A German Cat in King George's Court

Study of the enemy’s new weapons or vehicles is always one of the army’s highest priority objectives. The appearance of the Panther tank on the battlefields of WWII could not have gone unnoticed without the Allies’ knowledge, and the British were no exception. Information on this new tank was gathered in several stages.

Foreign sources

Rumours about a new German tank began to arrive in the UK in the summer of 1943. The British military attache in the USSR sent a translation of an article published in the Red Star newspaper on July 24th, 1943, describing the use of a new German tank called “Panterra”. There was little information on this tank, plus the author continuously mixed up the Panther and Ferdinand. More accurate information only arrived on September 7th. With hindsight, we can see that the 45 ton “German Heavy Tank, Mark V” armed with a 75 mm gun and equipped with eight interleaved road wheels per side is indeed the Panther.

These same characteristics were later published in the American Tactical & Technical Trends magazine, with one important distinction: the tank was now called a medium tank, a halfway point between the 22 ton Panzer IV and 57 ton Tiger. Despite the weight difference, the Americans considered this 45 ton tank to be an analogue of their own Sherman, which according to American sources was highly regarded by the Germans.

One of the first images of the Panther tank widely distributed among the Allies

Video: 6-pounder and 57 mm M1 Gun in the USSR

Both British made 6-pounders and American made 57 mm M1 guns were shipped to the USSR in various forms, but one was received much better than the other. I talk about why in my latest video. Huge thanks to Major (Ret.) Michael Calnan, the Swords and Plowshares Museum, and the 1st Canadian Parachute Battalion and 191st Rifle Division reenactment groups for the footage used in this video.

Video: Hunting Tigers, North Africa 1943

The Tiger was undoubtedly at the height of its power in early 1943, but could it still be defeated? I take a look at British weapons available at the time in North Africa and how effective they were against this new enemy.

None More Frightening than the Cat

German industry created three armoured vehicles during WWII that had a significant effect on tank building worldwide. The appearance of the Tiger made Allied tanks obsolete. The few Ferdinand SPGs that were built introduced serious changes into the Soviet tank program. The third tank was the Panther, and its influence was comparable to that of the Tiger.

The tank was a quite unpleasant surprise for the Red Army and its allies when it made its debut at Kursk. Despite its deficiencies, the Panther is a good candidate for the best German tank of the war. The Panther was superior to the Tiger in terms of armament and frontal protection, and was made in significantly higher numbers. Many tank designers were looking at the Panther when they were making the next generation of medium and heavy tanks.

Long Barrel for Infantry Tanks

At the moment of its debut in 1940, the Infantry Tank Mk.III, later known as Valentine, was the most balanced vehicle in the British army. Its low top speed was compensated by a rather respectable average speed, especially off-road. 60 mm of armour was very good for the time, and even in 1942 not every gun was capable of penetrating this much armour.

Of course, by 1942 the tank was becoming obsolete. While there was no hope of increasing mobility, there was a chance to improve the firepower. Heroic efforts by Vickers-Armstrongs engineers resulted in a significant increase in caliber, while the tank's mass remained unchanged. As a result, the Valentine fought until the end of the war. Individual vehicles even saw victory on German territory.

Valentine With a Long Gun

In the spring of 1943 the variety of British tanks sent to the USSR dropped radically. Matilda tanks were no longer sent, the Churchill nearly vanished from shipping manifests. The Valentine remained the only type of tank sent by the British in large numbers. Even though the British themselves nearly stopped using it by the spring of 1943, they were still in demand with the Red Army. This was especially true for the Valentine IX, the version with a 6-pounder cannon, which had to revert to the two-man turret.

Tiger's Hide

Preliminary British intelligence on the Tiger that was available for fairly general consumption throughout 1943 did not set up great expectations for the quality of its armour, already indicating that it was prone to spalling and cracking. Trials conducted in October confirmed these suspicions. The following are excerpts from WO 194/744, "Firing trials in Tunisia against the hull of a Pz.Kw.VI" made available to me by Alexander Sotnikov. I'm not going to copy the whole report, but there is a pretty good example that shows how greatly variable the quality of German armour has become even by 1943. For your convenience, a penetration table for the 6-pounder gun is attached.

Quantity Over Quality

This penetration table is fairly well known. It appears in several period publications and a translated version was even sent to the USSR. Nevertheless, it gives some information as to how well the guns of the Western Allies performed against German armour.

However, there was one interesting observation made that didn't come along with this table to any other publication. Since hitting a tank at 2000 yards was very difficult, and the 2-pounder could penetrate older German tanks in the front and even newer ones from the side at nearly that distance, what was the point of having a 6-pounder at all?

