85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Yoozername » 29 May 2019 15:55

http://bodenplatte-45.narod.ru/tanks/st ... -otche.pdf

This test was referenced at 'Tank Archives'. I often question the translation, and 'conclusions' at that website.

From my perspective, the drawings seem to be (badly) showing the frontal aspect of a Tiger I.

Image

Image

To me, the circle is the bow MG, and the rectangle, the driver vision device.

Image

Likewise, this depiction shows hits on the frontal armor.

Can anyone translate the Russian?

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Stiltzkin » 08 Jun 2019 14:29

From my perspective, the drawings seem to be (badly) showing the frontal aspect of a Tiger I.
It is a bit confusing, but apparently they show the side and front hull. They look like the front, but the report refers mainly to the sides.
Report on Field Trials

Firing Trials were conducted by the 2nd Tank Btn oft he 63th Guards Tank Brigade, with a T-34/76 and T-34-85 against the T-6 (“Tiger”)
1.Trials were performed by Captain Tschirkov of the 2nd Tank Battalion under the command of Mayor Fomitschev, in the presence of the deputy commander of the 10th UDTK (Uralsko Dobrovolczeskil Tankivyi Korpus) Mayor Belov and the chief of staff of the 18th Army, Lt. General (n.A.)
2. Shots against the German Panzer of the type “Tiger”, were fired from distances of 400-600-800 and 1300 meters.
3. Shots from the distance of 600 meters with the 76mm gun ZiS-5, (armour piercing) 18 shots in total, 16 hits registered, Side hits

Results
  • 1.Shots 1-2-3 went into the turret, no penetrations (a few dents)
    2.Shots 4-16 left larger indentations on the (hull) side plate
4. Shots from a distance of 400m with the 76mm ZiS-5, AP:
10 rounds, 10 hits on the side plate (refer to the drawing for the distribution, red represents a penetration, blue merely a dent)

5. Shots from a distance of 300m with the ZiS-5, sub caliber
2 Shots fired, 2 hits, side plate
Yellow color: First hit, projectile appears to be stuck in the lower part of the turret ring, 2nd projectile hit the mantlet and immobilized the cannon

6. Shots from a distance of 800m against the front, 85mm gun, AP rounds, 5 shots in total, 3 hits, 1 ricochet (refer to the drawing),

Evaluation.
  • Shots 1-2-3-4 penetrated; also resulting in the destruction of the drivers port, the shell exploded inside and ignited the tank
7. Shots fired from a distance of 1300 meters with the 85mm gun, AP, 4 shots, 3 hits, front hull, no penetrations (in blue), dents

8. 85mm gun, distance 800 meters, AP rounds, 2 shots, 2 hits, side plate

Evaluation:
  • First hit, full penetration (fit to burst), exploded inside of the tank
    2nd hit, penetrated the side plate of the lower hull
9. Distance 1300 meters, 85mm gun, AP, 3 shots, 2 hits to the side

Results:
  • Number 3, Penetration occurred, fit to burst state
    Number 4, dent
Conclusions:

1.The Tank crews are well prepared
2.The present tank crews and their respective officers of the 18th Army learned the valuable lesson, that the “Tiger” tank, is less fearsome than its reputation and can be set on fire, as any other tank in the opponents arsenal
3.The T-34-85 can penetrate the side armour of the Tiger from distances of 1000-1300 meters. In the absence of a penetration, spalling may injure the crew, or damage their optics
4.The (drive/wheels?) and the drivers visor are particularly vulnerable
5.The T-34/76 with the ZiS-5, can achieve success from a distance of 400m, when engaging the Tiger from the flank. Beyond 400m, shelling might result in minor damage/dents, which could potentially incapacitate the crew
Regarding the schematics: My assumption is (since 3 copies of this file exist), that they had to keep the drawings as simple as possible (carbon copies), this was the pre computer era.

Should someone notice any major errors, please correct the translation (OCR/machine supported), this is somewhat suboptimal.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Yoozername » 08 Jun 2019 16:53

Apparently, that Tank Brigade had Sherman Tanks also... and they had technology to take photos at that time....

