The 75mm, 76mm and 85mm all have nearly identical ballistic properties at nominal ranges. The 75 had less HE than the 76, which had less HE than the 85, but the 75 also had the most velocity while the 85mm had the least.
For all intents and purposes the guns are remarkable similar, with the Soviet 85mm having better HE rounds than the other two.
Their panzer divisions had fewer tanks than American infantry divisions, and they couldn't move supply columns during the day without everyone dying to air strikes. They had other things to worry about than how their tank stacked up against the other guys' tanks.
In real life, it came down to who got the first shot off, not the caliber of the gun. Doesn't matter if an incoming round bounces or penetrates, you're not going to return effective fire because your shitting yourself.
In War Thunder the T-34-85 beats everything else and goes through angled tigers and sherman jumbos like tinfoil because sekret dokument APBC round ))))
Abso-fucking-lutely wrong. The Panzer IV's 75mm L/55 HE shells had more explosive material in them than the Sherman's 76mm HE shells, the reason being that the Sherman 76mm was designed as an anti-tank gun, as opposed to an anti-infantry gun like the Sherman 75mm (it just so happened that the Sherman 75mm was also okay at penetrating tanks with AP shells).
The Sherman 76mm shells flew at a higher velocity than the Sherman 75mm shells so that their armor-piercing capabilities were better. They weren't able to pack as much high-explosive material into the 76mm shell as the 75mm because it was less stable.
In order of armor-piercing capabilities with standard APCBC or APHE rounds, it goes:
>>28524798 >No sloping anywhere ever >weakpoints all over the place >Gets penetrated by tanks under its tier from the front when angled >Gets cucked into oblivion by KV-2s and SU-152s >Literally insta-kill from the because ammo racks Meanwhile ivan gets to roll around in his IS-2 with post-war ammo at the same BR
The driver viewport and MG ball absorb rounds, the transmission's top cover absorbs rounds, the turret is a fucking meme and about as strong as that of the Henschel Tiger II in practical use thanks to the -10% armor modifier of the latter.
>He drives with side ammoracks
>IS-2 with postwar rounds at the same BR
No, Ivan gets the shitty IS-2 which has a butter turret and an easily penetrable hull, plus no postwar ammo and horrid reload time. The mod.44 has King Tiger BR.
>>28525017 The rest of the hull front is very weak compared to the turret front. The parts of the hull that are directly above the tracks are 102mm thick and are angled at a whopping 9 degrees. Any tank that it sees can penetrate the front of the hull, minus the MG ball and driver's viewport, obviously.
Also, >transmission's top cover you mean the piece of armor that's angled at 80 degrees? Yeah, it better fucking bounce shots.
>>28525017 German armor was shitty IRL and its shitty in war thunder, which is a shame because it means grinding nazi armor is a fucking pain
>The driver viewport and MG ball absorb rounds, the transmission's top cover absorbs rounds Other tanks these are the places you have to shoot. On the tiger its the only place you can't shoot.
>, the turret is a fucking meme and about as strong as that of the Henschel Tiger II in practical use thanks to the -10% armor modifier of the latter. And the Tiger II H's turret is a total fucking joke.
Add on the Tiger E being 6.0 and not 5.7 for no reason, and having to STILL use niggerrigged Panzer IVs until you get the panther (which is a glorified TD and sucks) and you're in for one hell of a grind my son
>>28525370 Gaijin's PR is a fucking nightmare, they're jewing so hard that they forgot to make the game fun to play. I unlocked a fucking 1 hour test drive for a piece of shit premium as my super special golden weekly reward box. Fuck you forever.
>>28525376 At least this thread took a meaningful turn rather than faceplanting like it should have
Are people really saying the WT IS-2 is OP? The whole front and sides of the hull are almost vertical and are made of paper, meanwhile the Tiger II can't be penned at the front from any of the Russian tanks at that tier except the IS-2, and only in a small spot on the front of the turret, but only on the Tiger's left side, otherwise you don't kill the gunner and the 88mm pens you from any angle or distance. Also, the best possible reload time on the IS-2 is still twice as long as the Tiger's standard ass crew reload rate.
>>28524542 The Panzer IV was arguably the most poorly protected.
The T-34-85 was probably the best infantry support tank, but still suffered from the shit-tier drivetrain and track reliability of previous models.
The Sherman was probably the most reliable, though its high center of gravity gave it problems on ice. However, it had the best fire control which allowed to beat Panthers time and again in actual engagements
>>28524542 Both M4A3 and T-34-85 had ap. 90mm LOS frontal armor. Sloped hull plates additionally increased it effectiveness. Tests done by Yugoslavia showed that both 76mm Sherman and T-34-85 can penetrate each other glacis at 1km+, if loaded with HVAP/APCR. T-34-85 had better off-road perfomance than pre-HVSS Sherman, and far better HE. M4A3 had vertically stabilized maingun, which allowed faster target aquire, and also a heavy machinegun. M4A3 engine and drivetrain were far more reliable than in T-34-85. Also in case of penetration Sherman's crew survivability was much higher.
