how is sherman 75mm has more penetration power than 76mm t-34

[NoelGallagher]

any explanation for it ?

even though 76mm f-34 gun from t-34 has higher velocity than m3 75mm gun from sherman

it has less penetration power as in the game description so as the military test sources describe

but i couldn't find any explanation why?

if the caliber is similar and the shell type is same(both AP)

and the velocity is even higher(f-34 gun ap shell)

then what other factor could have been there to make such a difference?

becsaue the difference is quite big (109mm VS 87mm)

 

 

Edited November 19, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[VSN_Razor]

Depends on the type of shell, if it's APHE, APCBC, APC etc. Different type of shells with different properties.

 

If you look at it closer, you will also see the T-34 shell slows down much faster than the Shermans shell

[NoelGallagher]

18 minutes ago, VSN_Razor said:

Depends on the type of shell, if it's APHE, APCBC, APC etc. Different type of shells with different properties.

 

If you look at it closer, you will also see the T-34 shell slows down much faster than the Shermans shell

yeah as i stated "i compare with same shell "amour piercing solid(without cap)"

so that's not the answer..

Edited November 19, 2021 by NoelGallagher

[ShampooX]

I believe I read somewhere that the American ammunition packed a bigger punch.  I will try and dig something up.

[Peasant]

1 hour ago, NoelGallagher said:

any explanation for it ?

even though 76mm f-34 gun from t-34 has higher velocity than m3 75mm gun from sherman

it has less penetration power as in the game description so as the military test sources describe

but i couldn't find any explanation why?

becsaue if the caliber is similar and the shell type is same(both AP)

then what other factor can be there to make a difference 

 

The AP shells used by soviet military at the time were designed to be produced with minimum of skilled labor and advanced tools. In particular they were made considerably softer than is customary in AP shells of other nations, so that they could be machined using hardened steel tools, without requiring use of cutting tools made of tungsten carbide which only a few select facilities in the soviet union, mostly research institutes, had equipment required to produce. As a result of lower hardness the soviet shells generally experience significant deformation and erosion as they penetrate the target, wasting a significant portion of their original kinetic energy.

Compare this (122mm soviet AP shell after shooting at cast turret for KV-1 tank):

Spoiler

 

to this: (US 76mm shells after they perforated 100mm thick plate):

 

Spoiler

 

[NoelGallagher]

2 hours ago, Peasant said:

 

The AP shells used by soviet military at the time were designed to be produced with minimum of skilled labor and advanced tools. In particular they were made considerably softer than is customary in AP shells of other nations, so that they could be machined using hardened steel tools, without requiring use of cutting tools made of tungsten carbide which only a few select facilities in the soviet union, mostly research institutes, had equipment required to produce. As a result of lower hardness the soviet shells generally experience significant deformation and erosion as they penetrate the target, wasting a significant portion of their original kinetic energy.

Compare this (122mm soviet AP shell after shooting at cast turret for KV-1 tank):

  Hide contents

 

to this: (US 76mm shells after they perforated 100mm thick plate):

 

  Hide contents

 

thank you so much for detailed explanation!!!!!!!

AWESOME!! 

now my wondering mind can chill out hahahaha

[VSN_Razor]

6 hours ago, NoelGallagher said:

yeah as i stated "i compare with same shell "amour piercing solid(without cap)"

so that's not the answer..

 

They are not the same though. Yes, both are AP rounds, but there are many different type of AP rounds around. AP, APHE, APHEBC, APCBC, APCR, APFS-DS.

 

The M61 seems to be APCBC while the BR-350A seems to be APHEBC only. APCBC tends to penetrate better than non-APCBC rounds, which also contribute to a difference in penetration capabilities.

 

So this is more likely the answer than manufacturing quality.

 

Edit: As a sidenote, the game also declares the Pzgr.39 as APHE, which it isn't. It's also APCBC, so the game is not very detailed in this regard.

Edited November 19, 2021 by VSN_Razor

[[SN]_Reaper_]

Peasant wrote it right. Alexander Volgin, author of the book on Tiger B, says the same thing. Here is an excerpt from his article on the Warspot website. Unfortunately, the article is only available in Russian, so please excuse the inaccurate translation

Quote

Speaking about the fact that peculiarities of armor production in Germany reduced armor resistance of tanks, we should not forget that capabilities of antitank and tank guns also fell with deterioration of shells quality. The low mechanical strength of domestic shells of almost all calibers is noted in almost all firing tests. Somewhere the problem was partially solved, - for example, with 76-mm sub-caliber shells, which began to pierce the 82-mm armor from a short distance, - but in general the picture painted a bleak picture. Work on improving the ammunition was underway, but unfortunately was not completed until after the war. To understand the capabilities of Soviet guns back to the above-mentioned report on comparative tests of domestic, imported and trophy armor-piercing shells from June 1945.

