T44 armor trials 1944

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
critical mass
Member
Posts: 479
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: T44 armor trials 1944

Post by critical mass » 28 Aug 2019 10:32

Disclaimer:

1t prototype T44:
actually two hulls. One armed with 85mm gun (T44-85 I), the other with 122mm gun (T44-122). 75mm glacis and 30° nose plate, side hull 45mm with 30mm welded on in the upper part (i.e. laminated, effective thickness: 68mm single layer aequivalent in the upper strake)
2nd prototype T44:
actually two hulls. One with 60mm frontal protection and one with 75mm glacis & -nose plate. Nose plate at 45°. Side hull 45mm (lower) and 75mm (upper), but solid without lamination. Much smaller, reworked drivers cabin. Only the 75mm protected hull was actually made and tested (T44-85 II).
3rd prototype T44A:
actually two hulls. One with 85mm gun (T44A) and one with 100mm gun (T44-100). Glacis and nose plate thickned to 90mm RHA, side hull to uniform 75mm. No drivers cabin. 3rd prototpye (T44-85 III) beeing redesignated T44A and selected for serial production.
Alejandro_ wrote:
27 Aug 2019 22:02

Now you are getting hysterical. This is what you originally stated:
However, the T44, which in itselfe was a post ww2 tank which happened to be conceived and partially tested during ww2, was specified to resist domestic AP, and at one point had the requirements to include also german AP resistence.
At least you admit that Soviets did use German ammunition in the design.
Again You have it completely wrong. Not that I am going to expect anything different from u. The soviets did not use German Ammunition in the design of the T44. They used the PAK40 in the design requirement of the T44 (and later, the T-44A). The PAK40 is, if thats still unknown to You, not the designation for any type of german ammunition. Its the designation of a german gun. A gun, neither a T44 nor a T44A prototype was ever tested against. It was a calculated feature baed upon gunpower. Let me repeat it for the 8th time now, the soviets used a gunpower base in combination with a fuddge factors for the AP quality which matches their own, domestic ammunition to base their armor requirements on during ww2. Because they did not base it on the right AP-quality and preferred to proof test with domestic AP while foreign AP were only used in experimental trials until very, very late in ww2 (and after). Thats why their RHA and CHA is generally too hard for optimum performance against the more difficult to break up, german Pzgr39, while this feature of their HHA and "medium hardness" was indeed better suited to affect complete shatter of their domestic, brittle AP products over a wider range of conditions. Unfortunatley these are AP products which the germans did not use in ww2 (they looked into the 76mm gun and discarded the APBC-HE projectile remanufacturing 76.2mm Pzgr.39 rot APCBC-HE instead)...
This was largely only rectified in the years following the end of ww2, culminating in the service adoption of reverse engeneered and baed upon german deisgn and heat treatement technique APCBC-HE ammunition for domestic guns in the early 1950´s.
Not long ago you stated that the T-44 "was specified to resist domestic AP"
I stand to my statement as essentially correct. You just dont get the difference between design requirement and actual test specification. The requirement was to be PAK40 proof. But the 1st, T44 was never tested vs PAK40 firing Pzgr.39 (notice, this is the exact opposite of what You claimed). The ballistic test specifications were written to resist only DOMESTIC AP (76mm and 85mm), which were "thought" to best represent the requirement of PAK40 levels of gunpower. That doesnt necessarely need to bear any relationship with the design requirements in the first place. You really dont understand how different failure mechanics affect calculated gunpower, Alejandro.
ctually, this is not the case. GBTU KA decided that protection requirements (75mm PaK 40) did not adjust to realities of the front and decide to upgrade protection to take into account Panther and Nashorn guns, which are then used in testing
Yes, battle results from Kursks and spring 1944 indicated that KV and IS heavy tanks could be frontally perforated by PANTHER guns both into the turret and drivers front plate from >1km so Fedorenko, Vershinin and Biryukov pressed for more frontal armor. Yet,the problem with that narrative is that the 2nd generation prototype actually tested with KwK42 &-43 in july 1944 had none of the suggested upgrades in armor protection required to deal with said KwK42 &-43. Just a steeper nose plate, a uniform (rather than laminated) side plate and reworked drivers cabin over what was included in the requirements for what is better called "pseudo-PAK40 proofness" of the 1st prototype. It was essentially tested against the wrong guns.
In exact opposition to what You claim here, these additional requirements (again formulated as gun-based requirement, not as "specification" which includes actual german Pzgr39 projectile quality) materialized in the 3rd prototype, which was assembled also in July 1944, too late for any of the 2nd prototype test results to be possibly included, thus reducing the 2nd prototype trial to a matter of experimental trial, a curiousity and formality at that point because this line of the thin skinned T44 was already dead by then. Yes, the results of this experimental trial helped to reaffirm earlier decisions but they didnt make the T44A in the first place. So no, I have to conclude that the claim You presented is not only baseless but a rather colourful caricature of the historical sequence of events. The 3rd prototype was later redesignated T-44A. YET, SHOW ME WHERE IT WAS SUBJECT TO ANY BALLISTIC TESTS DURING WW2 involving german guns & projectiles. There were none before sept. 1945...
After shooting tests, there was another requirement - to increase the thickness of the sides to 90 mm in order to protect the tank from the fire of the Panther’s gun at least at medium distances.

