# WWII quality....the manufacturers.



## Lucky13 (Nov 6, 2007)

Fellow gentlemen, members of the "family" and worshippers of the golden joystick........ With all the talk about the best this and best that, I can't remember any talk about the quality of the machines itself. So, who had the best quality in their products between '39 and 45, the best way of solving problems with their machines etc.? We're not putting Supermarine Spitfire against Messerschmitt 109, Vought F-4U against Focke Wulf 190....no, let's do it country by country. U.S., Russia, Germany, GB, Italy, Japan..... Who was the better builder in UK, Supermarine or Hawker, Germany, Messerschmitt or Focke Wulf, U.S., North American or Grumman, Russia, Mig or Lavotchkin etc.? You get the point....


----------



## Njaco (Nov 6, 2007)

Brewsters out.  

I would say, especially with US and Germany, quality might be hard to pinpoint on one company seeing as a manufacture was sometimes undertaken by several companies for the same aircraft. I could be wrong.

But if anything, I would choose (with my limited knowledge) North American had some quality machines.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2007)

The Quality of Luftwaffe aircraft declined as the war progressed. I am not saying that the Germans were incapable of making quality machines but the lack of raw materials made for using materials that normally would not be used.

I would say for the most part the allies quality remained about the same throughout the war. Having said this they had the raw materials to do so.

I do however agree with Njaco that you can not really pinpoint it because different companies were making the same aircraft and the quality could vary from company to company.

Either way this is going to make for an interesting discussion especially with some of the members here.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 6, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> The Quality of Luftwaffe aircraft declined as the war progressed. I am not saying that the Germans were incapable of making quality machines but the lack of raw materials made for using materials that normally would not be used.
> 
> I would say for the most part the allies quality remained about the same throughout the war. Having said this they had the raw materials to do so.
> 
> ...



Chris - you don't really think there are members with strong opinions on this subject do you?

I would speculate (without proof) that the Brits certainly were on par with anyone in context of quality and ahead in context of pioneering use of wood in high performance a/c.. having said that is comparing the Mossie to Ta154 a fair comparison? I don't know, and certainly USSR has to compete here also

I would speculate with some proof that nobody mass produced with quality like we (US) did. We went from mass producing razor blades and cars to aircraft that are still in service today (i.e C-47 last built in 1944).. Nobody compares to methods used to produce a Liberty ship in less than 5 days (Great Brit design!). Nobody consistently put pencil on paper to innovative new aircraft first flight like we did. 

Having said that the He162 is an example of German capability also

As to specific unit quality - interesting question with too many variables largely time based. On one hand we started w/all man force and quickly trained new workforce with no prior skills including black and female and turned 'em out. On one hand Germany started with highly skilled labor and gravitated to slave labor whose enthusiasm for quality may have been 'suspect'.

Jes my thoughts


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 6, 2007)

drgondog said:


> Chris - you don't really think there are members with strong opinions on this subject do you?





It will be interesting my friend....



drgondog said:


> I would speculate with some proof that nobody mass produced with quality like we (US) did.



Agreed



drgondog said:


> Having said that the He162 is an example of German capability also



Agreed as well.



drgondog said:


> As to specific unit quality - interesting question with too many variables largely time based. On one hand we started w/all man force and quickly trained new workforce with no prior skills including black and female and turned 'em out. On one hand Germany started with highly skilled labor and gravitated to slave labor whose enthusiasm for quality may have been 'suspect'.
> 
> Jes my thoughts



Agreed as well.


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 6, 2007)

Quality; an interesting subject to me. I would like to ask you guys about what was the best quality manufacturers in each nations. 

An excellent reading; http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/other-mechanical-systems-tech/bf-110-analysis-6399.html

As for Japan and of the production of A6M Zero either by Mitsubishi and Nakajima, some people saying in favor of Mitsubishi for its workmanships. That was however after major part of skilled male workers were drafted from the factories.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 6, 2007)

> I would speculate with some proof that nobody mass produced with quality like we (US) did.



Drgn, would you give the USSR some credit for their production methods, ie moving whole assemblies within days? I know the thread is aircraft quality but were Russian machines of quality or just quanity? I agree with you on the US and we probably take the cake, hands down, but when bringing in the subject of mass production I think the Russians might have a slight edge in that. The quality of their machines I'm not that familiar with.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2007)

Off my knowledge of tank production; the Soviet Union was poor. It was *all* quantity. 

T-34s were rolling off production lines without optics and IS-2Ms did not have tempered frontal armour. Just a couple of examples ... they were crap.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 7, 2007)

Agreed pD. Credit must be given to the Soviets for there ability to work under the conditions that they did but they were all about pumping out quanitities of equipment but were not to worried about quality.

It did work for them though. It got the job done.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 7, 2007)

Thanks Pd,You always hear about how the T-34 changed tank warfare but I guess it was design over quality. Learn something new everyday. Thanks.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 7, 2007)

The fit and finish of the Me262 was certainly not that good with the amount of body filler used as can be seen in photos of non camouflaged 262s.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2007)

The best built T-34s would have not been as well built as the Western Allied or German machines; they certainly would not have had the added features (radio being left from many Soviet tanks) and, as I said, some were rolling off without optical sights leaving the gunner to guess ... even those with optical equipment did not compare to the Germans or Western Allied. 

The armour production of the Soviet Union was pathetic, at best. And the T-34 was not reliable ... it was just easier to fix. The reliability, probably, comes from the poor build quality.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 7, 2007)

That sounds like early war T-34 production plan_D. Did this continue for the rest of the GPW?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2007)

Yes it did. The IS-2M had the exact same problems with quality of build.

The only improvements in Soviet armour forces was the *slow* (and slow has to be bold) introduction of radio sets.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 7, 2007)

> And the T-34 was not reliable ... it was just easier to fix.



What would be the definition of Quality? If something is easy to fix would that count?


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2007)

That would be a quality of design; it's was designed as a simpleton's tank. All it took was a log to prop up the thing, and everything is open for you to fiddle. 

Ease of maintenance wouldn't be brought into the equation when talking about build quality.


----------



## Njaco (Nov 7, 2007)

Thanks. I was just thinking that the ease of repair might mistakenly translate into quality. Sometimes something might seem good when the problems are minimized. You may not remember the 6 seconds it took to fix a broken bolt as opposed to something far more labor intensive.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 7, 2007)

That's exactly why everyone thinks that T-34s were reliable. T-34s were getting iced up and fires had to be lit under their bellies to get them started, their engines broke down many times over ... but because the T-34 was so simple, it'd be fixed within a hour or two and it's gone down in history as being reliable .. .it's just easy to fix and the problem forgotten.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 7, 2007)

During the war years the US adopted 2 processes to control quality at all military contractors and they were known as Mil-I-45208 and Mil-Q-9858. They provided to the basis for modern quality control and were the forerunners of ISO 9001/ 2000 which is so commonly used today throughout industry. To be honest, the old "Mil-I" and "Mil-Q" were in many ways to the current ISO standards as they focused on only the quality of the product. ISO took quality a step further to ensure that there was "quality" at all levels of company function and management.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 7, 2007)

Joe brought out the Quality Standards for US during WWII as well as current ISO 9001 and Sigma Six. 

A note, Definitions of Quality during WWII included many terms ranging from

Meets Design, meets Specification
Zero Defects/Failures within Design and Specification parameters

Today it must achieve yet another more subjective standard - Customer Delighted which generally implies Value across four primary dimensions - Quality, Service, Cost and Time.

To increase value today to maintain "delighted" one generally has to focus on methods and process and match market hype to Customer Sat.

Back to WWII. Good stuff was designed by all the combatants. Customer Sat was more or less defined by cost, time to battlefield, mean time between service/failures, and Service/Logistics behind the maintenance and Repair and last but not least "did it achieve the result I was looking for?" 

From USSR point of view and US POV, the T-34 and Sherman met most expectations in 1943 from tactical point because we strove for mobility and speed in our armor - but woe to the Tanker when he encountered Panthers and Tigers in numbers in 1944... so "Customer Sat" waned and T-26 was next design and spec for US because the expectations changed. 

Njaco- give to Sovs great credit for building production facilities out of harm's way (BTW Speer's decentralization efforts were under even tougher conditions because there was no such thing as 'out of range') and the amount of war material produced...

Having said that, the production quality in context of fit and appearance at least through comparison of MiG21 to say F-4 or MiG 15 to F-86 was sub par to US standards. Same for M-4 vs T-34 or Mustang vs Yak-3 or IL-2

My first walk around on a MiG21 captured by Israelis in 1967 and brought to Nellis for initial Red Flag showed really huge gaps in just plain old sheet metal to sheet metal butt joints.. but it was one hell of an airplane so it definitely achieved design and spec and Customer Sat and Value prop from a quality standpoint. Ditto MiG 15 vs F-86


----------



## Glider (Nov 7, 2007)

I cannot comment on all the nations but it did vary. The USA tended to have the highest quality of finish in the weapons produced. Certainly my Grandfather was astonished when he picked up his Liberty ship. It even had an Ice Cream machine which he had never seen before and it AA guns would shame a typical british escort.

As for the UK it did vary. Aircraft were as well built as anyones, ships were simple but reliable but our tanks were awfull, not just design but in quality of Production.


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Nov 10, 2007)

> Off my knowledge of tank production; the Soviet Union was poor. It was all quantity.



Don't forget Uncle Joe Stalin's famous phrase:

"QUANTITY has a QUALITY all of its own!"

It served the USSR well for many years, well into the WARPAC scenario. It doesn't matter how good/fast/agile/beautifully finished your $XXm Typhoon/F-22 is, when the 1 serviceable one comes up against 25+ MiG 29s, there's only one result.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2007)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> Don't forget Uncle Joe Stalin's famous phrase:
> 
> "QUANTITY has a QUALITY all of its own!"
> 
> It served the USSR well for many years, well into the WARPAC scenario. It doesn't matter how good/fast/agile/beautifully finished your $XXm Typhoon/F-22 is, when the 1 serviceable one comes up against 25+ MiG 29s, there's only one result.


A lot of Mig 29 parts!


----------



## Downwind.Maddl-Land (Nov 10, 2007)

Nice riposte! Are you a closet Brit?!


----------



## drgondog (Nov 10, 2007)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> Don't forget Uncle Joe Stalin's famous phrase:
> 
> "QUANTITY has a QUALITY all of its own!"
> 
> It served the USSR well for many years, well into the WARPAC scenario. It doesn't matter how good/fast/agile/beautifully finished your $XXm Typhoon/F-22 is, when the 1 serviceable one comes up against 25+ MiG 29s, there's only one result.



Maybe not.. so far the ratio of kills to losses for the F-15 and F-16 are more than 100+ to zero in air to air against soviet fighters


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 10, 2007)

Downwind.Maddl-Land said:


> Nice riposte! Are you a closet Brit?!


You never could know! 8)


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 15, 2007)

Interesting discussions. Following is my view;

>Zero Defects/Failures 
That is very thing we mocked, albeit after the war. My opinion is that Japanese had been so good at making what the eye can see. There were good examples like A6M Zero-sen, G4M bombers and even battleship Yamato. All these were fruits of superb engineering and technology but manufacturing of them largely depended on craftsmanship or individual skill of the workers. Operating of the equipment in the fields also depended on skills and techniques or guts, rather than systematized standards or procedures. 


