<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On German Armour</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Aug 2019 10:08:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.9.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mobius</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115954</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mobius]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Feb 2014 11:43:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115954</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#039;s the fact, Jack.
This is what the Archive says was a Soviet test on the PZIII armor by the 45mm gun,
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/02/pziii-armour.html

The shell stuck in the armor and did not pass through the armor to detonate inside the tank. By German, Soviet 80% certified, and even US Naval penetration standards there was no penetration. See page on Penetration Criteria: 
http://www.panzer-war.com/page33.html

Under these standards the GERMAN ARMOR WON!   Now, it was cracked and broken so it&#039;s freshness date has expired.  The next hit on it will go through.

Another question on the 45mm gun fail.  Why does the 45mm column on the Penetration table show that the 45mm will penetrate 24mm@30° at 1500m and (if we prorate) between 30mm-35mm@ 0° at 1500m?
http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/penetration.html

Then why when tested at 1500m on the 30mm of ‘currently used by Red Army’ Izhor factory armor did it fail to penetrate?  Was substandard armor used in the Penetration table tests or, were the numbers wrong in the Penetration table?  Something is amiss here.

Where does the blame lie?  In the Ministry of Armaments or the Ministry of Armor?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s the fact, Jack.<br />
This is what the Archive says was a Soviet test on the PZIII armor by the 45mm gun,<br />
<a href="http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/02/pziii-armour.html" rel="nofollow">http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/02/pziii-armour.html</a></p>
<p>The shell stuck in the armor and did not pass through the armor to detonate inside the tank. By German, Soviet 80% certified, and even US Naval penetration standards there was no penetration. See page on Penetration Criteria:<br />
<a href="http://www.panzer-war.com/page33.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.panzer-war.com/page33.html</a></p>
<p>Under these standards the GERMAN ARMOR WON!   Now, it was cracked and broken so it&#8217;s freshness date has expired.  The next hit on it will go through.</p>
<p>Another question on the 45mm gun fail.  Why does the 45mm column on the Penetration table show that the 45mm will penetrate 24mm@30° at 1500m and (if we prorate) between 30mm-35mm@ 0° at 1500m?<br />
<a href="http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/penetration.html" rel="nofollow">http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/penetration.html</a></p>
<p>Then why when tested at 1500m on the 30mm of ‘currently used by Red Army’ Izhor factory armor did it fail to penetrate?  Was substandard armor used in the Penetration table tests or, were the numbers wrong in the Penetration table?  Something is amiss here.</p>
<p>Where does the blame lie?  In the Ministry of Armaments or the Ministry of Armor?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: burningphoneix .</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115905</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[burningphoneix .]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:23:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115905</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the Chieftain&#039;s case. It did.

The tests showed that 75mm gun can pass through up to 70mm of spaced Armour at 30 degree incline.

Which in turn, left the US army overconfident in its AP capabilities]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the Chieftain&#8217;s case. It did.</p>
<p>The tests showed that 75mm gun can pass through up to 70mm of spaced Armour at 30 degree incline.</p>
<p>Which in turn, left the US army overconfident in its AP capabilities</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Koreenium</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115867</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Koreenium]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 09 Feb 2014 00:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115867</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Problem is that allies prefered softer (easier to penetrate) steel while germans prefered harder (harder to penetrate but prone to cracking and shattering) steel. 
As I have heard the early Tiger tanks had steel with hardness of 250-270 HB. Some tanks even had steel with 300 HB but also hardness dropped as low as 100 HB in some cases.
So basically if your tank gun was not powerful enough it only scratched german armor. But if you had a powerful gun then you could basically make german armor shatter without needing to penetrate it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Problem is that allies prefered softer (easier to penetrate) steel while germans prefered harder (harder to penetrate but prone to cracking and shattering) steel.<br />
As I have heard the early Tiger tanks had steel with hardness of 250-270 HB. Some tanks even had steel with 300 HB but also hardness dropped as low as 100 HB in some cases.<br />
So basically if your tank gun was not powerful enough it only scratched german armor. But if you had a powerful gun then you could basically make german armor shatter without needing to penetrate it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lukas Koch</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115797</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lukas Koch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:37:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115797</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why did they the soviet do that?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why did they the soviet do that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lukas Koch</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115796</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lukas Koch]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2014 18:36:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115796</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well at least you make me laugh !]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well at least you make me laugh !</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Renegade</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115723</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Renegade]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2014 15:55:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115723</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Partially shoddy writing style aside, the main problem, as you are most likely fully aware of, is broad generalization that leaves your whole article with the imprint of strong negativity towards german steel/welding technology in general. There is no use in playing stupid in that regard. You even very cleverly decided to include the quite positive impression of the &quot;Stug&quot; into your final deliberations to strengthen your apparently very much unbiased &quot;research&quot; against converse accusations.

