Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Discussions on WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic.
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by MarkN » 04 Dec 2016 22:05

Yoozername wrote:Again, as far as THAT test, you could not make that claim. You have reading comprehension issues. Good luck.
More projecting. :roll:

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by MarkN » 04 Dec 2016 22:09

And still no evidence from you that ...
Yoozername wrote:... the 76mm/3inch projectile was widely hailed as junk.
Is that another example of doing and "Ambrose"?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Yoozername » 04 Dec 2016 22:26

I do have information regarding that. But we weren't discuss that.

But, again (I love saying again), I was discussing the Report on Comparative Firing Program Witnessed at Shoeburyness, Essex, 23 May 1944 by U.S. Army Headquarters ETO representatives. Mr. Anderson made a statement regarding that test, and I noted it was incorrect given the actual data. That is, given certain data, one can make conclusions. It isn't a hard concept. I think he and I can agree on that, somewhat, after discussing the data.

I am not sure what else that can be said about it. Did I ruin your 'Gotcha' moment? I am so sorry. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me???

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by MarkN » 04 Dec 2016 22:43

Yoozername wrote:I do have information regarding that. But we weren't discuss that.

But, again (I love saying again), I was discussing the Report on Comparative Firing Program Witnessed at Shoeburyness, Essex, 23 May 1944 by U.S. Army Headquarters ETO representatives. Mr. Anderson made a statement regarding that test, and I noted it was incorrect given the actual data. That is, given certain data, one can make conclusions. It isn't a hard concept. I think he and I can agree on that, somewhat, after discussing the data.

I am not sure what else that can be said about it. Did I ruin your 'Gotcha' moment? I am so sorry. Can you find it in your heart to forgive me???
Ok. I think l now understand where you're coming from.

I had massively underestimated the scale of your flip flop.

Having made the claim about the 76mm being widely regarded as junk, you've completely flip flopped away from that as Richard Anderson has presented information that contradicts your Ambrose.

To camouflage the flip flop you are fixating purely on his words that it was the 76mm M62 which had a premature firing when the report mentions 90mm M82. You are not engaging at all in his other comments about 76mm and your claims of junk status.

Now l get it. I thought you were trying to defend your Ambrose when in reality the flip flop is to hide it.

Does THAT report sugggest that the 76mm M62 is junk or that there is a wisely held perception that it is junk?

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Yoozername » 05 Dec 2016 00:29

MarkN wrote:And still no evidence from you that ...
Yoozername wrote:... the 76mm/3inch projectile was widely hailed as junk.
Is that another example of doing and "Ambrose"?
Oh, I now see what you think you are saying! You don't know that the discussion, at that point, was discussing the high explosive round. The tests were armor piercing tests. Different things, right?

The M42 high explosive round is shared by the 3 inch ammunition and the 76mm ammunition. Its called a projectile. It was widely criticized but I think I will post pictures, just for absolute clarity. And then, maybe if you again try to derail this conversation, I will let you know that you are a troll. I will also put some specifications that will include numbers. If you need help understanding numbers, let me know. I am here to help.

:roll:

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Yoozername » 05 Dec 2016 03:11

MarkN wrote:
Yoozername wrote:Again, as far as THAT test, you could not make that claim. You have reading comprehension issues. Good luck.
More projecting. :roll:
More like projectiles...get it? I am making fun of you at will! You are a probably a good sport and can take it...

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Yoozername » 05 Dec 2016 04:19

The US Army shoot test
Firing Tests conducted 12-30 July 1944 by 1st U.S. Army in Normandy.

6) 75mm Gun, M3, mounted on Medium Tank, M4
a) APC M61 will penetrate the sides and rear of the ‘Panther’ Tank up to 1500 yards. APC M61 at 200 yards will not penetrate the front armor of the ‘Panther’ Tank.
b) HEAT M66 (Special) will not penetrate the front glacis slope plate at 500 yards (see assumption made in paragraph 1c).
7) 3-inch Gun, M5, mounted on Motor Carriage, M10
a) APC M62 w/BDF M66A1 will not penetrate front glacis slope plate at 200 yards. Will penetrate gun mantlet at 200 yards and penetrate sides and rear of the ‘Panther’ Tank up to 1500 yards.
b) AP M79 will not penetrate the front slope plate or the mantlet at 200 yards. It holds no advantage over APC M62 ammunition w/BDF M66A1.
8. 90mm Gun, M1A1, AA
AP M77 will penetrate front glacis slope plate up to 600 yards, the gun mantlet up to 1,000 yards and the turret up to 1,500 yards.
Clearly, the 90mm firing a simple non-capped 'shot' was a Panther killer. Later ammo was better (see link below). The T33 was an improved M77. The test did not concern itself with non detonating base fuzes.

An interesting fact is that not only is the Panther's mantlet a casting, so is the Turret front armor. Really a small but vulnerable area.

http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/90-mm-ammunition/
Last edited by Yoozername on 05 Dec 2016 05:47, edited 2 times in total.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 4905
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Richard Anderson » 05 Dec 2016 04:20

Yoozername wrote: Oh, I now see what you think you are saying! You don't know that the discussion, at that point, was discussing the high explosive round. The tests were armor piercing tests. Different things, right?:
I guess I'm getting confused now since I thought we were talking penetration and the 76mm APC round being junk? But you were talking HE? I missed the change in the conversation. Meanwhile, I conflated the BDF problem with the of the 90mm. The 76mm BDF problem was failure to explode not exploding early. At least in the Shoeburyness tests. And a slew of other problems. Basically BRL and the materials guys were learning as they went along. Of course it would have helped if there was more cooperation with the Navy.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Yoozername » 05 Dec 2016 04:27

I was quoted as discussing the HE. So, I responded to that. Basically the in-thread topic was in regards to indirect fire by TDs as being a 'feature'.

The M62 projectile was produced by a number of manufacturers. Some were worse than others and some defective. I can post on that or give links. The base fuze failure to explode was a separate issue also.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2553
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tanks Role Not To Fight Tanks??

Post by Yoozername » 05 Dec 2016 04:34

Of course it would have helped if there was more cooperation with the Navy.
Yes, very much so, in true American fashion, there were basically the same tests being done by separate branches with their own Physics gurus etc.

Return to “WW2 in Western Europe & the Atlantic”