7,5 cm Kwk/StuK/Pak 40 Firing Table Data

[Mobius]

I also agree that some of the 'maths' don't get it right. That is why I collect so much data. I average them all together to find a consensus.
No knock on Bovington but they did get the MV of the 75mm/L43 wrong.

[Yoozername]

I just find it amazing that he just continues to ignore other people's points. The different nations tested under different criteria, different target armors, etc. he completely ignores everything except what the janitor told him at Bovington.

If he had bothered to read this thread, or even understand what a Firing table entails, he would know that velocities have been discussed. Firing tables are not just about '89'mm armor. Or armor penetration. They weigh in on accuracy also. But to hear him bleat about some dimension, and not even mention slope or cast armor or anything else, just brings this thread down.

And the fact that the KWK 40, both the L43 and L48, had an increase in velocity due to the larger 2.43 Kg to 2.51 Kg propellant weight, also destroys the 'knee-jerk' '89mm' theory.

[Richard Anderson]

He actually seems a nice enough fellow, but can't seem to stop long enough to dismount from his current hobby horse...

[Mobius]

It could just about being about engine technology. How much weight could an engine of the day move around?

[Richard Anderson]

It could just about being about engine technology. How much weight could an engine of the day move around?

Well, exactly. As I mentioned, the actual American design practice was to calculate the weight of the minimum basic hull structure, engine, transmission, suspension, turret and weapons, and crew plus stowage versus a maximum allowable weight for the engine power to generate whatever speeds and agility were required...and if there was any difference between the two use it to add armor up to the acceptable weight, distributed so as to balance the tank.

[Yoozername]

It could also be about the thickness of cast armor that could be made at the time (during initial sherman development). In fact, I just read about that.

[Nick the Noodle]

I also agree that some of the 'maths' don't get it right. That is why I collect so much data. I average them all together to find a consensus.
No knock on Bovington but they did get the MV of the 75mm/L43 wrong.

The Mark V round listed, I suspect is the Vickers HV 75mm, and an error in the original report. Just a gut feeling.

[Nick the Noodle]

I also agree that some of the 'maths' don't get it right. That is why I collect so much data. I average them all together to find a consensus.
No knock on Bovington but they did get the MV of the 75mm/L43 wrong.

Consensus is not the way to go imho. Science is science, not opinion.

As for 'Aberdeen', the way they treated their exhibits over years detracts from their image of really caring about AFV's. I personally doubt their data, but am open to be educated otherwise.

There is a great deal of data on weapons, much of it apparently at odds with each other. The 40 family is no exception. Until I actually own and test fire the gun I have to rely on other peoples data. The question is, who can you trust?

When it comes to ammunition I trust Anthony Williams. If he states a 76mm M1 fires a AP round weighing 7kg at 790 m/s, and a PaK40 equivalent is 6.8kg at a maximum of 746 m/s, I trust his info. There also needs to be a very good reason why the lower energy Pz Gr 39 round, with lower momentum to boot, should be able to penetrate a greater thickness of armour. Assuming the maximum 746 m/s for the PaK 40 given in his table, we are talking about 15.44% greater energy imparted on the US round compared to the German equivalent (and 9% greater initial momentum). The M62A1 should be superior to the Pz Gr 39, all else being equal. While there does appear to be an issue with 76mm ammo, with the shatter gap controversy, most penetration tables appear based on scientific deduction, rather than actual capability. The US 76mm should be superior to the German 75mm equivalent.

The Bovington Tank report was made in 1975, and Bovington has never pulled its punches on Allied armour capabilities. They have no need to produce any data for any personal/political reason. Indeed, they best serve themselves by being neutral, and it's why I trust their data. In the late 80's David Fletcher produced his Great Tank Scandal, and given the fact he was both curator and librarian at said establishment, he is not promoting the image that British tanks were generally able to cope with German guns. In fact the only issue I have ever had with the museum is that their bookshop has always been less than impressive. The best tank museum should have the best bookshop.

As for 89mm/3.5" armour, I am almost certainly correct with that viewpoint. When all 3 major WW2 tank producers facing the Heer have that armour on the single most area likely to be hit, it is almost certainly effective.

[Yoozername]

As for 89mm/3.5" armour, I am almost certainly correct with that viewpoint. When all 3 major WW2 tank producers facing the Heer have that armour on the single most area likely to be hit, it is almost certainly effective

Except is wasn't. Where have you shown any data that it was? Because you think a certain museum is better than another? You are ridiculous. APG was not a museum in WWII.