Quoting questionable source materials of mostly isolated cases and facilitated results does not help in this regard. The soviet test of the PzIII and IV plates alone is ridiculous as it is, contradicting actual battle experience in almost every possible way. Same with the long-time infamous &quot;Firing Range&quot; Test of the King Tiger, where they basically totally mutilated the thing from close range with all they had, gloating &quot;hey look! we can bring it down just fine!&quot; afterwards. Again: No shit, buddy.

In general: there is a good reason why most materials available on the western &quot;allied&quot; market leave out soviet reports and testing documents alltogether. Read some books about the Tiger as an example, paying attention especially to statements of veterans from both sides of the trench, which again easily devalue whole paragraphs of your article.

There should even be still something up on the wargaming.net site regarding the Market Garden operation, also involving firing tests by a firefly on a captured panther, where it took three shots at approx. 100 meters to penetrate (and subsequently shatter) the frontal plate. 

Et cetera. In summary, and to keep this still relatively compact: This whole &quot;glorious russian awareness offensive&quot; you and a few of your friends are conducting is getting old - fast. Fielding &quot;mythical krupp steel&quot; shenanigans as a reason to spit out, in its absurdness very much comparable, &quot;contra-propaganda&quot; is a serious sign of... in lack of a better term... &quot;butthurt&quot;, and does not help your credibility as a semi-professional expert one bit.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Partially shoddy writing style aside, the main problem, as you are most likely fully aware of, is broad generalization that leaves your whole article with the imprint of strong negativity towards german steel/welding technology in general. There is no use in playing stupid in that regard. You even very cleverly decided to include the quite positive impression of the &#8220;Stug&#8221; into your final deliberations to strengthen your apparently very much unbiased &#8220;research&#8221; against converse accusations.</p>
<p>Quoting questionable source materials of mostly isolated cases and facilitated results does not help in this regard. The soviet test of the PzIII and IV plates alone is ridiculous as it is, contradicting actual battle experience in almost every possible way. Same with the long-time infamous &#8220;Firing Range&#8221; Test of the King Tiger, where they basically totally mutilated the thing from close range with all they had, gloating &#8220;hey look! we can bring it down just fine!&#8221; afterwards. Again: No shit, buddy.</p>
<p>In general: there is a good reason why most materials available on the western &#8220;allied&#8221; market leave out soviet reports and testing documents alltogether. Read some books about the Tiger as an example, paying attention especially to statements of veterans from both sides of the trench, which again easily devalue whole paragraphs of your article.</p>
<p>There should even be still something up on the wargaming.net site regarding the Market Garden operation, also involving firing tests by a firefly on a captured panther, where it took three shots at approx. 100 meters to penetrate (and subsequently shatter) the frontal plate. </p>
<p>Et cetera. In summary, and to keep this still relatively compact: This whole &#8220;glorious russian awareness offensive&#8221; you and a few of your friends are conducting is getting old &#8211; fast. Fielding &#8220;mythical krupp steel&#8221; shenanigans as a reason to spit out, in its absurdness very much comparable, &#8220;contra-propaganda&#8221; is a serious sign of&#8230; in lack of a better term&#8230; &#8220;butthurt&#8221;, and does not help your credibility as a semi-professional expert one bit.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tobias Scheffel</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115615</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tobias Scheffel]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2014 05:45:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115615</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[U got to be one of these &quot;trollin is a art&quot;-guys
Either that, or your grammar is off.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>U got to be one of these &#8220;trollin is a art&#8221;-guys<br />
Either that, or your grammar is off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EnsignExpendable</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115598</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EnsignExpendable]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Would you rather I write the opposite of what the archives tell me? Read that link, there really is no room for interpretation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Would you rather I write the opposite of what the archives tell me? Read that link, there really is no room for interpretation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EnsignExpendable</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115597</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EnsignExpendable]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:19:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Every army is &quot;top down&quot;. The difference is the levels of initiative shown at the lower levels.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Every army is &#8220;top down&#8221;. The difference is the levels of initiative shown at the lower levels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EnsignExpendable</title>
		<link>http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/02/06/on-german-armour/#comment-115596</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[EnsignExpendable]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Feb 2014 01:18:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ftr.wot-news.com/?p=8148#comment-115596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You should read Carius more carefully. He specifically says that a T-34 was dangerous to any German tank until the very end of the war.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You should read Carius more carefully. He specifically says that a T-34 was dangerous to any German tank until the very end of the war.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
