PDA

View Full Version : 47/32 vs KV1



DVX
07-22-2011, 04:46 PM
Should be no match...
And anyway there was a little possibility for the 47/32.

DVX
07-22-2011, 05:07 PM
Surely they know where to shoot, but probably they had to get very closer for those 70mm of rear armour. I think no more than 500 meters with HEAT ammo, and it's a dangerous low distance. Aniway that's the result. But btw, are we sure that is a 47/32 effect? :lol:

Chevan
07-23-2011, 06:05 AM
what is the 47/32 ?

fredl109
07-23-2011, 06:17 AM
DVX Hello, you are sure it is KV1 was destroyed by Italian troops, because I knew the KV1 very difficult to think that this is a 47/32 which is made of such damage, would you please a little more info on this document.
Amitiés Fred

fredl109
07-23-2011, 06:42 AM
I just visit Italy from 1935 to 1945 and my doubts were justified, because the 47/32 has a penetration capacity than 4 cm, therefore impossible to penetrate the armor of a KV1.
Amitiés Fred

DVX
07-23-2011, 07:13 AM
DVX Hello, you are sure it is KV1 was destroyed by Italian troops, because I knew the KV1 very difficult to think that this is a 47/32 which is made of such damage, would you please a little more info on this document.
Amitiés Fred

Hi Fred. Yes, it could appear incredible but it's possible the 47/32 did the job. Actually I don't know if really the shots were fired by the 47/32, but I've the comparative perforation skills done by the Regio Esercito between the French gun 47/34 of the R35s in service with the Italian army and the our 47/32. Here the comparative list with standard armor piercing ammunitions:

French 47/34
100 m - 83 mm
500 m - 73 mm
1000 m - 62 mm
1500 m - 52 mm

Italian 47/32
100 m - 58 mm
500 m - 43 mm
But with HEAT ammo the penetration force of the 47/32 grew to 115 mm within 500 m.

So, theorically it's possible that the 47/32 did the job and even from a distance over 500 m, considering the 70mm rear armor of the KV1. Surely the shots are concentrated in rear part of the tank, so who fired knew where to aim and probably where had to aim. With HEAT rounds the 47/32 could do the job in the photo.

DVX
07-23-2011, 07:32 AM
what is the 47/32 ?

This is the 47/32

DVX
07-23-2011, 07:57 AM
Here a list of Italian ammunitions. Fred look at page 3, there is a pic of a HEAT round of the 47/32 il proiettile EPS (effetto pronto speciale) a bit rarer than the EP effetto pronto (the more common HEAT round).

http://www.xpdeus.it/munizioni_obice__mortaio_cannone.pdf

leccy
07-23-2011, 09:19 AM
Queery about the Cannone da 47/32 M35 (I presume that is what you are discussing)

The 47/32 was in service from the 1930's onwards. Were they used in the Western Desert and if so when. Looking at that penetration capability of 115mm that would have meant they could penetrate the Matilda II Infantry Tank's frontal armour which was a maximum of 78mm. When was the HEAT round developed and deployed.

As far as I was aware the Italians had no weapons that could penetrate the Matilda's frontal or side armour (possibly the Cannone da 90/53 AA weapon if it was in theatre) hence the reason for Matildaitis (similar to the Allies Tigeritis) in some units.

Chevan
07-23-2011, 09:48 AM
47mm caliber and 32? Lengh of the gun?

tankgeezer
07-23-2011, 10:10 AM
Although I was unaware(my crystal ball doesnt have an app for it) of anyone fielding HEAT munitions during WW II (aside from Bazookas, and Panzer Fausts/Schreck,and mines) anyway, the velocity of a gun is unimportant with a heat munition, as apart from getting the round to the target, the high explosive does all the work. I do have my reservations about a 47 mm heat munition, not much of a payload..

Chevan old friend, good to see you!! the designation could mean 47mm bore diameter with a barrel length of 32 calibers (a bit more than 1.5 meters) but it might also mean a 47 mm gun accepted or issued in 1932.