Heavy Trophy

The German heavy Tiger tank left a mark on tank building worldwide. Even though propaganda and memoirs are largely to blame for its fame, the Tiger did really have nearly no competition on the battlefield among the tanks of the Allies. It's not surprising that the tank was thoroughly studied in the USSR, USA, and Great Britain. This article tells the story of how Tiger tanks were studied in the USSR and what conclusions were made, as well as the use of these tanks in the Red Army.

British Prime Minister in the USSR

Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, visited Moscow in August of 1942. However, a Churchill arrived a month prior to that in another Soviet city, Archangelsk, with the PQ-17 caravan, and not just one. These, of course, were Churchill II and III infantry tanks. 301 tanks of this type were sent to the USSR, 253 of which arrived at their destination. Despite a rather small volume of shipments, the prime minister's namesake played an important role on the battlefields of the Great Patriotic War. Suffice it to say that these tanks, along with the KV-1S, were the primary heavy tanks of the Red Army during the Battle for Prokhorovka.

Overweight Showpiece

Dead ends in tank building are not uncommon. They are often caused by militaries who cannot make up their mind about requirements for prospective armoured vehicles. The end result is a tank that has many of its parameters far out of the initially planned range. The Americans were no exception to this rule. One such vehicle, the Medium Tank M7, was even standardized. This tank was designed as a light tank, but accepted into service as a medium.

17-Pounder: Britain's Long Arm

The development of anti-tank artillery followed more or less the same process in many countries. This resulted in the USSR creating a 100 mm BS-3 gun in 1944 and the Germans with the 88 mm Pak 43 gun, a weapon with excellent characteristics that forced Soviet tank designers to rethink their requirements for armour protection. However, the British arrived at the best solution, creating the Ordnance Quick-Firing 17-pounder, which had the most balanced characteristics. You can familiarize yourself with the gun in detail by viewing these photos and read about its creation and trials in the Soviet Union here.

British Guns vs. Big Cats

The effects of "big cats" being shot up by large caliber Soviet shells are well known, but naturally every other Allied nation was willing to have a go themselves. Three British reports surfaced on Google Photos with just that. Unfortunately, they don't test as many tank guns as the Soviets do, settling for only the 6-pdr, 17-pdr, and occasionally the M3 75 mm gun on the Sherman, but they also test ground attack aircraft autocannons, 7.7 mm bullets, 25-pdr HE shells, and the humble PIAT. Despite the smaller caliber of the weapons, the German armour spalls, splinters, and shatters almost as well as during the Soviet trials. The conclusions are, well, predictable.

Go ahead and flip through them to see the power of Britain's rather underrated guns in action. Unfortunately, conclusions made about the Tiger II are based on calculations only.

Panther

Tiger

Tiger II

More Ferdinand Penetration Tests

You may recall two previous article where the Ferdinand's armour was tested: against the 152 mm ML-20 and 122 mm D-25. Today, thanks to Yuri Bakhurin, I bring you the results of the rest of the test.

First, we have the 45 mm gun. Naturally, it can't do anything to the Ferdinand's thick side. AP shells shatter when hitting the armour, cores from APCR shells sink into the armour without penetrating.

Next, the 6-pounder from the Churchill. Penetration is achieved at ranges of 300 meters, but firing from 500 meters yields little results. Shells either get stuck in the armour or shatter.

Now, the Sherman's turn. M-72 shells from the 75 mm gun cannot penetrate the side or rear armour. The M-61 shell fares better, penetrating the side at 500 meters.

Next, the Soviet 85 mm gun. These shells are easily able to pierce the side of a Ferdinand, causing spalling on the inside.

The proving grounds also had a Panther, and decided to see if it could take on a Ferdinand. Turns out, it could. The vertical front armour can be penetrated by the Panther's gun.

The front of the casemate, however, proved too tough of a challenge. The shells made 170-180 mm dents and could not penetrate all the way,.

75 mm APCR can penetrate even this tough armour.

Penetration through the side. Note the jagged outline of the hole, caused by spalling.

Spalling damage from the inside. The large hole is from an AP penetration, the small hole is from APCR penetration.

The Ferdinand had a chance to take revenge on the Panther. The 88 mm shell ricocheted, but led to a breach and spalling in a 300 mm by 250 mm area.

The results of these trials were used to compose this guide on fighting the Ferdinand.

Lend Lease Impressions: AEC MkII Armoured Car

Armoured cars are usually not my thing, but the review of this one contains many notes about its tank components.

