"Comparative Penetration to a Panther Tank" Topic

"As a result of trials of D-25 (122 mm) and D-10 (100 mm) tank guns, the following penetration ranges against the upper front plate of the Panther tank were established:…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

I looked at some of the accuracy postings, and they seem to draw some rather dubious conclusions, at least in comparison to some of the battle reports I've read.

Perhaps, on test ranges, the Russian tank guns can do rather well, when they know the range to the target.

However, from what I've read, Russian optics left a lot to be desired, and I recall reading reports of Panthers and Tigers taking out IS-2s at rather long ranges, while their Soviet opponents repeatedly missed them.

There were flaws in the WWII ballistics calculations of the Russian 122mm guns. Post war these were corrected.
link

Also note the difference in the time of flight and maximum height in this captured 1944 firing table

link

to this post war Russian firing table.

link

I don't know if I got this link from this forum but here is a link to the 17 pdr tests on a Panther.
link

I do think there is something wrong with the range on shot #36 as it has no striking velocity value. The partial penetration of hit #34 is equivalent to 750 yds range. Hit #35 is equivalent to a hit at 1550 yds range.

Glad you enjoyed it my friend!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

However, from what I've read, Russian optics left a lot to be desired, and I recall reading reports of Panthers and Tigers taking out IS-2s at rather long ranges, while their Soviet opponents repeatedly missed them.

There are a couple of entries in Jentz Panzer Panzertruppen that mention (indirectly) Soviet sighting. The first was that T34s were engaging panzers at long range and obtaining hits. Another was that IS-2 tanks were also opening fire at extreme range and also getting hits. There is no testing that I know of that shows Soviet gunsights were not capable of accurate fire and be aware that direct vision optics are not the same as sighting optics. Russian WW2 sniper scopes were renowned for the simplicity, durability and performance.

Late war Soviet sights were much better than early war Soviet sights. Not as good as German tank sights. German anti-tank gun and assault gun sights didn't have the easy of ranging and tracking moving targets of their tank sights. Late war Russian tanks sights were probably better than these sights.

Prior to WWII the Russians had acquired an obsolete Zeiss factory and the first sights that factory produced were sniper scopes.

Another was that IS-2 tanks were also opening fire at extreme range and also getting hits.

The only thing I saw in Panzertruppen 2 was: "In many cases, the Josef Stalin tanks let themselves engage in a firefight only at long range (over 2000 meters) and also only when they themselves are in favorable positions on the edge of a woods, village, or ridgeline." Page 216.

I didn't see anything about their being accurate at long range, is that on another page?

Of course I wouldn't want to take a chance on getting hit by one of those 122mm rounds, accurate or not! :)

A great part of the imbalance is the German on the defensive for the most part have the advantage of firing from camouflaged positions, often at known ranges and using flashless, smokeless powder. This made them extremely difficult to observe and target effectively by an opponent who is also on the move.

See here for 88s firing. It most certainly is not 'flashless'

youtu.be/UTHnA3geo8U?t=25s

And smokeless isn't totally smokeless either, but it was a HECK of a lot less flash than allied guns and veteran's accounts back that up. link

Flashless propellant was known as Picrite and used quite extensively by the Navy.

And smokeless isn't totally smokeless either, but it was a HECK of a lot less flash than allied guns and veteran's accounts back that up.

The original claim was flashless and even the most basic Google would have shown it to be untrue. You could spot those guns firing from miles away. The biggest cloud from any high-performance gun is caused by the blast which will raise an enormous amount of dust. Smoke/dust are easily conflated and from actually looking at Allied /German tanks firing on film I can see no real difference between the two

I dunno about flashless.
There's a fair bit of mention in accounts that Jerry used smokeless powder which was an advantage in small scale firefights vs US infantry.

Their main advantage there seems to have been the squad mg though. The bigger picture offset that though. US forces could expect better support from arty, tanks, vehicle mg etc etc.

The original claim was flashless ….

Yeah, it's also commonly called powder, even though it is in stick or cord (hence 'cordite',)not in powder form.

