Armor vs Firepower

What was more important in a tank to tank battle? Assuming both sides had similar methods of communication, firepower or armor? After checking the stats of the Comet tank, it had a pretty powerful 17 pounder, but had non-sloped 76mm frontal armor. On the other hand, the Panther Ausf. G had 60mm armor at 35 degrees which was effectively 104mm, and had a slightly weaker 75mm KwK 42 L/70. Would lighter armor make up for a more powerful gun? How would the M18 hellcat(light armor, powerful gun) fare in combat against a KV-1 (thick armor, mediocre gun)?

 

I thought it was firepower, then armor

 

Tank to tank all things being equal. Whoever can penetrate the other first wins.

If a M18 and a KV1 stood at range and exchanged fire the HVAP rounds from the M18 would win the fight unless the KV1 had a superior gunner.

In close the M18 would flank the KV1 faster than it could traverse the turret opening up it's weaker armor.


Could the KV1 win? Yes if it scored a good first shot. Is it likely to? Not unless it was ambushing.

 

I'd say firepower since the whole point would be to penetrate and destroy as long as we are talking one on one. Along with that there has to be superior training to ensure a hit on the first go.

 

excellent point here, which I don't see discussed often....the training!..in any weaponry

 

Perhaps the question is too broad? Wouldn't the balance change in different terrain? In North Africa or southern Russia engagements might be at 1000 yards, while in the hedgerows it might be at 50 yards. At long range, the gun is the deciding factor while at close range the balance would shift towards armor

 

Good point, but does a more powerful gun always have more range? And do more powerful guns have a slower loading rate?

 

"Powerful" in this case is defined as velocity, which translates to kinetic energy/penetration at a given range. For example, the standard 75mm AP round (at 2000 fps) of the Sherman was, on paper, able to penetrate the front hull of a Panzer IV out to 500 yards. The AP round of the newer high velocity 75mm Sherman gun, the "76" (at 2,600 fps) was able to penetrate beyond 1000 yards. Now, these are factory tests which don't take into account the many variables in combat, but at a glance you can see that increasing the velocity by 25-30% doubled the penetration and thus the effective range of the gun.

In Combat, in theory, the standard 75 was more than a match for a Pzr IV at short/medium range. At long range, the Pzr IV (with its own high velocity 75) had the edge.

 

Oh, the question is definitely much too broad. With no parameters for location simply stating that comms and such were the same. I assumed this was in the realm of a video game style question.

 

I thought it was the right proportion of firepower, armor, mobility, in that order of importance...if you have heavy armor and light gun, against a medium armored tank, no easy kill?....realistically thinking.....and as PzJr said, TRAINING, -and I will add tactics-play a role...is the heavy armor tank defensive or offensive???!!...that must've been a lot of ''fun'' trying to take out Tigers and Panthers that were in defensive positions!...

 

I think it is always on flux. If a heavily armored tank shows up the opponent will up arm to penetrate it and if your tanks are being penetrated then applied armor or thicker armor shows up ASAP. I believe it is the balance of armor, firepower and mobility that is constantly being shifted to achieve the perfect balance,...well none exist but that is the goal. . Look at the speed of the latest generation of tanks, their thin uranium perpetrators at 5000 fps, sorry World, the US is stuck in feet and inches, at least I am, , explosive outer skins to twart the incoming and thanks to Israel modular armor for quick replacement. components are endless as are munitions that only explode over the top armor. It is endless with tanks approaching 5-7 million USD. If o.ne has an advantage in one of the aspects it does not stay for long.

I cannot see one as superior for long. Stealth may be the new factor !!!! Maybe kidding .

Now if a Maus and a Stuart meet on the North German plain ?????????

Gaines

 

I thought the Jadtiger [tank killer] and Konigstiger were too heavy for their weight....so, with the technology back then, you could only add so much armor for the tank to be a tank and not a mobile pillbox

 

Gaines,

WRT the ATGMs and top-attack, you could also add that the missiles now have tandem warheads...the first detonates to set off and ERA, then the primary punches through the cleared path.

And yes, I would agree that the armor/firepower/speed balance is always in flux. Not to mention military thinking. The tank has been declared "dead" some many times I have lost count...Yet, the are still a major component of the battlefield.

