Quote: |
In RL, the Panther had a higher stopping power than the Tiger I at close range because of the higher muzzle velocity, but the Tiger I had better longer distance performance due to the heavier round. |
Quote: |
though the CC combat model does allow things to happen which I don't find credible, such as a PaK 38 destroying a KV from the front. |
Quote: |
Shermans outnumbered them, so could afford the losses, while the loss of a Tiger I was a big problem. But it seems that the opinions of all the tankers was that they would have preferred to be operating in a Tiger I outnumbered by Shermans, than the other way around, even though, in the scheme of things, the Tiger I was doomed eventually. |
Quote: |
The main threat to the Tiger I was the Firefly, |
Quote: |
Stopping power should be considered in two ways, the ability to penetrate armour and what damage it does once it does. Size isn't everything for AP rounds. Size is greater weight, but KE is mass times the velocity squared. |
Quote: |
The KE, shape, and the material that the round is made from will determine how good it is at penetrating. |
Quote: |
So VonB's statement is not silly. |
Quote: |
For example the smaller but high velocity SABOT rounds had very good penetration but less destructive once penetrated with poor long range capability before the advent of fin stabilised SABOT. |
Quote: |
Also German AP rounds had an HE core that increased the chance of being catastrophic on an enemy tank once it had penetrated. |
Quote: |
Whether the Tiger I or Panther actually had better stopping power I don't know, as VonB said the Panther appears to have better penetration at shorter ranges, perhaps you have some stats on that Dima? |
Quote: |
So Dima using your data the panther's shell had 1.4 times more KE. |
Quote: |
It isn't a steel plate that is being fired on.
It is a tank that has vision slots, vents, etc. and having a very very small chance to damage a tank (or at least scare the crew) with a gun that couldn't normally penetrate does make sense.... |
Quote: |
In my simple understanding, if for example a weapon can penetrate 70mm of armour plate, then it is never going to be able to penetrate more. Ever. It is physically impossible. |
Quote: |
Dima I stand corrected, it was early morning and not enough sleep, that's my excuse and I am sticking to it. |
Quote: |
Trials indicate better penetration at most ranges for the panther. |
Quote: |
I and vonB may be wrong regarding stopping power, |
Quote: |
What about HESH? I do not know if such projectiles were used in WWII, but it is merely a refinement of a characteristic of steel when struck violently. |
Quote: |
Even if the plate is not penetrated, the forces can cause chunks of the inner face to seperate/shatter, sending high velocity shrapnel through the fighting compartment. |
Quote: |
This, and the danger of hollow charge projectiles encouraged the production of twin skinned armour in modern times. |
Quote: |
The Germans made extensive use of skirt armour to neutralise hollow charge projectiles. |
Quote: |
If the ground was frozen or hard enough, allied tankers found out that a lucky/skilled shot could bounce and hit the beast on the lower part of the front armour (the one angled down) or even beneath it in the weak belly-armour. |
7A_Woulf wrote (View Post): |
Just a remark on killing Panthers:
-If the ground was frozen or hard enough, allied tankers found out that a lucky/skilled shot could bounce and hit the beast on the lower part of the front armour (the one angled down) or even beneath it in the weak belly-armour. |
Quote: |
Dima says its an urban myth. |
Quote: |
Quote:
The Germans made extensive use of skirt armour to neutralise hollow charge projectiles. wrong, they developed shuerzen to deal with small caliber AP ammo and medium caliber HE ammo. |
Quote: |
the germans used spaced armour to deal with APHE shells. |
Quote: |
possible, check reports of trial shooting of 100 and 122mm soviet guns against Panther and why it was chosen to have 122mm and not 100mm despite higher teoretical penetration of 100mm |
Quote: |
Have to disagree. Not that it might not useful against the low calibre ordnance as you suggest I am sure, but it definately was used as a means to neutralise hollow charge projectiles. |
Quote: |
One variant of the skirting was metal mesh not solid sheet. Hardly much of a barrier for normal AP ordnance, but does the job fine for hollow charge. |
Quote: |
Which German tanks had 2 skins (as opposed to a single skin and skirting)? None that I know of... |
Quote: |
Now you have me confused. Are you saying that some weapons can penetrate more than they can penetrate? That is all I was saying. If for example a 100mm round can penetrate 100mm of vertical plate at x00 metres, then it will never be able to penetrate more at x00 metres. |
Dima wrote (View Post): | ||
i mean shooting beneath the tank, not at the turret ring. |
output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT