Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Best tank gun of WW2???


  • Please log in to reply
160 replies to this topic

#1 Ernst_Barkmann401

Ernst_Barkmann401

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 07:52 PM

I am going to try this poll thing one more time.

What do you think is the best gun in WW2, as far as armour penetration, velocity, reliable, accuracy, etc. goes?

#2 drache

drache

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 08:05 PM

The 88mm L/71 - this might spark some debate.
"I die for my fatherland. I have a clear conscience." - Admiral Wilhelm Canaris
Posted Image

#3 TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 08:06 PM

Why no German 128mm on the list? If you want penetrating power its gotta be the JagdTiger!

Failing that the old 88mm does it for me! But only cos I have an 88mm L56 shell casing from Normandy next to me as I type...

[ 03. August 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: TheRedBaron ]
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

#4 Ernst_Barkmann401

Ernst_Barkmann401

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 09:25 PM

Originally posted by TheRedBaron:
Why no German 128mm on the list? If you want penetrating power its gotta be the JagdTiger!

Failing that the old 88mm does it for me! But only cos I have an 88mm L56 shell casing from Normandy next to me as I type...

The 128mm was never used in a tank (Maus doesn't count), I am strictly talking tanks, I didn't take any Jagdpanzers, StuGs, etc. into consideration. If I did considered such weapons, it would take me a little be longer, considering all the Pak guns I would have to take into consideration.

I was just intending to make this a discussion about tanks.

#5 TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 09:40 PM

Gee sorry! Calm down! tongue.gif


But seeing as German SPGs accounted for more and more kills as the war continued aint it worth considering them? Think how many kills StuG IIIs had and Hetzers. Specially as most used the same weapon as fitted to a tank.

The 128mm was the only weapon fitted to a SPG and not too a tank. Unless you want to count the StugIII 105mmm...

But if its ONLY tanks, then my statement still stands,

The 88mm L56...

And why cant we count the MAus? Its still a tank... ;)
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

#6 FramerT

FramerT

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 10:43 PM

What, no Stug III's?? graemlins/no.gif
Posted Image

#7 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 10:47 PM

The 128/55 is a poor choice. Seperate ammunition slows the firing rate. It also had problems in terms of weight of round and was nothing special in accuracy and reliability.
The German 70 caliber guns (both the 75 and 88) suffer from poor (relatively speaking)accuracy due to barrel vibration and short barrel life. Both also suffer from poor recoil systems that take up alot of space. Sure, both had good penetration but at a fairly high cost in other desirable properties.
Personally, I would choose the Soviet 100/60. This is a gun with excellent penetration, good reliability and, reasonable weight. It was successful enough that it is still in service today. In this sense it out lived the US 90mm which was only an average performer as far as penetration goes.
The Soviet 85 and 76 have mediocre penetration performance for their size and neither is a particularly outstanding gun while the 122 suffers from the same problems as the German 128; it's just too big to be useful.
The British 17pdr also suffers from excessive barrel wear and has poor accuracy compared to the US 76mm for example. It's short post war life demonstrates this quite clearly.
So, my vote goes to the Soviet 100/60.

#8 TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 03 August 2004 - 10:53 PM

TA GArdner

But aint that gun only in the SU-100 TA? I got told off for choosing a gun not in a tank... ;) Good point on the 128 though. TA you may know the answer to this... What was the 42mm taper like as an A/T gun? My sources are not very conclusive and I am having trouble finding data for its combat use in Africa and Italy. I now it was also issued to some Fj units.

Framart,

Still not over your Stug Fetish I see... :D
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

#9 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 02:26 AM

Originally posted by TheRedBaron:
TA GArdner

But aint that gun only in the SU-100 TA? I got told off for choosing a gun not in a tank... ;) Good point on the 128 though. TA you may know the answer to this... What was the 42mm taper like as an A/T gun? My sources are not very conclusive and I am having trouble finding data for its combat use in Africa and Italy. I now it was also issued to some Fj units.

I don't see where in the original question or poll the word "tank" was mentioned. I did assume that only AFV / anti-tank guns were being considered from those listed in the poll as opposed to various types of artillery pieces.....