Before WW2 airplanes and ships were manufactured, or crafted, in limited numbers under contracts from military and ALL of the civilian mechanical industries were exclusively geared up with military contracts. There had been almost no industry like automobiles, appliances existed for the people's life. It is evident that there had been no such items exported to foreign countries. There possibly be the case that cheaper Japanese made civil airplanes sold in US before the war but it was not.

As can be imagined, the quality of the products went down drastcally later in the war when the aircraft industry inflated so much suffered a lack of skilled wokers or craftsmen. This reflected in the numbers of planes lost other than in combat which is almost the same or exceeding the number of the lost in combat, as reported in post-war US survey documents. Quality of other supplies including fuels and oils accounted for that too. 

After the storm gone, the reccuring of the Japanese industry confronted another competition or war in civilian market and to win it, it was needed to introduce, or mock maybe at first, the QC. This was led by the indstrial leaders who mostly had been in military before and/or during the war and who well aware of the value of it.


----------



## renrich (Nov 17, 2007)

I have part of a copy of the report of the comparison between US fighters and the Kiska A6M. The Zeke had been repaired by American technicians but during the tests the US Army fighters had a number of realiability issues while the A6M just kept soldiering on. Having had a large number of German cars, I have found them to be somewhat overengineered. I wonder if their AC suffered from that characteristic. I believe some of their AFVs did. Having dealt with the fuel systems and electrical systems of British cars, I also wonder about the realiability of their WW2 AC. Based on books about the Pacific War, I would guess that early on the Japanese may have had the best quality AC as far as realiabilty is concerned but their advantage there dwindled as the war went along.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> After the storm gone, the reccuring of the Japanese industry confronted another competition or war in civilian market and to win it, it was needed to introduce, or mock maybe at first, the QC. This was led by the indstrial leaders who mostly had been in military before and/or during the war and who well aware of the value of it.


There is no doubt that the Japanese had a problem with quality especially parts that were supposed to be interchangeable. After the war William Edwards Deming tried to sell Quality Control sciences to US industry and he was laughed at - he went to Japan and his concepts were totally embraced and it eventually showed in the improvement of Japanese goods over the years.


----------



## ppopsie (Nov 17, 2007)

renrich said:


> ...of German cars, I have found them to be somewhat overengineered. I wonder if their AC suffered from that characteristic.



I believe so too, after doing maintenances on many of German gliders which are all very well engineered and still remained features of the good old days. For example control linkages in some of the top racing types have interconnected aileron and flap which can set them to each flying conditions.
All the gliders can be de-rigged to be stored and transported and in that all the controls are connected automatically. And the retractable power plants. I owed German aircraft technologies and its designers so much.

There seems to be a limitless flow of new ideas still. That should be okay for hobby flying in peacetime to make it more interesting. But suppose if that happened during the war? It seems it did.

I heard that pre-WW2 Japanese military aircraft were very well crafted. If we had learned the QC before making Zero, we would have fought better a lot.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 17, 2007)

Glider said:


> I cannot comment on all the nations but it did vary. The USA tended to have the highest quality of finish in the weapons produced. Certainly my Grandfather was astonished when he picked up his Liberty ship. It even had an Ice Cream machine which he had never seen before and it AA guns would shame a typical british escort.
> 
> As for the UK it did vary. Aircraft were as well built as anyones, ships were simple but reliable but our tanks were awfull, not just design but in quality of Production.


I think the first really "good" British tank was the Comet of late '44 from what I've heard. The Valentine was more reliable than the cruiser tanks (Crusader etc.) but too small. The irony is that the best commonwealth tank in 1941 was the Canadian "Ram' which was never used in comat. It's one great flaw was that the British Tank commision over-ruled Col. Worthington (who wanted a 60 inch turret ring - big enough for the 75mm) and so it was only able to carry the standard Brit 6 pounder. (57 mm) It used most of the running gear of the US Grant, but had better armour, better radio equip, lower profile a 360' turret. 

By the time the Brit's got a really good design, on the Centurion, the war was over!

Ram mk. II at CFB Borden


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 17, 2007)

ppopsie said:


> If we had learned the QC before making Zero, we would have fought better a lot.


If Deming went to Japan in 1936, Japan might of won the war!


----------



## Glider (Nov 17, 2007)

freebird said:


> I think the first really "good" British tank was the Comet of late '44 from what I've heard. The Valentine was more reliable than the cruiser tanks (Crusader etc.) but too small. The irony is that the best commonwealth tank in 1941 was the Canadian "Ram' which was never used in comat. It's one great flaw was that the British Tank commision over-ruled Col. Worthington (who wanted a 60 inch turret ring - big enough for the 75mm) and so it was only able to carry the standard Brit 6 pounder. (57 mm) It used most of the running gear of the US Grant, but had better armour, better radio equip, lower profile a 360' turret.
> 
> By the time the Brit's got a really good design, on the Centurion, the war was over!
> 
> Ram mk. II at CFB Borden



Have to agree with every word of this posting, but its worth noting that even the Comet didn't have any sloping armour.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 17, 2007)

Yes it would have been nice to see the 8th army using Canadian tanks at El Alamein. But of course it would have been even better to see a Canadian army in "Torch", unfortunately our government was playing stupid politics, so we would up doing "Jubilee" instead. (Dieppe)

Interestingly, although the reference books say that the Ram's 60" turret ring could not mount a 75mm, the Dutch managed to do this with the Ram's they got after the war. The Ram had better armour (25 - 78mm) than ANY of the main Allied tanks in 1942 or 1943 except the Churchill. (although the Russian had better sloped) The Ram had semi-sloped armour I guess, but rounded in the front.

Allied tank armour

M-3 Grant 25 -50mm
M-4 Sherman 25-50 mm
T-34 14 - 45 mm
Matilda 20-78 mm
Valentine 8 - 65 mm
Churchill 16 - 102 mm


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 18, 2007)

Were not Rams used as APCs, called the Kangaroo. The Sexton SPG was based on the Ram.


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

Well I think it was and is still the general rule that the Germans prioritize quality over quantity more than any of the other countries involved here, and sometimes that proves to be their downfall. 

Take a look at the AFV's of each country, the German AFV's clearly stand out in terms quality finish featuring absolutely top quality beautiful welds, optics, refined surfaces, polstery etc etc. The same goes for the German a/c (Take a look at how all was covered in the cockpits, esp. those of FW a/c), and although the lack raw materials meant that substitute metals sometimes had to be used the finish was always excellent. 

German guns projectiles were also of unmatched quality throughout the war, take for example the MG-42, it is still is widespread use today and is still considered by many the best LMG available. Or the K98K, the exact action being used by over 80% of all bolt action rifles today. 

German optical range finders on tanks being copied and used by all tanks from post WW2 and up until the introduction of laser range finders. And Zeiss continues to provide the best tank optics to date. 

There's also anti tank tank guns, a field where Germany was completely ahead throughout WW2 and still is today. Krupp Rheinmetall designed produced the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 for the Tiger Ausf.B in 1943, the deadliest gun to be mounted on a tank with a turret during WW2, and in 1979 they designed produced the 12cm L/44 smoothbore gun, at the time the most precise powerful tank gun in the world, used today by the Leopard 2 M1A1/2 Abrams. The gun was only recently surpassed in performance by the 12cm Rheinmetall L/55 gun mounted on the Leopard 2A6, the new gun adding an extra 200 m/s velocity to any AP projectile being fired.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 18, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> Were not Rams used as APCs, called the Kangaroo. The Sexton SPG was based on the Ram.



You are correct. There was also a version the "Badger" a flame tank, and the original configuration RAM was used as a command tank, with extra radio eqip a dummy gun.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

freebird said:


> Yes it would have been nice to see the 8th army using Canadian tanks at El Alamein. But of course it would have been even better to see a Canadian army in "Torch", unfortunately our government was playing stupid politics, so we would up doing "Jubilee" instead. (Dieppe)



Tanks and AFV are certainly one of the araes where my knowledge is not as good as in other areas.

In your opinion how do you think these Candian AFV's would have held up against the German tanks?


----------



## Freebird (Nov 18, 2007)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Tanks and AFV are certainly one of the araes where my knowledge is not as good as in other areas.
> 
> In your opinion how do you think these Candian AFV's would have held up against the German tanks?



Absolutely, the Canadian Ram could have bested the Germans! (and not just Canadian patriotism here LOL) If the Ram had been built as originally proposed by the Canadians (75mm version) it would have made a *dramatic* difference, even the modified version, (after the British had changed the main gun to the 6-pounder - 57 mm) was still the best *American or Commonwealth* tank. (Sherman had better gun but poorer armour - it arrived Aug/Sept 1942)

The British 6-pounder anti-tank gun was higher velocity, its anti-tank performance in 1942 was almost as good as the lower velocity 75 mm in the Grant. The performance of the US 76 mm (later Shermans) was much better, but wasn't around in 1942. In the desert in 1942 the British 6-pounder could penetrate any German tank in the Africa Korps

The US M-3, (Grant) first produced from May 1941, and was first used in Combat mid 1942. (Eur. theatre) At the battle of Gazala, (May 27, '42) the shortcomings of the tank were noticed (too high silhouette, limited traverse, hull mounted 75 mm prevented hull-down use), and the British armour could not cope with the Germans.

The Canadian RAM (first production was Aug of 1941), was developed very quickly, by using the engine drivetrain of the M-3 Grant. The Ram improved on the M-3 design by increasing the frontal armour from 50 to 78 mm, main gun was turreted (allowing the use of hull-down), adding a turret radio lowering the profile by 18". The added weight of the armour only lowered the speed by 1 mph (Grant - 26 mph, Ram 25 mph)

It basically corrected the problems of the other '40 - '42 British AFV's - Crusader was too lightly armoured (7 - 40mm), only had the 40mm gun very unreliable (breakdowns!); Both the Valentine Matilda II were too slow (15 mph) and had the smaller 40 mm main gun; and the Grant's problems as forementioned.

Remember that at this time the best German tanks (in the desert 1942) were the Pz III with the 50 mm gun, and the Pz IV with the low-velocity 75 mm. By August of 1942 Rommel only had about 30 of the new Pz IV "F" with the high velocity long 75mm. In 1942 both the Pz. III Pz IV had armour of 10-30 mm, some were up-armoured to 10 - 50 mm (But most were not) and none were proof against the British 57mm gun.

if the Ram's had been sent to the desert in early '42 I think it is far less likely that the British would have suffered the heavy defeats of spring/summer 1942!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 18, 2007)

Thanks for your opinion on the matter. As I said AFV's are not really the area that I read to much about and to be honest I knew very little about the Ram.


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

The Ram would've faired no better at all, the 88's of the DAK would turn the Ram inside-out at ranges of up to 3km, just as they did to Monty's Matildas, and the Pzkpfw. IV with the 7.5cm L/43 gun would outfight it just as easily as it did the Sherman, Grant Matilda. 

