German 75mm L/70

Martin Bull · #1 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 10:07 AM

I didn't want to hi-jack Greenjacket's 88/85 posting so I thought I'd start a new one !

Matt, you mentioned the 75mm L70 - this was as fitted to the Panther, wasn't it ?

I can't seem to find much info about this gun - how good was it ? It seems to be overshadowed by the 88. As we all know from reading reports, every Allied tank ever knocked out in NW Europe was 'hit by an 88' (!)

The Panther gun is very long indeed and I'd like to know of any accounts discussing how effective it actually was.

Andreas Seidel · #2 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 01:36 PM

From the information I have (various penetration data tables from a multitude of sources) the 75mm L/70 was much better than the 88mm L/56 against armoured targets. The 88/71 was of course much better still. But in theory, the Panther would have better chances against a heavy tank than a Tiger I.

Martin Bull · #3 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 03:46 PM

This is very interesting to me.
I had always assumed that the 88 as fitted to the Tiger 1 was superior to the Panther armament.

Bish OBE · #4 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 05:36 PM

Andreas, i'd be interested to see your sources. I took a number of sources for my Panther and Tiger articles,ad when using he main AP rounds for each tank, the 88 of the Tiger I has better penetration abilities than that of the Panther.

At 2,000m the Tiger I could penetrate 110mm of armour at 30 degrees, while the Panther could penetrate just 89mm. The Tiger I round was twice as heavy as that of the Panther, which would have greatly added to its ablities.

Erich · #5 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 07:46 PM

My understanding is that the L70 had a flatter trajectory and could hit the target quicker. Obviously a gun that could be fired faster. It was standard on the Jgd Panzer IV late come Normandy and beyond. I'll still take the longer barrle of the updated 8.8cm of the Königstiger which destroy any armored vehicle from long range.

E

Bish OBE · #6 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 08:08 PM

Yes, the muzzel velocity of the Panther was slightly quicker than the Tiger I, 935m/sec comared to 915m/sec. But i giuess the extra weight of the 88 round must have made a diference.

Bish OBE · #7 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 08:09 PM

Yes, the muzzel velocity of the Panther was slightly quicker than the Tiger I, 935m/sec comared to 915m/sec. But i giuess the extra weight of the 88 round must have made a diference.

Martin Bull · #8 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 08:29 PM

I also think that the 'Diameter to Thickness' ratio has to be taken into account ( shell diameter / armour thickness ). This is described on Thomas L Jentz' website ; but only for the Tiger gun.

mp38 · #9 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 09:41 PM

Martin,
You must get your 88s straightened out first!

First of all, lets start with the Tiger tank!
1. The tiger tank had an 88mm L/56 gun.
2. the Panther had a 75mm L/70 gun.
3. The King tiger had a 88mm L/71 gun.

Against armored target the L/70 was superior to the L/56! However the L/71 was far superior to both of them!

Yes, the allies believed that every German tank in France was a Tiger tank. In reallity the Germans only had about 80 Tigers in all of France. The Tiger I was only produced for just over a year and a half, and they only made just over 1,400 of them!

Compair that to the over 34,000 T34 made, and the 24,000 Shermans made!!

The American rule of thumb for destroying a Tiger tank was to send in 5 Shermans, and expect to lose at least 4 of them (if not all!). This equasion is fairly accurate, if you compair the number of Shermans lost to the number of Tigers lost in France. The British had a different approach to destroying the Tigers. If they spotted a Tiger, they called in the RAF! [img]tongue.gif[/img] Problem solved.

Enough about the Tiger.

As for the Panther tank. The reality was the Panther made up about 50% of the Panzer force in 1944. 45% were Pzkfw mark IIIs and IVs, and 5% were Tigers, and King Tigers. So the Panther tank was probably the most encountered tank from 1944 to May 1945.
The Panthers' main gun (75mm L/70) was more than a match for any allied tank (especially the western allies).

The Panther was faster, better sloping armor, could hold more ammo, got a little bit better gas milelage, and was less likely to break down. Most historians consider the Panther tank to be the overall finest tank of WWII.The Americans took a captured Panther A to Aberdeen, MD. At the army prooving grounds. They took the tank apart, and were trying to copy the tank. After looking at the finely machined parts, and close tolerances, the weapons manufacturers stated that there was no way they could duplicate this tank!!

(FYI- they said the same thing when they tried to duplicate the MG34!)

Matt

Bish OBE · #10 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 10:53 PM

I have to disagree on ammo carriage,. Because of its sloping armour, the Panther had less iernal spavce than the Tiger I. While the Panther carried 82 rounds of 7.5cm, the Tiger carried minimum of 92 rounds of 8.8cm, which was sometimes up by the crew to as much as 120, though i have not bee able to find out how. The tables also show that the L/56 had better penetration than the L/70.

Though i do agree it was the best tank of the war, and had more efort gone into Panthers instead of Tiger I and II, things could have been different.

Martin Bull · #11 (**permalink**) July 6th, 2002, 11:03 PM

Thanks for the replies, everyone.
I had got my head around the different 88's, it's the 75 that's surprised me ! I'll being doing some more research of my own into this...

Bish OBE · #12 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 01:10 AM

Martin, why are you so surprised. If its because when comparing it with the 75mm guns used by the Allies, it should be remembered that the Panther had a longer barrel. This improves muzzel velocity hence penetration.

It shold be remembered that the PAK 40 7.5cm AT guns was one of the best, and one of the few weapons able to deal with the new Soviet tanks in the early stages of the German invasion.

