T-44 vesrus Panther

[Igorn]

Guys,

I would like to know your opinions about Russian T-44 (1944) versus German Panther (1943).

From the end of 1943 on, work on a new project T-44 started from the design bureau of the factory 183, Chief Engineer Morozov. Of course, many elements of the famous T-34 were used for the new T-44 tank but simaltaneously two other tanks influenced the design of T-44: T-34M and T-43.

Besides torsion bar suspension and perpendicular engine layout there were some other technical inventions applied. Had these features been applied on several different vehicles separately, they had not been so effective. The revolutionary design of T-44 has defined the whole Soviet tank development for the next several decades. The height of the engine compartment was lowered by relocating the air filter. V-44 engine was equipped with an improved fuel system ths it's power was increased from 500 h/p to 520 h/p. Besides this, the tank has an improved cooling system, a new 5 speed gear box and side clutches taken from T-34. It had a new turret fitted first with ZIS S-53 gun. The turret was relocated from the front to the center of vehicle, making shooting more accurate. The frontal armor was increased to 120mm. To increase the strength of the hulls frontal armor, the driver's hatch was relocated from the frontal plate to the roof and the bow machine-gun was completely removed. In 1944, the tank successfuly passed all trial tests and was accepted for service. The T-44 was mass produced by the plant #75 in Kharkov. From 1944 through 1945, 965 tanks were manufactured.

In 1945a new turret was developed to accept a 100mm D-10T gun. Over the loaders's hatch a 12.7 mm DSHK AAMG was installed. The sides and chassis of the T-44 were protected with 6mm anti-Heat skirts. The end of the war was close, Soviet Army was successfuly advancing and the Soviet High Command delayed introduction of the T-44, but known, that three tanks were added to the Special Tank Company #100 and tested on the Eastern front.

T-44 was also tested with 122mm D-25T gun.

Combat specifications of the T-44:

Crew -4 men
Weight - 31,800 kg
Length-7.65 m
Width- 3.18 m
Height-2.41 m
Armament: 1x85mm ZIS-S-53 or 1x100mm D-10T gun
2x7.62 DTM TMG
Ammo: 85mm: 58 shells;
7.62mm: 1890 rounds
Engine: V44 12 cylinder Diesel, 520 h.p
Range - 300 km
Max speed: 51 km/h

Information and photos are taken from
http://www.battlefield.ru/t44.html

Best Regards from Russia,

[Blistex]

They're really very evenly matched when it comes to profile, armour, speed, and main armament. I'd say that a roll of the dice would be just as effective at determining a winner as extensive comparisons of their qualities.

But If I had to choose I'd probably take a Panther since it's bound to have superior optics, and the overall frontal profile shows more hull than turret as oposed to the T-44 (IMO it's more probable to hit a T-44's turret than a Panther's.)

[Ultramagnus]

Just from my head. The 90/60 glacis of the T44 was immune to 7,5cm hits whereas the 100mm gun could penetrate the Panther's glacis armor at over 1000 meters.

[Huck]

Just from my head. The 90/60 glacis of the T44 was immune to 7,5cm hits whereas the 100mm gun could penetrate the Panther's glacis armor at over 1000 meters.

The KwK 42 had the same penetration with 100mm D-10 (best ww2 Soviet tank gun, but produced in small numbers because it required superior metalurgy, which Soviets could not afford at that time). However T-44 was not fitted with it, instead it had the weak 85mm.

The 90/60 was in no way immune to 75mm KwK 42, as 120/60 of IS-2 wasn't either. I do admit however that in practice 90/60 of T-44 gave it roughly the same protection as 120/60 used on IS-2, because the numerous angles in IS-2 glacis cast armor, instead of giving it superior ballistic protection, it gave it a weak structure (caused by the flaws induced by the many angles confined to a small area - in fact the last IS-2 produced abandoned the angles and made a simple straight, welded glacis, acknowledging the problem).

The 75mm cast on T-44 sides was significantly weaker than 50mm face hardned sides on Panther (roughly equivalent of 80mm RHA, even at 0 deg slope).

T-44 was a much weaker tank, which had to rely on low profile to achieve kills, compared to Panther with its wide crew compartment, superior optics and ride allowed a much more aggressive use.

[Ultramagnus]

Just from my head. The 90/60 glacis of the T44 was immune to 7,5cm hits whereas the 100mm gun could penetrate the Panther's glacis armor at over 1000 meters.

The KwK 42 had the same penetration with 100mm D-10 (best ww2 Soviet tank gun, but produced in small numbers because it required superior metalurgy, which Soviets could not afford at that time). However T-44 was not fitted with it, instead it had the weak 85mm.

The 90/60 was in no way immune to 75mm KwK 42, as 120/60 of IS-2 wasn't either. I do admit however that in practice 90/60 of T-44 gave it roughly the same protection as 120/60 used on IS-2, because the numerous angles in IS-2 glacis cast armor, instead of giving it superior ballistic protection, it gave it a weak structure (caused by the flaws induced by the many angles confined to a small area - in fact the last IS-2 produced abandoned the angles and made a simple straight, welded glacis, acknowledging the problem).

The 75mm cast on T-44 sides was significantly weaker than 50mm face hardned sides on Panther (roughly equivalent of 80mm RHA, even at 0 deg slope).

T-44 was a much weaker tank, which had to rely on low profile to achieve kills, compared to Panther with its wide crew compartment, superior optics and ride allowed a much more aggressive use.

Bullsh t

-The D10 and Kwk42 had not the same penetration

-The IS2-1944 and T44 glacis were both immune to Kwk42 shots. How could it defeat even 90/60 armor?

-Panther G had homogenous side armor,otherwase face-hardened armor didn't offer more protection,during US Army testt ,even 40 and 37mm AP and APCBC projectiles penetrated the side armor of the Panther.

[Huck]

Just from my head. The 90/60 glacis of the T44 was immune to 7,5cm hits whereas the 100mm gun could penetrate the Panther's glacis armor at over 1000 meters.

The KwK 42 had the same penetration with 100mm D-10 (best ww2 Soviet tank gun, but produced in small numbers because it required superior metalurgy, which Soviets could not afford at that time). However T-44 was not fitted with it, instead it had the weak 85mm.

The 90/60 was in no way immune to 75mm KwK 42, as 120/60 of IS-2 wasn't either. I do admit however that in practice 90/60 of T-44 gave it roughly the same protection as 120/60 used on IS-2, because the numerous angles in IS-2 glacis cast armor, instead of giving it superior ballistic protection, it gave it a weak structure (caused by the flaws induced by the many angles confined to a small area - in fact the last IS-2 produced abandoned the angles and made a simple straight, welded glacis, acknowledging the problem).

The 75mm cast on T-44 sides was significantly weaker than 50mm face hardned sides on Panther (roughly equivalent of 80mm RHA, even at 0 deg slope).

T-44 was a much weaker tank, which had to rely on low profile to achieve kills, compared to Panther with its wide crew compartment, superior optics and ride allowed a much more aggressive use.

Bullsh t

Yep right

[Huck]

Bullsh t

-The D10 and Kwk42 had not the same penetration

Wow, we evolved from "Bullsh t" to "No, no it's not" argument. That's a step forward, great.

D-10 and KwK 42 had the SAME penetration:

I already posted the data favoring the Russian gun by giving it the last type of shell, that most probably saw very little use during the war, namely the BR412B, the blunt version of BR412, which had better penetration at obliquity. For KwK 42 I choose the old Pz.Gr.39 instead of the newer and much better performing Pz.Gr.42, in order not to get into pointless discussion about it, since most people are aware only of the penetration data for old German shells.