DVX
07-23-2011, 10:10 AM
Yes Leccy, but the EP and EPS rounds (HEAT) started to be delivered in late 1941, the Ariete division received the first EP ammos in the Bir el Gobi battle (november-december 1941). In that time the Matildas were no more a complete scare for Italian troops like in 1940. And anyway the HEAT ammo remained rarely at disposal.
Even with HEAT ammo the 47/32 could be effective against a Matilda just around the 500meters, a distance too close to not be easily wiped out by the tanks standing off the range, especially those armed with a 75mm gun but the same Matilda's 40mm gun too.
Italians didn't have weapons able to pierce the Matilda armor, exept the heavy fied-artillery. They used some tactics to reduce the danger of the Matildas, like to shoot in the tracks or in the bottom when the tank, that was quite slow, overcame some obstacles.
Even the German PAKs of 37 and 50mm could not do something against the Matilda.
However the 75mm guns with HEAT ammo started to be effective from a good distance, but this kind of ammo was not at disposal before late 1941.
The 90/53 mm AA/AT gun was better than the German 88 and was affective against every Allied tank.

fredl109
07-23-2011, 10:14 AM
I still have big doubts my dear Chevan, not so much by the caliber of the ammunition, but its speed is only 630 m / s, rather low for a shielding like the KV1, which caused a lot of problem with German tanks, when it appeared on the front, that's why I wish that DVX tell us the source of this document, we'll know a little more time.
Amitiés Fred

DVX
07-23-2011, 10:20 AM
The source is an album of an autiere (army truck driver). The photo was taken behind the lines, I think he neither could know what exactly happened. Anyway I'm not sure that the 47/32 did it. But with HEAT ammo and from a very close range theorically it was possible.
What other weapon? From the holes can you guess a possible caliber?

fredl109
07-23-2011, 11:22 AM
I agree with your sense DVX, for indeed if you look at the hole diameter, it seems a little too wide for a round of 47, I would lean more about a round of 75 that can pierce the armor of KV1 .
Amitiés Fred

leccy
07-23-2011, 11:46 AM
fred109

It does not matter about the velocity of HEAT rounds to much, the penetration is by a explosive formed slug of metal that burns through the armour. The velocity only comes into effect for the range that the round can reach (higher velocity generally equals longer range).

The Matildas 2pdr had no HE round so was vulnerable to AT weapons later on (there was a HE 2pdr round but it was never issued and was of limited power anyway). The Matilda units First Echelon repair always carried cutting torches with them after the first couple of engagements with Italian artillery, this was because the turrets used to get jammed with shell splinters and AT shot welding between the turret and turret ring.

tankgeezer
07-23-2011, 01:14 PM
HEAT munitions breach armor by means of a high velocity jet stream that is formed by the base detonation of the explosive filling. This produces a shockwave within the filling that is focused by the cone shaped depression in the face of the filling. The metal cone liner, which was a later development , could be made of about anything, but early on, steel was the preferred material, with copper coming along sometime after. The liner allowed a longer build up of energy in the wave, and would then deform, and join with the jet stream as it went toward the target. The Jet Stream, not the liner is what does the work of penetrating the armor, the extreme pressure of the stream causing the steel to flow like a viscous liquid. Present day stream velocities exceed 30,000 fps.
An explosivly formed penetrator is a different thing altogether, a mass of Bronze acted upon by the pressure of a high explosive, will take the rough shape of a penetrator, and by its mass, and velocity perf the target much like any other kinetic A.P. munition.

Chevan
07-24-2011, 01:20 AM
Chevan old friend, good to see you!! the designation could mean 47mm bore diameter with a barrel length of 32 calibers (a bit more than 1.5 meters) but it might also mean a 47 mm gun accepted or issued in 1932.
Hi mate, nice to meet you again, my old friend..
Well i have guessed the 32 caliber length of barrel a too short for good speed of shell and for armor penetration abolity. i believe the average barrel length of any effective AT gun began from 50-70 of calibers.

Chevan
07-24-2011, 01:37 AM
I still have big doubts my dear Chevan, not so much by the caliber of the ammunition, but its speed is only 630 m / s, rather low for a shielding like the KV1, which caused a lot of problem with German tanks, when it appeared on the front, that's why I wish that DVX tell us the source of this document, we'll know a little more time.
Amitiés Fred
Bonjour mesue Fred:)
Yes the 630 m/s doesn't look like effective AT speed of shell. But as said our friend Leccy the speed doen't matter for CUMULATIVE shell. The speed of Panzerfaust hardly exceeded 150 m/s , but it's penetration ability was outstanding. I still have a doubts , however, the the cumulative ammos really existed for 47/32 barrel in that early period of war ( seem 1941) . It seems for me, and i do share your doubts, this tank was destroyd by that tiny gun. Likely it was a bigger gun, but that fact doesn't exclude the possibility the Italians might to get training with another guns, trying to hit its' armor. It was regular practice for all sides of war. I know the Soviet crews also got trainig missions to shoot at destroyed mewly designed germans kittes.Of course unless they had enough ammos for that.

