critical mass wrote:They experimentally aquired in knowledge of the effects of different liner materials (incl. copper), liner geometry, effect of distance , effect of spin rate on HEAT warheads. The document proposed here shows how much they were willing to buy into the HEAT development in countering the anticipated 250mm armored target threat. HEAT FS had the advantage of allowing the utilization of existing guns and greatly expanded the amount of penetration.
Full calibre 7.5cm Pzgr39 had more accuracy than HEAT FS but only at short range (for the KWK42) had similar penetration. Downrange, however, the HEAT-FS penetration was superior, irregardless of whetehr it was fired by PAK40/KWK40 or KWK42. HEAT was also less affected by obliquity effects than -TS projectiles, which might be worth mentioning.
Similarely, the 10.5cm/7.5cm Pzgr 39 Ts sub calibre discarding sabot transferred the 10.5cm leFH into PAK40 level anti tank capabilities, which was marginal. HEAT-FS allowed it to reach PAK43 levels of performance.
Discarding sabot for the 10.5cm which often was fitted with muzzle break was problematic. HEAT-FS on the other hand, didn´t had these issues.
However, the document gives some uselful numbers:
7.5cm HEAT-FS: 140mm at 30° (in developement)
10cm HEAT-FS: 200mm at 30°(final development)
12.8cm HEAT-FS: 220mm at 30° (projected)
15cm HEAT with Minenleitwerk (HEAT with rigid fins): 240-260mm RHA @ 30° (at hand)
I guess the problem with discarding sabot was the sabot hitting the muzzle break?
"HEAT-FS on the other hand, didn´t had these issues."
You are German, because it should say "didn't have these issues". :p
"10cm HEAT-FS: 200mm at 30°(final development)"
Very interesting, thank you. Do you have any info on the ballistics of this shell? Shell travel times and 50% zones?