Marek Tucan Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 Anyway something else I have found - official Yugo data for some weapons penetration: BsT 57mm M18A1M307 HEAT: 75mm BsT 75mm M20M310 HEAT: 100mm 75mm M40 PaK 40M39 AP: 125mm@100m, 115mm@500m, 105mm @ 1000m, 90mm@1500m, M40 subcaliber: 170mm @ 100m, 145mm@500m, 115mm@1000m, 90mm@1500mM38 HEAT: 95mm 76mm M1M79 AP: 120mm@ 100m, 110mm@500m, 100mm@1000mM53 subcaliber: 190mm@100m, 175mm@500m, 160mm@1000m, 140mm@1500m 88mm M43 PaK43M39 AP: 240mm@100m, 225@500m, 200mm@1000m, 175mm@1500m, 165mm@2000mM54 subcaliber: 295mm@100m, 270mm@500m, 240mm@1000m, 215mm@1500m, 190mm@2000m 90mm M3A1T33 AP: 160mm@100m, 150mm@500m, 135mm@1000m, 125mm@1500m, 110mm@2000mM304 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... Performing a bit o' good old thread necromancy... Bojan, by chance, do you have these "normalised" values for Russian guns as well?
JWB Posted January 8, 2011 Posted January 8, 2011 (edited) Please delete. Edited January 8, 2011 by JWB
bojan Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 .Bojan, by chance, do you have these "normalised" values for Russian guns as well? Nope. Also note that values above are most probably calculated and don't fir with tests always.
Marek Tucan Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Nope. Also note that values above are most probably calculated and don't fir with tests always. Now just looking at the 88/71, if I use "slope effect" value for 60deg as 0.7 (which, from the US tables, is about average), then even the HVAP for 88/71 gets reduced to some 206mm/100m IWO just on the edge re. T-54 glacis, any more slope effect (maximum I have seen in the US tests was some 0.6 at 60 degrees) and it would fail to penetrate.Will try to have a look at other ones. While it seems the data are calculated from some firing tests, they are atleast likely calculated using the same standards, that's why it's a pity there aren't data for Russian guns, would be great for comparison (if the standards are same, then even if the results themselves are meaningless, the relation between them isn't ). Here's hoping that in the future something floats up
bojan Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 Now just looking at the 88/71, if I use "slope effect" value for 60deg as 0.7 (which, from the US tables, is about average), then even the HVAP for 88/71 gets reduced to some 206mm/100m IWO just on the edge re. T-54 glacis, any more slope effect (maximum I have seen in the US tests was some 0.6 at 60 degrees) and it would fail to penetrate.Slope far HVAP is far worse eg for US 90mm T15E2 gun, HVAP penetrates 221mm@1000yards @ 30deg, and 94mm@55deg@1000yards. That is 64% of theoretical penetration in 30 and 55 deg difference... Between 0 and 60deg I would not be surprised it is even as low as 0.5 .Considering that T44 HVAP is same design as M304 HVAP which was used for local 88mm M54 HVAP slope effect should be about same. While it seems the data are calculated from some firing tests, they are atleast likely calculated using the same standards I don't know if that is true, results look actually related to German and US firing tables, just recalculated to 0deg. I will try to ask about this, but my contact did not work on this data, it was just a reference in the notebook.
Mobius Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 I don't know if that is true, results look actually related to German and US firing tables, just recalculated to 0deg. I will try to ask about this, but my contact did not work on this data, it was just a reference in the notebook.It seems to be about 20mm more than the German 0deg firing tables. Maybe just normalizing the test criteria from 100% to 50%? There are no Aberdeen test firing tables.
bojan Posted January 9, 2011 Posted January 9, 2011 It seems to be about 20mm more than the German 0deg firing tables. Maybe just normalizing the test criteria from 100% to 50%?Could be, IIRC Russian 20 to 80% penetration tables have ~5-01% difference. Or it could be that those were actually tested earlier but on the plate of different specs (softer?) then targets were.Difference in 88/71 data in performances vs T-54 turret are quite large. Less so then vs M47. Also 90mm HVAP has way better paper specs then it showed in tests, but AP sort of fits. There are no Aberdeen test firing tables. There are penetration tables in Hunnicutt's Sherman/Pershing/Firepower.
Mobius Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 There are penetration tables in Hunnicutt's Sherman/Pershing/Firepower.I mean on the 88mm/L71. Cary on this board did research and posted some test results for the 88mm/L71. But those tests were on high angle penetrations.
bojan Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 I mean on the 88mm/L71. Where is a link? I would really like to compare... But those tests were on high angle penetrations. Good, then we could compare to the penetation of eg. M47 hull, which should be close to US test plate?