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery ... 44-crimea/

Image

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Stiltzkin » 08 Jun 2019 18:28

Apparently, that Tank Brigade had Sherman Tanks also... and they had technology to take photos at that time....
There are various pamphlets which do have better illustrations, then again photos were usually made for propaganda purposes. Perhaps photomaterial for this trial may even exist and TsAMO is not handing them out...

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Yoozername » 09 Jun 2019 14:27

It is somewhat of a impromptu test of sorts. It is also probably meant to be a propaganda effort to address the tankers concerns regarding the Tiger I. I would certainly assume that they used service ammo and shot at the ranges listed. More than likely dead on shots to the vertical armor. That is, they left out obliquity issues.

In any regards, to jump from the 85mm penetrating at 800 meters, to testing at 1300 meters seems odd. I don't get the 'conclusions' leaving out that the T34/85 can penetrate the frontal armor at 800 meters? Testing the 76mm seemed to assume that frontal shots were hopeless?

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Stiltzkin » 09 Jun 2019 14:47

It is also probably meant to be a propaganda effort to address the tankers concerns regarding the Tiger I.
That is exactly what it is.
In any regards, to jump from the 85mm penetrating at 800 meters, to testing at 1300 meters seems odd. I don't get the 'conclusions' leaving out that the T34/85 can penetrate the frontal armor at 800 meters?
My translation is simply not the best, but I assume the greatest effect was mainly achieved against the vision port, 1 went through and blew up.

Though, you can compare it to a german report (late 43) which lists Russian information, as well:

http://wwii.germandocsinrussia.org/ru/n ... ect/zoom/7

translated here:
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=240539&p=2194027#p2194027
Testing the 76mm seemed to assume that frontal shots were hopeless?
Sub caliber showed some effect in other trials (100m, front, 700m Flak gun), but I do not think that they could afford to be wasteful.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Mobius » 09 Jun 2019 17:49

Yoozername wrote:
09 Jun 2019 14:27
Testing the 76mm seemed to assume that frontal shots were hopeless?
Somebody made a fateful decision on the ammuniton of the 76mm. It looks like there was a hot 76mm APBC round developed late 1941 but never went into production or issued.
The thread by Miles when fired by the ZiS-3 MV and penetration at 1000m and time-frame:
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=218728
is roughly similar to that special charge round of the ZiS-5.
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/09/zis-5.html

Though even if this is the same round, it cound not penetrate the front of a Tiger.

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 223
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Avalancheon » 11 Jun 2019 12:27

Yoozername wrote:
09 Jun 2019 14:27
It is somewhat of a impromptu test of sorts. It is also probably meant to be a propaganda effort to address the tankers concerns regarding the Tiger I. I would certainly assume that they used service ammo and shot at the ranges listed. More than likely dead on shots to the vertical armor. That is, they left out obliquity issues.

In any regards, to jump from the 85mm penetrating at 800 meters, to testing at 1300 meters seems odd. I don't get the 'conclusions' leaving out that the T34/85 can penetrate the frontal armor at 800 meters? Testing the 76mm seemed to assume that frontal shots were hopeless?
The 85mm projectiles had problems with shatter gap, same as all other Soviet ammo. At around the time of the Kursk campaign, the Soviets tested their 85mm gun against the Tiger, and found they could not pierce the turret face from 400 mt. So the effective range is probably something like 500-1000 mt, and only then at low obliquity. Thats a pretty narrow envelope to work within.

L/24Stug
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 27 Jan 2019 11:23
Location: Spain

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by L/24Stug » 14 Jun 2019 13:53

The 85mm projectiles had problems with shatter gap, same as all other Soviet ammo. At around the time of the Kursk campaign, the Soviets tested their 85mm gun against the Tiger, and found they could not pierce the turret face from 400 mt. So the effective range is probably something like 500-1000 mt, and only then at low obliquity. Thats a pretty narrow envelope to work within.
That is very interesting. I would like to dig a bit about that topic.
In fact my impression about Russian AP was not exactly that way. I was convinced that they were sub par at low oblicuity because early deformation/break up, but not too bad at high oblicuity where shatter is the norm. You know, once oblicuity makes projectile shatter, the is no much difference between "good" and "bad" AP projectiles. But I may be wrong.
Did soviet AP researchers know about shatter gap? Please, can you point where to look for that info?

