StuG BS discussions

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
The extremely sloped areas above the driver and above the ammunition area could be immune to this round. The AP round striking this area is almost 'riding' the slope with much of its side in contact with the plate. I don't even see that it would snap off the frontal 'knob' of the 350A. If anything, it might just ride up the armor itself. I can't see it cracking off the frontal piece of the AP projectile.

Seeing that it has a flatish nose it probably does better than most against highly sloped armor. If it was a scaled down 122mm BR471B projectile it would do slightly less than the LOS measurement even on 70-degree sloped armor. Though I don't know what that narrow bit is for. No other shell seems to have it so it may be a failed attempt at something.

[Yoozername]

I doubt the 'flatish' part even gets a grip.
 
The narrow bit has been discussed.  Its supposed to crack off like some cheap version of cap.

[Mobius]

This is a firing test on a KV-1 turret. The projectiles appear to be 76.2mm sized. The scale drawing of a BR-350A is placed side by side to an actual round. What ever round it was it loses the front half of its body.

[Ratzki]

Would that inner core be something like tungstun? What would the outer lining be? Plus I find it interesting that there is only a small band that makes contact with the rifling of the barrel. Or at least that is what it looks like. What twist rate would we have in a 76.2mm Russian barrel?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

Would that inner core be something like tungstun? What would the outer lining be? Plus I find it interesting that there is only a small band that makes contact with the rifling of the barrel. Or at least that is what it looks like. What twist rate would we have in a 76.2mm Russian barrel?

No, tungsten would be subcaliber. That is steel. The bands I think are softer material like brass or copper so they can conform to the rifling and not wear out the barrel.

[Yoozername]

Fascinating photo.  Is that KV-1 turret off the vehicle?  Possibly upside down on the ground?  The rounds laid along the rim?  Its hard to visualize.  But those are not HE nor any HVAP.  Note the 43326 written in chalk.  March 26 1943?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

Fascinating photo.  Is that KV-1 turret off the vehicle?  Possibly upside down on the ground?  The rounds laid along the rim?  Its hard to visualize.  But those are not HE nor any HVAP.  Note the 43326 written in chalk.  March 26 1943?

It's in a large factory room with lots of other turrets prior to assembly.

[Yoozername]

It's interesting to note that the HE filler has not cracked open the rounds. 

[Lieste]

It is common in AP testing to replace HE filling with an inert wax or powder fill.

[Yoozername]

It appears that the rear fuze has been blown off those AP shells. 

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
It appears that the rear fuze has been blown off those AP shells. 

The fuze wasn't replaced nor the tracer when the charge was replaced by something inert.
The same type of thing appears in US tests.

[Yoozername]

Do you know what rounds are used in that US test?
 
Its a moot point but I have seen AP rounds that are stuck in armor, the rear of the shell intact, and the HE filler is gone, and the shell is intact.  Many people think the amount of explosive is enough to shatter the shell.  In most cases, especially in WWII, that is not correct.  The HE more than likely just shoots out the back and the fuze and tracer bodies disintegrate.

[Mobius]

I don't have any information on what the flat-nose shell was. The M79's velocity would put it at 2800yds. Pretty long range for a tank engagement. Maybe this was some naval test?

[Yoozername]

An interesting data point is that the Soviets had a 'performance measure for penetration' where 75% of the actual projectile had to make it through, in some form, beyond the armor plate. 
 
Looking at those rounds on top of that KV-1 turret, I wonder if those count as penetrations.  If they were BR-350A rounds, they certainly would typically lose that snout piece.  In fact, those rounds look like they have almost been ground down to the HE cavity.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername

An interesting data point is that the Soviets had a 'performance measure for penetration' where 75% of the actual projectile had to make it through, in some form, beyond the armor plate. 

Looking at those rounds on top of that KV-1 turret, I wonder if those count as penetrations.  If they were BR-350A rounds, they certainly would typically lose that snout piece.  In fact, those rounds look like they have almost been ground down to the HE cavity.

They might need a broom and dust pan to gather up some nose bits to add to the total.

I doubt they used any of this test to make firing tables. Just as the Germans fired the 50mm PaK at the Tiger to see if its armor would hold up. Probably just wanted to see the protection level.

[Yoozername]

I seem to recall that the early-1944 JS-2 tanks were tested by the Soviets with 76.2mm fire.  They were not penetrated but the cast armor had spalling inside none-the-less.

edit:

In March 1944, firing tests were conducted with a 76.2 mm Gun ZiS-3 firing at an JS-2 tank from 500-600 metres. The tank's armour was penetrated from all sides of the tank. Whilst while most of the projectiles did not penetrate the armour completely, they created major splintering and fragmentation inside the turret. This explains the considerable losses of JS-85 and JS-122 tanks during the Winter-Spring of 1944.

