I get agitated because You keep shifting Your idiot remarks from one aspect to another instead of confronting with the mistakes You keep presenting here.
You don´t remember? Let me quote You:
I am still puzzled by this. Let's take T-44, a WW2 design.
- Germans deploy Panzer IV with long 75mm guns, together with Panthers and Tigers, equipped with 75/88mm guns. Soviets upgrade T-34 and also decide to develop a new tank, as T-34 potential is exhausted. T-43 is dropped because is a dead end.
- T-44 is developed. Prototype is presented and tested. German PaK 40 gun, and 75/88mm guns. First can penetrate at less than 300 meters, while the latter at 700 meters. Sides are vulnerable from 600-900 meters.
Consequence: Armour is further reinforced, reaching 90mm at the front hull, 120mm in the front turret, 90mm at the turret sides, and 75mm at the hull sides.
You have it all wrong. It could have been from Mr. Samsonov, so poor is Your command of the historical causation. Why? Because You make up the claim that the 1st prototype was required to be proof AND TESTED vs PAK40. Neither it or any other prototype was ever tested against PAK40 firing Pzgr39. So hold on, Alejandro, and stop before posting or get Your facts right.
#mistake [A] -There were NO TESTS WITH THE PAK40 ON ANY T44 PROTOTYPE!
What does that mean? It was designed to be proof vs PAK40 BUT NEVER TESTED AGAINST IT. The 1st prototype was only tested vs soviet domestic 76 & 85mm guns firing soviet inferior (shatter prone) AP bullets
#mistake[ B] The decision to upgrade the frontal hull armor was not done in response to the 2nd trials but already decided in response to the results of the 1st trials. With other words, the german guns played no role in the decision to increase the glacis armor from 75mm to 90mm...
Yes there were tests with 75mm KWK42 and 88mm KWK43 with the 2nd prototype (again, no PAK40!!!) but they have absolutely nothing to do with the design decisions because the design team was sent back to the drawing boards after the results of the 1st trial poured in, and those tests were carried out with domestic guns and ammo, only. The 2nd test was virtually superflous to the design decisions, Pasholok wonders why it was staged in the first place, particularely because not PAK40 was used but the far more powerful KwK42 and KwK43.
#mistake [C] Your data on vulnerability of the 2nd prototype are wrongly staged or incorrectly explained.
Instead, let me quote pasholok:
Как показали результаты обстрела, орудие «Пантеры» пробивало верхний лобовой лист на дистанции около 700 м, а 8.8. cm Pak 43 — на дистанции 1730 м. Фактически же дистанция пробития верхней лобовой детали бронебойным снарядом орудия Pak 43 L/71 оценивалась ещё больше — до 2 км.
Ещё более разочаровывающими оказались результаты обстрела бортов корпуса, а также бортов башни. Под прямым углом борт корпуса пробивался пушкой «Пантеры» на дистанции около двух километров, а при курсовом угле 30 градусов — на дистанции около 600 м.
glacis: 700m, hull sides: 2000m, turret sides: 2580m, when tested with KwK42.
So what does this mean? Factory guaranteed protection of the T44 prototype (and then T44A) was calculated using a wrong De Marre fudge factor, which had little to do with the reality, as I pointed out repeatedly and You failed to accept (either by lack of comprehension or due to your fact ignoring agenda, Your choice).
In practice, this meant that the soviet design teams had no reliable data on which to assess whether or not the AFV had armor sufficient to stop PAK40 firing german ammunition. It didn´t needed them because they used calculated performance using widely distributed firing tables with wrong De Marre K (for german AP ammunition). Thats nothing scandalous in my opinion, virtually all services did the same and based enemy ordnance quality first and foremost on the presumption of similar quality to domestic stuff. The problem here is caused by the fact that the soviet domestic AP quality was so inferior to german AP-quality, that a major change in how the domestic plate fails went entirely unnoticed. Otherwise, they could have improved (soft tempering) 42S- steel already during wartime but this did not happen (on systematic base) before 1950. As it was, the material was too hard and would give in easily at acute obliquities to german Pzgr39, a feature which is esspecially undesired because the soviets were fond of high obliquities...
They tested the 1st prototype exclusively with soviet domestic guns and AP ammunition, and this prototype failed. Following this, they decided to upgrade the armor before the 2nd set of trials were staged. The 2nd set was ordered anayway and even while the design changed already, nobody tooks steps to stop the trials. They are highly interesting to the researcher because it is a rare cross country test case but it has nothing to do with the decision making process in the T44 project. The original T44 was dead by then and the T44A wasnt tested against german guns until after ww2. So again, Alejandro, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT AND STOP POSTING BS.
And yes, the T44A is by all accounts a post war AFV. That its design history involves steps and decisions made during ww2 does not mean it was a ww2 fighting AFV. 2out of 6 production T44A couldnt successfully pass a 300km run in may, 1945. None of ten survived a 1000km run. During 1945, it was still technically immature (in this regard its save to conclude that its mechanical reliability in 1945 was grossly inferior even to the PANTHERs in 1943).