tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post1343281038884969891..comments2024-03-28T14:35:30.147-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: LPP-25: Light, Simple, and UnwantedPeterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-5748599275270263262017-04-01T13:29:24.888-04:002017-04-01T13:29:24.888-04:00Well it's a good thing that the hatch test was...Well it's a good thing that the hatch test wasn't the one that the penetration figures are based on, now is it?<br /><br />Also here's something I thought of, how come you're so swift to accuse Soviet testers and engineers of deceit and incompetence when the word "German" appears in the article, but when American or British hardware is being tested you're suspiciously silent? Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-33751550238687594672017-04-01T03:55:23.772-04:002017-04-01T03:55:23.772-04:00It doesn´t change the results of the hatch test. N...It doesn´t change the results of the hatch test. Nor does it change the fact that soviet crappy ww2 AP ammunition was not suited for high velocity guns for metallurgical and design reasons.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-20739127180815769712017-03-31T20:33:55.761-04:002017-03-31T20:33:55.761-04:00Man, do you even read the articles you write essay...Man, do you even read the articles you write essays in the comments of? The GAU team's findings are plainly written. The tests against the hatch were *not* done by the GAU team, as I have told you over and over again. What's bullshitting is your claims that you know more than a whole proving ground's worth of experts whose job was literally to test guns, while your job seems to be to pollute blog comments on the internet.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-13377215399068310272017-03-31T17:40:17.455-04:002017-03-31T17:40:17.455-04:00What exactly does the GAU testing team claim in Yo...What exactly does the GAU testing team claim in Your opinion? That the 25mm perforated the 45mm hatch? Well, it didn´t by UK, US or german standarts. Or that it the projectile did not shatter, despite photographic evidence demonstrating the opposite? If that´s the information You extract then yes, it´s time to cast their education in doubt. You made up so many claims, bullshitting around and the reason for this lies in the fact that You don´t understand what You are writing about.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-23264198857799287702017-03-31T13:05:54.973-04:002017-03-31T13:05:54.973-04:00Right, educated people such as, I don't know, ...Right, educated people such as, I don't know, a GAU testing team? Of course, as always, everyone else is wrong and you are right, including actual contemporary professionals with physical data that you don't have access to. But no, as your gimmick goes, all documents are fake if you say so, all historians are Putin's shills at your discretion, the only real and absolute truth is held by the one and only critical mass, to be dispensed as he sees fit to the unworthy masses.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-39064109410722379262017-03-31T11:58:54.219-04:002017-03-31T11:58:54.219-04:00The 25mm high velocity gun required a projectile w...The 25mm high velocity gun required a projectile which is mhaving a tungsten core or, if full bore AP, beeing made of decrementally heat treated, high grade steel and ap-capped to be effective. The APCR type was new and the APC-type non conforming to soviet standarts. Both were expansive -not exactly the kind of ammo anyone would want to see expanded against SdKfz231 targets.<br /><br />The eventually choosen 37mm TshK was -owing to a moderate muzzle velocity- relatively effective with service soviet ammunition types (less at very short range or against very hard armor) -and on top of that, with a mass of only 209kg considerably lighter than the 277kg heavy 25mm gun. It also fired a more effective HE-shell and was smaller. <br /><br />critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-1523057402418331512017-03-31T11:30:33.025-04:002017-03-31T11:30:33.025-04:00Who can take such silly comments and articles seri...Who can take such silly comments and articles serious, Peter? I certainly can´t. Instead of trying to cover Your own faults by embarking on yet another futile campaign of sarcasm, I suggest strongly that You start to comprehend. Educated people can qualify a projectile shatter from impact photo records when both, the plate and the plate fragments are photographed from both sides with projectile remains shown, too. That You are unable to recognize it is Your