Overall photo of the MK-II (AEC) Armoured Car

Photo #1: 3/4 view from the right

Photo #2: view from the left

"Summary:

1. The AEC armoured car is built using production tank and automobile parts.
2. The side of the car does not correspond to its combat ability.
3. The design of the hull and turret, as well as the thickness of the armour, do not match modern requirements.
4. The design and combat performance of the AEC is not of interest to us.

Conclusions:

1. The AEC MkII armoured car is built using production tank and automobile parts.
2. The engine of the armoured car is a four-stroke AEC engine and does not differ from the one used in English Valentine III tanks.
3. The armament and turret are used from the English Valentine I and early Churchill tanks.
4. The transmission and suspension consists of components used in heavy trucks. Parts of this design include the front wheels (drive wheels) constantly being in gear and pneumatic brakes.
5. Using mass production components makes the design more complicated, and placement difficult (the engine is tilted in two axes), and led to an increase in dimensions, especially height.
6. The design of the hull is obsolete. The armour plates are horizontal, except in the front.
7. The mass of the armoured car is 12.2 tons, which is too high for its combat performance. This is explained by its large size and using heavy tank components.
8. The vehicle is armed with a 57 mm gun MkV and a BESA 7.92 mm machinegun. This assembly has no elevation mechanism. The elevation is changed with the gunner's shoulder. There is a brake for fixing the gun in a certain position.
   The downsides of this design include the lack of balance in the oscillating section of the gun and a poor telescopic sight. It is immobile and has a monotonous scale, which makes aiming difficult.
9. The ammunition rack is poorly designed. Shells get stuck in their slots and decrease rate of fire.
10. The armour of the vehicle (maximum 25.4 mm) is insufficient.
11. The unusual always on front wheels and controllable rear wheels does not decrease maneuverability due to a balance between the axles, but results in more complicated front wheels, as they both turn the car and are drive wheels.

Mobility trials results:

1. The maximum speed is 78 kph, which is good for a 12.2 ton armoured car.
2. Medium speeds:
1. Highway: [illegible] kph
2. Stone-gravel road: 30 kph
3. Dirt road: 13 kph
   are satisfactory.
   The relatively low speed across a dirt road is explained by the stiff suspension, as well as that the trials were held on a road previously traversed by tanks. The difference in width and necessity to brake before bumps led to the inability to use the full engine power of the vehicle.
3. Fuel consumption for 100 km:
1. Highway: 29 L
2. Stone-gravel road: 34.7 L
3. Dirt road: 48.5 L
   is low. These figures demonstrate the the engine is economic and that the gear ratios were picked well.
4. The range is high:
1. Highway: 600 km
2. Stone-gravel road: 500 km
3. Dirt road: 360 km
   due to the economical engine and relatively large fuel tank (175 L).
5. Temperature measurement showed that the temperature of the coolant stabilized at 75-80 C and oil pressure at 40-45 psi (3.1-3.2 kg/cm^2).
   The stable temperature shows that the engine power and transmission ratios were chosen well and that the oil and cooling systems work flawlessly.
6. The vehicle can climb 30 degree slopes, descend on 30 degree slopes, and tilt up to 22 degrees, which is enough for a wheeled vehicle.
7. The minimum turning radius is 16 meters, and is caused by the large length of the car.
8. Accelerating the car to 45 kph takes 250 meters. This is a good distance for a 12 ton car and shows that the engine is of good quality.
9. When driving at 64 kph, it takes 28 meters to brake. This demonstrates that the vehicle has reliable brakes, and is safe to use in a column or in a city.

Gunnery trials results:

1. The average deviation of the gun at 1000 meters is 0.19 horizontally and 0.18 vertically, and matches norms for the domestic 57 mm ZiS-2 gun (0.18 and 0.20 respectively).
2. The gun hits targets at 700 meters directly 100% of the time.
3. The odds of hitting the target from short stops at 400-700 meters decrease to 85%, and further decrease to 8% when shooting on the move.
   The decrease in chance to hit from movement or short stops is explained by large oscillations of the wheels during motion and their slow damping, as well as the poor telescopic sight.
4. Practical rate of fire:
1. Stationary: 5.2 RPM
2. From short stops, including movement between stops: 2.5 RPM
3. On the move: 4.6 RPM
   Which is insufficient for a 57 mm gun.
   The reasons for low rate of fire include
1. Poor ammunition rack design with jamming shells.
2. Poorly balanced oscillating part of the gun.
3. Poor telescopic sight.
4. Large and long oscillations of the hull and the high mass of the gun system make aiming difficult.
5. The gas concentration with a working engine and fans is 0.64 mg/L, and is within acceptable limits."

