Main Battle Tanks and Armour Technology

[methos]

M1A2SEP - L/44 M256, impenetrable from the front, low profile(when compared to tall guys like M3 Lee, M3 Stuart and M4 Sherman)

I don't think that the comparision was so bad. The L/44 is today just "average" being one of the most wide-spread tank guns and it is already being surpassed by several other tank guns like the L/55 or the French L/52.

M4A3E2 was better protected than PzKpfw VI Ausf E Tiger over front hull and turret.

This might be true, but that doesn't qualifty it as good protected or as being immune to the 7,5 cm KwK 40 from the PzKpfw IV. The Tiger was outdated when the "Jumbo" Shermans were made. But during a short period of time after the Tiger had entered service, it was impenetrable from combat ranges by enemy tanks. The Jumbo never achieved such "relative" protection.

Also M4A3E2's after initial experiences were rearmed from 75mm M3 gun, with long barrel 76mm M1 gun.

Not all. The original turret with the short 75 mm gun could not take the 76 mm gun.

As for M4 vs PzIV, I preffer M4, it was overall better tank.

What makes it an "overall better tank"? And which version of the tanks are you comparing.
The PzKpfw IV was not the best tank, but it was still a very capable fighting machine unmatched during 1942/1943 when they already carried long-barreled guns, while the Shermans and T-34s still carried their short-barreled ones.
It was not perfect when it comes to armour thickness or the general shape of the tank, but different replacements have been developed, which just weren't adopted because it would have taken too much time to change the production lines but the tanks were needed urgently.
The Sherman is a good tank, but not the best. I don't think that I'd call it "overall better" than the PzKpwf IV. The Shermans also had flaws, like the decision to fit in the short 75 mm into a turret incompatible with larger guns (which is the same flaw the Germans did during designing the PzKpfw III).

I do not think even an "mighty "M1A2 SEP v2 is impenetrable from the front. There are weak zones (such as the large gap between the turret and the hull) that would give an Abrams a bad time if it were hit in that area by any of the latest generation APFSDS projectiles

It definetly is not impenetratable, there are various zones on most/every modern tank, which can be penetrated. Just keep in mind that the hull armour is 20 to 30% thinner than the turret armour on most tanks (inlcuding the M1A2 and most versions of the Leopard 2).

Maybe because it is a wrong conclusion repeated all the time? This weak zone is not that dangerous, because there is also armor in form of protecting armor collar which have two parts, upper at the bottom of turret, and lower protecting hull mounted, turret trverse ring, so in fact the joining between hull and turret is placed deeper, behind armor protection.

The armour around the collar is not really enough to guarantee protection against any tank round close to modern. Also this armour is afair homogenous steel armour?
The relatively small size of this weak zone is a reason why it shouldn't be exaggerated and declared to be a major flaw, but this also wasn't claimed by LaVictoireEstLaVie.

 

[Damian]

I don't think that the comparision was so bad. The L/44 is today just "average" being one of the most wide-spread tank guns and it is already being surpassed by several other tank guns like the L/55 or the French L/52.

True, other thing however is gun, and other thing is ammunition it fires.

This might be true, but that doesn't qualifty it as good protected or as being immune to the 7,5 cm KwK 40 from the PzKpfw IV. The Tiger was outdated when the "Jumbo" Shermans were made. But during a short period of time after the Tiger had entered service, it was impenetrable from combat ranges by enemy tanks. The Jumbo never achieved such "relative" protection.

M4A3E2 was never intended to be immpenetrable.

Being immpenetrable is just illusion, good for people like Hitler and his zelots.

Not all. The original turret with the short 75 mm gun could not take the 76 mm gun.

Of course not all, but some of them yes.

What makes it an "overall better tank"? And which version of the tanks are you comparing.
The PzKpfw IV was not the best tank, but it was still a very capable fighting machine unmatched during 1942/1943 when they already carried long-barreled guns, while the Shermans and T-34s still carried their short-barreled ones.
It was not perfect when it comes to armour thickness or the general shape of the tank, but different replacements have been developed, which just weren't adopted because it would have taken too much time to change the production lines but the tanks were needed urgently.
The Sherman is a good tank, but not the best. I don't think that I'd call it "overall better" than the PzKpwf IV. The Shermans also had flaws, like the decision to fit in the short 75 mm into a turret incompatible with larger guns (which is the same flaw the Germans did during designing the PzKpfw III).