The 6 pdr was a short range weapon, at long ranges its performance was poor, so it certainly wasn't a very good gun on the long range desert battlefield. It was only really effective when firing APDS rounds at close range.


----------



## The Basket (Nov 18, 2007)

I remember reading about a factory fresh Spitfire been destroyed on its first mission. It lasted about an hour.

So you could argue that any combat machine would have a low life expectancy and should be built accordingly.

That where the Soviets scored.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Ram would've faired no better at all, the 88's of the DAK would turn the Ram inside-out at ranges of up to 3km, just as they did to Monty's Matildas, and the Pzkpfw. IV with the 7.5cm L/43 gun would outfight it just as easily as it did the Sherman, Grant Matilda.


Yet the Sherman help push the DAK out of North Africa and all the way back to almost Berlin.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 18, 2007)

Soren said:


> The Ram would've faired no better at all, the 88's of the DAK would turn the Ram inside-out at ranges of up to 3km, just as they did to Monty's Matildas, and the Pzkpfw. IV with the 7.5cm L/43 gun would outfight it just as easily as it did the Sherman, Grant Matilda.
> 
> The 6 pdr was a short range weapon, at long ranges its performance was poor, so it certainly wasn't a very good gun on the long range desert battlefield. It was only really effective when firing APDS rounds at close range.



Yes, and the British 17 pounder antitank gun could crack open German tanks at that range too!
The goal was not to engage the emplaced 88's with your tanks!!!

There were no Pz IV L/43's until mid '42, by the time of El Alamein there were still less than 30. The Ram could have been in Africa by the beginning of 1942. 

The point is that the better armour profile of the Ram would be much better against the 300 - 500 German tanks in Africa with the 50mm or short 75mm, and would still improve its chances against the 25 - 30 Pz IVs with the long 75mm gun. There were also a good # of the German 37mm 50mm antitank guns, they were certainly not all 88's

The 6 pounder was by no means the "ideal" weapon, but as all other British tanks in early '42 had the 2 pounder 40mm gun (a few CS Matilda's had 75mm howitzer) the 6 pounder was certainly an improvement. The 6 pounder field gun had some good success at Gazala Alamein.

The battle at El Alamein was more of a defensive engagement, with a strong British assault slowly battering through Rommel's minefields defences. My point was that the Ram would have made a bigger difference in the early '42 battles, in which there was more movement less "set-piece" defence. It would be hard to argue against using the best tank available, compared to what was on hand, Crusaders Valentines, which had less armour smaller gun.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 18, 2007)

The question from DerAdler was how it would hold up to the German tanks. Yes, any Allied tank was probably scrap if it ran into emplaced 88's, just as the German tanks would be hammered if they tried to push through the British 17 25 pounder guns. That was the trick that Rommel used several times, to lure the Allied tanks into his line of 88's. 

The British were in a fairly good position after the end of "Crusader" (Nov/Dec 1941) when they had beaten Rommel and captured several hundred German tanks. After a several month lull, there was the key battle at "Gazala" beginning on the 26 of May 1942. There was a large tank vs tank battle lasting several days in the "Cauldron". The British nearly had Rommel beaten, but a German Panzer counterattack (early June) could not be contained by the British armour, and broke the British position. The result of the battle was a disaster for the British, who lost Tobruk and retreated all the way into Egypt. The Ram tank would certainly have done far better against the German Panzers, compared to the weaker Crusaders Matilda's etc.


----------



## Soren (Nov 18, 2007)

I don't think so freebird. The Ram did after-all feature the same chassis as the Sherman, and so the lower hull was a huge weak spot, a weakspot the Churchill and Matilda didn't have and yet they were turned inside out by DAK's panzers as-well.

As to 17 pdr's in the desert, well they first saw action in 43, and again they lacked the long range optics and rangefinders used by the Germans. 

The 25 pdr wasn't going to prove much effective as an AT gun as it was a howitzer


----------



## Glider (Nov 19, 2007)

The difference is that the British were using the Crusader, Matilda and Valentine and there is little doubt that the Ram was a significant inprovement over these tanks.
The PzIVF2 in use in the desert did have the formidable 75L43 but its armour was weak and over the normal combat ranges the 6pd in the Ram would have been very effective. It should also be remembered that the majority of German tanks were Pz III normally with the 37mm or 50L42 against which the Rams armour would also have been effective.

The 17pd would have been deadly in the desert but wasn't around in time so doesn't count. The 25pd did get used as an A/T gun in the desert in the early years as the 2pd was very ineffective. The main problem with the 25pd wasn't its lack of penetration agains the early German targets, it was its size making it difficult to hide.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 19, 2007)

Glider you are correct. I was in fact talking about the period from Jan - Jul1942 BEFORE the Germans had the Pz. IV 75mm L43, at the main engagement (Gazala) it had not yet arrived. The Germans had about 150 - 200 Antitank/AA guns but only about 30 of the 88's. By the time of El Alamein (Oct 1942) there were only 24 of the 88's left in the Africa corps. In August 1942 Rommel had attacked again but was repulsed, mainly because the new General (Monty) had his tanks hull-down, and refused to be tempted out of position into the waiting trap. (of German AT guns) Take a look at the British tanks available at Alamein: 167 Stuarts, 223 Valentines, 6 Matilda II's, 421 Crusaders, 246 Grants, + the new arrivals: 3 Churchills and 285 Shermans (both in their first African battle)


----------



## Freebird (Nov 20, 2007)

Glider said:


> The difference is that the British were using the Crusader, Matilda and Valentine and there is little doubt that the Ram was a significant inprovement over these tanks.
> The PzIVF2 in use in the desert did have the formidable 75L43 but its armour was weak and over the normal combat ranges the 6pd in the Ram would have been very effective. It should also be remembered that the majority of German tanks were Pz III normally with the 37mm or 50L42 against which the Rams armour would also have been effective.
> 
> The 17pd would have been deadly in the desert but wasn't around in time so doesn't count. The 25pd did get used as an A/T gun in the desert in the early years as the 2pd was very ineffective. The main problem with the 25pd wasn't its lack of penetration agains the early German targets, it was its size making it difficult to hide.



I guess if you are going to drive through the enemy AntiTank guns you need one of THESE!! LOL


----------



## Soren (Nov 20, 2007)

That would've certainly helped on some occasions, however I'm quite sure that beast right there wasn't hugely mobile, much less so than the Tiger atleast.


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2007)

Soren
On 17 pdr, it just made it to the Battle of Medenine on 6 March 43 when they made their first contribution and were partly responsible on destruction of some 50 out of 140 attacking German panzers.

Usually German tanks were very good but IMHO late Shermans did it rather well against 50% heavier Panthers. French, who used both after WWII thought that crew saw better out from Sherman and that odds were that Sherman could fire first in surprise confrontation. 

“German guns projectiles were also of unmatched quality throughout the war”

There was one exception in this rule and it is the gun type which German doctrine saw as the cornerstone of their defence, namely field artillery. IMHO there was nothing exceptional in German field guns, the only exception was the corps level 17cm Kanone, which was very good indeed but the overwhelming majority of German field guns were only average quality, 10cm K18 maybe below par.

“German optical range finders on tanks”

Only German tank rangefinder I can recall was in the prototype Schmalturm for Panther, so they had no operational significance.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 21, 2007)

Juha said:


> Soren
> On 17 pdr, it just made it to the Battle of Medenine on 6 March 43 when they made their first contribution and were partly responsible on destruction of some 50 out of 140 attacking German panzers.



So ? Thats not unsurprising for the first action of such a powerful gun, the Germans undoubtedly hadn't counted on such firepower from the British.



> Usually German tanks were very good but IMHO late Shermans did it rather well against 50% heavier Panthers.



Also despite being totally inferior to the Panther when'ever the engagements took place over open plains ? Or despite being split open like sardine cans by the Panthers Tigers in France, Holland Belgium ?? Heck the Panzer IV's usually made a total mess out a of a Sherman when'ever they met each other. 

Fact is the Sherman EasyEight had nothing over the Panther, absolutely nothing. The EasyEight's new gun, which was supposed to be able to penetrate the Tiger Ausf.E's frontal armour at up to 800 - 1000 y but in action it very unfortuntaly failed to ever even punch partially through at 300m! The projectile shattered on impact, much to the dismay of the American tank crews. 

The Panther was clearly the best tank to emerge from WW2, it had a supurb gun, good protection, excellent optics stunning mobillity, it was the perfect combo (Or atleast the best to see action in WW2).



> French, who used both after WWII thought that crew saw better out from Sherman and that odds were that Sherman could fire first in surprise confrontation.



That sounds very odd I must admit, did they say anything specific about why that was, pointing at any specific blind spots ? Otherwise I just can't believe it I'm sorry as the Panther was always considered to provide very good vision for its crew, so what you claim is very new to me. 



> There was one exception in this rule and it is the gun type which German doctrine saw as the cornerstone of their defence, namely field artillery. IMHO there was nothing exceptional in German field guns, the only exception was the corps level 17cm Kanone, which was very good indeed but the overwhelming majority of German field guns were only average quality, 10cm K18 maybe below par.



I'm gonna have to disagree again Juha, the 10.5cm LeFH(M) 18 was a great artillery piece with greater range than its Allied counterpart, and reportedly also better accuracy. German artillery was infact often superior to its Allied counterparts, and like an American officer said: 

_"We were impressed with the accuracy of German field artillery. I've seen a 150-mm battery concentration hit a crossroads so consistently that engineers had to be called on to make it passable for a 2 1/2-ton truck. As far as thoroughness goes, the Germans get more out of a round than the devil himself gets on a lump of coal.""_





> Only German tank rangefinder I can recall was in the prototype Schmalturm for Panther, so they had no operational significance.



Hehe, I'm not talking about the trigonometry type rangefinders Juha (Although these were often used by German tank commanders). The rangefinder was built into the German optics, it featured a very smart actual size comparison method to estimate range, and it was this very precise system which allowed German gunners to engage targets at such record distances. The gunsights made by Zeiss were simply unrivalled.

PS: The rangefinder put on the SchmallTurm was to be fitted on the turret of Tiger Ausf.B as-well


----------



## pbfoot (Nov 21, 2007)

too bad they couldn't make underwear or were they so advanced that they only made a few thousand pairs


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 21, 2007)

pbfoot said:


> too bad they couldn't make underwear or were they so advanced that they only made a few thousand pairs


----------



## Juha (Nov 21, 2007)

Soren
IIRC it took only a platoon of Shermans to stop KG Peiper in Ardennes, they destroyed 3 point Panthers without a loss and rest of Peiper’s vanguard turned tail and withdrew to think it over. And after all one Firefly brewed up Witmann’s Tiger plus 2 others and the British gunner had shot IIRC only two rounds in training before that. We can always pick examples but Firefly was capable to handle Panthers and Tiger Es and later Sherman’s could penetrate Panther’s turret at usual battle ranges, Panther glacis was the problem. Late shermans with wet storage didn’t brew up so easily etc

“Fact is the Sherman EasyEight had nothing over the Panther, absolutely nothing.”

Now it was much more reliable, Panther with broken down final drive was rather common phenomenon and not anything super anymore. Panther’s fast turret transfer needed more coordination between crewmembers than that of Sherman. And as I wrote because the only viewing device for the gunner was his itself excellent sight it usually took clearly more time for Panther to open fire than for Sherman, that according to French who used both side by side in 45 – 47. And that had significance.