'Flashless' is a relative term, the British definition was that it 'was unlikely to attract the attention of the naked eye at 4000 yards' Did you not bother to read the link I posted?

You are looking at film – they were looking at the real thing. In the words of someone else who was there: "Due to the type of powder a Jerry tank uses, they can fire at you and are difficult to pick up because there is so little smoke or muzzle flash. When we fire our 76mm there is so much smoke and muzzle flash you can hardly observe your burst, except for long ranges." [Cpl. Everett J. Harris – Sherman tank gunner]

And how about this, posted on another forum by one Michael Kenny on 22 Feb 2009:

"Another handicap was that our shells went off with a big flash and puff of smoke, which gave the tank's position away, whilst the Germans had flashless and smokeless powder in their ammunition. It was, therefore, almost impossible to spot a German tank when it fired. Sometimes if one happened to see the shell's tracer coming towards one, a rough guess could be made as to where it started from, and occasionally the German gun would blow away some of its camouflage and expose the turret. But usually one knew nothing until the German shell arrived." [The Story Of The Twenty-Third Hussars 1940-1946]

You are looking at film – they were looking at the real thing.

Film of real German guns firing. I have also looked at lots of film of Tigers firing and I can see the flash is huge. The 'smoke' thing I believe to be dust and if you bother to search YouTube for AT guns firing you can see how much dust is raised. The lower the tube is to the ground the bigger the dust cloud.

By the way 'those who were there' identified most German tanks as 'Tigers'. Perhaps we should discard all references that show only 150 of were in Normandy and substitute the eye witness evidence there were thousands?

Allied Artillery firing youtu.be/cPiKrYYwHJI?t=50s

Nice try, mkenny.

B

Yep dispelling the myth of flashless' German guns is a very good try indeed. In the UK a Try (in Rugby) is the same as a US Touchdown.
Here a Tiger with vast dust/smoke cloud after firing.

youtu.be/sqb32ziRrAU?t=1m57s

And this one

youtu.be/sqb32ziRrAU?t=3m9s

and

youtu.be/sqb32ziRrAU?t=4m22s

and

youtu.be/sqb32ziRrAU?t=4m45s

youtu.be/sqb32ziRrAU?t=4m57s

Firefly firing. Often claimed to have grave problems both with flash and dust-clou. Looks more or less the same as a Tiger blast.

youtu.be/cdxTaFnhtCs?t=53s

youtu.be/cdxTaFnhtCs?t=1m35s

Personally I believe the accounts statements of somebody who actual fought against, German Panzers, like the Sherman commander I used to work for 40 years ago and of course the written statements by people such as the 23rd Hussars. YMMV But just to be clear, you are not the same Michael Kenny that posted a contrary article on the Axis History Forum in 2009 then?

I like helping people and have posted post many book/document extracts on a number forums. The claim made was that German guns were 'flashless' and given that you yourself have stepped back from this (I give you credit for admitting your error)I know I have helped here. The film clips are proof German propellant was not flashless. The argument (as is always the case when any German superiority is challenged) has since defaulted to a claim the Germans were 'better' than the Allies in this area. The degree of 'betterness' will now be the area of contention.
I hope you have also taken on board the fact that most of the claimed 'smoke' is really dust and a Tiger firing is not much different (in blast terms) than a 17 pdr.

Here is a link to one of my more recent attempts to better explain the events in 1944.

link

Personally I believe the accounts statements of somebody who actual fought against, German Panzers, like the Sherman commander I used to work for 40 years ago

I too have met many. I have met/spoken/corresponded with one man who came face-to-face (well 50yds face-to-face)with Wittmann.
Does that mean I trump you?

mkenny – your clever wordsmithing is amusing, but not really germaine to the topic at hand. No propellant, not even purpose-formulated FLASHLESS propellant, is totally devoid of flash. But there is most definitely a spectrum of flash signature intensity displayed by various propellant formulations and contemporary US WW2 tanker commentaries pretty uniformly testify that flash signatures of German guns were difficult to pick up in observation. The same phenomenon was associated with German small arms fire. Put aside your bias and agenda and read the General White's report March 45 to Eisenhower.