M4 was overall better vehicle, more reliable, newer variants had better ammunition storage (safer), stabilization, even if primitive back then, was a good step forward, perhaps accurate, trully accurate fire was not possible during movement, but such stabilization, makes firing from short stop more accurate.

Also number of modifications to M4, also after WWII shows potential of this tank.

I agree that it is hard to call it the best but then again, what we can name "the best design"? Nothing really.

The armour around the collar is not really enough to guarantee protection against any tank round close to modern. Also this armour is afair homogenous steel armour?

And I did not said it is enough to stop modern ammunition, this is I think obvious? But in all tanks, this part of turret is more vurnable to attacks. Even if the gap is smaller, we should remember that the edge of the armor is weaker than it's center, which means that probability of penetration by modern ammunition, is higher no matter about which tank we talk about. In tanks where the gap is smaller, the penetrator or shaped charge can even go more downwards through hull roof, because it is easier way, and it will naturally choos such trajectory of penetration, if you know what I mean.

The relatively small size of this weak zone is a reason why it shouldn't be exaggerated and declared to be a major flaw, but this also wasn't claimed by LaVictoireEstLaVie.

Of course, however I think that he might thinked that way, because of his experiences with imperfect software system.

 

[The Last Stand]

M4 was overall better vehicle, more reliable, newer variants had better ammunition storage (safer), stabilization, even if primitive back then, was a good step forward, perhaps accurate, trully accurate fire was not possible during movement, but such stabilization, makes firing from short stop more accurate.

Also number of modifications to M4, also after WWII shows potential of this tank.

Sure about reliability but wet stowage was always better than normal ammunition storage in WW2 tanks. However, even with such stabilization, first hit chance of 8,8 cm KwK 43 of stationary Tiger Ausf.B had higher hit probability than Sherman's M1 76 mm. Perhaps, difference in gun technology made a difference

As for modifications, most of late-war designed German tanks like Panther, E-50 platform had good upgrade potential and some modularity - they weren't upgraded after the war. Israeli weapon modifications required major redesign of turret. On the other hand, Panther was designed from the ground up for the larger armaments like 8,8 cm KwK 36 but since 7,5 cm KwK 42 showed better penetration, it was selected.

There are always two sides to a coin

P.S. I will support German WW2 tanks over others every time. German tankophile - that's me.

 

[Dejawolf]

To hit such area you need to be very close, so trajectory of projectile is perfectly flat, however at typical engagement range, trajectory of projectile is not prefectly flat, so probability of hit there is very close to 0. It is far more probable that enemy projectile will hit gun mantlet than this small weak zone.

not neccesarily. at longer range, luck plays a big role. you aim center mass, and the round hits anywhere but center mass. because of gun dispersion it could hit glacis plate,heavy armour turret slabs, or the weak zone.
so at long range, you can still hit it, you just can't really aim for it. just need to pump out rounds until you get lucky.

 

[methos]

M4 was overall better vehicle, more reliable, newer variants had better ammunition storage (safer), stabilization, even if primitive back then, was a good step forward, perhaps accurate, trully accurate fire was not possible during movement, but such stabilization, makes firing from short stop more accurate.

Well, yes and no. The M4 wasn't more reliable than the PzKpfw IV, which is considered to be the most reliable German tank of the war. The PzKpfw III had some transmission/suspension troubles in the early war, the Panther suffered from a suboptimal final gear layout in combination with lack of important alloy contents and the Tiger I and II simply had too small engines (more powerfull engines were in testing, but never reached production stage). The PzKpfw IV had as far as I know none major troubles.
Speaking of the M4, it is kind of problematic about calling it "more reliable". The M4 did use 5 (or more?) different engines and two different types of suspension (which were indirectly based on the suspension of the PzKpfw III) - too expect from all of these incredible reliability seems to be wrong, especially considering that all other major participants of WW2 did have reliability trouble with some engines/tranmissions/suspensions. Unluckily I haven't seen any breakdown of availability rates between the different types of Sherman tanks. The "Jumbo" did use the same engine and suspension as the early M4 tanks, do you want to tell me that the weight difference didn't have any impact on reliability?