On field artillery
According to my sources leFH 18M max range was 12.325m and that of 25pdr, with supercharge, was 12.253 m so after all range difference was only 72 m, rather irrelevant, I think and I would not count very much on that difference in combat. On the other hand British 5.5” gun-howitzer had an range of 14.800 m, or 16.460 m with LR shell when German sFH 18/40 had an range of 13.300m.

And if you think that artilleries of other countries could not hit cross-roads, what to say, pity? 

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 22, 2007)

Juha said:


> Soren
> IIRC it took only a platoon of Shermans to stop KG Peiper in Ardennes, they destroyed 3 point Panthers without a loss and rest of Peiper’s vanguard turned tail and withdrew to think it over.



Juha that doesn’t prove anything.

But OK, I can play that game too, no problem:

_"On his way back, near the village of Le Lorey, Barkmann was stopped by the retreating German infantrymen who reported that Americans were closing in. Ernst Barkmann decided to send two of his men to verify that report. They soon returned with news of American column made up of some 15 Shermans and other vehicles approaching. Then Barkmann moved his tank up the road to the crossroad where he positioned his Panther in the surrounding oak trees, awaiting the enemy. When the American column approached, Ernst Barkmann opened fire, knocking out two leading tanks and then tanker truck.Two Shermans tried to go around burning wreckage that blocked the road and one of them was knocked out followed by the other one.In the response, Americans retreated and called up the tactical fighter support and Barkmann's Panther was damaged and some of the crew members were wounded. Using the element of suprise two Shermans attacked "wounded" Panther but were also knocked out.Barkmann and his crew repaired their Panther and knocked out single Sherman while leaving.His driver managed to moved their damaged Panther to the safety of nearby village of Neufbourg. During that brave engagement often called "Barkmann's Corner", Ernst Barkmann destroyed approximately nine Sherman tanks and many other various vehicles." _

During the next two days Barkmann's Panther was responsible for another fifteen Shermans knocked out!

Btw the incident you refer to took place at close quarters Juha, even the most powerful tank is vulnerable at close quarters.



> And after all one Firefly brewed up Witmann’s Tiger plus 2 others and the British gunner had shot IIRC only two rounds in training before that.



Wittmann’s Tiger wasn’t faced with just a single Firefly, it was amongst two other Tigers attacked by several hiding FireFly’s from “A” Squadron whilst moving over an open field. The Tiger’s were knocked out by the FireFly’s from approx. a 800y distance – only one Tiger managed to once return fire before being knocked out itself. Ironicly only Wittmann’s Tiger blew up, killing the entire crew instantly.





> We can always pick examples but Firefly was capable to handle Panthers and Tiger Es



It was usually capable of handling the Panther Tiger Ausf.E if it got in the first shot, but most often it did not, and the whilst the 17 pdr certainly increased the survivability of the Sherman on the Battlefield the Sherman FireFly remained allot more vulnerable to attack, the Panther Tiger both being able to knock it out frontally from 3.5km away! The 17 pdr while very powerful had very slim chances of hurting either the Panther or Tiger past 1,000m.

But just a reminder, very very few FirFly’s actually saw service, and on the western front there were fewer present than Tigers.




> and later Sherman’s could penetrate Panther’s turret at usual battle ranges, Panther glacis was the problem.



What ranges are those ? Esp. considering the poor penetration performance of the APC round in use. At 500m just a little agnle and the Panther needed not wrooy about its front turret being penetrated, but the flanks always had to be watched.



> Late shermans with wet storage didn’t brew up so easily etc



Absolutely correct compared to the earlier Shermans, but just a single 75mm round through the turret and you’d have yourself a fireworks display, wet storage or not. 

The wet storage was effective only if a small fire broke out, for example after a hit by a APCR projectile. But against the German APCBC projectile the wet storage was absolutely useless in every sense of the word, the pressure alone from the high explosives being enough to easily ignite the ammunition if not done so by schrapnel. One thing is for sure though, crew survivability after a penetration by a APCBC projectile was very small.



> Now it was much more reliable,



No, not really. The late Panthers were very reliable.



> On field artillery
> According to my sources leFH 18M max range was 12.325m and that of 25pdr, with supercharge, was 12.253 m so after all range difference was only 72 m, rather irrelevant, I think and I would not count very much on that difference in combat. On the other hand British 5.5” gun-howitzer had an range of 14.800 m, or 16.460 m with LR shell when German sFH 18/40 had an range of 13.300m.



Why leave out all the other German artillery ?



> And if you think that artilleries of other countries could not hit cross-roads, what to say, pity?



And whats thats supposed to mean ?? 

The Americans were impressed at how accurate German field artillery was, noting that an entire battery was able to consistantly hit a crossroad, thats fact.


----------



## Juha (Nov 22, 2007)

Soren it 2 am here so only a couple short notices.

“The late Panthers were very reliable”

Now that new to me. I know that other components but final drive clearly got better but because the weakness of final drive was design error/failure it was still a fundamental problem. Still in Jan 45 Gen. Thomales bitterly complained on that. French calculated that average life expectancy of Panther’s final drive was only 150 km. No strategic mobility with that kind of tank.

As I wrote earlier, Panther was almost 50% heavier than Sherman or T-34/85. If we think what tank was 50% heavier than Panther there was only PzKpfW VIB Kingtiger, Panther weight as much as Allied heavy tanks Pearshing and IS 2. It’s usually difficult to fight against 50% heavier opponent a bit like PzKpfW II vs British Valentine. At least late Shermans could pierce Panther’s armour except glacis and mantel. After all 45 mm sides and turret sides were rather thin for medium tank and thin for 45 ton tank.

”The 17 pdr while very powerful had very slim chances of hurting either the Panther or Tiger past 1,000m.”

In NW Europe that was usually enough.

“very very few FirFly’s actually saw service, and on the western front there were fewer present than Tigers.”

In Dec 44 21st AG had 605 Fireflys plus 123 in tank parks, how many Tigers there were around at that time?

“crew survivability after a penetration by a APCBC projectile was very small.”

In fact I doubt that and after all Panther wasn’t fireproof either.

“Why leave out all the other German artillery ?”

What? The main divisional artillery pieces of German divisions were those mentioned, or maybe I must add 10,5cm leFH 18, without M, max range 10.675 m

Then there was 10cm sK 18, of which PzDivs had 4 during early part of war, it had the range, max 19.075 m, but its problem was that its shell weight only 15.1 kg which was a little for a cannon weighting 5.642kg.

When we think Soviet field guns, their 122mm howitzer weighted 2.200 kg, shell weight 22.1 kg max range 12.100m and their 152mm gun-howitzer was heavy but had a long reach 7.128 kg shell weight 43,5 kg max range 17.250 m. 

So, German 10,5 cm leFH 18M had about same max range than its British and Soviet counterparts, had 3,5 kg heavier shell than 25pdr but the latter had 360 deg field of fire, which feature Germans began to appreciate during the war, leFH 18/18M had 56deg fof. On the other hand Soviet 122mm had 7,3 kg heavier shell than leFH 18.

The main German medium gun, sFH 18 lacked range and the much more rare sK 18 had very light shell. So IMHO German field artillery wasn’t as good as that of Allied mainly because of sFH 18’s comparatively short range.

Its now past 3 am here, so that’s that.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 23, 2007)

Juha said:


> Soren it 2 am here so only a couple short notices.
> 
> Now that new to me. I know that other components but final drive clearly got better but because the weakness of final drive was design error/failure it was still a fundamental problem. Still in Jan 45 Gen. Thomales bitterly complained on that. French calculated that average life expectancy of Panther’s final drive was only 150 km. No strategic mobility with that kind of tank.
> 
> As I wrote earlier, Panther was almost 50% heavier than Sherman or T-34/85. If we think what tank was 50% heavier than Panther there was only PzKpfW VIB Kingtiger, Panther weight as much as Allied heavy tanks Pearshing and IS 2. It’s usually difficult to fight against 50% heavier opponent a bit like PzKpfW II vs British Valentine. At least late Shermans could pierce Panther’s armour except glacis and mantel. After all 45 mm sides and turret sides were rather thin for medium tank and thin for 45 ton tank.



No Juha, the problem wasn't the final drive, the real problem was the drivers. Inexperienced drivers could easily damage a final drive. The very same problem was experienced by some of the Tiger Ausf.E B units, however by 1944 the Tiger Ausf.E was seen as a VERY reliable tank, and this wasn't because of any mechanical improvements, it was mainly because the drivers of these tanks had experience and didn't put unnecessary stress upon the engine.



> In NW Europe that was usually enough.



If the the FireFly got to achieve a deadly hit first, yes, however as it was the FireFly hardly ever got in the first hit or even got to open fire first when engaged at such a range with the Panther or Tiger. To achieve a deadly hit on a Panther from 1,000m away demanded allot more time to estimate range for the British gunner than it did for the German gunner which only needed 2 sec's to identify the precise range of the target by virtue of the excellent sights available to him.



> In Dec 44 21st AG had 605 Fireflys plus 123 in tank parks, how many Tigers there were around at that time?



Sorry I didn't make myself clear: I was thinking units present in France Belgium. By Dec 44 there were considerably more FireFly's available. But still, 605 FireFly's aint much, atleast not compared to how many Panthers Tigers there were alltogether on the western front. 



> In fact I doubt that



You doubt it ??? 

Let loose an explosion 3-4 times as powerful as a grenade inside a confined space and see what happens! The pressure created alone is lethal! Now factor in that shrapnel is going to be flying all over the place.



> and after all Panther wasn’t fireproof either.



If an APCBC round exploded within the Panthers turret then it was goodbye Panther, not doubt about it.



> What? The main divisional artillery pieces of German divisions were those mentioned, or maybe I must add 10,5cm leFH 18, without M, max range 10.675 m



The LeFH (M) was std. piece by 1943.



> Then there was 10cm sK 18, of which PzDivs had 4 during early part of war, it had the range, max 19.075 m, but its problem was that its shell weight only 15.1 kg which was a little for a cannon weighting 5.642kg.



What ?! Now I'm sorry Juha but thats complete nonsense on your part. Take a look at the reach of the Sk18, its 19,075m, and its a 10cm artillery piece we're talking about here! With such range 5,642 kg of gun isn't much, its actually lighter for its capability than its Allied counterparts! 




> When we think Soviet field guns, their 122mm howitzer weighted 2.200 kg, shell weight 22.1 kg max range 12.100m and their 152mm gun-howitzer was heavy but had a long reach 7.128 kg shell weight 43,5 kg max range 17.250 m.



Geez, whats the point of comparing a smaller caliber artillery piece to larger caliber ones ??? 

How about you compare those Soviet artillery pieces to the German 12cm, 15cm 17cm artillery pieces ??



> So, German 10,5 cm leFH 18M had about same max range than its British and Soviet counterparts, had 3,5 kg heavier shell than 25pdr but the latter had 360 deg field of fire, which feature Germans began to appreciate during the war, leFH 18/18M had 56deg fof.