On the 2.8cm sPzB 41:

It is one of three designs that used a taper bore system. The other two are the 4.2cm le. PaK 41 using the same Gerlich system (this gun looks like a longer barrelled 3.7cm PaK 36) and the 7.5cm PaK 41 by Krupp (also on the Gerlich principle).
The last mentioned was a truly impressive gun. It penetrated 171mm at 30 degrees obliquity at 500 yards. This puts it on par with the 88/71 in penetration.
But, back to the 2.8cm: Two versions were produced: The aforementioned sPzB 41 and the le Feldlafette 41 version for parachute use.
Performance-wise this gun penetrated about 68mm at 400 yards giving it about double the performance of a 20/55 as fitted on the Pz II or about 1/3 better performance than a 3.7cm AT gun.
As for the 4.2cm, a handful saw service in Africa and Italy. I have seen at least one photo of one in use with Panzer Division Hermann Göring in Central Italy.
This gun penetrated about 88mm at 500 yards. The gun was manufactured from early 1941 until very early in 1942 but, I don't have an exact production figure. It is likely that many ended up in units forming about that time or shortly thereafter. It is also hard to spot in photographs as the only noticable difference in it and the 3.7cm is the length of the barrel.
The round fired went from 4.2cm to 2.94cm at the muzzle, weighed .336kg (11.75 oz) and had a muzzle velocity of 1265 m/s (4149 fps).

#10 TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 09:40 AM

Thanks TA.

I have a pic of the 42mm in use with a DAK unit.
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

#11 Martin Bull

Martin Bull

    Acting Wg. Cdr

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,647 posts
  • LocationLondon, England.

Posted 04 August 2004 - 12:21 PM

I hate to be pedantic but the word 'tank' is mentioned in the thread heading.....
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

#12 redcoat

redcoat

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 01:11 PM

Originally posted by drache:
The 88mm L/71 - this might spark some debate.

No not really, its an excellent tank gun, its only drawback is that its large and heavy.
My vote however would go to the British :eek: ( me biased, never ;) ) 17 pdr which for its size(76.2) is a deadly tank gun, better than any other gun of similar caliber.
Penetration of each at 1,000 yards, striking at 30 degrees from the optimum, was as follows:

76mm(US): 89mm (134mm with HVAP ammo)
17 pdr: 118mm (170mm with APDS ammo)
85mm: 84mm
88mm L/56: 101mm
88mm L/71: 167mm

Thanks to Tony Williams for the data

[ 04. August 2004, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: redcoat ]
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

#13 redcoat

redcoat

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,370 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 01:23 PM

Originally posted by T. A. Gardner:
The British 17pdr also suffers from excessive barrel wear and has poor accuracy compared to the US 76mm for example. It's short post war life demonstrates this quite clearly.

The 17 pdr was only less accurate than the US 76mm when firing the early APDS ammo. The early APDS ammo SABOT casings caused problems with accuracy, which the British later cured. The short post war life is more to do with the British up gunning their tanks with the heavier 20pdr and 105mm guns in order to deal with the heavy Soviet tanks then coming into service, than any fault with the 17pdr.
The British had made the mistake of not up-gunning their tanks quickly enough in WW2, they weren't going to make the same mistake again
if in doubt....Panic!!!!

#14 Ernst_Barkmann401

Ernst_Barkmann401

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 02:23 PM

[quote]Originally posted by T. A. Gardner:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheRedBaron:

[/quote]I don't see where in the original question or poll the word "tank" was mentioned.
</font>[/QUOTE]The word was in the original title

#15 TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 02:42 PM

I never said that... ;)
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

#16 Ernst_Barkmann401

Ernst_Barkmann401

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:01 PM

Originally posted by TheRedBaron:
I never said that... ;)

Sorry, it was TA Gardner's post, I tried to erase the majority of the quote he made, I ended up screwing with the quote function, and screwed it up.

#17 TheRedBaron

TheRedBaron

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,122 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 04:16 PM

No worries, only kidding around! :D

Does anyone have any date on the US 90mm in the Pershing?
"Watch that Fu*ker, he'll 'ave someones eye out!" King Harold at Hastings 1066.