fault, not mine. And that´s not something special, it´s in agreement with other prooving ground data on wartime SOVIET AP vs german RHA, or naval AP on armor plate tests, which I own a couple of thousends of individual impact records, sufficient to form an educated opinion to say the least. Finally, the lack of willingness to change from soft 35 HGS to a proper AP steel is proven from GAU KA russian primary sources, which You posted previously on this board, and is also found in wartime and postwar analysis records of captured soviet ammunition, which I own. You are the one who doesn´t understand how armor penetration works and pretends to theorize on this topic based upon half baked, uninformed and misleading presumptions. <br /><br />critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-48895327991239880412017-03-31T09:59:57.278-04:002017-03-31T09:59:57.278-04:00Right, so yet again the powerful clairvoyant abili...Right, so yet again the powerful clairvoyant abilities of the great critical mass are superior to a fully equipped proving grounds full of qualified personnel. Behold as he writes a complete and thorough analysis of the weapon based on a photograph! Who even needs expensive testing procedures and large proving grounds that take up lots of space, send this wunderkind to do the job in seconds that a whole cadre of experts can only do in days!Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-54435339298794706182017-03-31T09:46:26.955-04:002017-03-31T09:46:26.955-04:00Yes, the 25mm can penetrate at longer ranges than ...Yes, the 25mm can penetrate at longer ranges than the 14.5mm presuming it can hit something at longer ranges. This caveat shouldn´t be underestimates because the accuracy in the first trial for which we have quantified data, was very poor. Only 2 out of nine shot fired at 140m distance managed to hit a 0.47m diameter target. This translates to a 50% zone of roughly 1.0m and a total dispersion of roughly 4 metres at 140m -about as bad as a PzFaust. The dispersion was found to be better during the 2nd trials but there are considerable problems with such high power, lightweighted and low life guns in sustained accuracy (noticable drop of accuracy after some shots were fired). The soviet use of rather hot propellent, and the very high muzzle velocity further aggrevates this problem. You can´t circumnavigate physics!<br /><br />In the end, very high velocity guns can work -but not with the ww2 soviet AP ammunition. In order to produce optimal penetration, the AP bullet needs to be strong enough not to deform at impact, a problem which is considerably more difficult under high impact velocities than at low or moderate ones. Soviet uncapped, low grade steel AP-shot is the LEAST desirable AP-bullet type for high impact velocities as it breaks, and shatters with east (look to the two impacts of 25mm vs 45mm hatch). It requires instrument grade steel, with decremental heat treatment and protected by an armor piercing cap to extract optimum performance. The soviets during ww2 were not willing to change to instrument steel for AP ammunition but after the end of ww2, even they eventually consented with trial results and dumped their wartime APBC ammunition designs in favour of german Pzgr.39 series APCBC-HE ammunition types. <br /><br />In terms of Armor penetration, again Your statement is in conflict with primary sources. Both, the UK and US thorough ww2 used a penetration criterium which did not require to have any effect behind plate as long as a hole was made entirely through the plate, however small. So yes, it´s worth to know and care for these little details.<br /><br />And finally, Your characterization of the IS-3 "especially as that oughta been exactly the kind of thing the design of the tank was supposed to be proof *against*." <br />are completely in error. The IS3 was not designed to be proof against HEAT charges. That was not even on the agenda by then. critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-89667429208828428772017-03-30T21:33:29.017-04:002017-03-30T21:33:29.017-04:00Pretty sure a high-velocity 25mm gun can get resul...Pretty sure a high-velocity 25mm gun can get results against light AFVs from a rather longer range than a 14.5mm rifle you know. And as a bonus can serve as a light infantry gun against strongpoints and suchlike - this also being the double duty that the 20mm AT rifles like the Finnish L-39 "Elephant Gun" pulled.<br /><br />And around '42 was exactly when man-portable rocket launchers were taking their very first steps, namely the "Bazooka" and the derived "Panzerschreck". And the Stielgranate obviously had fuck-all to do with rocketry (and was impractical as Hell in practice, but beggard can't be choosers).