 

If I can be honest, but repetitive, having said this before. And expand somewhat on KB's 'maybe too broad' point:
I sort of dislike all this 'combat penetration' business. I find it a bit weird and simplistic.

Things that had a bearing on, and thus were important in, real world tank vs. tank battles:

• Terrain
• Firepower
• Armour
• relative mobility
• Angle of encounter
• Range
• Traverse speed
• Reload speed
• Morale
• Experience
• Training
• Doctrine
• Leadership
• Fuel
• Ammunition
• Supply
• Support
• Reconnaissance
• Production
• Luck
• Etc. etc. etc.

Firepower and Armour are in there, of course they are, but it always seems so reductive to distil an encounter down to those two factors. It smacks of war being a clean sheet of paper without any of the factors that scared, calm, badly led, well led, expert, amateur, squishy, fleshy creatures in motorised metal boxes had to contend with.
" How would the M18 hellcat(light armor, powerful gun) fare in combat against a KV-1 (thick armor, mediocre gun)?" is unanswerable, really. Or perhaps more kindly can only provide an exceptionally basic 'answer' devoid of any real-world considerations.
Has the M18 emerged from cover at point blank range? Are the crew of the KV stunned & half blinded by a recent encounter elsewhere. Or did the M18 crew just wake from a freezing night in a bush along with someone screwing up the rations, while the KV chaps are well-rested, clear-eyed & full of caffeine after an excellent night in good quarters? Is the KV a beutepanzer maintained by captured Russians who've jammed cigarette ends or mud in every pipe? Has the M18 received a batch of ammunition been stored in a swamp? And so on...
It's endless really, and while It's fun to speculate on purely technical comparisons in a paper world, is the answer really ever that informative if the subject is a theoretical battlefield encounter?

This penetration and physics stuff can indeed be interesting in it's own right, but only as a purely technical enquiry. It can't really adress that 'combat' question very well.

As for the old Firepower/Mobility/Protection balance in tanks.
I always think 'Production' needs to be thrown in there too, as a real priority consideration.

Anyway, sorry for banging on again, but to paraphrase something a chap who used to frequent here liked to say when this kind of stuff came up: "Which is better? Apples or Oranges".

 

In some cases you probably don't want too much armor on a tank, because it might affect its speed and maybe its maneuverability/mobility. one possible case is the King Tiger it had such thick armor it was almost like a fortress but unfortunately it had an effect on its engines and it added a lot more weight (153,662 lbs, 69,700 kg) to it. Most Tigers II's were lost due to abandonment than combat.

 

Not a lot of armor can really effect a tank, making it lighter and more mobile and faster which is really helpful in combat but lighter tanks most likely have weaker guns. An example of that are the Panzer Mark III's and IV's when it came across tanks like the Russian KV-1 or T-34.

 

This topic could have been from a military technology paper for some staff examination. There is a missing dimension - mobility. Typically the choice is represented as a triangle, with the designer opting for a point somewhere for a given tank engine. Post Ww2, the British opted for protection and firepower over mobility with the Chieftain having a big gun, thick armour but poor mobility. The Germans Leopard I and French AMX 30 were optimised for mobility. Utimately they have all converged with the M1, Leopard II and Challenger all occupying the same part of the triangle.

In 1944, the 21 Army Group Operations Research teams looked at this in respect of the armoured vehicles in use in Normandy. They came to the conclusion that up-gunning the tank was far more important than up armouring it.Adding armour to an M4 would not increase its survivability, while making it easier to kill the enemy would. An analysis of British tank casualties showed that in no cases did improvised appliqué armour prevent a penetration of the hull or turret. Nor was there any evidence that the front of the tank was more likely to be engaged than the side. Adding enough armour to make a serious difference to survival would render the vehicle immobile,.

 

So I guess this is the reason why the Tiger tanks (I & II's) did not have a long lasting effect on the war? I have been thinking about this for a long time.

 

There weren't enough Tiger tanks to make much difference in the war. Had there been, in the west at least, allied air superiority would have blunted their effects. When you get past the "romance" of armored warfare, it is artillery and air that wins wars. "The artillery does the killing and the infantry does the dying."

 

Artillery Kills
Infantry Holds
Armor Exploits
Air Suppresses
Navy Blockades

I think I've got that right.