Regards.

[Guest bojan]

Bojan, very interesting post.

 

Some questions:

 

Do you know how much armor thickness was considered for frontal-side and rear-side of T-54A side turret?

 

Noted in the one of the earlyer posts:

"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."

 

German ammunition belonged to WWII? or was it made for Yugoslavian army after?

Overhauled with domestic primers, US gunpowder (licence produced) and in case of APHE licence produced US explosives, all fit to the original specifications.

Subcaliber ammo was original except propelant and fusing (and in case of 88mm subcaliber it was 90mm M304 HVAP fitted to 88mm);

APHE ammo was German made body, US explosive filler, local copy of the German base fuses.

HEAT ammo was IIRC all original other then propelant.

 

Was measured the muzzle velocity of these guns, or known their wear state?

 

All guns were "new" - ie less then 10% of their total ammo alowed fired (eg. if life for a gun is 2000 EFC then less then 200 were fired).

[Guest bojan]

Weapons tested vs M4A3E4 Sherman

 

Armor:

Glacis - 64mm@47deg, 250 BHN

Side hull - 38-51mm@0deg, 250 BHN

Front turret/mantle - 90mm average, 230 BHN

Side turret - 51mm, 230BHN

 

75mm M40 PaK40 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT

 

M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates glacis @ 1100m

M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 1200m

M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 150m

M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 30deg

 

M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates side hull at any efective range

M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates side hull at any efective range

M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 750m

M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates side hull

 

M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m

M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1500m

M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 100m

M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates front turret if side angle is less then 15deg

 

M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates side turret at any efective range

M40 (PzGr.40?) subcaliber penetrates turret hull at any efective range

M40W (PzGr.40W) subcaliber penetrates side turret @ 500m

M38 (Hl.38?) HEAT penetrates side turret

 

76mm ZiS-3 firing AP, HVAP and HEAT ammo

 

BR-350B AP penetrates glacis @ 250m

BR-350P subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 800m

BP-350A* HEAT fails to penetrate glacis

 

BR-350B AP penetrates side hull at any efective range

BR-350P subcaliber penetrates side hull at any efective range

BP-350A* HEAT penetrates side hull

 

BR-350B penetrates front turret @ 350m

BR-350P penetrates front turret @ 1000m

BP-350A* HEAT fails to penetrate side hull

 

BR-350B penetrates side turret @ 1000m

BR-350P subcaliber penetrates side turret @ 1250m

BP-350A* HEAT penetrates side turret

 

*Acording to the Russian sources this ammo was forbiddden from being fired from ZiS-3 and was for regimental guns (m27, M27/42) only, elso round could explode in barrel. So results were either from static tests, or round was modified to enable safe firing from ZiS-3.

 

There are also tests with BR-350N subcaliber, BP-350M HEAT and BK-354 HEAT but I have no results for those....

[jwduquette1]

Thanks Bojan.

[Alvaro]

Thank you Bojan.

 

Do you have at hand the data about penetration range of 76mm ZiS-3 firing AP against T-54A 80mm side?

 

 

Best regards

[Guest bojan]

Thank you Bojan.

 

Do you have at hand the data about penetration range of 76mm ZiS-3 firing AP against T-54A 80mm side?

Best regards

398760[/snapback]

 

Nope.

[JWB]

Excellent data Bojan, thanks a lot!

[Guest bojan]

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

Vs Sherman:

 

BR-365 AP penetrates glacis @ 1100m

BR-365P subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 1200m

 

Both rounds penetrate side hull at any efective range...

 

BR-365 AP penetrates turret @ 1000m

BR-365 AP penetrates turret @ 1250m

 

Both rounds penetrate side turret at any efective range...

 

Interesting - almost same performances as 75mm PaK save shorter range that BR-365P subcaliber penetrates front turret compared to PzGr.40...

 

BR-367 AP, BR-367P subcaliber and BK-367 were tested also but I have no info about those tests.

[Guest bojan]

Tests vs M-47.

