Soviet tank tech tree

[frolix42]

I think you may have missed my point and taken from it only the one bit you wanted (30 degrees).

what is the average side armor on the opposition vehicles? 70mm? if so then both guns are lethal to 2000 meters which is a range at which they are not accurate.

As far as I know, the Germany the USA was fighting was the same Germany the Soviets were fighting. If Germany kept most of it's heaviest vehicles in the East, that says something to me.

90mm of armor means that both are lethal to 1000m which is still longer than typical engagement ranges. These penetration tables in and of themselves do not support a conclusion of one gun being effectively better than the other. If both guns had comparable lethality at typical engagement ranges, then accuracy and rate of fire become more important in determining which was better.

You many have missed the original point of contention. He's free to express his opinion about one gun being *rah rah Sherman* effectively better in his own personal, subjective and silly analysis. Factual inaccuracies should be corrected however.

Ehm, the 76mm had more AP power. By a long shot with HVAP.

No it did not. And during WW2 it had worse HE shells than the T-34/85 as well.

 

[balmung60]

I think you may have missed my point and taken from it only the one bit you wanted (30 degrees).

what is the average side armor on the opposition vehicles? 70mm? if so then both guns are lethal to 2000 meters which is a range at which they are not accurate.

90mm of armor means that both are lethal to 1000m which is still longer than typical engagement ranges. These penetration tables in and of themselves do not support a conclusion of one gun being effectively better than the other. If both guns had comparable lethality at typical engagement ranges, then accuracy and rate of fire become more important in determining which was better.

Panther is 45 to 55 mm on the sides at 30 degrees from the vertical, 25 degrees on the turret sides. Tiger I and II were 80 mm on the sides with no slope.

 

[keynes2.0]

76mm is 76mm....3 inches is 76.2mm

'math is my friend. it has taught me many things. why are you mad at my friend?'

And 76.2mm was the actual measurement of the 76mm gun. 76mm was the name but it was really a 3 incher. I rounded it down just like they did in WWII because we were discussing the 76mm gun.

Continue to flail around while pretending you know a lot. Please keep calling me an idiot while just pointing out the areas where I'm completely correct and you are too uninformed to know that. I find this quite amusing.

Also... I'm waiting for you to point out where I said the 3 inch and the 76mm fired the same shell. Seeing as you called me an idiot, is it really too much to ask for you to quote that post? Surely it's not too much to ask for a minute of your time when you are spending that long reading and posting.

It's a great use of Art Deco influence, with bold geometric shapes, that conveys firmness in the faces and the soldiers marching by.

What, you aren't going to give me a quote of where I said the 3 inch and the 76mm fired the same shell? You were all patriotism and defender of truth! But you don't reply to such a simple request...

Could it be that you were just blindly partisan and assumed I was stupid because you disagree with me?

 

[balmung60]

Actually, assuming the Wikipedia article is right, the 76mm Gun, M1A1 did fire the same shell as the 3-inch Gun, M1918 (also known as the 75mm Gun, M5/6/7 (same gun on different mounts)), but they had different cases, meaning that the ammunition was non-interchangeable.

 

[plasticpanzers]

As I rise to the occasion and up periscope!

Sorry, never called you an idiot. I never did (another error!)

You really must read more than one sentence in what links you click on. The 76mm fired a different round thru a barrel 76mm that had more
rifle spirals than a 3in. Although somewhat similar in outline to the 3in the 76 was developed seperately from the 3in which had been around
for awhile. Different shell casing tho identical round (the AP part) tho they never developed a really good AP round for the 3incher which is
why the M10 was somewhat of a dead end vehicle (tho one of my US favorites). The rounds had different ballistics.

The reason they called the 3in (76.2 mm) gun a 3 incher is because it was. The reason they called the 76mm a 76mm is because it was that
and not a 76.2 mm.

down periscope and chalk up another kill....

 

[plasticpanzers]

I will add (sugar free)

That we are all friends playing the same game. We appear to be lost in a back alley fight over items as small as .2mm in arguments and
debating tactics, military policy, and many other bits of minutae that in the real world did not matter during the split second people were
fighting for their lives on all sides. At that point all the details fly out the window.

Apologies to all for weighing in so strongly (but with tongue planted firmly in cheek) and hope we can get back to discussing (and at times)
arguing among friends on fields where we feel so strongly but remember to try and keep the discourse (somewhat) civil!

 

[Mjarr]

From an engineering standpoint it is certainly important to have tests using same ammunition type etc. However, is that the most valid consideration if we are talking about battlefield utility? By that I mean, if the ammunition stocks used by one side were significantly different than the other, the same type comparisons mean less, don't they?

One could apply the same for penetration test criteria to begin with and of course real situations. Unless there is clear data is it 50% of them must pass through or is it 80% or something inbetween, we still fall into the simple thing that only thing we can sure of that things boils down to fairly probablistic view. Maybe that AFV had flawed construction. Maybe the projectile cap was flawed. Maybe something was already damaged. Maybe it hit a very specific weak point. Perhaps the projectile was a dud. Perhaps the other AFV was on slight uphill slope just enough to amplify the effect of inertia pushing itself away from heavily sloped armour to make it borderline case and thus ricochet instead of penetrate. Perhaps the AFV armour quality was higher than average and thus the projectile shattered on impact. Perhaps it was only partial penetration. Perhaps the projectile went through the front and back and did no clear damage - though that usually something that happens with soft-skinned vehicles and trucks, but definitely not impossible if we involve halftracks or very specific areas and near-statistical impossibility lucky shots. It's all out in the air, and it gets even funnier if one accounts human element and morale to the mix since all that means buggerall if even simple shattered hit concussed or panicked half the tank crew inside.

 

[keynes2.0]

Sorry, never called you an idiot. I never did (another error!)

Oh yes you never did. You just merely called me highly ignorant. I was soooooo off base there.

You really must read more than one sentence in what links you click on. The 76mm fired a different round thru a barrel 76mm that had more
rifle spirals than a 3in.

Please, quote where I said that the 3 inch and the 76 mm had the same number of spirals.
Then follow it up with a quote of where I said they fired the same shell.

Because right now you are claiming "kills" that are invisible to everyone else.