Mobius Posted January 10, 2011 Posted January 10, 2011 Where is a link? I would really like to compare... Good, then we could compare to the penetation of eg. M47 hull, which should be close to US test plate?I don't know where the thread is but I copied and saved the quote.The US test plate may not be the resultant table effect.In a test the plate the HVAP values are stated as between 220 and 240 BHN. But in an article someone who got test data from Aberdeen shows a hit on 110mm test plate by a 76mm M61 shell @2585 f/s and only making an indentation. The result shows the penetration is 130mm at that range. How you get 130mm penetration from not penetrating 110mm plate is magic.(Plate is said to be 5.3x10^6 ft.lb. per sq in.)Compare it to the 88 projectiles for 3000 + velocities vs targets.8" @ 0:Two complete penetrations with projectile passing through plate. 3124mv and 3257 mv. Two ABL penetrations. Projectiles Intact. 3001 mv 3038 mv. (1087yd=203.2mm) 6 1/16" @ 30:Two complete penetrations, projectile through plate. Projectile intact 3008 mv 2971 mv 5 1/8" @45: One complete penetration, projectile through plate. Projectile fractured. One projectile shattered. 3288 mv 3211 mv 3 7/16" @ 55: Two complete penetrations. both projectiles fractured. Projectile fragments passing through plate. One partial penetration projectile fractured. 3334 mv on two penetrations. 3310 mv on 21/2 deep partial.
Marek Tucan Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 One question: The "US HVAP" used in 88mm M54 subcaliber round was penetrator from M304 HVAP? Or from 76mm? I presume the 90mm, but want to check, just for sure.
bojan Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 One question: The "US HVAP" used in 88mm M54 subcaliber round was penetrator from M304 HVAP? Or from 76mm? I presume the 90mm, but want to check, just for sure. 90mm M304. Whole projectile was turned down on the lathe, new driving bands installed, and mated with 88/71 case and propellant charge used for PzGr.39.
Marek Tucan Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 90mm M304. Whole projectile was turned down on the lathe, new driving bands installed, and mated with 88/71 case and propellant charge used for PzGr.39. Thanks. By chance any muzzle velocity for that one?
bojan Posted January 14, 2011 Posted January 14, 2011 Thanks. By chance any muzzle velocity for that one? Will look for it, but looking at penetration ranges vs 90mm M36 (800 vs 750m) pretty similar to M304 from that gun.Hm, noted now, fired from 88/71 it penetrates frontal part of side turret (150-170mm) at less range then when fired from 90mm M36 (1750 vs max effective range - 2000m), but penetrates front turret at marginally greater range (800 vs 750m)... Could be some destabilization occurring due the modification in caliber?
xenogears1978 Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Now just looking at the 88/71, if I use "slope effect" value for 60deg as 0.7 (which, from the US tables, is about average), then even the HVAP for 88/71 gets reduced to some 206mm/100m IWO just on the edge re. T-54 glacis, any more slope effect (maximum I have seen in the US tests was some 0.6 at 60 degrees) and it would fail to penetrate.Will try to have a look at other ones. While it seems the data are calculated from some firing tests, they are atleast likely calculated using the same standards, that's why it's a pity there aren't data for Russian guns, would be great for comparison (if the standards are same, then even if the results themselves are meaningless, the relation between them isn't ). Here's hoping that in the future something floats up hello bojan,no offence,could you give the exact document name of this test? someone is yelling out there this test is a makeup
bojan Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 (edited) hello bojan,no offence,could you give the exact document name of this test? Translated from Serbian: "Balistic tests of gun xxx vs armor of tank yyy" - xxx being gun tested, yyy being tank tested. Each test is separate document. ...someone is yelling out there this test is a makeup Who? Some fanboy on WoT forums? Edited February 14, 2011 by bojan
Marek Tucan Posted February 14, 2011 Posted February 14, 2011 Would take a lot of thinking to make a makeup so coherent between various tanks/guns
bojan Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Nice news, there might be more related to infantry AT weapons. Later this week.
Marek Tucan Posted February 26, 2013 Posted February 26, 2013 Wohooo ! You know how to make my day Hope it will work out, it is always nice to get "unsual" sources
bojan Posted March 30, 2013 Posted March 30, 2013 BR-367 vs T-34/85: BR-367 AP penetrates glacis @ 1500mBR-367 AP penetrates all parts of side hull @ all practical ranges* BR-367 AP penetrates front turret @ 1400m**BR-367 AP penetrates side turret @ all practical ranges *2000m** Data calculated from tests at 1500 and 1250m BK-2M HEAT (tested 67-68):Penetrates all parts of tanks, critical fusing angle 70 deg.
Loopycrank Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Is there any data on the shot dispersion of the various guns? I vaguely recall seeing a chart comparing the mechanical accuracy of various WWII AFV guns, but I have no idea of its provenance.
bojan Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Nothing that I have, some data was published here:http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/
Mobius Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Nothing that I have, some data was published here:http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/I find the IS II 122mm dispersion graph interesting. All my data finds that at long range there is more dispersion along the y axis than the x axis but not in the test.
Loopycrank Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Thanks Bojan! Mobius, do your data apply to combat shooting or to shooting under laboratory conditions? I would expect that under laboratory conditions Y and X dispersion would be roughly equal, but that in combat Y dispersion would be much greater due to range estimation errors.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now