Armor penetration of the Tiger by experimental 76-mm sharp-edged shells, June 1945 (CAMO RF)

 

The standard armor-piercing blunt-headed shells with the ballistic tip of the 76-mm ZiS-3 gun did not penetrate the Tiger's 82-mm armor from 200 meters, so it was concluded that penetration was ruled out from any distance. The Panther's side plates at a target angle of 40° were hit from a range of more than 1,000 meters. The experienced armor-piercing 60×30 steel 82-mm Tiger side plate was penetrated up to 1000 m normal, at 60° angle of aim it was penetrated to 700 m.

The prototype's 85-mm sharp-edged steel 60×30 steel ballistic projectile pierced the Tiger's upper windshield from a range of up to 1200 m, and the maximum penetration range of the 82-mm armor exceeded 2500 m.

The penetration of the Panther tank's frontal armor by experienced blunt-headed 100-mm shells from a range of 1,500 meters and the destruction of the frontal detail from a range of 2,000 meters. June 1945 (CAMO RF)

 

Three shots with the standard armor-piercing 100-mm sharp-edged projectile at the Panther's upper windshield resulted in no penetrations. Four shots with an experienced blunt-headed projectile of the same 35KhGS steel as the standard projectile yielded four penetrations, and the 1500-meter range was not the ultimate penetration distance. From 2000 meters there were no more penetrations, but one of the two hits caused a chipping of the armor from the rear side. The same results were achieved by the X3HM steel prototype shell. We can only regret that these possibilities could not be realized in time.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

 

https://warspot.ru/4750-nemetskiy-zverinets-pod-ognyom

Edited November 19, 2021 by dragon_7611

[Frinik22]

Soviet shells had quality issues . The rate of duds was estimated at 11.6\% compared to less than 4 % for German ones. They also tended to use inferior explosive material according to German reports on testing Soviet equipment. They also, as noted , lost velocity much more than German or Allies shell equivalents. The aerodynamics of their design perhaps?

[VSN_Razor]

It seems like it. It looks to have, the BR-350, more edges and ups and downs than a M61 for example. That could be the reason for it. 

[Peasant]

8 hours ago, Frinik22 said:

They also, as noted , lost velocity much more than German or Allies shell equivalents. The aerodynamics of their design perhaps?

 

It's important to not mix up apples and oranges. Are you comparing the ballistics of a plain AP shell to ones with a ballistic cap (windshield)? Because for a given design, there was little difference in external ballistic of either nation's shells.

[NoelGallagher]

20 hours ago, VSN_Razor said:

 

They are not the same though. Yes, both are AP rounds, but there are many different type of AP rounds around. AP, APHE, APHEBC, APCBC, APCR, APFS-DS.

 

The M61 seems to be APCBC while the BR-350A seems to be APHEBC only. APCBC tends to penetrate better than non-APCBC rounds, which also contribute to a difference in penetration capabilities.

 

So this is more likely the answer than manufacturing quality.

 

Edit: As a sidenote, the game also declares the Pzgr.39 as APHE, which it isn't. It's also APCBC, so the game is not very detailed in this regard.

i think you have mistaken my word or something at this point 

yes Pzgr.39 is APCBCHE-T rounds technically saying

i'm still learning and quite a newbie to this  kind of technical thing but i'm not that much nooob hahahaha

when people say AP rounds it usually means any rounds that can be used against armour(APCR,AP,APC,APCBCHE,APCBC,APDS.HEAT so on)

but what i meant was literally AP rounds 

there is armour piercing solid round available for both sherman and t-34 in the game

AP(as it states itself literally no caps nor HE filler inside)

18 hours ago, dragon_7611 said:

Peasant wrote it right. Alexander Volgin, author of the book on Tiger B, says the same thing. Here is an excerpt from his article on the Warspot website. Unfortunately, the article is only available in Russian, so please excuse the inaccurate translation

wow another awesome thing to read 

thank you for sharing this

Edited November 20, 2021 by NoelGallagher