Discussion in 'The Tanks of World War 2' started by KBO, Oct 3, 2004.
I guess you guys just don't know. Oh well! :cry:
Yes, but after German standards it was overcharged. :wink: Thats what i ment.
The germans also tried upcharging their own rounds to the normal British pressure specifications, for example the 88mm L/56 used upcharged ammo from late 43-45, wich made the 88mm Kwk36 superior to the 90mm M3 for 1½ years, until the 90mm T33 AP round came in 45.
Best regards, KBO
Know what ??
A most interesting discussion. For a definitive answer for the first question perhaps it is necessary to consider two points. The theatre where the tanks were deployed, and the advantage, if any, of guns having a better rate of fire over slower loaders.
The second question possibly requires a qualification as to damage to what? Enemy tanks, emplacements, buildings, et cetera.
So far no one has mentioned the 122mm D-25 M1943. Is there a reason for this?
Was it a big gun with a little punch?
The 122mm was a very effective gun, in that its AP performance was adequate while its HE effect was huge. The main problem IIRC is that the tank's turret was so cramped that loading the thing was difficult and slow.
Basically there were two approaches to tank guns, depending on perceived priorities. If tank destroying was the primary role, then a smaller-calibre high-velocity gun was the best choice within given weight limits, since this not only gave the best penetration but also had the flattest trajectory and the shortest projectile flight time, greatly improving hit probability. Ther ammo was also lighter and easier to handle than a larger-calibre gun of the same weight, speeding up the rate of fire. The German 75mm L/70 is a good example of this approach.
But tanks spent a lot of their time firing HE shells at soft targets, anti-tank emplacements, and walls and buildings which enemy soldiers might be lurking behind with anti-tank rockets. The lack of an effective HE shell was felt to be a serious disadvantange, at least by the Allies. As I've said, that explains the British preference for the relatively low-velocity 75mm over the high-velocity 57mm 6 pdr, which was a much better hole-puncher (especially once it had APDS).
So the 75mm L/70 can't be considered the best overall tank gun IMO as it was too biased towards hole-punching. The best in ammunition performance terms was probably the Geman 88mm L/56, as this combined adequate AP performance with a good-sized HE shell. Unfortunately, the gun used in the Tiger was really too big and heavy. If the Germans had designed a more compact and lighter gun to fire the ammo, it would have made a better weapon for the Panther than the 75mm IMO.
In fact, WW2 failed to produce the ideal tank gun, which would fire a big HE shell at a low velocity and a small AP projo at a high velocity, although the means was there, in the use of APDS. Probably the first time that the potential of this combination was fully realised was in 1956 when the British 105mm was introduced in the Centurion - it became the NATO standard.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
The Russian 122mm D-25 gun was a great infantry killer, but a bad tank killer. Its penetration performance was bad considdering its size, and its precision was pathetic compared to tankguns such as the KwK42.
I guess they should rephrase the question as " what is the best dual purpose tank gun"?
In that case I will vote for the 88mm.
I agree, and its ROF was enough to effectively attack more than one target per minute.
But the 88mm Kwk36 gun was big, and it didnt have the armor-penetrating power of the 75mm Kwk42 gun wich was smaller.
But if size is put aside, then its deffidently the 88mm Kwk43 gun.
The 88mm Kwk43 has a Huge penetrating power while having a good HE shell to.