Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 30 of 30

Thread: 47/32 vs KV1

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    South West
    Posts
    953

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    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.
    IN the days of lace-ruffles, perukes and brocade
    Brown Bess was a partner whom none could despise
    An out-spoken, flinty-lipped, brazen-faced jade,
    With a habit of looking men straight in the eyes
    At Blenheim and Ramillies fops would confess
    They were pierced to the heart by the charms of Brown Bess.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,307

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    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.
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 07-24-2011 at 07:29 AM.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    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.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    Quote Originally Posted by fredl109 View Post
    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.

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    141

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    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.
    He who asks a question remains ignorant five minutes, who does not ask remains ignorant of his life.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    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)?

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Southern Russia , Krasnodar
    Posts
    4,077

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    Quote Originally Posted by fredl109 View Post

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

    "I decide who is a Jew and who is an Aryan "- Hermann Goering

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    141

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    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
    He who asks a question remains ignorant five minutes, who does not ask remains ignorant of his life.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    141

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    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
    He who asks a question remains ignorant five minutes, who does not ask remains ignorant of his life.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    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.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    141

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    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
    He who asks a question remains ignorant five minutes, who does not ask remains ignorant of his life.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Italia
    Posts
    224

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    What about other kinds of Italian guns? For example the obice 100/17, or the 75CK AA?

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    141

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    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
    He who asks a question remains ignorant five minutes, who does not ask remains ignorant of his life.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    an 88 could've done the job pretty well ...

    Or the Italians had captured Russian guns on their own? (thinking of the 76mm)
    It is nice to have big heavy tanks, it is even nicer not to need them

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    France
    Posts
    141

    Default Re: 47/32 vs KV1

    Quote Originally Posted by steben View Post
    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
    He who asks a question remains ignorant five minutes, who does not ask remains ignorant of his life.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •