"...if you had to serve as a crew memeber in Sherman or Tiger whcih would you chose? T-29or Tiger?" A T26. :)

Carl – I finally found a function for predicting ricochets. The specific formula is at “http ://63.99.108.76/forums/index.php?showtopic=2303I” by Paul Lakowski. The site, TankNet, “http ://63.99.108.76/” has the posting, and a lot of data, formulas and calculations as well. Check the “Theory” of “Calculations” section under the main area, but remember to display all topics, not just the last 30 days. The website has a lot of data and sources. Many armor penetration formulas, and a trajectory formula or two, but they are unknown to me. Some of the data and sources are relevant to this thread, so I will make a partial retraction / clarification. Some of the sources that they mention indicate that the M4 had casting quality problems as late as October 1944. Apparently, many Panthers had armor defects. Most US AP projectiles were too soft, and had explosive fillings, allowing shatter to happen easily, but when replaced with properly hardened solid shot, the performance (the example used is the 90mm AP round) rose dramatically. Another source says that the Russians armor, treated to ~400BHN level, was susceptible to 75mm APC. The Russian 122mm AP would fail the Panther’s glacis at 650m+, but the 122mm APC was good to 2500m. However, these last 2 items involve calculations on their part, which is why I use the phrase “partial retraction / clarification”. I see an “information overload” problem, so I have to do some more research. I should also mention that all German tanks were made of armor plate, of some sort, although mantlets for the Panther, Jpz-V, -VI and Henschel KT were cast. I still think that the quality on all sides was essentially equal, but for a given thickness, rolled armor is typically better than cast armor, and by 10-20%. 30%, as a typical figure, may be too high. For example, a Panther 40mm turret side plate would have to be about 50mm if it were cast. This was a German advantage, if for no other reason than the prime target areas (turret) on Allied tanks were made of cast, rather than rolled armor. I guess that we all knew this, but it should be mentioned in the discussion. The website seems to have no data on impact damage, a subject discussed a few times on this thread. I suspect that all projectiles 100mm and smaller will either ricochet, shatter or penetrate, but in all cases are too small to cause buckling or other kinetic impact damage.

I cant supply any data-formula, nor give any reference, but I guess it boils down to the crew of the vehicle and supporting forces. Usually the superior supporting forces in the west were the allies. Depending on the battle/situation, in the east, it was usually the germans. The king tiger probably would have been the better tank than the t-29. At roughly the same weight, the KT probably had better handling and mobility. From what I have read and seen, the KT was suprisingly agile. I think more so than the T-29-remember it was designed as a break through tank and then as a powerful tank destroyer.... The KT had most of the kinks worked out and the T-29 would have suffered from mechanical problems. The KT's armour was frontally superior and depending on the ammo used, even with a 33 lb shot, I think the 105 mm still would not have penetrated-perhaps with a apds round, or ap/cnr. This is another key-they type of ammo used. ap apc, even apbc with a 90mm would have a hard time on the panther. APDS-the way to go.... In addition, the 88 L/71 was a generally the best tank gun used, esp if they could get their hands on tungsten capped rds. But again, depending on the velocity, even a small calibre gun would have been deadly with the right ammo and range. Another factor, with the exception of the IS-3, and a few other test models, the sides were alway vunerable, even at 2000+ meters. So, to conclude, minus the formulas and refrence citings, the better crew with the better supporting arms usually won. But I would take the KT over the T-29 any day. How about this thought.....an Is-3 with an 88 L/71?

"...some of the sources that they mention indicate that the M4 had casting quality problems as late as October 1944. Apparently, many Panthers had armor defects." I've been shown a report by a US Army ordinance expert, circa 1942-43, on a T34 sent to the US. He identified numerous defects in the tanks hull & turret armor. I'll try to get a copy for you. If memory serves the defects identified were flaws in the shaping of the steel, grossly inconsistant hardening of the face, and bad welding.

Carl – I found yet another source that indicates that by ’43 most of the M4 casting defects were identified and in process of being resolved. Maybe this is the same source that you are looking for. One of the problems that I encounter is that sometimes sources paraphrase other sources, and the result is just vague enough to be interpreted more than one way. This is particularly true with quality reports and target IDs. A statement about heat treating JS-2 hulls is plaguing me right now. Also, I’ve been playing with the ricochet formula. I have my suspicions about it (a feeling, but I have no data), but it seems to be correct. Interestingly, it suggests that the T-34 designers concluded that, if weapons 50mm and under, firing blunt nosed projectiles (round, maybe a short ogive) at 2800fps or less, then 45deg of slope will usually cause a ricochet at 250m or more. This means that shots that are fired from more than 35deg from perpendicular to the side or rear of the vehicle should ricochet. I assume that the designers intended this, and historical accounts seem to support this. I’m still not certain if I’m using the formula correctly, since there are some modifiers that I use, and perhaps not correctly. But it is interesting. BD - As per my first three posts (9/27, 9?29 & 10/02/2005), If competent crews are not assumed, then comparisons are meaningless. The KT’s battle record (the T-29 has none) includes Sandomierz (tactically a standoff or loss for the Germans), an action in Hungary where 3 or so KTs are ambushed and killed by T-34/85s, the retreat to Berlin (April, 1945, SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner accounts for about 100 Russian tanks) and the last few days in Berlin (Untersharfuhrer Georg Diers and his crew of tank 314 account for about 30 T-34s. They are ordered to abandon their tank the next day). The record also includes many vehicles abandoned to lack of fuel and mechanical breakdown. Depending on the situation, the KT looks very bad or very good. Taken together, with enough details, the KT looks very good overall. This shows why references to, and examination of, experiences are important. If competent crews are assumed: The T-29’s 105mm gun seems to be at least as good as the Russian 100mm, which is widely known to penetrate more armor, projectile type for projectile type, than the 88L71. The engagement at Staro-Konstantinov in March ’44 convinced the Russians that the JS1 really needed a more powerful gun than the 85mm. The 100mm was preferred, but in short supply. The 122mm was available. 28 rounds was a deficiency, but it produced a formidable vehicle (the JS-2). Two-piece ammunition was also a liability, but this was the era of manual sighting. The British found separate-loading ammunition to be satisfactory in the Chieftain for many years. More reasons that references and data are important. It is important to realize that the 88L71, even though a formidable weapon, is not in the same class as the 100mm-105mm weapons. The 100-105mm 33lb projectiles are about 50% heavier than the 88mm projectiles, and move at 3000fps. To get equal muzzle energy, the 88mm 22.25lb projectile must move at 3630fps, instead of 3280fps. A JS-3 with a 100mm gun would be the most potent combination. The 100mm gun has 1-piece ammunition (so maybe a load of 35-40 rounds and loading as fast as other tanks), the APC round performs better against highly sloped armor than the 122mm, and the HVAP round is an added bonus. The T-29’s front armor, 8+” turret front, 11” mantlet, and turret sides (6”, my estimate, see my first post) are thicker than the KT’s turret armor. I, like tens of thousands of other guys, have spent time at APG and other places, and have seen the various tanks. The KT armor is well-known (and one was on display); the T-29 less so, but it isn’t secret and the mantlet can be seen by walking up to it and looking. The T-29 front (hull and turret) is essentially impenetrable by the 88L71. The T-29 turret side is vulnerable up to maybe 1250m, the hull, 2000+m. The KT turret front (185mm/7.3”) is vulnerable to the 105mm at 1000m, but the vulnerable area is maybe 25% of the total target area. It’s a tough call. The KT sides are vulnerable to at least 3000m. The superiority of rolled armor over cast is much greater when considering smaller calibers (20-50mm, early war). For 90mm projectiles and larger (late war) the amount of extra cast armor needed is minor, and cost and fabrication issues may be more important. The earlier discussion considered AP (of some sort) hits, not HVAP (of any sort), and whether or not tanks (or turrets) of this size could be killed via impact only. There seems to be no evidence that impact alone can kill, only penetration or a sufficient amount of HE. Evidence, either way, would be of interest. I’ve found a couple of references to a “122mm could disembowel a Panther”, and the Russians discovering that a 122mm could rip

Arbalest....3rd time doing this reply-computer crashed, so you get the condensed version you list 153k as the kt weight-that is 71.5tns my friend....the kt(henschel)depending on the source weight 66.9(133.8k) to 68tns(136k) both less than the 139k of the t-29.....the Kt was tried and tested and while it might break down without care, the t-29 has little testing and no field testing-thus no way to work out the kinks which would have taken time....and while psi is important(ask the first tiger crew in russia in 1942) the Kt had wider track, and thusly spread the load better....I cant cite the book, but one of my tank books quotes us tankers(m-4)stating that Kt were more agile then them...while this may be an exaggeration, I think people only look at the breakdowns and not when it was running.... I agree that while th 88 was the best tank gun fielded, the 100 and 105 would have been great-esp due to the fact of the higher weight of the shot and if the proper ammo-like apds was used.... But one problem with your armour......I have read several articles and a couple of sites and there is a conflict over the armour.....I must conclude that the hull was only 5" and the mantel(not the turrent front) was 11 1/2" and the sides were 3-5"...and the lower hull 5 1/4"... you may disagree. The t-28 was a off-shoot and more a td or an asg and it had the 12" front armour I believe, and thusly, people get them confused..almost all western heavy tanks never had more than 5-6" front armour-usually 5" at the most, and while a turrent might have had 8", usually 6" and the sides ranged from 3-6"...this is consistant, so thusly, I think the 88 could have easily destroyed the tank from a hull or a side shot... with a tungsten rd, the 88 l/71 would penetrate 276 verticle and 226 30 degree at 500yds(1000=214/192 and 2000=184/136)...(weapons of the waffen ss)- There are reports of the 152 on su-152 and the 122 on the su-122 hitting, but not penetrating the panter at 1000m-I have seen the same claim you list about the 122, but there are extinuating circumstances(but giving them a hell of a headache at the same time)...I will always emphasize the rd being fired, the MV(and you state mv of 3280fps-the l/71 had 3340fps-the first 88mm atg had the 3282fps(not l/56) but with a tungsten rd pzgr 40/43, you get 1130m/s or 3760fps The 100mm was good, but was not great and even though it was heaver, the standard ap was not better than the 88 purpose rds...perhaps a more specialized rd.. but not the standard....also, remember the 88 was l/71 while the 100 was probably l/52-a much lower velocity... If they did devolpe the 100mm for at, then a Is-2 with the 100 would have been great, but I was refering to the wpns used...otherwise, I would pick the 128mm l/55 (even over the 130mm which was l/48 or l/52)

Arabalest...no, I was refering to a report of examination of a T34, not of a M4.

BD – 153,000lb is closer to 76.5 tons (US tons). The 66.9 tons and 68 tons that you mention are metric tons, i.e., 66,900kg and 69,000kg respectively. Multiply your numbers by (2.204/2000) to get US tons (73.59 & 74.8 respectively). If 76.5 tons is high, it isn’t high by much. “British Tanks . . .”, by Peter Chamberlain and Chris Ellis, is an easily available source of data (I think that it is still in print), and lists the T28, T29, T30 T32 and T34. Pictures are included. Their pictures of the T28 and T29 agree with the pictures I took of all vehicles (T28 at Ft. Knox in 1986, T29, KT and the rest at APG, 1984), while examining all vehicles as closely as I could. The T28 is clearly a different vehicle, and is based on T23 mechanical components. It is essentially an assault gun, as it has no turret. The T29 hull is essentially based on a lengthened T26E3 hull. The 2 extra road wheels per side (8 total) give it 33% more ground contact than an M26. The M26 weighs about 92,000lb, the T29 weighs 138,000lb; 46,000lb more. With a little math ( [M26 gp of 13.2 psi] * [weight ratio of T29/M26] * [increased ground contact area (8/6)] ) I get 14.9psi. The automotive reliability of the M26, by late 1944, seems to have been fair to good. The T-29 might have a very slight mobility edge; I'm guessing that it would be too close to call. My estimation of the armor thickness of the T29 is based on: 1) a comparison with data for the T26E3 (later the M26, T26E5 (102,000lb, 11” mantlet, 6” hull front and “thicker” turret front), 2) the T32 (M26 hull with an extra road wheel (7 total), and 125mm hull front, 75mm hull sides armor, plus 200m turret front armor; the turret seems to be the same size as the standard M26 turret), and 3) some “guesstimates” on my part. I write these “guestimates”, and indicate them, in my first post. An extra 10,000lbs gets the turret and hull of the T26E5, but the T-29 turret is larger. I go through some calculations to account for the remaining 36,000lb. As I wrote in my first post, the best thing to do is ask the APG Museum curator. However, the numbers “seem to work”, and they put a lot more armor on the T-29 than on the KT. The 100mm Russian gun is the D-10S 100mm gun used by the SU-100, starting in 1943. The SU-100 is, I suspect, the reason that 100mm guns were not available for the JS-2; the Russians were using all of them to make as many SU-100s as quickly as they could. The T5 105mm planned for the T-29 seems to fire a very similar projectile (weight and diameter) at essentially the same velocity. The 100mm out-performed the 88L71, as previously discussed. This, and various data from the books by Hunnicutt, cause me to believe that the US T5 105mm planned for the T-29 had at least the same performance as the Russian 100mm. The Russian 100mm APC round outperformed the 88mm APC round, but this is expected, since the 100mm is a bigger gun. My comparison from my last post was between APC rounds, not the 40/43, and I say so. If we switch to 88mm Pzgr. 40/43, then a few questions appear: 1) will this penetrate the T29 turret, and 2) how does it compare to the 100mm HVAP ammunition? The data I’ve found so far for the 88mm Pzgr. 40/43, indicate that 237mm @100m and 217mm @ 500m are reliable numbers, hence my comment on my previous post. However, move to 10 or 15 degrees to either side of dead-on front, and the hull front of the T29 starts looking like 230mm, which makes 150m look like a probable range, rather than 500m. 237mm is still 40mm less than the 11” mantlet. Assuming the 105mm T5 is comparable to the 100mm, and we switch to HVAP (sub-projectile:40mm,10lbs, 3400fps HVAP/Arrowhead/APCR, NOT the post-war stuff), then the KT is vulnerable, all sides, to at least 1500m, maybe even 2000m. The Russian 130mm is a rather large weapon. The bore is marginally larger than the German 128mm, they both use separate-loading ammunition, they both have about the same muzzle velocity (128:920m/s vs 130:930m/s), but the 128’s 26kg AP projectile is noticeably lighter than the 130’s 33kg AP projectile. The 128 is rated at 212mm @ 1000m, the 130 is rated at 250mm @ 1000m. Pictures of the JSU-130 show a JSU-152 chassis with a very long gun. Why this wasn’t deployed instead of the JSU-122 is unclear to me. Post-war, the SU-130 (same gun on a T-54 chassis) was intended, according to Zaloga, for long-range tank duels, since it has a stereoscopic rangefinder. This speaks well of the 130mm.