fredl109
07-24-2011, 06:43 AM
Hello everyone, so I asked on the forum and Italy 1935-45 the answer is not expected, given the poor can not pared qualitées tank of this canon. Remember that the Italians have taken anti-tank guns on Russian notament the 75/46 anti air and to a lesser extent parts 75/27mod 12 and 100/17. To conclude this is what said the Italian Authorities at the time "Le armi anticarro organicamente assegnate allo CSIR (in totale n. 108 pezzi da 47/32) sono sempre stato assolumente inadeguate per qualità e quantità alle particolari esigenzi della scacchiere operativo russo ed alle caratteristiche dei carri medi e pesanti impiegati dall'avversario" (Foglio n. 5209/op. du 5 giugno 1942, Mezzi anticarro, Comando del corpo di spedizione italiano in Russia - Ufficio operazioni.
Friendly Friend

PS : Chevan the word "mesue" in french is "monsieur", tank's for this little word in my language.

DVX
07-24-2011, 09:13 AM
Hi Fred. On Italie 1935-1945 what gun do you think did the job?
A 75mm? (75/18 or 75/46) or a bigger one (for ex. a 100/17)?

Chevan
07-24-2011, 09:56 AM
PS : Chevan the word "mesue" in french is "monsieur", tank's for this little word in my language.
sorry for my ignorance..;)

fredl109
07-25-2011, 10:04 AM
Hello, DVX I allowed myself to post the photos on the forum in Italy from 1935 to 1945 and they tell me I wait.
Speaking of forums, I should point out that you can match the 1935-45 Forum Italy, as many of its members speak and write English. You are of course welcome, as well on my side I will post the same thing for him to know you here on this excellent forum.
Friendly Fred

fredl109
07-27-2011, 02:07 PM
Dear DVX , we have all the same mistake watching your picture, in fact the answer is contained in the photo. On the turret we perceive the mark OKW which is the mark of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht, in fact your tank was destroyed by a gun or guns of 88 because it was the only one who has the time to pierce the schielding of the KV1 This was me by my best friend made ​​me notice the markings on the turret of the tank, the Italian soldiers we see are certainly arrived on the scene after.
Friendly Fred

DVX
07-28-2011, 08:31 AM
Hi Fred, yes you could be right. I've seen the written OKH (in the case OberKommando Heer) High Command of the Army, but it seemed part of a Russian wrote. There are other words on the turret and on the rear (badly readable). Anyway I don't think to an 88. An 88 could do the job from good distance and with bigger damage. The shots instead are concentrated on the rear and indicate a near range and I think a lighter gun.

fredl109
10-25-2011, 03:26 PM
DVX to answer you, I confirm DVX, it is indeed shot 88, in fact it is the only shot of the day of your photo can penetrate the tank. The other parts anti-tank of the time were quite incapable. You should know that despite their small number at startup, the KV1 was an unpleasant surprise for the Germans and their allies.
friendships Fred

DVX
10-25-2011, 04:01 PM
What about other kinds of Italian guns? For example the obice 100/17, or the 75CK AA?

fredl109
10-26-2011, 07:03 AM
Boujour DVX, and much still the same caliber of these pieces could not pierce it. Just had him make cuts but failed to break his shield which was very important for the time and only one gun type 88 succeeded. But it does not say that this is not the Italians who have destroyed, it must be remembered that the Germans had provided some 88 pieces to Italy.
friendships Fred

steben
10-26-2011, 07:45 AM
an 88 could've done the job pretty well ...

Or the Italians had captured Russian guns on their own? (thinking of the 76mm)

fredl109
10-26-2011, 04:34 PM
an 88 could've done the job pretty well ...

Or the Italians had captured Russian guns on their own? (thinking of the 76mm)

Hello Steben, I have a little doubt about the 76, but why not, in any case the Italians possessed in multiple copies. I will still find out about the penetration capacity of 76.
friendships Fred