Alejandro_ wrote: ↑
17 May 2019 21:07
Mid 1944 prototype T44 armor trials vs 75mm Pzgr 39/42 & 88mm Pzgr39/43
It is nice to see you stop insisting on the T-44 being a postwar design and tested only with Soviet guns.
At this time NII48 relied on calculations. These calculations require a plate-projectile fudge factor (De Marre) and usually do not hold vs real world results. The T44 hull was tested vs domestic guns in the soviet prooving ground:
You should read more carefully. This T44 was first tested by domestic guns. 76&85mm guns are mentioned, the former only succeeded in perforating the sides at low obliquity at 100m. Thus, the design was deemed satisfactory when tested vs domestic guns. However, as always, You misquote me, by omitting context. In that discussion, You had a habit of mixing up RHA with cast high hardness armor.. The T44 had a different type of both compared to the later T54A.
These sources deal with the subsequent T44 tests using German ordnance items, and it fared badly enough to sent the designers of what was previously deemed „satisfactory“ back to the drawing board! Only the next incarnation of the T44A had the required 90mm glacis, a dec1944 prototype and 1945 production model.
These trials are important because they demonstrated by how much domestic armor needed to be improved to deal with pzgr39. Its an important first step to move away from the standart high hardness RHA which was utilized in all T34& it’s SPG derivates towards medium hardness RHA, but it still needed improvements:
Increase in section thickness
Addition of molybdenum
Reduction of hardness in relation to section Thickness
eventually, even the cast turret armor needed to be made of reduced hardness to guarantee optimum resistance under oblique impact.By the early 1950s, when the soviets also adopted their pzgr39 derivates for domestic AP, the cast and RHA had arrived at similar levels of hardness as german ww2 tank armor ten years ago.