Huh ?! Any artillery piece which can be turned around has a 360 degree field of fire, so how exactly is it that you have come to silly conclusions here ? 



> On the other hand Soviet 122mm had 7,3 kg heavier shell than leFH18.



Like I said don't compare smaller caliber artillery pieces with larger ones.



> The main German medium gun, sFH 18 lacked range and the much more rare sK 18 had very light shell.



Hehe... 

15.1 kg is a heck of a lot for a 10cm HE shell and is in no way a light round! Heck it weighed as much as the 10cm Soviet AP shells! (Note that AP shells for any given caliber usually always way allot more than the same caliber HE shells) 



> So IMHO German field artillery wasn’t as good as that of Allied mainly because of sFH 18’s comparatively short range.



Well considering the pretty silly conclusion to arrived at above I'm not surprised.


----------



## Glider (Nov 23, 2007)

I would be very suprised if the Germans had 605 Panthers and Tigers facing the allies in the West.
Can you tell me how many they did have?


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 23, 2007)

numbers produced

Panzer V (Panther)

1943 - 1944 - 1945 - Total

Panther - 1,848 - 3,777 - 507 - 6,132
Jagdpanther - 1 - 226 - 198 - 425

Total - 1,849 - 4,003 - 705 - 6,557

Panzer VI (Tiger)

1942 - 1943 - 1944 - 1945 - Total

Tiger I - 78 - 649 - 623 - * - 1,350
Tiger II - * - 1 - 377 - 112 - 490
Jagdtiger - * - * - 51 - 28 - 79
Sturmtiger - * - * - 18 - * - 18

Total 78 - 650 - 1,069 - 140 - 1,937


----------



## Glider (Nov 23, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> numbers produced
> 
> Panzer V (Panther)
> 
> ...



Interesting but not the question. The question was how many were facing the West in Dec 1944.
Huge numbers had been destroyed by the end of 1944 and the majority of the remaining forces deployed against the Russians. 
I would be suprised if the Germans had more Panthers and Tigers facing the British to match the 605 Fireflys the British had.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 23, 2007)

I know it was not the question Glider. 

This site might be of some help.
Tiger I Information Center - Unit Histories


----------



## Juha (Nov 23, 2007)

Soren
21st AG had in June 44 318 Fireflys in tank formations plus 24 in tank parks of which 6 were doing “bunker busting” I don’t think that that was “very, very few”.

On final drive, IMHO French knew more on Panther’s final drive than either of us and General Thomale even more. If they disagree with you I’m inclined to believe them, sorry.

Now even if Germany used 105mm and 150mm artillery pieces other nations were free to chose their own calibre. So for British the main field gun was 25 pdr ie appr 87,7 mm gun-howitzer and the 4,5 (114mm) gun and the 5.5 inch (140mm) gun-howitzer were standard medium artillery equipment. Now leFH 18M was a bit heavier than 25pdr but fired a heavier shell. Max range was almost the same.
But British 5.5in gun-howitzer was 200 kg heavier but fired 2 kg heavier shell 1½km further than sFH 18 and with the lighter shell its max range was over 3 km longer than that of sFH 18. IMHO at least on paper 5.5in was better gun. The 4.5in gun has appr. same weight and max range than its German counterpart 10cm sK 18 but fired over 50% heavier shell. The couple books I have read on German artillery pieces agreed in that the Germans were not satisfied with the sK 18 mainly because of the lightness of its shell, and I and they meant that the shell was light as a medium artillery shell not as a 10,5cm shell. And surprise surprise British thought that even the 25kg shell of 4.5in gun lacked lethality and right after the war standardized 5.5in gun-howitzer as their standard medium equipment. So IMHO 4.5in gun was better than sK 18. So IMHO British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts.

On 360 deg field of fire, look photos of 25 pdr on firing position or photos of 10,5 cm le FH 43 prototypes or in matter of fact post-war Soviet 122mm light field howitzer, which used the same idea from Skoda than leFH 43. You might understand what I meant.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Nov 23, 2007)

Glider
IIRC some 330 Panthers and 88 Tigers in Normandy during June-Aug. Plus maybe 17 replacement Panthers. So appr 1 to 1Firefly vs (Panthers+Tigers). British converted appr 100 Sherman Vs to VCs per month IIRC.
Juha


----------



## Glider (Nov 24, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> I know it was not the question Glider.
> 
> This site might be of some help.
> Tiger I Information Center - Unit Histories



Excellent site, many thanks


----------



## Soren (Nov 24, 2007)

Glider,

IIRC there were over 2,000 Panthers on the Western front by late 1944. I'll check as soon as I get home.

*Juha*,

Take a look at the weight of German, British, US Soviet 10.5cm HE shells:
101

Like I said 15.1 kg is around the usual for a 10.5cm shell of that time, infact its slightly heavier as the norm was around 14.8 kg.


The British 4.5in howitzer was of 11.4cm in caliber, so again no wonder the shell was heavier, but this gun didn't have the same range as the German Sk 18.


----------



## Juha (Nov 25, 2007)

Soren
4.5in was a cannon, not a howitzer, I'm talking on medium artillery. British medium artillery regiments had 5.5in gun-howitzers and 4.5in cannon or gun as their standard weaponary in NW Europe. 4.5in howitzer was entirely different weapon, if there was such a weapon, probably there was but I’m not sure and I don’t have time to check that just now. 
On your link, if you noticed, the GB's 4in guns were naval and we are talking on army weaponry. Once again, the problem of sK 18 was that it was a 105mm cannon, others used bigger calibre cannons for same work, British 4.5in and US its 155mm cannon, Soviets their 152mm gun-howitzer, US and Soviet weapons were heavier but at least to US that wasn't a big problem because they had enough heavy gun tractors. Russia have had 107mm cannon and Soviet army used it and a modernized version of it but in late 30s decided to substitute it with a heavier weapon. And as I wrote it seemed that also Germans began to think that they needed heavier shell for counter-battery work.

BTW Your over 2000 Panthers is a way too high a figure, maybe over 2000 panzers, StuGs and heavy and medium JgPzs altogether.

Glider
IIRC Germans got also some 24 Tigers more in Normandy in late July incl some Kingtigers

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 25, 2007)

Juha said:


> “Why leave out all the other German artillery ?”
> 
> What? The *main divisional artillery pieces* of German divisions were those mentioned, or maybe I must add 10,5cm leFH 18, without M, max range 10.675 m
> 
> ...



Your logic is odd. 

First you limit the discussion to divisional arty pieces, but when it comes to the Soviets, suddenly the criteria goes to the garbage can - probably because by far the most common Soviet divisional arty was not 152 or even 122mm calibre, but formed by light 76,2mm field guns... 

I fail to see what importance 360 degree traversing is of any importance for a field gun, really. IMHO it`s just unneccesary complication and weight added to a small sized gun that can be turned manually 360 degree in a few seconds anyway..




> On the other hand British 5.5” gun-howitzer had an range of 14.800 m, or 16.460 m with LR shell when German sFH 18/40 had an range of 13.300m.



I think you are wrong in that. Ranges :

15cm sFH 18 : 13 325 m 

15cm sFH 36 : 12 500 m (this was a shortened barrel, light &compact gun weighting only 3500/3200 kg which was not produced for too long because of it was alloy-hungry)

15cm sFH 18/40(42) : 15 100 m 

15cm sFH 18/40 : 15 675 m 



> The main German medium gun, sFH 18 lacked range and the much more rare sK 18 had very light shell. So IMHO German field artillery wasn’t as good as that of Allied mainly because of sFH 18’s comparatively short range.



But you seem to forget the German field arty had different (heavy) pieces for the long-range as well, and frankly, I can hardly think of a more potent gun for the job as below :


----------



## Juha (Nov 25, 2007)

Glider
Germans units participating Ardennes offensive had 1550 tanks, StuGs and PzJgs altogether so a bit over 2000 tanks, StuGs and PzJgs altogether on Western Front in early Dec 44 is a good estimate, so maybe 500 – 600 Panthers.

Kurfürst
“I fail to see what importance 360 degree traversing is of any importance for a field gun, really. IMHO it`s just unneccesary complication and weight added to a small sized gun that can be turned manually 360 degree”

For some reason German army insist 360 deg for their new leFH 43 and for some reason Soviets adopted the same carriage for their post-war 122mm field howitzer. It’s pity that You and Soren were not in hand when the Germans draw their specifications for a new leFH, they would clearly needed your expertise.

”15cm sFH 18/40(42) : 15 100 m”
I don’t identify the gun, so I cannot comment

”15cm sFH 18/40 : 15 675 m”

To my understanding only 46 were made and troops saw it way too complicated and only 22 were distributed to troops. If you think that Germans produced in 1944 2.295 sFH 18s, the sFH 18/40 was irrelevant. Just noticed that 15cm sFH 18/40 was originally my mistake, in my 11-21 message I meant sFH 18, but in a hurry I typed the wrong type.

Other armies also had heavy artillery and I mentioned in my first message 17cm K18 which was an excellent gun but it weighted 17.520 kg and only some 340 were made altogether.

I cannot identify the gun in picture but the production run of 15cm K 18 was 101, 15cm K 39 64, 21 cm K 39, 40 and 41 altogether 61 so they could not have much influence in battlefields.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Nov 25, 2007)

Thanks for the info, its roughly what I was expecting. Have to agree with the rest of the posting as well.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 25, 2007)

Juha said:


> Kurfürst
> 
> “I fail to see what importance 360 degree traversing is of any importance for a field gun, really. IMHO it`s just unneccesary complication and weight added to a small sized gun that can be turned manually 360 degree”
> 
> For some reason German army insist 360 deg for their new leFH 43



For some reason they had not bothered to put it into production.

And below you argue a small production run for several German guns making them 'irrelevant'... I guess prototype German guns aren`t..!

I am still wondering what enourmous gains were coming from that addition, that raised the super-hyped 25 pdr above all others. You kindly tell me.
It seems to me it was one of the British funny ideas of the war by which others did not feel particularly pressed to follow during WW2 (or after), certainly in the fashion they did not follow the British practice of choosing a too small caliber.

Everybody else went for bigger calibers for standard pieces, even the British figured out the wisdom, though it took them more time than for the others.



> and for some reason Soviets adopted the same carriage for their post-war 122mm field howitzer



Well that proves a lot, there`s a gun of similiar design out there. Yes, of course. Hardly proves anything, especially not that it was some kind of miracle technical solution  you trying to make it look like.



> It’s pity that You and Soren were not in hand when the Germans draw their specifications for a new leFH, they would clearly needed your expertise.



No, the pity is that you have a sort of stupid agenda, born out of ignoranc and bias. Your sad little rheterics won`t make up for your failings on those fields. Clearly, you need to some work on those areas to improve yourself.

You have came up with a blanket statement about an alleged defiency of German divisional field artilerry due to short range. 
*
Even your own data*, which ignored more advanced types of German divisional howitzer alltogether, being compared to _supercharged_ UK divisional howitzers and _army-level heavy arty_ *did not support that*. 