CAMD RF 38-11358-405

British Guns vs German Tanks

Since large amounts of British and American Lend-Lease vehicles were shipped to the Soviet Union, it was important to know how well they perform against German tanks. The 1942 "Report on the shooting of German tanks with AP and HE shells from tank guns" (CAMD RF 38-11355-832) tests the 40 mm QF 2-pounder gun on the Valentine MkIII.

First up for the test was the Czech LT vz 38, used by the German Wehrmacht under the designation PzKpfw 38(t).

At 250 meters, the 2-pounder penetrates the first 25 mm plate of the front armour, but does not penetrate the second. The front plate develops a crack 250 mm long. At 400 meters, it can only form a 7 mm deep dent in the first armour plate. Closing in to 200 meters, the Valentine fires at the front plate of the turret platform and penetrates. A hole is formed, 50 mm in radius. Cracks run though the first armour plate, 200 mm around the breach. 5 bolts holding the front armour plate in place are torn off. Firing again, from 600 meters, the shot forms a crack from the top to the bottom of the front armour plate. 

Moving on to the side, the first shot penetrates the turret all the way through. One hole on the left side, 55 mm entrance diameter, 70 mm exit diameter. One hole on the right side, 38 mm entrance and 38 mm exit diameter. Another shot at 600 penetrates the turret, and also the ammunition rack of the tank. 

At 800 meters, the Valentine penetrates the side of the turret, forming two cracks, 600 and 400 mm long. 10 bolts holding the armour plate on are torn off. Another shot from 800 meters penetrates the side of the turret platform, forming two 300 mm cracks, and causing spalling. 

Moving to the front of the tank again, the Valentine fires a shot at the upper sloped plate at 400 meters. A section of the armour, 300 mm by 140 mm, is broken off. Another shot at the lower sloped plate breaks off a piece 100 mm by 150 mm and penetrates the gas tank.

Conclusions: "The 40 mm AP shell does not penetrate front armour 50 (25+25) mm thick. The reason for this is poor quality of the shells. They are destroyed completely on impact.

The 30 mm side armour can be penetrated from 800-1000 meters."

That's it for the vz 38. The armour plates are overly hardened, as we've seen on the Tiger II. This causes the plates to crack, spall, and fall off. Still, the front 50 mm of armour prove to be a challenging opponent for the 2-pounder at any distance. 

Next up for testing is the StuG III. At 50 meters, the 2-pounder only forms a 20 mm deep dent in the StuG's front armour. However, at 100 meters, it manages to penetrate the upper part of the front plate. That result does not repeat, as another shot from 100 meters only makes a 25 mm deep dent. 4 shots from the side, all at 850 meters, go through.

Conclusion: "The 40 mm tank gun penetrates the side of the hull, 30 mm thick, from 850 meters. The front of the hull, 50 mm thick, is not reliably penetrable at any distance due to the poor shell quality. Upon impact, the shells shatter into small fragments."

The Valentine gets another turn, this time against a PzIII. The results are similar to the StuG. It cannot penetrate the front at 100, or even 50, meters. 

In the conclusions, the following is noted: "The British 40 mm shell, when fired at a 50 mm armour plate from 50-100 meters, makes a 20-25 mm dent and shatters. " ... "Scattering of shells from the 37 mm and 40 mm guns does not exceed the size of a StuG at 800 meters."

Quite a poor showing by the country that invented tanks in the first place! Let's see how their larger gun fares. Another test pits the 6-pounder from the Churchill MkIV against the Tiger.

"Target: turret. Armour thickness: 82 mm. Distance: 800 m. Result: penetration. Entrance hole 82 mm in diameter, exit hole, 75 mm in diameter

Target: turret. Armour thickness: 82 mm. Distance: 1000 m. Result: dent 90 mm deep, 90 mm in diameter. Inside, a 10 mm bump is formed, with a crack.

CAMD RF 38-11377-12

Target: turret. Armour thickness: 82 mm. Distance: 1000 m. Result: dent 120 mm by 80 mm, 70 mm deep. Bump on the inside.

Target: side. Armour thickness: 82 mm. Distance: 1000 m. Result: penetration, entrance hole 70 mm in diameter, exit hole 115 mm in diameter.

CAMD RF 38-11377-12

Target: side. Armour thickness: 82 mm. Distance: 625 meters. Result: penetration, breach diameter 58 mm.

Target: side. Armour thickness: 82 mm. Distance: 625 meters. Result: unsatisfactory hit on the bottom of the armour plate."