As far as dust and smoke raised by discharge, the complaint of US tankers was principally associated with the 76mm tank gun, which fired a high velocity round but lacked a muzzle brake to help direct gun blast laterally.

And, of course, you failed to answer the question as to whether it was indeed your goodself who posted that 2009 message.

B

No propellant, not even purpose-formulated FLASHLESS propellant, is totally devoid of flash.

I know. That is why I posted the clips showing the 'flash' of firing German guns but thanks for the confirmation . Seems we are all pushing at an open door.

Put aside your bias and agenda and read the General White's report March 45 to Eisenhower

Have gone over it many times. Not a 'report' by the way and the pre-amble clearly states that it not to be treated like one.

You can see the problems when the 'sights' section carries complaints that gunners could not see targets over long distance and a later section about penetration power moans that though gunners could find and hit targets at 3000 yards they could not penetrate. Which is it then' Sights no good or sights ok?

And, of course, you failed to answer the question as to whether it was indeed your goodself who posted that 2009 message.

I believe linking myself to the same site is an answer. You can always work out if it is me posting. I never use silly screen names or an alias. My real name is always used. I stand 100% behind every post I make anywhere.

I've been around guns all my adult life, starting on a 25pdr crew firing 1945 dated ammunition from a 1943 manufactured weapon as a teenaged reservist in the early 1970's. Any photographer will tell you what shows up on film with the correct timing and exposure is vastly different to that which can be seen with the naked eye, so cutting and pasting newsreel footage does not back up your bogus argument.

Mr Kenny, I've read a lot of your posts, both here and elsewhere over the years and generally found them to be interesting and informative. However, by this recent exchange you have shown yourself to be petty quarrelsome and ignorant – not to mention losing all credibility by contradicting yourself.

Now having lost the debate, you are insulting others who use a screen name. Way to double down on defeat! Consider yourself stifled.

Now having lost the debate
Yes. I get told that a lot. Normally by those who think 'debate' means them repeatedly telling me I am wrong.

you are insulting others who use a screen name.
I insult no one. I state a fact. In use my name and am thus easily found by those who wish to trawl my posting history and dredge up something from my past. This is not possible with those who have had a multitude of names over the years.

Way to double down on defeat! Consider yourself stifled.

I would never be so arrogant as to self-declare myself a winner of anything. The viewer can decide and I have no problems with dissenting opinion.

Well ….. mkenny:

> I think "number4" has resolved the flash signature question. You should thank him for correcting your misapprehension regarding the usefulness of Youtube videos in that regard.

> If White's report is "not a report", what do you think it is and why do you think Eisenhower requested it? I mean, maybe YOU'VE "gone over it" many times, but I don't recall you sharing your thoughts on this particular forum.

> Let me help regarding the question of sights and optics. Visibility conditions are not static. Sometimes visibility is so good that everyone can see over a considerable distance. But, under less than fine visibility conditions, a feature (a tank at, say, 3,000 yards, for example) may well be visible to an observer utilizing high quality optics but be invisible to an observer using optics of inferior quality. It has to do with glass quality, light gathering capability, lens coatings, precision of manufacture, etc. The White Report relates just such US tanker experiences where mediocre US optics were out-ranged by better quality German optics. If you don't care for the testimony provided in the White Report, see the history of the 43rd Infantry Division in the Bougainville campaign, where an artillery observer related his inability to observe fire upon a distant Japanese target using his US issue binoculars, but was able to do so after switching to a pair of captured Japanese binoculars. Hope this helps.

> You have still not clearly and unambiguously answered the question posed by "number4" regarding authorship of that 2009 post. Perhaps the question confused you. If so, a simpler approach might work – Were YOU (i.e. the poster who identifies himself here as "mkenny") responsible for posting the afore-mentioned 2009 post authored under the name of "Michael Kenny"? A simple YES or NO will do nicely.

> Not to put too fine a point on your 2:35pm post, but the fact that people apparently tell you repeatedly that you are wrong does NOT imply that you are right. It just means that, for better or worse, you refuse to accept their arguments.