About the wet storage and the stabilization you should ask yourself some questions: If these features were so good, why did not a single tank repeat them after it, not even U.S. tanks? The wet storage was maybe somewhat safer when it comes to igniting the ammunition. But in tank-to-tank combat that already is of questionable use, because back then every German non-APCR round with a diameter larger than 20 mm had a HE filling. The wet storage did also not prevent the incineration of the fuel.
There are statistics showing that less tanks were lost due to fire after wet storage was introduced (in 1944!), but at the same time the amount of German tank and anti-tank guns in the same year came to a minimum of the war.
The stabilization is overrated. It did help reducing the time required to aim at an enemy, but the lower muzzle velocity and the worse optics of the M4 Sherman lead to a lower accuracy.

Also the wet storage was introduced after a long time after the last PzKpfw IV version was designed.

But in all tanks, this part of turret is more vurnable to attacks. Even if the gap is smaller, we should remember that the edge of the armor is weaker than it's center, which means that probability of penetration by modern ammunition, is higher no matter about which tank we talk about.

Yes, but the smaller size of this gap means that it is less likely being hit. The probability is very small in both cases, but it is even lower for other tanks.

Sure about reliability but wet stowage was always better than normal ammunition storage in WW2 tanks. However, even with such stabilization, first hit chance of 8,8 cm KwK 43 of stationary Tiger Ausf.B had higher hit probability than Sherman's M1 76 mm. Perhaps, difference in gun technology made a difference

Trajectory and muzzle velocity were more important than the early stabilization. The Panther and Tiger II were extremely accurate because of this, while tanks with short barreled guns like the early PzKpfw IV, M4 Sherman and T-34 had only a very limited range of fire.

 

[Damian]

Well, yes and no. The M4 wasn't more reliable than the PzKpfw IV, which is considered to be the most reliable German tank of the war. The PzKpfw III had some transmission/suspension troubles in the early war, the Panther suffered from a suboptimal final gear layout in combination with lack of important alloy contents and the Tiger I and II simply had too small engines (more powerfull engines were in testing, but never reached production stage). The PzKpfw IV had as far as I know none major troubles.
Speaking of the M4, it is kind of problematic about calling it "more reliable". The M4 did use 5 (or more?) different engines and two different types of suspension (which were indirectly based on the suspension of the PzKpfw III) - too expect from all of these incredible reliability seems to be wrong, especially considering that all other major participants of WW2 did have reliability trouble with some engines/tranmissions/suspensions. Unluckily I haven't seen any breakdown of availability rates between the different types of Sherman tanks. The "Jumbo" did use the same engine and suspension as the early M4 tanks, do you want to tell me that the weight difference didn't have any impact on reliability?

As far as it goes to reliability, I never seen any complains about M4's reliability, even when it comes to all these engine variants. Same for suspension.

As for M4A3E2, also I never seen any complains about reliability, only about reduced moblity due to bigger weight and changes in transmission. Of course it does not meanit was as realible as standard variants.

About the wet storage and the stabilization you should ask yourself some questions: If these features were so good, why did not a single tank repeat them after it, not even U.S. tanks? The wet storage was maybe somewhat safer when it comes to igniting the ammunition. But in tank-to-tank combat that already is of questionable use, because back then every German non-APCR round with a diameter larger than 20 mm had a HE filling. The wet storage did also not prevent the incineration of the fuel.
There are statistics showing that less tanks were lost due to fire after wet storage was introduced (in 1944!), but at the same time the amount of German tank and anti-tank guns in the same year came to a minimum of the war.
The stabilization is overrated. It did help reducing the time required to aim at an enemy, but the lower muzzle velocity and the worse optics of the M4 Sherman lead to a lower accuracy.