<br /><br />Obviously nobody is going to much care for any HEAT result that doesn't actually do something meaningful behind the plate, why are you even bringing that up. Mere dents and gouges don't much count for kinetic penetrators either, aside from the spalling that might cause.<br /><br />Anyways. 66mm would be the caliber of for example the Seventies-era M72 LAW which the US military rated for 200mm RHA penetration (which would be more or less the same as what the wartime Panzerfaust gets rated for with over twice the warhead diameter), just to give a point of reference. While the IS-3 hadn't been relevant for a few decades by that time I'm pretty sure the 'Mericans wouldn't exactly have been supremely confident about trying to get through that level of armour with that thing... especially as that oughta been exactly the kind of thing the design of the tank was supposed to be proof *against*.<br />So, again, maybe adjust your hyperbolic claims about a never-operational wartime first-generation warhead design accordingly?Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-25442282818540029162017-03-30T15:26:30.506-04:002017-03-30T15:26:30.506-04:00Well, there is nothing the heavy 25mm high velocit...Well, there is nothing the heavy 25mm high velocity gun can do on a SdKfz 234 which the lightweighted PTRD rifle can´t do. So what´s the point in the first place?<br /><br />Also, soviet high velocity gun research and german HEAT research are contemporary: By 1942 the germans were experimenting already with the 8.8cm HEAT rocket thrower and Hl. Stielgranate.<br /><br />Notice: You refer to "rated penetration". There is a difference between service "Durchschlag", official penetration rating (= reliable minimum penetration) and those obtained at the prooving ground, which also quote "averages". For HEAT warheads the additional problem was defining what exactly constitutes a "penetration". As a matter of fact, unlike full bore or sub calibre projectiles, HEAT dissipates during acting on plate and leaves just a hole. So only the british "penetration" and the US Army ballistic limit definition (crack or hole through plate)could be applied to HEAT, not the original german definition, which required the penetrator fit to burst completely behind plate.<br />However, the germans wanted to insist on having an "effect" behind plate, and thus required not only a "hole through" from their HEAT charges but an excess of hole -typically 1/4 cal minimum sized in order to ensure that enough molten metal is accelerated from the back of the plate to hit something in the compartment behind. Thus, after a test session, it was practice to cut sections from the plate and measure the depth of the HEAT penetration. The average was recorded on the prooving ground. The german service, however, only accepted the penetration if also effect is behind the plate, and consequently rated the penetration considerably lower for HEAT. <br /><br />You will understand that I don´t want to reproduce the whole report here (I have given the archival signatures, already) but the following page from the report compares the service 66mm Hl.PzGr. (right, with one failure marked with x) with the improved, experimental type studied 1943 and 1944 at various standoff distances:<br /><br />https://q88i.imgup.net/0302ffe.jpg<br /><br />I happen to know that "200mm rated" PzFst penetrated frontal glacis armor of TIGER2, too.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-88137327766669865232017-03-30T12:42:47.862-04:002017-03-30T12:42:47.862-04:00This got started in '42, the whole evolution o...This got started in '42, the whole evolution of rocket-based portable AT weapons had barely taken its first steps. Plus the gun was meant as a "cheap and cheerful" counter to light armoured vehicles, which were and are a *rather* more common headache than full-blown tanks.<br />And given that even the big 8-wheeler SdKfz 234 topped around 30mm plate thickness the performance oughta been quite "good enough" for the weapon's intented purpose...<br /><br />As for those penetration numbers, uh-huh. Kinda... *fantastic* figures for a mere 66mm hollow charge, when actual operational designs with far larger warhead diameters such as the ~150mm Panzerfaust only rated like 200mm.<br /><br />I mean, that's claiming seriously better diameter to penetration ratios than Cold War designs from a decade plus later; you'll have to excuse some deep skepticism here.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-84132482984128735532017-03-30T11:12:35.754-04:002017-03-30T11:12:35.754-04:00Yes, how dare they perform a test while accurately...Yes, how dare they perform a test while accurately recording the conditions of the test! So unprofessional, I tell you what.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-74306449608277816862017-03-30T11:06:41.880-04:002017-03-30T11:06:41.880-04:00What lunacy? To point out that they used invalid t...What lunacy? To point out that they used invalid targets on the prooving ground? Any historian should be interested in it and ask why one would invalidate a whole test with such unprofessional practices. critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-3941065807013901122017-03-30T11:02:42.998-04:002017-03-30T11:02:42.998-04:00I am not jumping to conclusions. I am citing the f...I am not jumping to conclusions. I am citing the findings of contemporary experts. You choose to ignore their findings and instead go off some lunacy of your own creation. I can't imagine how anyone can have an ego of that size that they consider their opinion more worthwhile than a whole cadre of professionals.<br /><br />Also the PzIV tests and these tests were done in different places, but such pesky details don't concern you, as usual. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-4466747373564386572017-03-30T10:50:41.764-04:002017-03-30T10:50:41.764-04:00perhaps, next time before jumping to conclusions i...perhaps, next time before jumping to conclusions in regard to penetration of tank armor, You should consider mentioning that the trials are worth NOTHING due to the use of burned out tank targets. <br />It´s actually fairly proper to cast in doubt the prooving grounds professionality when such practices are conducted. I mean, I can perfectly understand if a combat unit is doing this but a prooving ground establishment? Wow, that´s a downer, for sure. critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-60904841735095356042017-03-30T09:29:46.519-04:002017-03-30T09:29:46.519-04:00You pointed me to the fact in the article... Which...You pointed me to the fact in the article... Which I wrote. How delusional are you? I mean it's one thing to claim to know more than an entire proving grounds worth of professional staff, it's another thing to claim that I don't admit something that I myself wrote.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-40442478556020814382017-03-30T07:15:57.544-04:002017-03-30T07:15:57.544-04:00They are for handheld weapons in anti tank role. I...They are for handheld weapons in anti tank role. In that role, the 25mm was obsolete from the begin and did not meet modern requirements.<br /><br />And in turn of HEAT penetration, You are mistaken. Penetration for HEAT at 30° was 100%. For HEAT, penetration at 0° was only 105%, penetration at 60° was 80%. Penetration of HEAT warheads was highly variable and greatly dependet on the ideal standoff distance, liner geometry and design. Unlike AP, the variances resulted in a large spread between individual results, so that the service "reliable" penetration was considerably below average penetration).<br /><br />For whats worth, the following thicknesses of RHA armor plate were defeated at 66mm standoff distance (=1cal) using the design P H=1/3 during trials:<br />264mm<br />249mm<br />273mm<br />219mm<br />243mm<br />273mm<br />243mm<br />195mm<br />201mm<br />243mm<br /><br />These trials convinced that no practical armor thickness could prevent HEAT from penetration, and effectively ended the MAUS and related project developments. <br /><br />Compare: BA/MA RH8-v.277, Bericht Nr. 146, Untersuchungen an der 6,6cm Schießbecher Granate zur Steigerung der panzerbrechenden Wirkung, dated 16th of oct. 1944 (classified SECRET)critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-79186180103500697152017-03-30T06:11:33.322-04:002017-03-30T06:11:33.322-04:00Because overcaliber HEAT munitions are at all comp...Because overcaliber HEAT munitions are at all comparable with kinetic penetrators right.<br /><br />Also those things weren't... exactly a roaring success if memory serves, just gave badly obsolete light AT guns at least a theoretical chance to still be useful against serious ironmongery.<br /><br />Chalk. Cheese. Why are you even comparing the two?<br /><br />Also, 250mm at 30 degrees what. Isn't that equivalent to like 500mm plus flat plate?