There also needs to be a very good reason why the lower energy Pz Gr 39 round, with lower momentum to boot, should be able to penetrate a greater thickness of armour

And the reason has been discussed here and in other threads. And you ignore the information when confronted with it. You must have some internal-world going on while you do your house chores.

So, where did you get your science/engineering degrees?

[Yoozername]

When it comes to ammunition I trust Anthony Williams. If he states a 76mm M1 fires a AP round weighing 7kg at 790 m/s, and a PaK40 equivalent is 6.8kg at a maximum of 746 m/s, I trust his info.

That is good. Because you have made another error. But who is counting? Mr. Williams, in the chart linky you posted, states the Pak 40 as...790 M/s!...Thanks, I needed a laugh...


75 x 714R
100
D
6.8
790 m/s
WW2 PaK 40 AT, BK 7,5 a/c

[Mobius]

I also agree that some of the 'maths' don't get it right. That is why I collect so much data. I average them all together to find a consensus.
No knock on Bovington but they did get the MV of the 75mm/L43 wrong.

Consensus is not the way to go imho. Science is science, not opinion.

When it comes to ammunition I trust Anthony Williams.

The Bovington Tank report was made in 1975, and Bovington has never pulled its punches on Allied armour capabilities. They have no need to produce any data for any personal/political reason. Indeed, they best serve themselves by being neutral, and it's why I trust their data. In the late 80's David Fletcher produced his Great Tank Scandal,

Oh boy the old (argumentum ad verecundiam). You are right science and testing is fact. Not opinion. Not some curator at Bovington's opinion. Not Tony Williams opinion, not David Fletcher's opinion. Not Zaloga's opinion. My consensus means concurrence. The fact of two or more events or circumstances happening or existing at the same time. In mathematics: a point at which three or more lines meet.

oh, no that old maths again.
The following is a collection of 30 degree penetration firing tables non-normalized. The red line is the average of the others.

[Richard Anderson]

Except is wasn't. Where have you shown any data that it was? Because you think a certain museum is better than another? You are ridiculous. APG was not a museum in WWII.

This is getting odd, but in fact APG was the Ordnance Department Museum in WWII...among other things. George Burling Jarret became its curator as a 1st Lieutenant when he was called to active duty from the Reserves in 1939. It was also the Ordnance department School. It was also the Ordnance Department Proving Ground. It was also where the Ordnance Department assembled the first Medium Tank T6.

Why any of that should make it better or worse than any other similar facility is beyond me.

[Richard Anderson]

Oh boy the old (argumentum ad verecundiam). You are right science and testing is fact. Not opinion. Not some curator at Bovington's opinion. Not Tony Williams opinion, not David Fletcher's opinion. Not Zaloga's opinion. My consensus means concurrence. The fact of two or more events or circumstances happening or existing at the same time. In mathematics: a point at which three or more lines meet.

Yeah, one of the favorite arguments to fall back on in the internet.

Yes, concurrence is also agreement or consistency. Which is also congruent with your other definitions. It is not opinion.

oh, no that old maths again.

People do have trouble with that...I tend to differ to statisticians myself, since the reason I never went for an OR degree was the "old maths".

The following is a collection of 30 degree penetration firing tables non-normalized. The red line is the average of the others.

AKA consensus, concurrence, agreement, consistency, congruence...

[Yoozername]

This is getting odd, but in fact APG was the Ordnance Department Museum in WWII.

His 'point' was that it wasn't taken very good care of, ergo,somehow it invalidates all the testing that was done that proves him to be a numbtard.

Was it not taken care of back then? Could it possibly matter? How many rusty tanks could they have outside in the elements in 1939???

[Ulater]

Consensus is not the way to go imho. Science is science, not opinion.

Good thing that this discussion is almost about pure science, except for your opinions.

There is a great deal of data on weapons, much of it apparently at odds with each other. The 40 family is no exception. Until I actually own and test fire the gun I have to rely on other peoples data. The question is, who can you trust?

Its not a matter of trust.

The M62A1 should be superior to the Pz Gr 39, all else being equal.

Why?

The US 76mm should be superior to the German 75mm equivalent.

Why?

As for 89mm/3.5" armour, I am almost certainly correct with that viewpoint. When all 3 major WW2 tank producers facing the Heer have that armour on the single most area likely to be hit, it is almost certainly effective.

Strange thing about that is that as long as it is a cast armor, it fails to meet your imagined standard of 89 mm RHA protection, RHA that was a standard medium for testing, and offers better protection than the cast armor of same thickness.

There also needs to be a very good reason why the lower energy Pz Gr 39 round, with lower momentum to boot, should be able to penetrate a greater thickness of armour.

I guess its the same good reason that bumped up the penetration of captured soviet field guns by aproximately the same percentage.