Erich · #13 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 02:18 AM

Bish, and If I am not mistaken, though I could be, the 7.5cm Pak 40 was essentially the same gun fitted into the Pz IV H and J's......and it still could take out the big JS II's !

E

Martin Bull · #14 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 07:35 AM

Hi Bish

No, my surprise concerns the relative performance of the 75mm L/70 ( Panther ) as against the 88mm L/56 ( Tiger 1 ).

The general view is that the Allies actually had more to fear from the Panther than the Tiger 1 which is not the impression you'd get from a lot of books ! Also' 'hard' information on the Panther's weapon seems quite hard to come by.

For sure, the 75mm L/70 can't even be mentioned in the same breath as say, the '75mm' as fitted to Sherman or Cromwell....

Bish OBE · #15 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 09:34 AM

I thiunk you may be right there, have not had time to check, but i will look it up.

Martin, it should be remembreed that the 88 had a reputaton long before the Tiger entered service. It also weighs ten tons ore, and looks much more menacing.
Its true that almost ever tank in Erupe was seen as a Tger. But then the troops on the ground dont think about things like sloped armour, speed and all the rest. You see ths big metal onster coming towards you, and it dives the fear of god into you. And becasue it was encountered before thePanther ebtered service, it had time to get a name for itself before the Panther.

Just think of the fear that the Stuka could drive into men, largly by the sound it made. Yet its vulnarbilties were soon shown. But you try telling the guys on the ground that its nothing to worry about.

Martin Bull · #16 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 09:46 AM

You're dead right, Bish.
I've always been fascinated by the 'psychological' effect of the 'dreaded 88'. Apparently, in Normandy even the rumour of an 88 'up ahead' could bring an Allied tank advance to a halt !

I've got a ( deactivated ! ) 88mm Pz39 APCBC shell from an 88 KwK 36 sitting in a corner here and it even looks very nasty !

It just seems that the Panther's 75mm may have been a bit under-rated and overlooked by soldiers and writers . . . .

Bish OBE · #17 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Martin Bull:
[
I've got a ( deactivated ! ) 88mm Pz39 APCBC shell from an 88 KwK 36 sitting in a corner here and it even looks very nasty !

.[/QB]

Blody hell. I bet thats a bit of a conversation piece. You lucky bastard

I think there are a few other things in theTigers favour. While its entry into service was relativly smooth the Panther was, to put it bluntly, a disaster. And incidents like Villers-Bocage go a long way to help.

I had a first hand account of the Tiger myth a cople of years ago. While at Cassino, our group ran into a vet who had been there in 44. He was an Artillery obsrver. He said that he spent several days in a house calling down fire. nd just down the road a German tank was hiding in another house doing the same. And he always called it a Tiger. And while i did not contradict the old boy, he was here, i was not, there is no evidence that Tigers were anywhere near Cassino. But, as said before, every tank was a Tiger.

Martin Bull · #18 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 02:53 PM

There were Tigers near Anzio, I think - but you're right, I haven't seen anything about Tigers at Cassino.

( That shell - it took years and years to find it. You can get flak 88s fairly easily - but PAK 88s are a different matter. Turned up in the window of a militaria dealer in exotic South London ! ).

Mussolini · #19 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 03:42 PM

Yes, there were Tigers at Anzio. Pink Floyd wrote a song about it called: 'When the Tigers Broke Free'. His father was in the Royal Fusiliers Company C...which got wiped out during the battle at Anzio. There is also a movie by a similiar name (the song is played during its opening sequence, the soldier depicted is supposed to be Pinks father preparing for the battle). I havent seen it, but read up about it.

Erich · #20 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 03:59 PM

You guys knew this already I am sure but the dreaded 8.8 myth came about from the Afrika campaign and it stuck with US soldiers like glue......and you are also correct, there were no Tigers, Panthers or even Pz. IV's at Cassino.

E

Martin Bull · #21 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 04:09 PM

You learn something every day with WW2 Forums !

I'd never heard of this, Mussolini - so I just couldn't resist doing a little research.

Ready ? You hum the tune, I'll provide the words : -

'It was just before dawn one miserable morning in black '44
When the forward commander was told to sit tight when he asked that his men be withdrawn
And the Generals gave thanks as the other ranks
held the enemy tanks - for a while
And then the Anzio beachehad was held for the price
Of a few hundred ordinary lives

And kind old King George sent Mother a note
when he heard that Father was gone
It was, I recall, in the form of a scroll
With golden leaf and all
And I found it one day in a drawer of old photographs hidden away
And my eyes still grow damp to remember
His Majesty signed with his own rubber stamp

It was dark all around
There was frost in the ground
When the Tigers broke free
And no-one survived from the Royal Fusiliers Company C
They were all left behind
Most of them dead
The rest of them dying.....
And that's how the High Command took my Daddy from me'

Phew ! Copyright : Pink Floyd Music Publishers.
From the film : Pink Floyd - The Wall.
Lyrics : Roger Waters.

If you really want to hear it ( I haven't ! ) you'll have to buy 'Echoes - The Best of Pink Floyd'. WWII research can take you down some straaange avenues . . . . .

[ 07 July 2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Martin Bull ]

Bish OBE · #22 (**permalink**) July 7th, 2002, 06:32 PM

I was not sure about tanks at Cassino, but i assumed the old boy was parked next to a Pz IV. I think i will have to look nto this, got my curiosity up now.