B

If White's report is "not a report", what do you think it is and why do you think Eisenhower requested it?

It is explained in Eisenhower's letter at the start of the booklet. The one dated 18 March 1945 See the final paragraph. Have you not bothered to read it or is it that you are using internet extracts instead of a copy of the original?

The White Report relates just such US tanker experiences where mediocre US optics were out-ranged by better quality German optics.

Consult the section by Lt Col John Beal 'Comparison of German and American Anti-Tank Gun' section D 'Battles at ranges more than 800 yds'.
There are examples of engagements at 1400,1500,3000 and 3200 yds where hits are observed. This shows that US sights were perfectly capable of long range hits. However as this section is in the 'moaning about inferior US shells' section no one noticed that it contradicts the 'US Gunsights are crap' section of the paper.

Report, see the history of the 43rd Infantry Division in the Bougainville campaign, where an artillery observer related his inability to observe fire upon a distant Japanese target using his US issue binoculars, but was able to do so after switching to a pair of captured Japanese binoculars.

During the course of the war the Germans shipped over 3,000 tons of optical glass to Japan plus other lens making technology.

Not to put too fine a point on your 2:35pm post, but the fact that people apparently tell you repeatedly that you are wrong does NOT imply that you are right. It just means that, for better or worse, you refuse to accept their arguments.
You seem to routinely pop up disparaging my posts. As such your bias leads you to believe all who oppose me must be correct and I must be wrong. Any argument that starts out claiming German powder is flashless and then corrects it to 'nearly flashless' after my intervention has clearly accepted my criticism.

LOL – mkenny wordsmithing on parade!

I own (and have read) the entire White report. Let's see: Eisenhower asks White to assemble and advise to him the viewpoints and opinions of US tanks versus German tanks (and certain other weapons and equipment as a minor subset). White proceeds to collect the inputs of approximately 270 respondents (IIRC) within his 2nd Armored Division, puts it all to paper and sends a 100 page data document to Eisenhower. Yet, you persist in the claim that this is not "a report". Please forgive me, but I find your position to be a classic example of sophistry in action.

I have no doubt that US sights were "perfectly capable of long range hits". But the technical ability of the sight to hit a visible target at very long range is really not the point under discussion, is it??? The real point is whether US tank gun sights could or could not detect targets at long ranges under conditions of imperfect visibility that could be tolerated by German gun sights. Accounts included in the White Report indicate that US gun sights in fact had material difficulties in that respect. Multiple testimonies can as well be found in the White Report from US tankers who examined captured German sights and found them superior on other grounds compared to those fitted to their Shermans.

Germany did indeed supply optical glass to Japan during the war, but German provision of glass-making and optical technology to Japan actually dated back to the immediate post-WW1 period. By the start of WW2, Japanese domestic optical glass manufacture and design/manufacture of optical equipment was among the finest in the world. See the Japan Technical Mission Reports for details. There are also some useful papers on the web that relate the development of the Japanese optics industry in general But, at the end of the day, whichever way you want to play with the facts, the sense of them is still that the Axis optics proved better for that observer at Bougainville.

Once again, you appear to have a language comprehension problem. Go back and read what I wrote in my previous post, i.e. – "the fact that people apparently tell you repeatedly that you are wrong does NOT imply that you are right. It just means that, for better or worse, you refuse to accept their arguments." It is the subtle suggestion underlying the "logic" of your initial argument that I criticize; my statement actually said nothing about who ultimately might be right or wrong in any such discussion.

Your "flashless powder" argument as follows:
1 – a poster mentioned German use of "flashless powder" in (correctly) describing the less visible flash signature of German propellant.
2 – you (correctly) responded that German propellant was certainly not "flashless", but then proceeded to present various Youtube film clips to support an argument that German propellant was just as "flashy" as that of the Allies.
3 – "number4" pointed out in response that, from his professional experience, such film clips are valueless in comparing actual battlefield flash signatures … a point upon which you have so far studiously avoided comment.
4 – "Blutarski" pointed out that, yes, not even "flashless" powder is completely devoid of flash signature, but that different propellant formulations can indeed produce flash signatures of considerably differing intensities.
5 – "mkenny" then takes the podium to pronounce that he has been right all along. The truth of the matter is that the only thing then mkenny was correct about was the presence of a flash signature in "flashless" powder; his fundamental argument that German propellant was no more or less "flashy" than Allied propellant however remains unsupported and contradicted by actual wartime observations.

