Also going back to our argument about "is 15mm enough": was reading "History of the Panzerwaffe", in Spain Soviet T-26 and BT tanks were pierced by rifles at distances under 100m.
The response by them was to fire from long-range from their 45mm, evading close distances.
Zaloga's armored champions states that in Italy the average engagement with tanks would start at 350 yards.
Sounds like he used the original, while the tank warfare survey likely rounded things up from the original. Or is totally unrelated.
A couple of context things:
A. This is a Soviet study based on 735 medium & heavy tanks
B. This is for 1943-1944
C. There is no differentiation between Stug/Tiger/Towed AT as the source of these hits. Also there is no differentiation between KWK 42 and even KWK 37.
I see other things:
1. For distances >800m 88mm guns claim only 33% of their kills.
For 75mm it's about 16%
Which means 67% of kills for 88mm and 80+% of kills for 75mm was achieved at a distance under 800m.
2. At distances under 400m, 36% of 75mm kills were achieved and 18% of kills for 88mm.
3. The lack of segregation between Towed AT/AA/Tank/TD distorts the data because of completely different circumstances and visibility capacity in each case.
German 88mm Flak 18s were often forced to open fire at large distances because they were nearly impossible to conceal, due to their size. Compare that to a 75mm Pak 40.
Firing a 88mm gun from a Tiger turret (from a height of 3m), a 88mm PaK 43 (from a height of 1m) and a 88mm Flak 18 from a height of 2m give completely different visibility lines.
4. Not only that, TD units, Tank units and Flak units have very different training and optics.
I) An 88mm Flak has to be prepared to hit targets at 3000m, and gets optics and rangefinding for that role. As well as crews trained for long-range direct fire (somewhat similar to naval cannoneers in that regard), and selected from the best of the best.
At the same time, a heavy AA is immobile and easily detectable on the field, due to its height, forcing it to engage at longer distances..
II) An Anti-tank's crew's training is completely different. Their job is not to be the best, they are workhorses needed in every infantry division, the "black bone" of artillery and it's their job to trade their towed AT gun for enemy tanks. "Hide and Hope" as the unofficial US TD motto goes. For that reason, they prioritize camouflage, and are ready to sit and wait until the right time to make their "one of their few shots" before they get destroyed.
II) Tanks are different from both, their job is to take out any resistance and remain unpierceable. They are the tallest and most mobile of the three.
For this reason an 88mm in Heavy AA is likely to fire at 1200+m, tanks at 800+m while an AT gun is likely to fire at no more than 600m.
Lumping all 3 together messes things up badly. Which is exactly the problem of this study.
It's shows nothing about AT, it just show tank vulnerability at given distances. And even then you're mixing T-34s, IS, Churchill, Matilda, Sherman and KV tanks which were very different between themselves.
I-153 "Chayka" is an aircraft. Kind of unrelated.
The Americans developed their own heavy tank "T26" with a 90mm gun, but it was decided that producing it is not justified given that Shermans can do their tasks.
Although the Sherman M4E2 Jumbo is an example of a medium turned into a heavy tank.
I have substantial experience discovering "how wrong I am" when I use plain logic and not getting into details. Which is why I sometimes refrain from expressing an opinion.
Speaking of which: I hated the pre-NSB meta of "Heavy tanks 2 being almost unbeatable compared to AT 2s" but now I realize Podcat's era meta had actually been kind of close to reality due to low AT mobility simulated.
- 1
- 1
