Power and accuracy are both largely determined by the length of the barrel, therefore I'd go for the 88mm L/71 again... However, I think there's a topic on this out there already. http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1330 http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=278
Well were talking about "AT guns", and not just "Tankguns".. And Roel we cant keep on saying "there's a topic about this or that allready" when they are outdated or forgotten, because then we will soon run out of topics and interesting things to talk about. Anyways i would go for your choice to, or maby a 128mm L/55 AT gun. KBO
Oh H*ll not again. I will take the 16-inch guns on the USS Iowa. It's got sligtly longer range than the 88/L71 and just a bit more powerful than the 128mm also.
I can say this much, I wouldn't like being in a tank and facing 16inch fire. You see KBO, we've discussed this topic and people get tired of it when you bring them up again. Like liang.
well Roel, its kinda annoying for new members that they cant discuss something because it has been discussed, like with "Desertwolf", and old members arent required to answer the topic at all.. so there's nothing to be tired of
Actually Roel. I would appreciate it if u would discuss some old topics as some of us new members have not had a chance to participate in such conversations. sorry about the inconvenience
No problem at all. My point when I say that something has been discussed and provide the links, is "please continue the topic where we left off instead of making a new one about the same thing!" This is incredibly practical for forum maintenance, as well as preventing things being repeated over and over to the great annoyance of older members (not meaning to discourage younger members!). When I post such links, what i'm actually asking you to do is to move your remarks and opinions there instead of here. That's all.
Care to support that with some evidence? All my sources indicate that the German 88mm L/71 was in fact more powerful.
Is the what? As far as I know, the 210mm was heavy artillery, not an anti-tank gun. It was not supposed to be used against tanks and probably never was. Is there a particular reason why it would be "the pwnzer"?
Cause it would crush the tank and then blow it up..... It was a joke. Something that size would suck as an anti-tank gun.
In fact Livingston & Bird's calculated results show that the Russian 100 mm. using APBC and the German 88 mm. using APCBC have almost identical penetration.
If you're going to quote another member of this forum, please mention him as the actual source you're using. http://www.fun-online.sk/forum/viewtopi ... 463#106463 Claiming his words as your own is plagiarism. I think Livingston & Bird have made the fatal mistake of not incorporating the effect of the angle at which the test plate was hit. My source, http://gva.freeweb.hu , indeed mentions almost identical penetration values for the 88mm L/71 with APCBC and the 100mm L/59.6 with APBC; however, the 88mm gun's penetration was measured against a plate slanted at 30 degrees whereas the 100mm gun was tested against a vertical plate. It also mentions the penetration of the same Russian gun against plates slanted at 30 degrees and this penetration is significantly lower (25%) than that of the 88mm L/71. Also, we must not forget that the Germans had an APCR round for the 88mm L/71, which provided an even greater penetrative power and for which the Russians had no rival.
Only a few thousand APCR rounds were manufactured, though, so these shouldn't really be considered when measuring the penetration capability of the 8,8 cm Kw K 43.