Armor:

Glacis - 102mm@60deg, 210 BHN

Side hull - 76mm average

Front turret - 160mm LOS average, 210 BHN

Frontal side turret - 76-102mm, 210 BHN

Rear side turret - 51-76mm

 

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

 

BR-365 AP fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m

BR-365P subcaliber fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m

 

BR-365 AP penetrates side hull @ 1500m

BR-365P subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 1500m

 

BR-365 AP fails to penetrate front turret even at 100m

BR-365P subcaliber fails to penetrate turret even at 100m.

 

BR-365 AP penetrates frontal part of the side turret @ 1000m

BR-365P subcaliber penetrates frontal part of the side turret @ 1000m

 

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

 

Again tests wit BR-367, BR-367P and BK-367 are missing.

[Guest bojan]

88mm PaK43 firing AP and HVAP

 

M39 (PzGr.39?) AP penetrates glacis @ 250m

M54 subcaliber penetrates glacis @ 350m

 

Both rounds penetrate side hull at any efective range

 

M39 AP penetrates front turret* @ 1250m

M54 subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1750m

 

Both rounds penetrate any aspect of the side turret at any efective range.

 

*Due the complex geometry of the M-47 turret it is not realy clear what is defined as a front turret - from head-on shots I guess it is mantle area and imidiate vicinity, as armor curves as it goes toward "corners".

[Guest bojan]

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

 

BR-412B AP penetrates glacis @ 750m

BK-5 HEAT penetrates glacis

BK-5M HEAT penetrates glacis

 

All rounds penetrate side hull at any efective range.

 

BR-412B AP penetrates front turret @ 950m

BK-5 HEAT penetrates front turret

BK-5M HEAT penetrates front turret

 

All rounds penetrate any aspect of the side turret at any efective range.

[Guest bojan]

That is all. Certenly if I find some more I will post them...

[jwduquette1]

Thanks again Bojan. Just so I am clear on this -- your last three posts are all for projectiles vs. the M47?

 

85mm ZiS-S-53 (from T-34/85) firing AP, HVAP and HEAT vs. M47

 

88mm PaK43 firing AP and HVAP vs. M47

 

100mm D-10TG (from T-54A) firing BR-412B APBC, BK-5 and BK-5M HEAT vs. M47

 

 

Best Regards

Jeff

[Guest bojan]

...Just so I am clear on this -- your last three posts are all for projectiles vs. the M47?

...

 

Yes.

[Guest bojan]

Anyway something else I have found - official Yugo data for some weapons penetration:

 

BsT 57mm M18A1

M307 HEAT: 75mm

 

BsT 75mm M20

M310 HEAT: 100mm

 

75mm M40 PaK 40

M39 AP: 125mm@100m, 115mm@500m, 105mm @ 1000m, 90mm@1500m,

M40 subcaliber: 170mm @ 100m, 145mm@500m, 115mm@1000m, 90mm@1500m

M38 HEAT: 95mm

 

76mm M1

M79 AP: 120mm@ 100m, 110mm@500m, 100mm@1000m

M53 subcaliber: 190mm@100m, 175mm@500m, 160mm@1000m, 140mm@1500m

 

88mm M43 PaK43

M39 AP: 240mm@100m, 225@500m, 200mm@1000m, 175mm@1500m, 165mm@2000m

M54 subcaliber: 295mm@100m, 270mm@500m, 240mm@1000m, 215mm@1500m, 190mm@2000m

 

90mm M3A1

T33 AP: 160mm@100m, 150mm@500m, 135mm@1000m, 125mm@1500m, 110mm@2000m

M304 subcaliber: 255mm@100, 240mm@500m, 225mm@1000m, 205mm@1500m, 180mm@2000m

 

It apears all data was rounded to closest 5mm. Some of data does not agree with test results (eg 88mm M54 subcaliber should penetrate T-54A front turret at least 1500m, but it does not) so I guess lower quality plate was used for testing...

Edited December 1, 2006 by bojan