Just like in your fantasies, T-44 requirements were vs Soviet ammo and it was never tested against German ammunition.
You never cease to post BS. Did it ever occur to You´r surfacable reading that this requirement of 90mm side hull was never implemented? The T44A had 75mm side armor for weight reasons as the T44 prototype #2. 90mm was simply not feasable (as was, for example, the increase in turret thickness demanded). And again, T44A requirements did not use german ammunition, they used german guns with wrong fudge factors to represent ammunition quality. The 3rd prototype was untested vs german guns and projectiles (as of ww2). Only the 2nd prototype had test specifications which actually included german guns and ammunition, but not those which are formulated within the requirements in the first place (i.e. PAK40). There is a word for that: Red herring...

User avatar
Alejandro_
Member
Posts: 391
Joined: 21 May 2003 13:26
Location: UK

Re: T44 armor trials 1944

Post by Alejandro_ » 28 Aug 2019 11:50

The ballistic test specifications were written to resist only DOMESTIC AP (76mm and 85mm), which were "thought" to best represent the requirement of PAK40 levels of gunpower. That doesnt necessarely need to bear any relationship with the design requirements in the first place.


And yet you change the goalposts again. From being "specified to resist domestic AP" you move to "resist only DOMESTIC AP (76mm and 85mm), which were "thought" to best represent the requirement of PAK40 levels of gunpower".

Let's go back to Pasholok article which you supposedly read:

Initially, the armor protection of this tank was created to counteract the fire of a 75 mm anti-tank gun of 7.5 cm Pak 40

https://warspot.ru/15111-vsyo-eschyo-s-budkoy

7.5cm Pak 40, and not "76/85 mm which were thought to best represent the requirement of PAK40 levels of gunpower".
T44A requirements did not use german ammunition, they used german guns with wrong fudge factors to represent ammunition quality. The 3rd prototype was untested vs german guns and projectiles (as of ww2). Only the 2nd prototype had test specifications which actually included german guns and ammunition, but not those which are formulated within the requirements in the first place
What is it that you don't understand about T-44 evolving into T-44A? Does anyone else thinks "T44" is a dead end and that "T44A" is a different prototype. Anyway, I realized you edited your first message so not sure what you mean now.

Another example just to show you the problems I have with your theories:

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
18-5-2019 at 19:20
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.

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=241931&start=15
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

27-8-2019 at 18:07
They tested the 1st prototype exclusively with soviet domestic guns and AP ammunition, and this prototype failed.

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=241931&start=15
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________


The example above becomes a problem when you try to push your theories and do not admit to any issues. Of course, you can try to bend things or change your version but it doesn't really work.

BeJimmieRaisa
Member
Posts: 3
Joined: 20 Aug 2019 21:58
Location: Syria

T44 armor trials 1944

Post by BeJimmieRaisa » 05 Sep 2019 15:07

I am doing a project and I could not find anything pertaining to the protection of the current Mk45 5 gun. Does the USN use kevlar, reactive armor, homogeneous steel? Any help would be nice.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 445
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: T44 armor trials 1944

Post by Mobius » 05 Sep 2019 19:22

5-inch, 62-caliber Mk 45 Mod 4 Naval Gun System. I don't see any information on the gun mount protection. It looks like it may be an inch or less of steel or aluminum.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”