Where does Panzer IV belong in all of this? By 1944 it was plain obsolete. At 900m (most common kill range in late WW2) both gun and armor were ineffective aganist late-production Shermans and T-34s. Mobility was problemative as suspension did not take weight increase kindly, reducing off-road speed to 15km/h. Tank was also prone to catastrophic kill, it chance of survival if knocked-out was 1 to 5, compared to Shermans's 50-50.
1. It had better optics with greater magnification and FOV options than other tanks straight from the kwk 40. To compare, Sherman 76's still had 2x telescopic sights from the M3 were getting hit by enemy fire that they could not see. 2. What was told from the above, but most victories were made by Stug's or they were simply defensive with all Pak/kwk 40's not actually outranging, but out-hitting the enemy into combat kill or Fubar. 3. Panzer III/IV was still one of the only tanks during the war that offered great crew awareness during early Armor only skirmishes without infantry support, ironically by having 5 man crews turning out from escape hatches to take a field survey, the commander was issued binoculars. They all had wireless short range radios.
>>28524556 This. Even if Germans went full retard and made the 105 kwk44, they already deemed the 105mm Schwere Kanone 18 as a failed anti tank gun just because of stupid reasons that were not shell propellant related. Even the Soviets got HVAT tech for their 85mm guns, which rivaled kwk43's in performance and created the D-10 which only shot high velocity charged shells making D-25's (which never got HV shells) obsolete.
>>28524818 http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18562&page=2 Guns vs T-34/85:
75mm M40 PaK40
M39 AP (PzGr.39?) penetrates glacis @ 1300m* M40 subcaliber (PzGr.40?) penetrates glacis @ 1200m* M40W** subcaliber (PzGr.40W?) fails to penetrate glacis. M38B HEAT (Hl.38/B?) penetrates glacis if side angle is less then 20deg.
M39 AP penetrates upper side hull @ 1750m M40 subcalibre penetrates side hull at any efective range M40W subcaliber penetrates side hull @ 200m M38B HEAT penetrates side hull if side angle is less then 30 deg.
All rounds penetrate lower side hull at any efective range.
M39 AP penetrates front turret @ 1000m M40 subcaliber penetrates front turret @ 1250m M40W subcaliber fails t penetrate front turret M38B HEAT fails to penetrate front turret
M39 AP penetrates side turret @ 1750m M40 subcaliber penetrates side turret at any efective range M40W subcaliber penetrates side turret @ 200m M38B HEAT penetrates side turret if side angle is less then 30deg
>>28529800 >Where does Panzer IV belong in all of this? By 1944 it was plain obsolete. At 900m (most common kill range in late WW2) both gun and armor were ineffective aganist late-production Shermans and T-34s
I'm gonna ask for sauce on that, cause I call bullshit.
>>28526740 >The Panzer IV was arguably the most poorly protected. I generally consider myself a huge werhaboo and even I wouldn't consider it at all arguable. 50mm of turret front armor just wasn't sufficient past 1942.
>>28529800 >At 900m (most common kill range in late WW2) both gun and armor were ineffective aganist late-production Shermans and T-34s. The 75mm L/48 will penetrate 96mm at 500m and 85mm at 1km. Pretty much any part of an M4 that isn't the mantle is vulnerable.
>>28535329 >"penetrates armor more often than it doesn't" Not going by German penetration standards. When I say "85mm at a kilometer" I mean every time and at thirty degrees. By Allied standards the 75mm will crack 93mm at just over a kilometer and a half.
>>28536118 >they used picked ammo rather than batched. I'd ignore the tests altogether because of that if they didn't tend to match up with other nations testing. It doesn't appear they used any sort of special ammunition for testing.
>And German standards were 50/50 From what I have read it was five penetrating hits in a row.
>Soviet standards were the most stringent. Most of the Russian testing I've seen was atrocious, things like shooting the same tank's plate with different calibres and rounds as though the whole plate wouldn't degrade.
>>28536378 >It doesn't appear they used any sort of special ammunition for testing. German ammo for testing is manufacturer provided. The ammo makers put ammo in a crate and ship it to the testing grounds; they either turned up the quality for a test batch or picked the best ammo out of a production batch for this.
>And German standards were 50/50 got myself confused, 50/50 is naval standards, land is 5 in a row burster intact
> Most of the Russian testing I've seen was atrocious, things like shooting the same tank's plate with different calibres and rounds as though the whole plate wouldn't degrade.
That's Soviet testing on captured German vehicles, since they didn't have an awful lot of those to spare and needed to test as many guns as they could. Soviet acceptance testing is much more stringent, 80% of the shell mass must be behind the armor.
Thread replies: 56 Thread images: 12
Thread DB ID: 407235
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.