The reason I "routinely pop up" is simply to confront your biases and dodgy logic. Such stuff offends the delicate sensibilities of my classical education.

B

. Yet, you persist in the claim that this is not "a report". Please forgive me, but I find your position to be a classic example of sophistry in action.

And yet you completely omit the paragraph I mentioned. I wonder why:

'Please do not take the time to make a general staff study out of this matter. If you could include a few quotes from experienced non-comissioned officers it might be helpful to my purpose as I want to tell the truth about these matters to The War Department rather than allow any misconception to prevail'.

Clear instruction to get a few quotes rather than make it a scientific report.

I have no doubt that US sights were "perfectly capable of long range hits". But the technical ability of the sight to hit a visible target at very long range is really not the point under discussion, is it??? The real point is whether US tank gun sights could or could not detect targets at long ranges under conditions of imperfect visibility that could be tolerated by German gun sights.

There is your error. You are fixated on maximum theoretical performance under extreme conditions. All Allied tanks had to do was be able to sight and hit at around 1000 yds The average combat range in NWE was 800 yds. Even Tiger crews were warned that shooting at over 200O mtrs was a waste of time. When the Super Pershing reached Europe (see Hunnicut)they had problems finding a space where they could test-fire its gun. In the end they had to do it over a lake as they could not find a 3000 yds flat line of sight anywhere else. The shooting I quoted to you shows that when push came to shove Allied sights could perform at extreme ranges (3200 yds) and nothing you say can change the fact your own source flatly contradicts you claim they could not.
Also note that Lt Col John Beall in his comparison of US/German AT guns makes several recommendations at the end.
Not once does he mention or ask for better gunsights

If you want I can provide example from June 1944 of Firefly shooting at 2000 yds and getting hits as well.

you (correctly) responded that German propellant was certainly not "flashless", but then proceeded to present various Youtube film clips to support an argument that German propellant was just as "flashy" as that of the Allies.
3 – "number4" pointed out in response that, from his professional experience, such film clips are valueless in comparing actual battlefield flash signatures … a point upon which you have so far studiously avoided comment.

What you think you read is not my problem. I simply used WW2 examples that show no discernable difference between Allied tanks /art firing and German weapons firing. It matters not that someone claims I am wrong because he says he is 'an expert' in photography/film making. His opinion carries no more authority than mine.

"mkenny" then takes the podium to pronounce that he has been right all along. The truth of the matter is that the only thing then mkenny was correct about was the presence of a flash signature in "flashless" powder; his fundamental argument that German propellant was no more or less "flashy" than Allied propellant however remains unsupported and contradicted by actual wartime observations.

The reason I "routinely pop up" is simply to confront your biases and dodgy logic. Such stuff offends the delicate sensibilities of my classical education.

Your emotive language shows you have a problem. I gave my opinion and the others here can decide for themselves what they believe. Quite what you expect to gain by constantly telling yourself you are 'the winner' is unclear.

It matters not that someone claims I am wrong because he says he is 'an expert' in photography/film making. His opinion carries no more authority than mine.

I think you'll find that number4's opinion carries a lot more weight than yours. He's not an expert in photography/film making, he's a professional artilleryman and has therefore considerably more experience of real life muzzle flash than someone who bases their research on YouTube clips.

When the Super Pershing reached Europe (see Hunnicut)they had problems finding a space where they could test-fire its gun. In the end they had to do it over a lake as they could not find a 3000 yds flat line of sight anywhere else. The shooting I quoted to you shows that when push came to shove Allied sights could perform at extreme ranges (3200 yds)

You better re-read that section again. They could not find a 1000 yard range so they settled for a range of 625 yds shooting over a lake at German helmet targets. And this was for training the 30 M-26s the 11th Armored tank crews not the Super Pershing.