Avalancheon
Member
Posts: 223
Joined: 23 Apr 2017 06:01
Location: Canada

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Avalancheon » 16 Jun 2019 08:18

L/24Stug wrote:
14 Jun 2019 13:53
That is very interesting. I would like to dig a bit about that topic.
In fact my impression about Russian AP was not exactly that way. I was convinced that they were sub par at low oblicuity because early deformation/break up, but not too bad at high oblicuity where shatter is the norm. You know, once oblicuity makes projectile shatter, the is no much difference between "good" and "bad" AP projectiles. But I may be wrong.
Did soviet AP researchers know about shatter gap? Please, can you point where to look for that info?
The Soviets knew about the tendency of their shells to break up. They weren't overly concerned about this until they learned (sometime in the early 40s) just how much it affected their ability to penetrate armor plate. The Soviets weren't ready to invest in proper nose hardening for their shells, or to fit them with armor piercing caps.

So instead, they tried to compensate by machining circumferential grooves into their shells, in an attempt to limit breakup. This was basically a half assed attempt at circumventing their quality problems, which had only a very limited effect.

Peasant
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by Peasant » 04 Feb 2020 00:38

The interesting part is that the 85mm AP hit on the side armour from 1300m failed to penetrate. This confirms that at least this single shell was the uncapped BR-365K shell which looses velocity quickly. At 1300m it would've had 590m/s striking velocity, somewhat below the 607m/s given by the DeMarre formula for a reliable penetration. Coupled with the data from this thread viewtopic.php?f=47&t=245802 this seems to suggest that the sharp tipped 85mm shell penetrates this target up to 1200m then fails, within some range of striking velocities, then starts to penetrate again up to 1700m(534m/s) with the plate being completely safe(PTP limit) only from 2300m and up.

I've came back to this thread to because I found an article about this trial with great quality digital remakes of the hand drawn diagrams in the original document. Too bad its in russian but if you dedicated enough to use google translate, its readable: https://zen.yandex.ru/media/id/5dd92979 ... 7ff020af76

critical mass
Member
Posts: 602
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: 85mm/76mm vs. Tiger I, June 1944 Soviet test

Post by critical mass » 06 Feb 2020 14:39

76mm ZiS-5, firing APBC (type unspecified):

vs 80mm sides at normal impact
18 shot fired. 3 hits on side turret and 15 hits on side armor from 600m. Nno holing or penetration (scheme#1, black marks).
10 shots fired and 10 hits from 400m. 4 of those perforated the armor, 6 dented the armor. In no case was the projectile fit to burst (scheme#1, red marks). Some caveates: Two of the perforations seem to have fallen on the upper edge of the lower (60mm) armor. In no case was the hit 3 cal minimum distance from prior impacts.
2 shots from 300m directed at the sides with APCR (type unspecified). One hit the turret ring and one hit the mantlet. Turret was jammed and the barrel couldnt be operated but the APCR failed to hole the armor (scheme#1, blue marks).

85mm (T34/85 tank gun) firing AP

vs 100mm front at normal:
5 shots fired, four of which hit from 600m. All four perforated the armor. Apparently some intact and exploded inside the hull, causing a fire (red marks, scheme #2)
The fire was then extinguished. It is unclear how much damage was done to the plates after this heat treatment.
4 shots fired, of which 3 hit at 1300m. All three bounced off without holing the armor (blue marks, scheme#2)

vs 80mm sides at normal:
3 shots fired, of which 2 hit from 1300m. One shell pierced the armor intact and exploded inside (red mark scheme#3), the other bounced off without holing (blue mark).
2 shots fired, of which 2 hit from 800m. Both shells pierced the armor and exploded inside (red marks scheme#3)

it seems to me that 76mm APCR was less accurate than 76mm APBC. 85mm AP was less accurate than 76mm. APCR failed to perforate mantlet and turret side/turret ring from 300m
Under ideal conditions, the front can be penetrated from 600m (100%) with 85mm but not from 1300m (0%). The sides can be penetrated at 800m (100%) and 50% probability at 1300m.
76mm have a 0% probabity to perforate the 80mm sides at 600m and 40% probability to perforate (ineffective =without exploding) the side armor at 400m, assuming one manages to hit the already by prior impact weakened points.

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