So here's once again the penetration data for at 30 deg obliquity and 500 m distance:
75mm KwK 42 with Pz.Gr.39: 124mm
100mm D-10 with BR412B: 125mm

But this did not satisfy you. You wanted to compare the post war BR412D, with the performance listed as it was in the '50s with tanks like T-55.
I'm sorry but this cannot be done. You cannot compare shells that used superior postwar materials, that wouldn't have been available if the same level of production quantity would have been required as during the war. Shells like BR412D could not be made during the war. You also posted data for M3 firing T33 shells which also were not available in ETO (production started in March with 10000 made during that month, 18,000 in April, 21,000 in May, 15,000 in June and 7,000 in July, none shipped in ETO, they used earlier T30 shells).

You also posted data for KwK 42 with Pz.Gr.42. Ok, we can compare them with D-10, since Pz.Gr.42 was available in quantity.
Here's the penetration data for at 0 deg obliquity and 500 m distance:
75mm KwK 42 with Pz.Gr.42: 179mm
100mm D-10 with BR412B: 155mm
122mm D-25 with BR412B: 155mm (but not certified penetration, that is the shell did not penetrate in more than 20% of the hits at the distance specified - this is not a big deal since the German requirement for certified penetration demanded that only 66% of the hits to have a clean troughout penetration, the Americans and the Brits even less, 50% of the hits, and in the case of Americans a clean complete penetration was not required, only parts of the shell had to fly free after penetrating the armor)

As you can see both wartime 100mm and 122mm Soviet guns were actually weaker than KwK 42.
Here we have to note that both D-10 and BS-3 100mm guns saw little use during the war, because they were more difficult to manufacture than the already available D-25 122mm gun. They became available to front line unit in small numbers from January '45. They went to a very successful postwar carrier, but keep in mind that we compare them with a '42 gun.

People often confuse the penetration capabilies of a gun with its caliber, they find extremely surprising that the 75mm KwK 42 L/70 had the same penetration capabilities with the 122mm D-25 gun, or that 88mm KwK 43 L/71 had better penetration than the 128mm KwK 44 L/55. But this is not an excuse for you, since you obviously read these specs before.

-The IS2-1944 and T44 glacis were both immune to Kwk42 shots. How could it defeat even 90/60 armor?

KwK 42 could penetrate 90/60 Russian cast armor like the similarly powerful D-25 could penetrate the 80/55 superior quality German cast armor. That is from about 500m, as field reports say.

80/55 equals rougly with 80/((cos55)^2) = 186mm/0deg which could be penetrated by Panther gun at 500m, although probably not from the first shot.

You should not be amazed that IS-2 armor could be penetrated by Panther gun, even the much more weaker gun ZIS-5 penetrated the front armor of IS-2 from 500m in Russian tests (on factory fresh tanks, not on combat worn-out captured tanks), albeit IS-2 from the first half of production, fitted with the 70/72 glacis. 70/72 should be rougly equal to 233mm at 0 deg, and obviously ZIS-5 could not penetrate even a third of that, however it did that consistently in tests with IS-2, which proves the weaknesses of IS-2 angular cast glacis. Tests themselfs were triggered by the rapid IS-2 losses from first half of '44 to guns that supposedly should not be a problem. This is why even the IS-2 fitted with 120/60 glacis could be penetrated at 500m by KwK 42, as combat reports confirm.

-Panther G had homogenous side armor,otherwase face-hardened armor didn't offer more protection,during US Army testt ,even 40 and 37mm AP and APCBC projectiles penetrated the side armor of the Panther.

No, face hardened armor was used extensively during late war years by the Germans. Front and sides for Pz.Kpfw IV and V were made of face hardened armor (Panther G dropped the FH glacis due to poor quality of FH at large thicknesses, but kept the face hardened lower front hull). You can read details about this in Jentz, Thomas L. and Doyle, Hilary L. - Panzer Tracks No. 4 and Spielberger, Walter J. - Panther & Its Variants. Not all plates are front and side plates are face hardened, if you have questions which were and which were not, you can ask me, I have the details. The Germans used face hardened armor despite its higher cost because it offered considerable protection increase over rolled homogenous armor without an increase in weight. This can be seen in its BHN figure, around 600, compared with RHA armor (with thicknesses within German FH armor thickness range of 30-50mm) that had 279-324 BHN. This rougly gave a 30% increase in protection.

