Clarification:critical mass wrote: ↑26 Feb 2019, 22:46I have a question:
what is the primary source evidence for FH armor plate ever used in PANTHER glacis or nose plate application? Not secondary sources, primary please.
2nd, when discussing these questions, one needs to guard against the possibility that an RHA glacis (or any other plate) may look externally ok but it could very well be not up to specifications due to defect heat treatment. German late war, chromium-vanadium alloyed plates could be made fully up to specifications in terms of ballistic resistence despite a very lean alloy composition. BUT, this lean alloy required a complex, multi stage, intermittent quench-reheat-temper- cycle, timed to the next second and these lean steels were not very benign to time variances. For the manufacturers, who needed a large volume output of plate it was difficult to guarantee satisfactory plate from a QC point of view because QC tests are destructive per definition. While the specifications eventually even increased, there were more of the molybdenium free plates rejected in QC tests than regular ones, indicating that this may have lead to greater than desired variances in ballistic quality.
----
By mid 1944, the 17pdr APDS was still experimental. This rules out that either PANTHER or TIGER2 could -protectionwise- be laid out in response to the 17pdr firing APDS as this was unknonw in their respective design stage. However, I´d personally agree that the effectivity of APDS against the PANTHER glacis is somewhat borderline effective/marginal. You need to get fairly close, and You need a direct shot with no lateral deviation to the plate. You also need to rely on an APDS with minimal whobble in flight (caused, in part, by subtle, in flight seperation variances of the sabot petals and base plates), and finally, You need to have the APDS functioning on impact without cavitation (this phenomenon, leading to great variance in penetration performance was not fully understood during wartimes).
Consequently, I am also convinced that one might rate the 17pdr gun firing regular AP and APCBC to at best marginal and at worst unable to deal with the glacis, safe remote chances, which jointly come across. The abilities of the 17pdr firing AP and APCBC to deal with the nose plate is marginal, too. However, these, along with APDS will effectively deal other exposed frontal areas (turret/mantlet), and all of the other target aspects under a wide range of conditions.
The presumption that tanks act like kind of dinosaurs -with a thick skin but remote senses, engaging only frontally each other- does not hold true on the battlefield. The tank is just one component of combined arms warfare, and it can´t dominate others if it is to act independent or isolated of them.
I have never claimed German vehicles were specifically laid out to defeat 17pdr APDS, I said the Germans had no reason to react to 17pdr in any panicky way due to the Panther still doing the job. Strong frontal protection, at least specification wise. The argument was the Germans failed to react to the 17pdr and kept producing Panthers, I claimed there was no reason to react the Panther was fine against the 17pdr. APDS wasn't even mentioned by me or the person I replied to ( I believe ). MY argument was simple the 17pdr was not good versus the Panther front therefore the Germans could have reacted with little concern at all, no much changed. The front of the Panther was still pretty safe, the Panzer IV StugIII were pretty much as endangered than before by the 75mm et cetera, maybe less so because the 17pdr ADPS didn't hit shit. The Jagdpanzer IV was still fine.
So yeah, never claimed more than that. Also 76mm was dumb.
Consequently, I am also convinced that one might rate the 17pdr gun firing regular AP and APCBC to at best marginal and at worst unable to deal with the glacis, safe remote chances, which jointly come across. The abilities of the 17pdr firing AP and APCBC to deal with the nose plate is marginal, too. However, these, along with APDS will effectively deal other exposed frontal areas (turret/mantlet), and all of the other target aspects under a wide range of conditions.
Agreed. Which in my opinion rates the Panther glacis as one of the best "tank technologies" of the war. Designed in 1942/43 it was still totally viable versus the new line of armament used the West. But people will surely disagree. The Panther from the moment it rolled out of the factory until the war was pretty armoured in the front. In regards to the dinosaurs allegory. The thread is about armour tho and if you design armour you kinda want it to achieve a particular job, the Sherman was likely one of the biggest failures in this regard while the Panther glacis one of the best examples. Nobody here argued about the Panther as tank, it is about the glacis. Nobody cares but I believe the Panther was kinda dumb as weapon system but that is just me.
I have none, only secondary sources. I read one book where I believe optical difference in regards to damage where explained but I can't remember where it was. Secondary sources claiming FHA are plenty tho.what is the primary source evidence for FH armor plate ever used in PANTHER glacis or nose plate application? Not secondary sources, primary please.
Side note. The 17pdr ADPS was silly, lets not beat around the bush, the loss of accuracy meant you actually on average decreased your chances of success. THe performance you gain you might lose due to missing a tank which you might have hit and penetrated otherwise. So I would argue the vehicles like StuG III Panzer IV Hetzer et cetera like were happy if the opposing enemy used 17pdr ADPS it actually increased their survival chance. The weapon system was bad.