Also the wet storage was introduced after a long time after the last PzKpfw IV version was designed.

Of course, we can just dismiss all improvements, however I am sure that many people would say otherwise if these improvements would be made in German tanks.

Yes, but the smaller size of this gap means that it is less likely being hit. The probability is very small in both cases, but it is even lower for other tanks.

The question is what is probability by %, but I doubt eventual calculations or even tests results would be declassified. However it really must be smal value, not even a single source or photo shows a hit in this place, it does not mean it didn't happend but then again, there were several conflicts, a lot of materials from them, and nothing.

 

[The Last Stand]

Well, yes and no. The M4 wasn't more reliable than the PzKpfw IV, which is considered to be the most reliable German tank of the war. The PzKpfw III had some transmission/suspension troubles in the early war, the Panther suffered from a suboptimal final gear layout in combination with lack of important alloy contents and the Tiger I and II simply had too small engines (more powerfull engines were in testing, but never reached production stage). The PzKpfw IV had as far as I know none major troubles.

I have also never heard of major troubles in PzKpfW IV till now but it's amazing that it remained competent till the end of the war.

But in tank-to-tank combat that already is of questionable use, because back then every German non-APCR round with a diameter larger than 20 mm had a HE filling.

I know that the APCBC had a HE filling but did the HEAT round have it?

Trajectory and muzzle velocity were more important than the early stabilization. The Panther and Tiger II were extremely accurate because of this, while tanks with short barreled guns like the early PzKpfw IV, M4 Sherman and T-34 had only a very limited range of fire.

Early PzKpfW IV was designed for infantry support and didn't even have a tank gun. It's not right to compare purpose designed howitzer to tank guns.

 

[The Last Stand]

As far as it goes to reliability, I never seen any complains about M4's reliability, even when it comes to all these engine variants. Same for suspension.
As for M4A3E2, also I never seen any complains about reliability, only about reduced moblity due to bigger weight and changes in transmission. Of course it does not meanit was as realible as standard variants.

History is written by the victor. No one remember's the loser's version of events. We only know what the U.S Army told us about the Sherman. Not what the Wehrmacht thought of it. Brits called initial Sherman supplied to them as "Ronson lighters" - Lights up first time, every time - which was true until wet stowage was introduced.

Of course, we can just dismiss all improvements, however I am sure that many people would say otherwise if these improvements would be made in German tanks.

Germans had neither the money nor the industrial base to keep producing newer designs or completely upgrading the older ones. If the Germans had only not encircled Leningrad and gone for Moscow ........................................... We would all be speaking German today. Thank God, Hitler intervened to make the Wehrmacht lose Russia.

Well, the Red Army might have deserved to hoist the Soviet flag over the Reichstag but Stalin didn't deserve it.

 

[The Last Stand]

@Dejawolf,

I would be much obliged if you could provide your armour estimates for T-80UD and Al-Khalid.

 

[Dejawolf]

@Dejawolf,

I would be much obliged if you could provide your armour estimates for T-80UD and Al-Khalid.

T-80UD should be similar to T-80U in protection, which should be aroun d 750mm with ERA, and about 520mm for the base armour.
Al-khalid.. don't really know enough about it to make a decent estimate.

 

[militarysta]

armour layout for t-80U in both variant is known I had posted this in this topic abou twenty pages ago

 

[Damian]

History is written by the victor. No one remember's the loser's version of events. We only know what the U.S Army told us about the Sherman. Not what the Wehrmacht thought of it. Brits called initial Sherman supplied to them as "Ronson lighters" - Lights up first time, every time - which was true until wet stowage was introduced.

Actually there are memoirs, contrary to most totalitarian states, reports about reliability, users opinions are well known and avaiable to public.

There are even memoirs of Soviet tankers like Dmitry Loza, who served on multiple types of tanks, be it T-34, British tanks and M4's provided by the Lend Lease. From his memoirs, there is very clear image that M4 was one of the better and more survivable medium tanks.

