wiking said: Armor penetration for APCR from the link I gave is 245mm at 1250 meters. That is against 90 degrees, but since you say the effective value for 120mm RHA sloped at 60 degrees is the same as 240mm at 90 degrees, then that should punch right through. Click to expand...

Also the T-55 after 1949 had only 100mm of hull armor, so effective value is even less than the 120mm version. Click to expand...

The Chinese version only is the 100mm hull armor as far as I can tell. Click to expand...

That isn't even factoring in APDS. Click to expand...

The number you're quoting is APCBC, not APCR. Click to expand...

Admiral Beez said: Makes me wonder how a group of King Tigers would have done in the Six Days War under Israeli-flag. Click to expand...

Except the sloping causes the APCRs (and most such rounds, really) effectiveness to decrease as well as the armor's effectiveness to increase. Hence why the penetration value of the APCR at 100 meters against 30 degrees of sloped armor is 238 instead of 304 like it is at 90 degrees of sloped. As your link shows, at a range of 1,000 meters the APCRs ammo penetration against 30 degree sloping is 165mm. At 1,500 meters, it is 148. The figures for 90 degree slope at the same distances are 257 and 234 respectively. We don't have the data for 60 degrees, but given that it's steeper then 30 degrees (remember, this is from the vertical), that suggests the APCRs penetration value would be even lower. So no, it won't go right through.You've got that backwards. It actually had 100mm of hull armor1949. After 1949, it had 120mm. Also, it wasn't the T-55 yet, although that's a minor quibble.Yeah, it is. I was calcing for the T-54-2 and later models. Effective armor for the Type-59's frontal hull is 200mm.Obviously I'm not going to factor in a round that doesn't exist and would never be designed, seeing as the KwK-43 was already on the way out by the end of the war and would have been phased out of service before APDS rounds came around.And I stated as much. Since that is the more direct comparison, it is more telling. We don't have the APCR values for the D-10, so we your pretty much comparing apples to oranges by citing the APCR values of the KwK-43 against the value of the D-10's APBC.Of course the Israelis would do great. The gross incompetence of the Arab armies more then offsets the technical inferiority of the King Tiger relative to the Arab T-54/55s. In other words: the men matter more then the machines in this case.