[REL] T26sM39 / T26E ... data XML

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Do you have this book?

"Light Tanks BT-2, BT-5, BT-7, T-26, T-40, T-50, T-60, T-70" by Mikhail Baryatinskiy?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b?url ... &x=11&y=18

I now have this book but it doesn't have the depth of data I wanted. It did add a little more info as it claimed late T-26 tanks were upgraded to 20mm side armor.
I went over the data for the 75mm/L24 again and that would have been a real challenge for a StuGB to take out a T34 from the side or rear let alone front. So I am convinced that Wittmann and his unit of StuGs were not fighting 12 or 18 T34/76s at this point in the war.

That has been my stance from the beginning.

Sometimes you have to go with what feels right.

Otherwise every single scenario for Normandy, involving the Americans, would have Tigers facing them. Actually, before the Cobra breakout, I think there were only 3-6 Tigers in Panzer Lehr facing the Americans.

The histories don't always get it right. Men make mistakes and they aren't always in a position to run over and tap on the turret and ask the commander, "Excuse me, what model PzIV is this?"

Of course that's why we try our best to cross reference every battle. Sometimes that's just not possible.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lieste]

I'm not sure where I read it, but I do recall a comment that suggested that the early StuG actually had a longer barrel than the L24, and the photos were airbrushed to neuter them a bit

If this is in fact the case - not sure, but it may be a possibility then you'd be looking at an L42(?) which is just about capable against early T34, but limited against KV1/KV2. This might go some way towards explaining the much higher success rate of the StuG than the ealy war PzIII/PzIV - along with artillery sights and artillery trained crews.

[Mad Russian]

I would have to see that. All the research data I have ever seen shows the early StuG's with the short barrel.

I don't believe they had a longer gun. Alot of the photos we see today are from German archives not airbrushed propaganda pictures.

That's just my take on it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lieste]

That may be the case, as I said I had a dim recollection of a quote along those lines...

Production figures though indicate that over 90% had an L43 or L48 gun by war end ~800 StuG Ausf A-E, and 8400+ StuG Ausf F, G
So while the short barrel early marques would be very important when they were the best available, they barely register overall.



On reflection they may have been discussing L48/L43 and suggesting the latter were not used?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Lieste
That may be the case, as I said I had a dim recollection of a quote along those lines...
Production figures though indicate that over 90% had an L43 or L48 gun by war end ~800 StuG Ausf A-E, and 8400+ StuG Ausf F, G
So while the short barrel early marques would be very important when they were the best available, they barely register overall.
On reflection they may have been discussing L48/L43 and suggesting the latter were not used?

The development of the long 75mm if pretty well documented.
The first report of a test firing of the 75mm/L40 ’sPaK L/41‘ was dated July 16, 1941. Previous to that a 75mm/L33 was under development. But that was never used.

A Sturmgeschutz with the L/41 (now called a L/40) started construction late 1941 but was ordered halted. A better gun, the 75mm/L43, was developed and installed in 3 test Sturmgeschutz completed March 1942.

It might have been even harder for the 75mm/L24 to deal with heavy armor. This is because the AP shells may have been the earlier Panzergranate Patrone. And not the improved Panzergranate 39 which came into service the later half of 1941. Most APHE penetration data is based on the Pzgr. 39.