Arbalest-yeah, I fubbed on the 153k, but the basis is the same-alot of people try to convert it to metric weight..but the 66.9 and 68tn is based on the 2000/tn-'tanks of the world' 1915-1945 by peter chamberlain and chris ellis list the weight at 69.7 tns, but then with other tanks of know weight,they list the lbs, so in comparison, they use the 2000/tn....The Jadetiger did not even weigh that much-76+tns I think they did not use the 130mm due to size alone and production was not set up for mass production. The soviets had-like the uk, us and germany, a few models with the 155 or 152-or 150mm weapons....with the 152-it was new, to long to work out the bugs and the front end weight was to much.... 237/217-i think are to little-why, well the standard 10 kg shell at 1018m/sec was 182mm at 60deg at 1000m-verticle I would guess at 207mm..but this is the pzgr 39/43 ap(I dont know if capped or not), but listed for the pzgr 40/43 is 184/136 at 2000 241/192 at 1000 and 274/226 at 500m-this is with a 7.3kg-16 lb rd-from 'weapons of the waffen ss' one thing I have seen over the yrs is that I can read several books on the same thing-tanks for example and you might get 3 different figures from 5 books, thusly, I have learned to 'guesstimate' as you put it.... I think the big thing for the soviets was ease of production...that is why the 122mm was used-it was standard artillery and the 100mm was not....even though it was clearly better...they did not want to interrupt the massive ammounts of weapons they were turning out -and to my opinion, if not for a few stupid mistakes(like not retreating in a timely manner from stalingrad, and the idiotic do not retreat policy in the summer of 44 where hundreds of thousands were lost, the germans could have easily bled the russians out..and yes, won....-on average-depending on the yr-say 1944, the russians produced 16800 tanks-or so-about 1400/month-not including Isu/Su/Asg...and they lost probably 15000+..the germans produced 3125 mkIV, 3748 mkV, and 999 Tiger and KT-or about 7872 tanks-of which, perhaps 70% went east(or5509-5510)-They lost2643/2297 and 834 respectively-or 5774-probably about 3600-4000 in the east(the rest in the west and italy)-so the germans were out produced/deployable about 2.9/3-1....the losses were 4.5+-1 if not higher....and this was due to alot of stupid moves by the germans-at kursk, they maintained a 6-1 favor....-and this only indicates the total german production/available to the east-perhaps 15% or more did not arrive...

American AFV were almost always better mechanically than the Germans. Where as a Tiger or Panther was a maintence hog, a Sherman could be run on forever and easily repaired by the troops. Eventually when the Shermans were up-gunned they were able to take on the Panthers ect on equal terms.