#18 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 06:21 PM

[quote]Originally posted by redcoat:
[QUOTE]The 17 pdr was only less accurate than the US 76mm when firing the early APDS ammo. The early APDS ammo SABOT casings caused problems with accuracy, which the British later cured. The short post war life is more to do with the British up gunning their tanks with the heavier 20pdr and 105mm guns in order to deal with the heavy Soviet tanks then coming into service, than any fault with the 17pdr.
The British had made the mistake of not up-gunning their tanks quickly enough in WW2, they weren't going to make the same mistake again
[/quote]Actually, the US carried out extensive tests on the 17pdr and 76mm. The 76 was found more accurate in all tests. This was likely due to less barrel vibration and the lower intital velocity of the 76mm round but not cited directly. The 76 also was found to have far less barrel wear per shot than the 17pdr.
Note how even the British went to the 77mm (a cut down 17 pdr) late in the war (used first in the Comet). This was done in large part to rectify the above problems with the 17pdr.
As a tank weapon, the British were also really strapped to shoe horn this gun into their tanks (including the Sherman). In the Challenger a large slab sided turret had to be used on a stretched Cromwell chassis. In the Sherman the gun had to be put in sideways and the radio equipment moved to an armored box added to the turret bustle which was cut out to allow recoil area. This arrangement slowed engagement time as loading was awkward.
Yes, the 17pdr had good penetration performance but at a cost of short barrel life and reduced accuracy (just like the German 70 caliber guns suffered). Of course, this is sort of sour apples to US tank crews saddled with the 76mm which actually could have been a better gun except the ordinance department stressed accuracy and gun life over better penetration. On the other hand one field fix that US ordinance battalions did in Europe was add more powder to 76mm rounds to increase the velocity. Yes, the US ordinancemen really did do this and it was more than an occasional thing.

#19 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 04 August 2004 - 06:26 PM

Originally posted by Martin Bull:
I hate to be pedantic but the word 'tank' is mentioned in the thread heading.....

To be a bit lawyerly, I only stated it wasn't mentioned in the original question or poll . The title wasn't mentioned.... :D
In any case how is a "tank" to be defined? Turretted? What about US tank destroyers? Only vehicles deemed by the various nations "tanks?" I think the term AFV is a better choice. This includes any armored combat vehicle, wheeled or tracked.

#20 Martin Bull

Martin Bull

    Acting Wg. Cdr

  • TrusteeOKF Trustee
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,647 posts
  • LocationLondon, England.

Posted 04 August 2004 - 08:36 PM

T.A. - your people will be hearing from my people..... ;)
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

#21 T. A. Gardner

T. A. Gardner

    Genuine Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,855 posts

Posted 05 August 2004 - 09:46 PM

Ok Martin; have your people call my people and they can do lunch and argue about it followed by giving both of us inflated billable hours for the whole thing.....

#22 Tony Williams

Tony Williams

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 274 posts

Posted 07 August 2004 - 08:37 AM

Originally posted by T. A. Gardner:
Note how even the British went to the 77mm (a cut down 17 pdr) late in the war (used first in the Comet). This was done in large part to rectify the above problems with the 17pdr.

Not in performance terms - the 17 pdr would have been preferred but it just wouldn't fit in the Comet, so the smaller anmd less powerful 77mm had to be used instead.

The lower barrel life goes with the high velocity which you need to get good penetration. And the reduced 'bench-rest' accuracy would in real life have been compensated for by the shorter flight time and flatter trajectory, reducing the effect of aiming errors.

The 17 pdr was the best Allied tank gun IMO, although if you could afford a bigger tank then a bigger calibre would get you more effective HE shells as well as greater destructiveness after penetration.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website

#23 GermanTankEnthusiast

GermanTankEnthusiast

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 143 posts

Posted 15 October 2009 - 05:50 AM

what about the 90mm gun on the perishing, i heard from a friend that it destroyed 2 panzer IVs and a tiger in one engagment. although i could be misinformed

#24 lwd

lwd

    Ace

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,101 posts
  • LocationMichigan

Posted 15 October 2009 - 12:14 PM

The 90 also had a pretty good HE shell from what I recall. Especially for the western allies that was important.

#25 Hufflepuff

Hufflepuff

    Semi-Frightening Mountain Goat

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,362 posts
  • LocationSewanee, Tennessee, USA

Posted 15 October 2009 - 01:58 PM

For a legitimate "tank gun," I'd say the Kwk 88mm gun on the Tiger/Koenigstiger Series.

For the best vehicle mounted gun (for a tracked vehicle), I'd have to go with the Jagdtiger's gun. I know it was unreliable but it's just awesome in it's power.

:uboot:    :ac_p51b:

:_ww2f.com:  :cardsuit_club:   :hsu:  :cactus:

:PPmp40fire: :armyman6: :armyman5: :armyman:  :armyman1:  :armyman2:

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users