We`re trying to tell you to keep the playing field even; compare like with the like, divisional arty with divisional arty; heavy arty w. heavy arty etc.
When it`s about a 10,5cm _divisional_ arty piece, it should be compared to other _divisiona_l arty pieces of similiar role/calibre; but no, you start to compare them with _army-level heavy arty of incomparably larger size and caliber_...

This makes about as much sense as comparing the load carrying capability of a common Ford Focus to some Big Mac truck, and then arguing the Focus is not up to it`s task.. ridiculus. And when the trying to make the playing field even again, by comparing like with the like, heavy arty pieces tasked with counter-battery roles and preparation of strategic breakthrough, you dismiss them being not relevant. 

Here`s the sobering part. As much as you`re trying to add 4.5" and 5.5", they were not part of the divisional arty. Period. If you wish to add them into the comparison, be sure to compare like with the like.

If you wish to compare divisional arty, it is sobering. 105-150-152mm pieces on one side with the division. 83mm pieces on the other. One makes you cover-up in your foxhole, the other makes the foxhole and you just disappear and leave a 7-meter wide crater behind. 



> ”15cm sFH 18/40(42) : 15 100 m”
> I don’t identify the gun, so I cannot comment
> 
> ”15cm sFH 18/40 : 15 675 m”
> ...



Right, then address please the existance of the other improved forms of the sFH 18 in existance during the war. In any case, even the basic sFH 18 - ie. a standard German divisional piece - at the start of the war had longer range (not to mention punch) than the 25 pdr howitzer ( ie. a standard British divisional piece). Ie. your original statement made no sense.



> Other armies also had heavy artillery and I mentioned in my first message 17cm K18 which was an excellent gun but it weighted 17.520 kg and only some 340 were made altogether.



Well you`ve already mentioned the _heavy artillery_ of other armies and strikingly enough you compared them to German _divisional artillery._  

Therefore, I again left puzzled why you`re bringing up all the excuses again. It`s heavy. Funny that was not a problem with British 5.5" or the Soviet 152mm guns... etc.

I wonder why you`re so unable to apply the same standards everywhere.



> I cannot identify the gun in picture but the production run of 15cm K 18 was 101, 15cm K 39 64, 21 cm K 39, 40 and 41 altogether 61 so they could not have much influence in battlefields.
> 
> Juha



Well the same can be said about 5.5" British guns, for example. 
Not particularly numerous in the British division TOEs, are they? To be more precise, there were none in the TOE tables. That leaves a British division with a small-caliber gun with a puny 11kg shell and with a maximum range of about 12 clicks.

Now I`d certainly won`t like if I`d have some incoming CB fire from the opposing guy`s 16 kg shells from the same 12 clicks away, and even less so when those 45 kg shells are start to fall around me, fired from 13-15 clicks away, which could easily mean in practice that my fancy 25 pdr battery is getting shredded by enemy artylerry pieces firing 4,5 times bigger shells than mine, out of my gun range. 

Even if I don`t have incoming enemy CB fire, the head-scratching starts with any support role calling for something more than the punch a 11 kg shell can offer. Most armies have for that purpose guns in 150-155mm range issued directly to divisions. There are task the normal scare-guns just can`t do.


----------



## Glider (Nov 25, 2007)

The 25pd was the first weapon of its type to be able to swing through 360 degrees easily and without distrupting the emplacement.
Comments have been made that this is easily achieved by any weapon. I suggest you try it, I wouldn't fancy it. Guns are emplaced to fire in one general direction think about it.
No one is saying that this is the be all and end all of a guns capability, but it is a useful tactical benefit, one that has been taken up by other countries for similar weapons.

It was designed as a gun howitzer and the size of the weapon a deliberate choice to get the benefit of both.

As for the observation that weapons with tiny production runs and experimental versions types are not part of the debate due to the fact that they had no impact on the war, I can only agree with.

Juha' s summary is pretty much spot on.
_So, German 10,5 cm leFH 18M had about same max range than its British and Soviet counterparts, had 3,5 kg heavier shell than 25pdr but the latter had 360 deg field of fire, which feature Germans began to appreciate during the war, leFH 18/18M had 56deg fof. On the other hand Soviet 122mm had 7,3 kg heavier shell than leFH 18._

Re the heavier weapons 
The sFH18/40. My understanding was that they were outranged by the Russians and modifications were made but most were for reliability. Changes were made to obtain extra range but these were not implemented due to the impact on the barrel and recoil system.

Compared to the 5.5in the German weapon lacked range (not for the first time). I don't know the difference in shell size, but at a weight of 100lb it wouldn't have been far short of the German weapon. True, the 100lb shell was replaced by the 80lb shell, but this had less metal and more explosive so its effectiveness was increased. 

Comment about the size of calibre are amusing but totally miss the point.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

The German 17cm Kanone 18 featured a 360 degree field of fire and a range beyond that of any comparable Allied artillery piece (30km) plus a much heavier shell at 68 kg. So in the 17cm Kanone 18 the Germans had an excellent long range artillery piece of unequalled performance.

And lets not forget the 15cm Kanone 18 either, with its 43 kg heavy high explosive shell and a range of 25km it was an excellent artillery piece, much better than the Soviet 15.2cm artillery pieces. It featured a 360 degree field of fire as-well btw.

Some 10.5cm LeFH 18 pieces began featuring a 360 degree field of fire platform from 1943 and onwards as-well, so the 25 pdr didn't have anyhing over the LeFH 18. 

At any rate turning a light artillery piece like the LeFH 18 isn't in any way hard for experienced presonnel Glider, I know, so I don't see why the 360 degree platform provided for the 25 pdr was such a big advantage - esp. not considering that such big corrections to the direction of fire was hardly ever needed.

And as to the accuracy of fire, well the Germans were indeed more accurate here in terms of concentration of fire according the Ian V. Hogg and American intel reports. This was mostly because of the German method of establishing range actual position to expected position. Hence the comment made by the American Officer. The actual accuracy of the guns wouldn't have been much different.


----------



## Juha (Nov 25, 2007)

Kurfürst
“For some reason they had not bothered to put it into production.”

To my understanding you can blame Soviets for that they happened to appear in Berlin and put all German projects to end.

“Well that proves a lot, there`s a gun of similiar design out there. Yes, of course. Hardly proves anything, especially not that it was some kind of miracle technical solution you trying to make it look like.”

Now Soviet Union liked to keep thinks simple for sake of production and maintenance happened to select the system for their standard light field howitzer. That should make you think twice the merits of the system.

“No, the pity is that you have a sort of stupid agenda, born out of ignoranc and bias.”

I would say that You and Soren are too full of Übermensch ideology to see that even if many of German weapons were good or even world beaters, they also made some average or even below average weapons.

”army-level heavy arty”

Heh, what army-level heavy artillery I have mentioned, except Soviet 152mm gun-howitzer and and that because of Soviet had most centralist artillery organisation of 3 nations mentioned, Germans had most decentralized. 5.5in gun-howitzer and 4.5in gun/cannon were equipment of RA MEDIUM regiments, RA HEAVY regiments had 7.2in howitzers and 155mm gun/cannon as their equipment. British used more centralised artillery system and every Corps had an Artillery Group, usually with one heavy and 3 medium regiments. Alone in Normandy Brits had 24 medium regiments that is 384 5.5in and 4.5in guns, this for 15 divs (Polish Armoured Div incl as well as Canadian divs). Germans on other hand divided their medium artillery between divisions, corps and armies, but in both cases medium artillery was there. So for every div 21st AG had 25 medium artillery pieces. Because I don’t have in hand Germany’s OoB for Normandy, I cannot calculate the German equivalent but if they had half of their medium artillery in line divisions and half in higher level units they had 24 medium artillery pieces per div. in average. And I doubt that there was even that many medium artillery pieces around because after 1941 the number of higher level medium artillery battalions were declining and there were only 54 in 1 July 43, if there were 50 in 1 June 44 that's 2,11 medium artillery pieces per div in average in higher level units, there were 284 German divs at that time. If those in Normandy had twice the average they had 12+4=16 medium field artillery pieces per division there.


Soren
Yes as I have mentioned 17cm K 18 was excellent gun but as a heavy artillery piece it was rather rare, probably there were ever more than 200 in service in same time, and keeping in mind the huge losses on Eastern Front from 1943 onwards I doubt that there was over 150 around in June 44 that a bit over ½ gun per div ( there were 284 German divs around in 1 June 44) so they could not be everywhere.
Production run was 1941-91, 1942-126, 1943-78, 1944-40 and 1945-3.

"The 10.5cm LeFH 18 began featuring a 360 degree field of fire platform from 1943 and onwards as-well"

All of them or only new production? Is that surprising when according to you 360 deg fof is entirely unnecessary?

Finns were not overly impressed on German firing methods, but maybe they suited better to more open terrain. At least north of Tornio in autumn 44 Finns notice some very good shooting by German field artillery.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

> I would say that You and Soren are too full of Übermensch ideology to see that even if many of German weapons were good or even world beaters, they also made some average or even below average weapons.



Thank you very much for that personal attack Juha! Can't remember when I ever attacked you personally or tried to personify you to deserve that. Oh well..

As to the 360 degree platform, it wasn't necessary at all Juha, it just made it abit easier for the personnel in some rare situations - hence why many modern atrillery pieces don't feature this platform, it simply aint worth the trouble. Traversing the piece normally is easily quickly done.

The famous American 155mm Long Tom didn't feature a 360 degree field of fire either, it had the same 60 degree field of fire as the std. 10.5cm LeFH 18 M.

And as to the Soviet artillery pieces, well I can't find a single area where they were superior to those of the Germans. The German 150mm 173mm K-18 are completely superior to any heavy Soviet artillery piece, and the LeFH 18 (M) is better than the Soviet howitzers of similar caliber


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 25, 2007)

Juha try to keep the posts unpersonal okay.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 25, 2007)

_"And as to the Soviet artillery pieces, well I can't find a single area where they were superior to those of the Germans. The German 150mm 173mm K-18 are completely superior to any heavy Soviet artillery piece, and the LeFH 18 (M) is better than the Soviet howitzers of similar caliber"_

I can, Soren, there was more of them. The idea of a Soviet artillery barrage was enough to put chills up any Axis spine. All German histories of the eastern front mention Soviet artillery as their greatest enemy, well the ones I've read do.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

But ofcourse Plan_D, but I was talking individually. 

The Soviets did have the advantage of having so many pieces that they could lay down a barrage so intense that the air would be sucked right out of anyones lunges unfortunate enough to be in the middle of it. (German vets often tell you about this)


----------



## plan_D (Nov 25, 2007)

I know you were talking individually; but it does bring up the question of build. Which of these artillery pieces was the easiest to produce in large quantities, after all it is weight of fire that decides the fight where artillery is concerned. 

I understand the argument for superior individual piece, but in equal industrial position which piece would be fielded in most numbers and ultimately lay down more fire? In reality the Americans and Soviets had more artillery at hand solely due to their massive industrial base, and this was discovered on the field of battle and recorded with dismay in German histories. 

Interesting read, by the way, I'm learning a lot about artillery here - something I'm not up to date with.


