AP/HE ammo ???

seabolt · 02-18-2009, 02:02 PM,

Weasel Wrote:The penetration tables really show how useless allied tanks were!

There's grounds to be a little skeptical about the data there. Tigers are the katanas of WWII, respectable weapons idealized into something more than they were.

That web page claims armor quality remained constant because German documents said so. (Uh, hello. Everyone was lying about everything in late Nazi Germany. Of course we're meeting quota. Of course standards have been maintained. Heil.) Steel plate as thick as that on the Tiger is very difficult to forge to ideal hardness and brittleness, and the required nickel was precious. The Tiger's design made allowances for as much by not calling for face-hardening, but given the multiple disruptions to German industry in the late war, it seems probable that not every casting was a masterwork. The testing cited on the website was performed on an early Tiger, which could reasonably be expected to show off the height of craftsmanship.

Soviet veterans are no less prone to hyperbole than German engineers, but as early as Kursk the Soviet gunners claimed through and throughs on Tigers when firing 85mm tungsten rounds. Even at point blank range, on paper that seems highly unlikely, but then armor cast from inferior ore or mishandled at the forge (but still used because quotas had to be met) could be only two-thirds the protection that it should be.

That said, the Tigers didn't suffer their awful mortality rate (~85%) because they were outgunned or outarmored. They suffered it because they burned 10 liters of petrol to the kilometer off road, giving them a what-the-hell range of 57 klicks (36 miles) with full tanks. A panzer crew can retreat under those conditions; they just can't take their ride with them. And they suffered it because they had to skimp on top armor, which meant they drew Mustangs and Sturmoviks like hawks to field mice.

Meanwhile, 95%+ of Shermans did just fine at the job they were intended to do: killing riflemen and light strongpoints ...

-- 30 --

Vesku · 02-18-2009, 03:51 PM,

Shocking, isn't it.

seabolt · 02-19-2009, 02:51 AM,

Vesku Wrote:Shocking, isn't it.

What? That I'm sober?

Wait a minute.

Fixed.

-- 30 --

Vesku · 02-19-2009, 03:25 AM,

Right, you sober, what a thought .... wait, can't compute.

I was not saying that the site was a 100% trustworthy, I said that was a good example of the different ammo used. Don't twist the message into what it was not.

seabolt · 02-19-2009, 03:38 AM,

Vesku Wrote:Don't twist the message into what it was not.

Eh, I wasn't trying to twist anything. You quite rightly provided the link on the topic of AP ammunition. Weasel quite rightly pointed out that the tables make a strong prima facie case about a loosely related topic, armor:penetration relationships. I quite rightly pointed out that alternative perspectives exist. There's a beef here?

-- 30 --