Com-Central.net

- bsmart

No I admit that there is a theory of "SHATTER GAP" that some believe and others don't . The concept of arguing SHATTER GAP is part of the basic religion of the AFVNews discussion group. Other key parts of the faith are

"Were there Green Tigers in Tunisia?"

and

"Did American units have Sabot rounds for the 57mm AT gun in Europe?"

It doesn't matter which side ogf the argument you are on you just need to have a strong opinion on at least two of them.

The faith is not in the belief but in the existence of passioned discussion

- bsmart

I may have mentioned Lorrin, but I wasn't going to bring up the dreaded
Shatter GAP

- JWB2

I got the info from C.G. Erickson a few years ago at one of the visits to Littlefields.

- clausb

That is the result of a firing test conducted by the US Army. IIRC it was 90mm vs Panther type armor so it probably has a lot to do with undermatch. Post war tank armor was desiged to deal with HVAP and early APDS.

But the T-34s armour wasn't.....

90mm projectile vs 80mm of Panther frontal armour gives a T/D of 0.88 which is not exactly a massive "undermatch", in fact it is in the same ballpark as, say, a German 75mm vs a late-war Sherman hull at 63mm (T/D 0.84). In the latter case, your logic would dictate that hitting the Shermans armour at an angle of 40 degrees from the side would have a better chance of penetring than a hit at 30 degrees from the side. That sounds rather counterintuitive to me.....
I've yet to see an actual test result, official penetration data or an emperically based penetration formula that would result in what you describe - resistance of armour degrading at angles over 56 degrees. So unless you can point to the exact tests, I'd have to say that it is either a fairy tale or at least a misunderstanding.

Claus B