And please don't give me quotes with American's uninformed opinion about FH armor. They made crappy FH armor that had even worse protection abilities than RHA. They tried it a little for M3 tank, then abandoned it because they could not manufacture it at the quality required. In fact during the war only the Germans and the Brits manufactured high quality FH armor, but the Brits kept it all for the Navy. The usual American excuse is that FH armor was brittle, and offered even worse protection against APC (or APCBC and APBC), which is obvious bullsh*t. They argued that FH does not bend enough on impact therefore the shell can fracture the armor, however they convenienly forget that in order to get the same degree of protection using RHA armor alone you have to use RHA armor so thick that is as rigid as FH armor and can fracture exactly the same way. The only solution is to manufacture steel of good quality, one thing Americans did not do for their ww2 tanks.

Now let's get back to Panther.
Previously you told me that Panther sides were pentrated from 1500m by 76mm gun in US Army tests. I don't see anything spectacular here. 50mm FH offered protection similar to 80mm RHA, and 76mm could penetrate more than 80mm from 1500 yards even at 30 deg obliquity. And so it could penetrate IS-2 and M26 side armor from the same distance. In US Army tests that I'm aware of they penetrated Panthers side armor using the 57mm gun from 200-300 yards at 15 deg obliquity. Again this is nothing special, since the gun was capable of penetrating more than 80mm RHA at this distance. Probably the same can be said about the guns you mentioned now, at the distances the guns were used in those tests. If Panther was vulnerable to those guns, so were IS-2 and M26.

[Huck]

In the above post I made a lot of references to an earlier discussion me and Ultramagnus had some days ago. Here's the most important part of it:

The 75mm KwK 42, the 90mm M3, the 100mm D-10 and the 122mm D-25 had VERY SIMILAR penetration capabilities.

These are the numbers for APCBC shells at 30 deg obliquity and 500 m distance:
75mm KwK 42: 124mm
90mm M3: 120mm
100mm D-10: 125mm
122mm D-25: 122mm

Now let's compare their front armor:
Panther G: glacis 80mm@55deg, turret 100mm@12deg, mantlet 100+16mm/round (mantlet covered almost all turret face)
M26 Pershing: glacis 100mm@46deg, turret 102mm@0deg, mantlet 114mm@0deg
JS-2: glacis early models 60@72deg, glacis late models 120mm@60deg, turret 90mm@30deg, mantlet 100mm@almost round

In practice both Panther G and JS-2 (late) could penetrate each other glacis plate at distances around 600m. Of course there are Russian claims that they did penetrate in tests on captured Panthers at 1000m. However those Panthers were early models fitted with face hardened armor, which it turned out that it could not be made at 80mm thickness without loss in quality (and was consequently retired from production).

Here I have to make a note about Panther G side armor: it was 50mm of high quality face hardened armor at 600BHN, that gave similar protection to that of Tiger's 80mm RHA at 260BHN. It was not at all weak, as many think, just because it was thinner than of other heavy tanks.

Anyway, helped by its superior optics, Panther was able to engage all those tanks at larger distances and sometimes score hits on the weaker sides.

I'll answer the rest of this message and the others tomorrow, it takes quite a lot of time to check all the figures

A little correction:

122mm D25-T fires 85/55mm armor (the strongest part of the Panther armor) with APBC-HE projectile. The sloped armor equals against 122mm full caliber like 146mm vertical armor,it can be defeated over 1200 meters. The bigger the attacking projectile is,the less effective armor is converted from sloped armor.With sharp nosed APHE,the glacis of the Panther could be penetrated at 600-700 meters.

7,5cm Kwk42 had not any chance to penetrate ISII-1944 glacis. The upper superstructure 133/30 and 127/30 nose could be penetrated only at short range,from at point blank to a few hundred meters or less.

Turret front was 100mm ,mantlet was 110-120mm,both of them were rounded and tapering. So the Panther had real chance knocking out a ISII from the front when the front turret/mantlet or turret ring was hit at various ranges. Penetration at longer range,failure at short range,depending on the actual impact angle (from horizontal and vertical,too) ,both of them are imageable. All around armor protection of the IS2 was far stronger.

Penetration statistics against homogenous armor,500-1000-2000 meters,0 oblique:

7,5cm Kwk42 APCBC 179mm 149mm 116mm

90mm M3 APCBC 164mm 151mm 127mm
AP T33 (Pershing) 205mm 189mm 160mm -better penetration and lower (better) slope multiplier to APCBC

122mm D25-T APBC 183mm 162mm 129mm it had the best slope multipliers against heavily sloped armor,despite the lower vertical penetration,it penetrated much more sloped armor than both german and american guns.

100mm BS3 APBC 211mm 185mm 141mm.

M26 front turret is heavily sloped from horizontal and slightly from vertical,the mantlet is rounded. Panther could (in theory) penetrate the glacis and front turret-the mantlet seems as weak point-of the Pershing at short range,Pershing could penetrate at over 1000 meters (practice)In a long range duel,the M26 has the clear advantage,because it can blow holes at kilometers on the nose and front turret and mantlet of the Panther with ease whereas the weak point of the M26's armor at long range is the mantlet . Same can be said about ISII and Panther.

Panther G had all homogenous armor,not face-hardened. Face-hardened(it was the best against small caliber bullets) armor didn't offer really more protection against APCBC,but against APBC and AP it did. By the way,the production was time and money consuming compared to homogenous so the germans finally dropped it when using thicker armor plates.

75mm M3 (Sherman) with APCBC penetrated 81mm homogenous and 95mm face-hardened armor at 500 meters,0 oblique. During tests,even the puny Sherman gun could penetrate the side armor of the Panther at over 1500 yards.

--------------------------

For some reason, probably the caliber of its gun, people insist on comparing Panther with other medium tanks.
I'll post again this picture that shows Panther's massivity, to give a visual refence for idea that Panther was a heavy tank and should be compared with heavy tanks only.
Therefore comparing it with T-44 is not appropriate (although T-44 is a significant improvement to T-34), but a comparison with T-55 can be made, if we have consider some minor upgrades for Panther, like a thicker armor (especially for glacis) and the usage of postwar types of ammunition.

[davethelight]

It really must come down to sheer opinion as to wether the Panther should have been regarded as a heavy tank. Photos don't do much to support the argument that they were a heavy tank in my opinion, since photos are subject to all sorts of aspects of linear perspective and proportion. In some pictures, even T34s look massive. When I went to Bovington and saw the Panther they have there I was surprised that it didn't look bigger. The Jagdpanther on the other hand truly looked huge.
The weight factor is what most people refer to when discussing wether the Panther was a true heavy tank. I think it is interesting that the M26 Pershing, though classified as a heavy tank by the US army, has had that designation questioned by some peope because it only weighed about the same as a Panther.
Personaly, I would stick to the designation given to it by it's creators. Afterall, looking at the weight of Germnany's designated heavy tanks, 56 tonned Tiger I and 64 tonnes Tiger II, there is a considerable difference to that of the Panther, 46 tonnes. I think it fair to say that the Panther was in a class of it's own, somewhere between a medium tank and a heavy tank. And for the sake of resolving this specific ambiguity, I would simply stick to the designation given to it by it's creators.

[Christian W.]

Huck, Panther was medium tank and your opinion dont change this fact.

[Huck]

Panther is a heavy tank because it has the gun and armor as powerful as those required by a heavy tank. Another important reason it is its weight, 46 tonnes, as much as IS-2, and heavier than M26. The weight of a tank does not come out of nowhere, thick armor, big gun, powerful engine, all add weight to the tank. One cannot have the capabilities of a heavy tank without the weight of a heavy tank. Personally I find quite natural the Soviet practice of classifying the tanks by their weight.

