Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

AT guns !!!

Discussion in 'Tank Warfare of World War 2' started by KBO, Nov 15, 2004.

  1. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    If you combine Power and accuracy then wich AT gun would you call the best of WW2 ??

    KBO :smok:
     
  2. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
  3. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    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    And Roel we cant keep on saying "there's a topic about this or that allready" when they are outdated or forgotten, because then we will soon run out of topics and interesting things to talk about. :eek:

    Anyways i would go for your choice to, or maby a 128mm L/55 AT gun.

    KBO ;)
     
  4. DesertWolf

    DesertWolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    The 88 L/71 i believe would get my choice.
     
  5. liang

    liang New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2003
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    USA
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  6. DesertWolf

    DesertWolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Liang, ur right.

    But would u consider a 16 inch gun in a battleship an antitank gun? :D
     
  7. Moonchild

    Moonchild New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Slovakia
    via TanksinWW2
    88 rules!!! :bang: :smok:
     
  8. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  9. KBO

    KBO New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2004
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    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
     
  10. DesertWolf

    DesertWolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    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 :D
     
  11. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  12. DesertWolf

    DesertWolf Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2004
    Messages:
    848
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    I see ur point and it is well taken :D
     
  13. general_grevious

    general_grevious New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    daventry
    via TanksinWW2
    the best anti-tank gun was the russian 100mm
     
  14. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    Care to support that with some evidence? All my sources indicate that the German 88mm L/71 was in fact more powerful.
     
  15. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    German 210mm howitzer is the pwnzer!
     
  16. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    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"?
     
  17. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    Cause it would crush the tank and then blow it up..... :D

    It was a joke. Something that size would suck as an anti-tank gun.
     
  18. general_grevious

    general_grevious New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    daventry
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  19. Roel

    Roel New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2003
    Messages:
    12,678
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Netherlands
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     
  20. Christian Ankerstjerne

    Christian Ankerstjerne Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    10
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    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.
     

Share This Page