I think that might reveal considerable insight into Russian design choices. It would be great to see the PTP curves for all the weapons that the Russians generated. The rugged track design gives it both speed and mobility over any terrain it may encounter. T-80’s six-gear transmission generates 1000 horsepower. One such weapon is the German 8.8 cm Flak, the ‘88’. Contents: German Reich (1933) Anti-Aircraft Gun 19,650 Built In the history of warfare, there are many weapons that have reached such great fame that their name was easily recognizable worldwide. First appearing in 1976, it was also the first tank equipped with a gas propulsion engine as its main source of power. JNo Comments 8.8 cm Flak Ilustration made by David B. So obviously the Russians could not be using the certified penetration metric for the Kwk42 to come to this conclusion. The T-80 is a third-generation main battle tank. Yet 75 mm at 60 degrees is at a minimum 150 mm of vertical armor by the cosine calculation, the most conservative calculation, while the certified penetration value for the Kwk42 the Russians deemed to be only 132 mm. Looking at some old posts of Peters' I was looking at the evaluation of the T-34/85M's armor performance, and it was calculated that the Kwk42 gun on the Panther could still defeat the uparmored 75 mm sloped at 60 degrees on the T-34/85M at 720 meters. If, on the other hand, your interest is in choosing a gun to penetrate an enemy's weapon, you err in the other direction- "does this gun have a high probability of defeating the enemy's armor?" Then you use something like the 80 % certified penetration criteria as your metric.Įvidence of this. I think Peter is using the word "penetrate" in this criteria as Soviet designers would have, from the perspective of designing armor to resist rounds, i.e., "would the armor be compromised even if the round does not go through"? That is simply conservative engineering.
0 kommentar(er)
