Comments on: “How the Hell Didn’t THAT Penetrate!?”

By: boris

boris — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 07:55:13 +0000

Actually low armor part on ferdi is untouched at that picture, where the signal lamp (or headlight?) is mounted.

By: Mana Wolvenworks

Mana Wolvenworks — Mon, 02 Mar 2015 03:07:44 +0000

Russians; if it doesn’t work, inject vodka steroids

By: Jarkorsis

Jarkorsis — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 15:21:52 +0000

They used to have a different HE model. But it was to OP (No one shot AP ammo because if it), so they went with the current one.

By: F1D0

F1D0 — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 09:45:30 +0000

it is just the projectile

By: ComradeHX

ComradeHX — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 08:56:51 +0000

Armour of Tiger II has nothing to do with the effectiveness of these guns…

Where is your source that claims 100mm is better than 122mm?
Source for where immobilized Tiger”B” destroyed 5 IS-2? (not that it’s relevant; because that involves a lot more than just gun’s effectiveness)

I posted mine, and 100mm only has a minor advantage at close range; otherwise the heavier projectile from 122mm wins(and don’t forget, again, 122mm does not need to penetrate 75% to do more damage than 100mm going by weight of how much of projectile went through).

By: laifs

laifs — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 06:34:17 +0000

Your calculations have to be off. There is no way that 152mm shell is travelling at 880m/s at the moment of impact, nor is there anyway that is the actual muzzle velocity.

I would guess 600m/s is much more reasonable for that howitzer. I won’t deny sheer kinetic energy can wreck metal like it was Styrofoam, but 880m/s is the muzzle velocity of an AK-74. No way that short barrel can hold enough pressure to propel such a heavy round at rifle speeds. Since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of the velocity, big differences on velocity like this do matter a lot.

By: FryaDuck

FryaDuck — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 04:08:50 +0000

historicity is not a word in the English language. Therefore how does one fuck something that doesn’t exist?

I think the correct word in this case would be authenticity.

By: hubewa

hubewa — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 04:08:38 +0000

Mass is important, but velocity is as well.

Cannonballs, unlike shells, have very bad aerodynamics so in the air, they lose a lot of speed due to air resistance.

Thats why guns are used instead of cannons – it gives the shell a far greater range and it can still hit with a lot of energy.

By: EgoQuex

EgoQuex — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 03:56:25 +0000

I truly have no idea what to make of all this. Tigers B had famous problems with armor quality, so that might explain some, but even concerning panther amour soviets swore by the 122 http://english.battlefield.ru/documents/29-technics/96-testing-100-mm-and-122-mm-tank-guns.html Even through american tests, and their own (after stalin died) showed that 100 mm were more effective than the 122mm in AT role.

Otto Carius reportedly destroyed 5 IS-2 in an immobilised Tiger B, before those closed to effective range during Battle around Malinava, in July 1944. But again this is a very experienced and talented tank commander here.

After all this time, one would think there would be definitive and unpartial source of information on the matter.

By: ComradeHX

ComradeHX — Sun, 01 Mar 2015 03:31:54 +0000

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/07/ballistic-tables-of-88-cm-l71-kwk-43.html

It needs to hit the target first.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2013/03/penetration.html

Even then, it’s still not as powerful as the 122mm(remember, it’s not just the penetration value, shell size/mass is also important; you certainly do not need 75% of 122mm round to go through armour to do more damage than 75% of 88mm round).

Soviets used IS-2 for their INTENDED task. The 122mm gun just happens to also be capable against enemy armour.