 

[The Last Stand]

There are even memoirs of Soviet tankers like Dmitry Loza, who served on multiple types of tanks, be it T-34, British tanks and M4's provided by the Lend Lease. From his memoirs, there is very clear image that M4 was one of the better and more survivable medium tanks.

I do not agree that M4 was more survivable medium tank. It was more survivable only when wet stowage was introduced. But T-34 had ammunition all over the place, I wouldn't want to be in one when facing a Panzer division.

Perhaps if Hitler didn't invade Poland in 1939 and chosen to delay it for a few years, perhaps Tiger I would have been produced in peacetime and gotten rid of notorious reliability problems caused due to shortage of proper raw materials. Maybe, Pz I and II phasing out would have been completed.

Perhaps Morozov's suggestion for T-43 and eventually T-44 would have been accepted and put into production. Maybe T-44 would have replaced all BT and KV.

Lots of possibilities
@methos, saying that Tiger I was underpowered would be a bit of a overstatement since Tiger I was one of the faster tanks with a top speed equalling Panzer III. Of course a better Maybach 1000 hp engine which was in development stage would have made Tiger I formidable. :shocked:

There was, unfortunately, no perfect design in World War 2.

E-50, T-44, M-46 were good designs in development by my opinion.

Panther would have served Wehrmacht better as Panther II if war had lasted longer or if Hitler managed to find some common sense hidden in that brain.

Well, I dream, dream and dream, achieve nothing.

 

[Damian]

I do not agree that M4 was more survivable medium tank. It was more survivable only when wet stowage was introduced. But T-34 had ammunition all over the place, I wouldn't want to be in one when facing a Panzer division.

I think you should read Loza's memoirs, it is very interesting, how he points out about ammunition differences in his M4 and T-34, where even if M4 was burning, you could hide under it, and it was relatively safe, even if vehicle was burning, in case of T-34... it was run as far as possible, because ammunition did not normally deflagrated, it exploded tearing apart whole vehicle and everyone being near.

Besides this I do not understand your fascination with E-50, besides good idea about unification, it was again the same heavy tank concept, with huge hull, with inefficent internal volume, overweighted, when you could have vehicle with similiar protection, but more compact and lighter.

 

[The Last Stand]

Besides this I do not understand your fascination with E-50, besides good idea about unification, it was again the same heavy tank concept, with huge hull, with inefficent internal volume, overweighted, when you could have vehicle with similiar protection, but more compact and lighter.

According to some sources, E-50 was improved Panther-II with redesigned hull to share components with Tiger II. I didn't think it was as space inefficient as Tiger Ausf.B

Also, first trial and partial FAILURE to create unified platforms.

 

[Damian]

According to some sources, E-50 was improved Panther-II with redesigned hull to share components with Tiger II. I didn't think it was as space inefficient as Tiger Ausf.B

All these tanks had inefficent interior volume. That weight did not come from armor alone, but the surface it needed to protect and also other things, like very heavy suspension, which was not nececary, it was just a bad concept.

 

[Andrei_bt]

Something about Arena APS working mehanism against SC:

.

it is not only Arena but every APS with side hit projectile destruction mechanism.
interesting study on SC, is it avalible a link?

 

[The Last Stand]

All these tanks had inefficent interior volume. That weight did not come from armor alone, but the surface it needed to protect and also other things, like very heavy suspension, which was not nececary, it was just a bad concept.

Good idea, bad execution?

 

[Damian]

Good idea, bad execution?

I would rather say, some ideas or design components were good, there was however overall bad concept of how whole vehicle should look like, what dimensions should it have, how simple or complex some components should be etc.

 

[militarysta]

it is not only Arena but every APS with side hit projectile destruction mechanism.
interesting study on SC, is it avalible a link?

It's part pdf from balistic symposium,

EFFECT OF FRAGMENT IMPACT
ON SHAPED CHARGE FUNCTIONING
P.Y. Chanteret
ISL, French German Research Institute of Saint-Louis
BP34, F-68301 Saint-Louis, France

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/papers/symp_19/WM07_599.pdf