I did not use the photo above as an evidence in favor of whether Panther was a heavy tank or not, I just posted it for that people will have a visual reference of Panther's size, which does not always look big, because it is a well proportioned tank.
A designation is as weak as an evidence to support the same idea as the photo is. The designation of a tank can change during its career for whatever the reason. The only serious evidence here can be tank's capabilities and weight.
And please, Tigers were not just heavy tanks, they were breakthrough tanks, which made them even heavier.

[Uninen]

Just from my head. The 90/60 glacis of the T44 was immune to 7,5cm hits whereas the 100mm gun could penetrate the Panther's glacis armor at over 1000 meters.

You read what you write?

T-44 was indeed 85mm not 100mm...

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/ussr/t ... m/t44.html

The design bureau of A. A. Morosov developed a replacement for the T-34. Originally it was designed to have the 100 mm D-10 T tank gun, however, it was too large for the T-34/85 turret. It was decided to install an 85 mm gun. The engine was installed traversely and this resulted in the length of the hull to be shorter and this in turn saved weight.

Entered production in 1945. Few models were built and most saw teething problems due to rushed development. Some of the later models had 100 mm guns installed.

Later models with 100mm, T-54/55?

[Huck]

Huck, Panther was medium tank and your opinion dont change this fact.

Actually it is the other way around.
A designation does not change the fact that Panther was a heavy tank by capabilities and weight.

[davethelight]

Well Huck, I must dissagree with how you look at things, but each to their own. The fact is, the Panther's designation never did change the entire time it was in service, as far as I know no German tanks ever changed their weight class designation. Also, your use of the term "break through tank" when reffering to the Tigers seems rather unorthodox, since I thought the official German tank designations were simply "light", "medium", "heavy", and "super heavy", the latter being demonstrated by the Mause and Lowe. In reference to your points about armarment and armour, I wouldn't say they are compelling. Several other medium tanks had guns in the same calibre range as the Panther, eg the Sherman Firefly, the Sherman 76 (M1A1C) and the like , and the T34/85 etc. Regarding armour, the Panther had thick, heavy armour on the front only , elsewere it was not heavily armoured at all. So in my opinion, as I said before, the Panther was really in a grey area, and consequently I always default it's standard designation as a medium tank.

[Ultramagnus]

I see some missinterpretation here.

It was the 75 and 57 mm gun,not only the 76mm. See details by First US Army tests during 12-30 July,1944.

Test result of 57mm and 75mm guns against Panther sides was over 1500 yards,no side obliquity.

37mm M51 APCBC penetrated upper hull side at 600 yards (40/40 or 50/30 armor thickness and slope). Official peneration data was (TM-9-1907) was 42/40 or 53/30 mm against RHA and 41/40 against FH at the same range.

40mm M81 APC penetrated upper hull side at 600 yards. Penetration data was 37/40 and 50/30 against RHA and 40/40 against FH.

Where is the "Tiger-like" superiority of the Panther's side armor against 37mm M6 M51 APCBC and 40mm M81 APC for M1 AA gun? Maybe this superiority didn't exist at all,just some against uncapped ammunition.

I guess you are referring to this test conducted by the 776 TD Battalion during December,1944. It tells nothing about long range shots

The 57mm AT gun was put into position behind the tank at a range of 300 yds at a 15 degree angle from the tank’s flank. From this position 7 rounds of APC were fired.* Three rounds were fired into the turret, all of which made a clean hole and started small fires. Two rounds were fired at the hull just above the track, which made clean holes, but started no fire. Two rounds were fired into the track, which took out one bogey wheel and broke the track.

The gun was moved to a new position of 500 yds. At a 10 degree anble off the rear of the tank. Three rounds were fired into the turret, two on the sides and one in the rear, which made clean holes and started small fires. Two rounds were fired into the rear of the track, which was broken with these two rounds. Two rounds were fired into the rear of the tank, which started more fires. This tank was completely burned by the fire from these two positions.

The gun was moved to a new position of 300 yds range at an 8 degree angle off the front of the tank. Three rounds were fired into the front of the tank. These rounds made slight penetrations then ricocheted off the frontal armor. Two rounds were fired into the turret—one made a clean hole, the other mad a hole about three inches in diameter. No fires were started. Two rounds were fired low on the track, these went through the bogie wheels on one side and came through tore up the bogie wheel and track on the other side of the tank. Two rounds were fired into the front dribing sprocket and thet track was broken. All but one round fired from this postiion, which was a bad frontal angle, made clean holes, with the excception of the three fired on the frontal armor, which made only slight penetration.

50mm FH offered protection similar to 80mm RHA

No, face hardened armor was used extensively during late war years by the Germans. Front and sides for Pz.Kpfw IV and V were made of face hardened armor (Panther G dropped the FH glacis due to poor quality of FH at large thicknesses, but kept the face hardened lower front hull)

.


And it was dropped by the front armor of PzIVHJ for some reason,too,even by the 20/72 glacis (upper nose and driver plate were 80-85mm). Panther G had all homogenous armor as far as I know and Panther A had both all homogenous FH versions and but it doesn't really matter. Then why didn't produced 50mm glacis for the Panther when it offered the same protection ? They could spare weight,even by the 80mm thick Tiger B sides. Why wasn't the JpzIV 48 front armor FH,but homogenous,etc,etc? Contradiction after contradiction.

This is why even the IS-2 fitted with 120/60 glacis could be penetrated at 500m by KwK 42, as combat reports confirm.

What combat reports? Nose and driver plate are against the rules

80/55 equals rougly with 80/((cos55)^2) = 186mm/0deg which could be penetrated by Panther gun at 500m, although probably not from the first shot.

You wanted to compare the post war BR412D, with the performance listed as it was in the '50s with tanks like T-55.

Oh,i didn't.

From battlefield.ru 100mm D10 with APBC (sept.12 1944)against Panther glacis. It penetrated it at 1500 meters. The Bird/Livingstone ballistic research doubles give 210mm effective vertical thickness for 85/55 armor (following the Thickness/Diameter ratio,the less the projectile diamater is to the armor thickness,the higher the effective armor thickness is of the sloped armor) against 7,5 cm projectile and 162mm against 100mm blunt nosed APBC projectile. Also they give following the empirically De-Marre equation 168mm penetration for 7,5cm APCBC at 500 meters and 161mm for 100mm APBC Br412B(?D) at 1500 meters,both against 240 BH and converted into 50% criteria . If I remember correctly,the differences to other published data like Red Army handbook are based on that russian test armor plate unlike the germans was FH ,not RHA,and penetration criteria was 75%. Service german projectiles penetrated 8-10% less,than test ones.

"The BR-412D projectile had significantly better penetration capability and was issued sometime before 1945."

I can barely call them equal.

By now,I haven't seen any Kwk42 test result against 85/55 armor. Kwk43 penetrated at 650 meters.

Then consider the late 100-120/60 IS2 glacis effective thickness against 7,5cm full caliber projectiles. Is2 glacis could be even high BH hardness cast or welded. So you want to say that 85/55 and 120/60 armor were practically equal...? The effectiviness of russian high hardness armor (420-460 BH) increased dramatically when its thickness increased the diameter of the attacking projectile.

You mean,the vertical penetration for PzGr42 was about 186mm at 500 meters. Where did you get that information?

You also posted data for M3 firing T33 shells which also were not available in ETO (production started in March with 10000 made during that month, 18,000 in April, 21,000 in May, 15,000 in June and 7,000 in July, none shipped in ETO, they used earlier T30 shells

And data for M82 APCBC,what is the problem?

Hunnicutt writes about the testing and combat use of T33 AP projectiles.

Chamberlain,Doyle and Jentz in German Tank Armament/Encyclopedia of german tanks of World War II give 111mm at 1000 meters for 30 degree obliquity both for PzGr39 and 42.

TME-30-451-Handbook of german military forces 1945,30 degree at 1000 yards penetration for 12,8cm Pak44 APC (no windscreen,loses velocity quickly) is 148mm,for APCBC is 200mm,for 8,8cm Pak43 APCBC 169mm/30 at 1000 yards.