----------



## Glider (Nov 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> The German 17cm Kanone 18 featured a 360 degree field of fire and a range beyond that of any comparable Allied artillery piece (30km) plus a much heavier shell at 68 kg. So in the 17cm Kanone 18 the Germans had an excellent long range artillery piece of unequalled performance.
> 
> And lets not forget the 15cm Kanone 18 either, with its 43 kg heavy high explosive shell and a range of 25km it was an excellent artillery piece, much better than the Soviet 15.2cm artillery pieces. It featured a 360 degree field of fire as-well btw.



I am not trying to ignore these weapons which were as good as any in the world at the time. That is not in question, I am trying to deal with the questions and points raised iro the smaller weapons.



> Some 10.5cm LeFH 18 pieces began featuring a 360 degree field of fire platform from 1943 and onwards as-well, so the 25 pdr didn't have anyhing over the LeFH 18.


I suspect the main difference is that nearly all the 25pds had this ability and only a handful of the LeFH 18. It is interesting that the German forces did decide to include this ability, they must have decided that it was beneficial although as I said earlier, it wasn't the most important feature of the weapon. 



> At any rate turning a light artillery piece like the LeFH 18 isn't in any way hard for experienced presonnel Glider, I know, so I don't see why the 360 degree platform provided for the 25 pdr was such a big advantage - esp. not considering that such big corrections to the direction of fire was hardly ever needed.


I would certainly agree that the 360 degree ability is not a huge advantage but it is an advantage. It should be remembered that the 25pd was always designed to be able to act as an AT gun and this ability in a fast moving close range battle must help. As for turning around a 'normal weapon' if its dug in, then you stand no chance of moving it in a hurry.



> And as to the accuracy of fire, well the Germans were indeed more accurate here in terms of concentration of fire according the Ian V. Hogg and American intel reports. This was mostly because of the German method of establishing range actual position to expected position. Hence the comment made by the American Officer. The actual accuracy of the guns wouldn't have been much different.


The British had to learn some lessons in France which was done and by 1942 a number of individually small changes were made that made a big difference when put together.
What the British were able to do was bring a much bigger concentration of fire down, much faster than any other army in the war. They were also far more flexible than most armies due to the trust given to the observers.
This would go some way to making up any difference in accuracy which by 1942 would have been marginal at best.


----------



## Juha (Nov 25, 2007)

Soren
“Thank you very much for that personal attack Juha! Can't remember when I ever attacked you personally or tried to personify you to deserve that. Oh well..”

Yes, that’s true, and I apologize.

“The famous American 155mm Long Tom didn't feature a 360 degree field of fire either, it had the same 60 degree field of fire as the std. 10.5cm LeFH 18 M.”

Yes but the long range guns don’t have so much a need for that. IMHO the idea behind the 360 deg traverse of post-war Soviet 122mm light field howitzer was to allow easy all round defence in case of fluid situation. Light field pieces are situated rather near the front so they are in greater risk to be run over, also IIRC 122mm had secondary A/T function in those situations. Why 25pdr had that capacity, I don’t know. Maybe because of secondary A/T function or because of colonial experience, there were many times no fixed frontline but enemy could be anywhere. Or maybe because both of reasons.

On modern or more exactly on the SP guns of 60s and 70s. For some reasons some SP guns got turrets with 360deg traverse.

“LeFH 18 (M) is better than the Soviet howitzers of similar calibre”

I cannot recall Soviet 105mm howitzer, their standard light howitzer was 122mm.

BTW, what is your source of the info that 17cm K 18 had 360 deg traverse, the one of my sources, Encyclopaedia of the German Army in the 20th Century by Bruce Quarrie) that gives the traverse of the gun says that it had only 17 deg traverse. In it there are a picture and 4 sided drawing. According to the text: “In action it rested upon a turntable, the wheels being lifted off the ground. The rear of the trail was mounted on a platform which permitted a limited traverse…” Now that sounds perfectly OK if we remember that the gun weights 17.520kg. But on the other hand I have a handwritten note from 70s, God knows from what source, that the gun had 360 deg traverse.

On 15cm Kanone 18, according to Quarrie it had only 10 deg traverse. Anyway, it was a rare gun, as I wrote only 101 built and production ended in 1943, after losses in east in 41-44 probably not many were around in 1944.

On 17cm K 18, one additional piece of info, it seems that one battalion (probably 12 guns if German heavy artillery battalion had same number of guns than medium arty battalion) fought in Normandy. Commonwealth 21st AG had 5 heavy artillery regiments in Normandy ie 40 7.2in howitzer and 40 155mm gun/cannon.

Juha
and again sorry for my outburst


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

Juha no problem about your outburst, it's that you almost called me a Nazi which I'm bothered about, otherwise why mention Ideals ?? Cause if thats what you truly think about me then I cannot stress enough how completely wrong about me you are! 

Anyway getting back on topic:

Both the 150mm 173mm K-18 featured a 360 degree platform:

*17cm K-18*










*15cm K-18*





My source is Ian V. Hogg, a weapons historian and an expert on guns of all calibers.

The 21cm Mörser 18 also features a 360 degree platform, and n this picture you can see it retracted on the carriage:






There was also the 24cm K-3 with a range of ~35km and also with a 360 degree platform:









So as you can see Juha the Germans were also very well established in the field of artillery, producing the best guns for any purpose of any country of WW2. (And they continue to do so today)

And no I'm not being biased here, I'm just telling it the way it is.


----------



## Juha (Nov 26, 2007)

Soren
still not sure on 360 deg on 17 cm K 18, the uppermost photo showed it as Quarrie claimed, the rear of the trail was mounted on a platform. There is a drawing in the book which showed the gun or in fact 21cm Mörser 18, which used the same carriage/lafette, from above and the platform seemed to be something like 2,8m x 1,2 m. I still have difficulty to see how the guncrew lift the rear end of trail with of without the platform and turn the gun around, maybe the long barrel balanced the system when in horizontal position. 

I’m not sure on excellence of German heavy guns, many of them were technically brilliant IMHO not all of them were very practical and their habit to built small number of many different guns must be logistically a mistake. And probably many of those very heavy guns were lost during retreats. 24cm K-3 was a good example, only 10 made, it weighted almost 55 tons, had to be transported in six separate loads, that doesn’t sound a very practical concept to me. 17 cm K 18 was very good but heavier pieces maybe were uneconomical.

And I'm still thinking that British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and they had more significance than clearly rarer heavy pieces. And as matter of fact British standard A/T guns were better than similar sized German guns as pure hole punchers, 2 pdr has significantly better penetrative power than 3.7cm PaK 36, same 6 pdr vs 5cm PaK 38 and 17pdr vs 7.5cm PaK 40. Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility. 

IMHO Soviet system of building massive numbers of few good gun types, massing them to one sector to pulverize enemy’s defensive lines to ensure breakthrough was simple and effective way to use artillery. Germans warned Finns in early 44 that Soviet system was extreme effective and that there was no way to prevent Soviet breakthroughs. The question was how to stabilize the front again as soon as possible. The Finns didn’t believe Germans but thought that they had managed to hold their main defensive lines during 1942 Soviet attacks while inflicting very heavy casualties to Soviets but in June 1944 we found that the German warning had been sound.

Thanks for the source info I read one of Hogg’s book in 70s so probably the handwritten notes are from it.

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Nov 26, 2007)

_"The question was how to stabilize the front again as soon as possible. The Finns didn’t believe Germans but thought that they had managed to hold their main defensive lines during 1942 Soviet attacks while inflicting very heavy casualties to Soviets but in June 1944 we found that the German warning had been sound."_

The Germans used forward trenches with skeleton crews to fool the Soviet spotters into believing this was the front-line, it was an effective counter to the Red Army's massive artillery barrages. Once the barrage was over the German army would move back into place, and the Soviets would be ... well, surprised to say the least.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 26, 2007)

Juha said:


> Kurfürst
> “For some reason they had not bothered to put it into production.”
> 
> To my understanding you can blame Soviets for that they happened to appear in Berlin and put all German projects to end.



Ah, I see. You run out of silly arguements, so you scrape the barrel for idiotic arguements.



Juha said:


> Now Soviet Union liked to keep thinks simple for sake of production and maintenance happened to select the system for their standard light field howitzer. That should make you think twice the merits of the system.



Oh, the merits of the system is perfectly understood, you put a metal turntable plate under the gun to make it traverse faster. On pieces without this turntable, you simply grab the gun an rotate the gun itself. On small guns (below 2 tons) such as these, it can be easily done without a turntable. Clearly putting turntables on even small guns was some kind of British fixation with turntables, hell they`ve even _put it on very light 2 pdr AT guns_. On heavy guns, it makes sense, that`s why everyone, except the British, used it only on large guns.

I`ve personally seen with what ease a 1.5 ton 75mm gun (a PaK 40) was man-handled. While in an analouge, you`d keep arguing how much of a disadvantage it is for the PaK 40 that it`s _barrel_ traverse is just something like 60 degrees, and there are those jolly 25 pdrs with '360 degree traverse', IRL it looked like the crew grabbing the whole gun on it`s friendlier end, rotating the whole thing 90 degrees in 3 seconds, and was ready to fire in the 5th second.

That`s an ATG gun where it may come in handy very often, at this size and weight, a turntable offers no practical advantage, perhaps it`s somewhat easier for the crew to do. I wonder how often division artilerry, 6-8-10 km behind the frontline, needs to fire 180 back on it`s own HQ, or the supply train of the friendly units on it`s left and right flanks, _instead of the 60 degrees or so arc in front of it, ie. where the enemy is_. I am sure in your world they keep spinning arty pieces all day. 1 barrage for the enemy, 1-1 for the cooks on both sides, and the leftover ammo is spent on the red-striped trousers behind. Is that how it works in Juha`s World? Well m8, Juha`s World is not in Real World then.

However your ridiculus argument was, that, despite the fact that the 25 pdr is firing a small sized shell containing of only 0.81 kg of explosives (ie. barely larger charger than the Sherman`s HE shell), to appx the same distance, for some reason the 25 pdr _is superior_ because it has a metal disc turntable under it, which means _it can fire 360 degree_, while the other gun_ is limited to 60 degrees_.

At least in your world, that is.



Juha said:


> “No, the pity is that you have a sort of stupid agenda, born out of ignoranc and bias.”
> 
> I would say that You and Soren are too full of Übermensch ideology to see that even if many of German weapons were good or even world beaters, they also made some average or even below average weapons.



Correction. Stupid agenda, born out of ignorance and bias, attempted to be supported by worsening personal attacks.

Now as for your ridiculus claim, as we do the reality check, you could only push your agenda forward by comparing German divisional howitzers to British corps-level artylerry.

Sure. My Big Mac truck is bigger than your Ford Focus. Keep comparing apples and oranges.



Juha said:


> ”army-level heavy arty”
> 
> Heh, what army-level heavy artillery I have mentioned, except Soviet 152mm gun-howitzer and and that because of Soviet had most centralist artillery organisation of 3 nations mentioned, Germans had most decentralized.



That again speaks volumes of your ignorance, as the organisation had rather had to do with the nature of operations (offense/defense), rather than nations. 



> 5.5in gun-howitzer and 4.5in gun/cannon were equipment of RA MEDIUM regiments, RA HEAVY regiments had 7.2in howitzers and 155mm gun/cannon as their equipment.