There's a comeback! Gone is the poor shell quality of the 2-pounder. Instead of shattering into dust on impact, the 6-pounder penetrates German armour at a great distance. The armour, on the other hand, is worse than what we saw on the StuG, with cracking and large diameter holes. 

Penetration

If you read the World of Tanks forums, odds are you've seen this penetration table. Overlord even talked about it on his blog. For those unfamiliar with it, let me give you a quick translation. 

The column on the left is distance to target in meters. The first row lists the guns: "45 mm tank gun model 1938 on tank T-70", "57 mm gun ZiS-4 on tank T-34", "76 mm gun F-34 on tank T-34 and ZiS-3 on SU-76", "85 mm gun D-5 on SPG SU-85 and S-53 on tank T-34-85", "85 mm gun of increased power, experimental", "100 mm gun on SPG SU-100", "122 mm gun D-25 on tank IS and SPG ISU-122", "152 mm howitzer on SPG ISU-152" (ML-20), "122 mm gun of increased power OBM-50, experimental" (BL-9), "152 mm gun of increased power OBM-53, experimental" (BL-8, BL-10), "57 mm English gun" (6 pounder), "75 mm American gun on tank M3 Lee" (M2 tank gun), "50 mm gun Model 1938 on tank PzIII", "75 mm gun Model 1940 on tank PzIV", "75 mm gun Model 1942 on tank Panther", "88 mm gun on tank Tiger", "88 mm gun on SPG Ferdinand". 

The V0 value indicates the muzzle velocity of the shell. Under each gun name, there are two columns: one for an armour plate angled at 60 degrees from horizontal and one for an armour plate angled 90 degrees from horizontal. When two values are shown in one box, the numerator is the performance of a caliber AP shell, the denominator is the performance of a subcaliber AP shell. 

CAMD RF 81-12038-303

If you've seen it before, you also have heard criticism aimed its way. "Propaganda!" some people cry. "The 8.8L/71 penetrated 203 mm at 100 meters, not 168! This document is not to be trusted!"

They are wrong about the propaganda bit, as this was a classified internal document, used by engineers to analyze the required armour and firepower for future tanks. It would be pretty foolish to falsify these numbers. Besides, a dense table of data isn't exactly the best for propaganda material.

However, the 8.8L/71 did penetrate 203 mm of armour... when the Germans tested it. German penetration testing standards were different from the Soviets'. German penetration tests were performed with specially selected shells, against armour angled at 30 degrees. If a shell could penetrate the effective armour thickness 50% of the time (several times in a row, depending on the shell caliber), that penetration is recorded as how much that shell can penetrate.

Obviously, the Soviets didn't get courtesy shipments of special testing ammo, so they used whatever was captured along with German tanks. Therefore, these tests give a better indication of how a tank would perform on the battlefield. The Soviets had two penetration standards. When only one penetration value is shown, 75% of the shell fragments end up behind the armour plate. When two penetration values are shown, the two values are for 20% penetration (possible penetration) and 80% penetration (guaranteed penetration). So, as you can see, according to this data, while the 8.8L/71 could penetrate 203 mm of armour using special shells with 50% probability, it could only penetrate 168 mm using regular shells with 75% probability.

This document is very interesting, because it brings together most common guns of WWII (regrettably, some interesting ones are missing, like the 17 pounder or the Sherman's 76 mm gun) under the same testing conditions. This makes the comparison between the various guns much easier than having to pick through various sources, and then tring to figure out all the different test conditions.

Now, time to do some comparisons! You may have read a lot about the unprecedentedly devastating power of the Tiger's gun. However, it penetrates 120 mm at most. This is definitely high for WWII, but similar performance is reached by the Soviet 57mm ZiS-4, that was mounted on some T-34s since 1941, as well as the 85mm guns from the SU-85 and T-34-85. With APCR, even the ordinary T-34's 76 mm gun surpasses the Tiger in penetration (albeit at the expense of accuracy).

The Tiger's successor, the Tiger II, reaches better results with the 8.8L/71 gun, 168 mm. However, the D-25 gun on the IS-2 (which I compared to the 88 mm guns before) achieves nearly as much penetration, and the D-10T gun on the SU-100 (also tested on the T-34-85) surpasses it.

The Panther's long 75 mm gun also has very good penetration, and is comparable to the experimental 85 mm gun. Of course, the experimental OBM-50 and OBM-53 surpass all other guns on this table with huge penetrations of 230 mm and 244 mm, respectively. This would have been enough to take out a Maus tank, if Germany had ever sent any into battle.

In conclusion, the myth of superior German tank guns is, yet again, proven false.

See more penetration values in Penetration, part 2.