In another test, the Soviets captured some TigerII in late 44. They reported the following results:

1. The quality of armor on the „Tiger-B‛ tank, in comparison with the armor on the „Tiger-I,‛ and „Panther,‛ tanks, as well as early production „Ferdinand‛ self-propelled gun, has sharply deteriorated. The first individual impacts caused cracks and spalling in the armor of the „Tiger-B‛ tank. Groups of shell impacts (3–4 shells) caused large-scale spalling and fractures in the armor..
.
.
7. The tank's side armor plates were notable for their sharply unequal durability in comparison with the frontal plates and appeared to be the most vulnerable part of the tank's hull and turret.
8. The tank's hull and turret side plates were penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 85 mm and American 76 mm guns at ranges of 800–2000 metres.
9. The tank's hull and turret side plates were not penetrated by armor-piercing projectiles from the domestic 76 mm guns (ZJS-3 and F-34).

I take this data-point to imply that even with BR-350B ammunition, the Soviet 76.2mm guns would have some tough time against the StuGIIIG's 80mm frontal armor especially when firing at a side angle to the armor. It's not known if the Soviets used 76mm HVAP rounds.

[Yoozername]

Another 'snap-shot' of data regarding the actual power of the T34 F-34 gun...
 

At the end of August, a conference was held at Factory No.112. It was attended by the People's Commissar for Tank Industry V. A. Malyshev, Commander of Tank and Mechanized Troops of the Red Army Ya.N. Fedorenko, and ranking members from the People's Commissariat for Armaments. In his introduction, V. A. Malyshev noted that the victory at the Battle of Kursk cost the Red Army a high price:
«Enemy tanks opened fire on ours at distances of up to 1,500 metres, while our 76 mm tank guns could destroy „Tigers‛ and „Panthers‛ at distances of only 500–600 metres. Imagine the enemy has a kilometer and a half in his hands, while we have only half a kilometer. A more powerful gun needs to be put into the T-34 quickly.»
In actual fact, the situation was significantly worse than Malyshev painted it, though attempts to correct the situation had been undertaken at the beginning of 1943.
As early as the 15th of April, the GOKO, reacting to the appearance of the new German tanks on the Soviet-German front, published order No.3187ss (the «ss» suffix means top secret) «Measures for improving anti-tank defenses.» This required the GAU to put all tank and anti-tank guns then in mass production through range trials, and present findings all within a 10 day period. In accordance with this order, Deputy Commander of Tank and Mechanized Forces Lieutenant-General V. M. Korobkov ordered that a captured Tiger be used for the trials, which were conducted from 25 to 30 April at the NIIBT proving grounds at Kubinka. The trial results were of little comfort. The 76 mm armored-piercing tracer round for the F-34 Main Gun did not penetrate the German tank's side even as close as 200 metres! The most effective weapon for dealing with the enemy's new heavy tank turned out to be the 85mm 52-K Anti-Aircraft Gun model 1939. It penetrated the 100 mm frontal armor at distances up to 1,000 metres.

[Misty99]

I have read the book "Sturmgeschütze-Panzer der Infantrie" 2 or 3 years ago. There was a report from StuG commander (late 1943). He said, that the StuG crews used barbed wire with concrete to reinforce the front side of their Stug´s. So a lot of the crews survived.

http://www.die-sturmartillerie.com/seite1.htm

[Yoozername]

ORIGINAL: Misty

I have read the book "Sturmgeschütze-Panzer der Infantrie" 2 or 3 years ago. There was a report from StuG commander (late 1943). He said, that the StuG crews used barbed wire with concrete to reinforce the front side of their Stug´s. So a lot of the crews survived.

http://www.die-sturmartillerie.com/seite1.htm

I have seen that website. If you look through all the photos, there is not one concreted StuG.

Did the StuG commander say exactly why he put concrete and barbed wire (I assume as some primitive 'rebar') on the StuG?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

No one has to look to a German-language source to confirm the widespread use of concrete on the Stug.III:

http://www.achtungpanzer.com/sturmgesch ... utz-iv.htm

And I quote:

Very common field practice was the addition of a layer of concrete added over the armor plate above the driver’s position to improve the protection.

Of course, If you'd take the time to educate yourself on these matters, the rest of us wouldn't have to shoulder the burden of enlightening you.

Again, LEWIS, buy yourself some books and stop cluttering up the forum with your nonsense.