<br />Horseshit.Kellomieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04915110653443066212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-46350069887280267092017-03-30T04:40:35.227-04:002017-03-30T04:40:35.227-04:00"It's also hilarious that you're accu..."It's also hilarious that you're accusing me of trying to "mud the water" even thouh I explicitly state that the PzIV in the one test was burned out before the test"<br /><br />What a hilarious lie is that, Peter? You only admitted it was burned out, after I pointed You directly to the fact. In the article, You fail to mention that the soviet prooving ground subjected burned out armor plate to ballistic test. There is only a vague reference, that the Pz IV was "badly beaten up", not that it was burned out. To suffer a penetration or two is not the same as beeing burned in terms of how it changes the resistence of armor due to inducing britellness from secondary heat treatment and air cool. That´s understood by everybody <br />with at least BASIC metallurgical knowledge - a key sensitivity solely missing by the authors of these articles.<br /><br />Contrary to the tabular listing of this article, the experimental 25mm gun with soviet ammunition was not superior to the service PzB41 with it´s ammunition in penetration. And considering contemporary anti-tank experimental ordnance equipment, by the time the soviets played with the 25mm and struggled to reliably penetrate 45mm cast armor at short range, the germans tested Wgr.-Pz HL. 66mm "Schiessbecher" for 20mm guns, which were able to penetrate frontally anything the soviets could throw at them, eventually obtaining a penetration in excess of 180mm RHA @30°, independent of range obttained 1943 with straight cone. The more elaborate and later ones with shaped cone tested in summer and autumn 1944 had the capacity to go frontally through IS3 turret or pike nose with penetration in excess of 250mm RHA @ 30°... <br />critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-10836014885352814442017-03-30T03:49:24.758-04:002017-03-30T03:49:24.758-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-55054716322191456792017-03-27T14:08:36.366-04:002017-03-27T14:08:36.366-04:00Right, so actual real life contemporary ballistics...Right, so actual real life contemporary ballistics specialists from the Artillery Academy are powerless to make any conclusions and had to send their gun to the GAU to get tested, but the mighty critical mass can make all the conclusions he needs from just one photograph! Do you do palm readings too? <br /><br />It's also hilarious that you're accusing me of trying to "mud the water" even thouh I explicitly state that the PzIV in the one test was burned out before the test. There is no other vehicle tested that was burned out aside from the ones in your imagination. There is no "preference" for burned out vehicles like you insist.<br /><br />Unlike you, I cite conclusions of contemporary professionals. I don't rely on phantom "metallurgical knowledge" and then assume extra conditions until my hypothesis makes sense like you do.Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-9161765599400633202017-03-27T14:00:46.683-04:002017-03-27T14:00:46.683-04:00You might not be aware of it but some of the photo...You might not be aware of it but some of the photographs shown here have to be considered primary sources. That includes, among others, those of the 45mm cast armor hatch, which were holed but not penetrated by the 25mmm AP from close range. Under conditions which allow assessment. Other trials may differ, but the conditions are not known. F.e. the soviet preference of burned out captured vehicle armor for ballistic trial is not indicative for actual penetrative performance of intact armor due to the secondary heat treatement affecting the plate. You blog does not differentiate this, in part because to mud the water and in part due to simple lack of basic metallurgical knowledge. <br /><br />Also, special trial ammunition or specially treated (selected) service ammunition may have been used.<br /><br />You would be shocked to know how many actual ballistic trial records are in my possession.critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-30381054085756527282017-03-27T13:43:33.195-04:002017-03-27T13:43:33.195-04:00Really, you have the GAU penetration tests from th...Really, you have the GAU penetration tests from the Gorohovets proving grounds? Please share, I would love to see them. Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-7904884196588827152017-03-27T13:38:20.570-04:002017-03-27T13:38:20.570-04:00I have primary source evidence for what I state. I...I have primary source evidence for what I state. I can´t say the same for Your blog...critical masshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02366274198749901618noreply@blogger.com