Hunnicutt doesn't go into the testing of the Super Pershing. Just the hunt for it's special sight which never made it to Europe. They ended up using the standard 90mm sight and remarking it for the 90mm/L73 gun.

The sights on the 90mm T/Ds and tanks were better than those on the 75mm Sherman.

So my statement they could not find a 3000 yd line of sight is 'wrong' because they could not find a 1000 yd line of sight?

Thanks for making my point for me.
Average combat range in NWE was 800 yds/mtrs and thus perfectly within the limits of the Allied gunsights

I think you'll find that number4's opinion carries a lot more weight than yours. He's not an expert in photography/film making, he's a professional artilleryman and has therefore considerably more experience of real life muzzle flash than someone who bases their research on YouTube clips.

The initial claim was flasheless and he modified that when I posted the clips.
I would be interested in his experience of observing WW2 German guns being fired between 1939-45. When did this happen?
Claims that certain posters are unchallengeable experts in their 'field' cut no ice with me.
Either the claim is correct or it is in error. Given it was changed from 'flashless ' to 'almost flashless' it would I appear that a mistake was tacitly admitted and corrected.
I say German powder was nether smokeless nor flashless and the 'expert' now agrees. Where is the problem?

This is becoming kind of like the Black Knight scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail".

B, sitting back and munching popcorn …..

Can anyone tell me what the white stuff coming out of the end of this 8.8cm gun barrel is?

youtu.be/m9yecemugWo?t=3m55s

Here it is in images. Anyone know the correct technical term
?
Would it be 'smokeless', 'nearly smokeless' or 'practically smokeless'?

[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pntiNpiKj]

[/URL]

Though hosted on YouTube it is actual German wartime footage. Low quality to be sure but by viewing the whole clip you can see it is a real German 8.8cm AT firing

This is why we can't have nice things :)

number 4 you are funny

Just as "flashless" propellant is not absolutely free of flash, "smokeless propellant" is not absolutely free of smoke when discharged. There were always trade-offs in the propellant chemistry when formulating them; for example, "flashless" powder formulations were known to produce considerably more smoke upon discharge than "smokeless" propellant.

The term "smokeless powder" was coined to describe the difference between modern (turn of the 20th century) chemically produced nitrate-based propellants such as cordite and the preceding black/brown/prismatic mechanically blended propellants which in comparison produced prodigious amounts of smoke upon discharge.

Here is a black powder 12lbr Napoleon being fired -
YouTube link

Here is a clip of a 12lbr firing canister -
YouTube link

Here is a 30lbr Parrot siege gun -
YouTube link

Re the above 88mm Youtube clip, I'm guessing meteorological effects were in play, but can't prove it based upon the bad film quality. Anyone interested in seeing other evidence of 88m guns firing with little smoke discharge can go here –
YouTube link
- or search under "88mm gun in action" for a number of other similar film clips.

B

The reason I used German combat clips from WW2 was because you can not compare it to the powders being used in modern day firings. Only period film has any relevance. True you can find flash-free firings if you look hard enough. I saw M4s shoots that had no flash/smoke just as I found 88s firing that had no flash/smoke. However I also found a good number of 88 firing clips that had significant flash/smoke/blast disturbance.
The blanket claim that German powder was flashless and smokeless is simply not true. Any high calibre gun that fires close to the ground is going to raise a lot of dust. That and the fact you get some smoke /flash means German guns were not invisible. If that is admitted then why argue the original claim that they were flash/smoke free?

That's great, mkenny. Have a nice day.

B

When the Americans examined T34 prototypes sent to them, they were scathing about a lot of the design but they commented on the gun sights being outstanding.

Of course, war-time manufacture may have declined significantly but I get the feeling that "bad Soviet sights" has become one of those things that popped up in Squad Leader and everyone has just followed it.

The likely explanation for poor performance is more likely to be relative training and the 2 person turret.