Now, I understand why you`re trying to sell RA medium regiments as if they were some kind of standard divisional arty (obviously, if your agenda is to show , but still they weren`t. 

The RA Medium/heavy regiments were bascially the same as corps/army level artilerry attached to the division. Ie. the standard German division, apart from it`s native 10.5cm and 15cm howitzers gets some nice fat 17cm guns and 21cm Mörsers from high command, or even bigger pieces.

And how does the 17cm K18 compare to the 25 pdr howitzers..? Oh I think British artilerry was pretty below-avarage then, because look, my corps level, 18-ton heavy arty piece beats that tiny little howitzer.

That`s the kind of silly logic you follow.


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2007)

Now whats the Problem Juha ??

All the pictures I presented in my previous post feature the 360 degree platform, one even shows a 17cm K-18 in action with it deployed! Ian V. Hogg as-well as any other reliable source mentions the 360 degree platform as-well, they all featured it. Why is it you insist upon denying these facts Juha ??



> And I'm still thinking that British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and they had more significance than clearly rarer heavy pieces.



British medium artillery wasn't any better than German medium artillery, we've already been through this once. The German 10.5cm LeFH 18(M) both out-gunned out-ranged the British 25 pdr.



> And as matter of fact British standard A/T guns were better than similar sized German guns as pure hole punchers, 2 pdr has significantly better penetrative power than 3.7cm PaK 36, same 6 pdr vs 5cm PaK 38 and 17pdr vs 7.5cm PaK 40. Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.



You can't be serious Juha! What you just wrote is without any basis in reality what so ever! 

The Allied AT tank guns were pee-shooters compared to the AT tank guns being produced by the Germans!

Throughout WW2 German AT tank guns were THE best in the world. And thats a fact! 

Also why in the world would you ever compare the 17 pdr to the PaK 40 ?? Why not compare it to the more powerful 7.5cm PaK42 KwK42 L/70 ? This gun was as powerful as the 17 pdr, more accurate and weighed less. This gun was also mounted on the German Pzkpfw. V Panther as the 7.5cm KwK42 L/70 and it out-performed all the Allied tank guns in the comparative tests at Aberdeen.

But as if it couldn't be worse Juha you then proceed to compare the 5.7cm 6 pdr to the German 3.7cm AT gun, a gun comparable to British 3.7cm 2 pounder ! The German equalant to the British 6 pdr, the 5.0cm L/60, was just as good a hole puncher as the 6 pdr.

Already in 1942 the Germans were deploying high velocity 7.5cm 8.8cm AT guns while the Allies still relied on the 6 pdr and low velocity 7.5cm guns. The German 8.8cm FlaK 36 KwK36 L/56, the gun mounted on the Pzkpfw. VI Tiger, was vastly superior to any Allied AT gun when deployed in 1942 and continued to be so until mid 1944.

And in 1943 the Germans introduced the best AT gun of the war, the 8.8cm PaK 43 L/71. This gun was completely unrivalled by any Allied AT gun. The gun was later modified to fit the inside of a tank turret and became the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71, the main armament of the Tiger Ausf.B and JagdPanther, and with MV of over 1,000 m/s and a penetration performance of over 153mm of 240 BHN RHA armour at a distance of 3,000m it was the most powerful tank gun to be mounted on any tank with a turret during WW2.

The only AT tank gun more deadly powerful than the 8.8cm PaK 43 KwK43 was the German 12.8cm Pak 44 KwK44, the most powerful AT gun of WW2, but even this gun was only marginally better than the 8.8cm KwK43. 

When it comes to the lethality of AT guns, velocity is what counts the most!


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 26, 2007)

Juha said:


> I’m not sure on excellence of German heavy guns, many of them were technically brilliant IMHO not all of them were very practical and their habit to built small number of many different guns must be logistically a mistake.



I am wondering what the heck you`re talking about. Basically, the Germans used the same two divisional arty pieces through the war, just two, the 10.5cm leFH 18 and the 15cm FH 18, plus their deriviates (which did not differ in else but having muzzle brakes).

That is, as much as I can count, just two type of standard pieces that came into the logistical picture (ie. every division has them).

The British...? Well they used the old WW1 OQF 18 pdr and the 4.5" OQF howitzer, later the OQF 25 pdr, the US 155mm M1918. 

For heavier standard pieces on corps level, they for some odd reason used 4.5" gun-hos that were not fit for their purpose, and later the 5.5" OBL gun-hos, but before that happen, they the OBL 6" howitzer at corps level. Then there was the poorly executed OBL 7.2" howitzer Mk I, which soon needed a 2nd type of US carriage to cure it`s inherent flaws... anything else? Oh, they also used the OBL 8" WW1 leftover howitzer.

Even the Soviets were not quite standardized. Lots of gun types of the same caliber, and lots of calibers, too. In fact, the Soviet arty array in 1941 was rather confusing. Arty pieces from the Tsarist times etc. The US arty park had many types too, but it become more streamlined as the war progressed.

Compared to that, the Germans had the advantage of standardizing early, building from scratch, and had two rather solid howitzer designs to work with on divisional level - and here`s the important part : _THROUGH THE ENTIRE WAR_. The 10.5cm and 15cm were available to them all the time, and in numbers - true, they had some leftovers too, but far and few between, never in any big quanitities to make it an army-level problem. 

I think as far as standardization of arty goes, they did pretty solid.



Juha said:


> And probably many of those very heavy guns were lost during retreats. 24cm K-3 was a good example, only 10 made, it weighted almost 55 tons, had to be transported in six separate loads, that doesn’t sound a very practical concept to me. 17 cm K 18 was very good but heavier pieces maybe were uneconomical.



Yet again you`re trying to disprove the rule with the exception. The very heavy arty pieces are rarer kinds, and usually one-of-a-kind. They are special tools for special task.
Yet you want to make them the rule and judge the variety of whole German arty park based on their heavy guns only. Silly isn`t it?

You can`t blame the German army for having access to _real_ siege artilerry, something they definietely found very very handy in numberless occasions during city sieges.




Juha said:


> And I'm still thinking that British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and they had more significance than clearly rarer heavy pieces. And as matter of fact British standard A/T guns were better than similar sized German guns as pure hole punchers, 2 pdr has significantly better penetrative power than 3.7cm PaK 36, same 6 pdr vs 5cm PaK 38 and 17pdr vs 7.5cm PaK 40.



Similiar sized...? 

The 2 pdr ATG weighted some *757 kg *in action. The 3.7cm PaK 35/36 : *435 kg*. Clearly these guns were meant for a different philosophy, the Pak 35/36 emphasized much on compactness, and it could easily follow advancing infantry on it`s own on any terrain, and it had HE shells for soft targets, making it a support weapon as well, a bit of a small sized infantry gun. The 2pdr was more of a static piece, and also a contemporary of the 5cm PaK 38 (and far closer to it in weight).

The 6 pdr ATG weighted some *1140 kg* in action. The 5cm PaK 38 :* 986 kg*. Now of course the 6 pdr was introduced service in May 1942, ie. contemporary of the PaK 40, but less capable, having inferior penetration characteristics, and no HE ammunition again.

The 17 pdr ATG weighted some *2920* kg in action. The 7.5cm PaK 40 : *1425 kg*. For God`s sake`s Juha, you`re comparing a gun TWICE the size and bulk.. However the 17 pdr not until 1943, and it`s more of a weight/class counterpart of the splendid 8.8cm PaK 43, also from `43 which itself weighted 3700 kg, but were far more capable (and on the 360 degree turntable Juha loves so much and attributes only to the British. It`s not present on the 17 pdr, apparantly the Brits were thinking reverse as usual, the turntable would be rather useful for such a big gun, so they don`t use, but they use it on very small ATGs and light arty, where there`s less of a need).





17 pdr ATG









8.8cm PaK 43

Of course these problems with the comparison Juha himselfs sees and knows very well, the question that strikes my mind is, that how come then the conclusion for the British, who basically got the same stuff, just usually 1.5 years later than the Germans in most cases..? 

And of course the comparison of the 2pdr/3.7cm Pak, 6pdr/5cm, 17 pdr/7.5cm PaK is both anachornistic and disregards completely the big difference in the size of these guns. Generally it compares again bigger and later British ATGs to German ATG pieces, not to mention the comparison on penetration figures alone is somewhat misleading, given the British preference (hmm, again followed by nobody else..) for solid AP rounds, which boosted penetration figures slightly, but lacking HE burster inside the shell, the post-armor effects were not the catastrophic as the ones descibed by British experience with German APHE rounds in the desert.

In short Juha`s conclusions are again not supported by the facts. As far as I can see, it`s a case of wishful thinking, that occasionally becomes aggressive and very personalizing (ie. nazi labels etc.).



Juha said:


> Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 26, 2007)

Glider said:


> I would certainly agree that the 360 degree ability is not a huge advantage but it is an advantage. It should be remembered that the 25pd was always designed to be able to act as an AT gun and this ability in a fast moving close range battle must help.



Well here it should be mentioned the 25 pdr itself was much less flexible in this regard.* It had only 4 degrees of traverse to the left/right*; anything more required the gun itself to be turned on it`s turntable platform.



Glider said:


> As for turning around a 'normal weapon' if its dug in, then you stand no chance of moving it in a hurry./
> 
> 
> > Well, if space limitation is what you refer to, you can`t turn a dug-in 25 pdr either, since you have to turn the whole gun, and if there`s not enough space, the gun`s split forks will simply not allow it. And given the 25 pdr could only manage 4 degrees to the sides without turning... as opposed to ~60 degrees on guns with the usual carriage... it`s soon in big trouble vs. moving targets.
> ...


----------



## Juha (Nov 26, 2007)

Kurfürst
“I`ve personally seen with what ease a 1.5 ton 75mm gun (a PaK 40) was man-handled.”

Now I have heard from men who had to try man-handle PaK 40 during battle that it was “bloody too heavy” for that. Finns thought that it was too heavy to easily man-handle that was a main reason to number of gun losses in 44, other was that the Komsomolsk tractors which Finns used as its tower easily throw tracks, which of course wasn’t Germans fault.

“as the organisation had rather had to do with the nature of operations (offense/defense), rather than nations.”

Now both German and British artillery organization stayed rather same throughout the war, even if 1939-42 Germany was on offensive and 1943-45 British, how that goes with you argument.

And I was talking on H E A V Y artillery and doubt were they worth of effort even if many of them was technically excellent, bomber was simply more flexible way to deliver heavy loads far away.

“The 3.7cm PaK 35/36 : 435 kg. Clearly these guns were meant for a different philosophy, the Pak 35/36 emphasized much on compactness, and it could easily follow advancing infantry on it`s own on any terrain, and it had HE shells for soft targets, making it a support weapon as well, a bit of a small sized infantry gun.”

I compared them because 2pdr was 40mm weapon and yes PaK 36 had many nice features but it was found wanting on its reason etre namely in capacity to penetrate armour, even in 1940 in west that cost lot of German blood.

“2pdr was more of a static piece, and also a contemporary of the 5cm PaK 38”

So name a German unit which used PaK 38 in France in May-June 40, if you can. 2 pdr was there and PaK 36 but PaK 38 wasn’t.

“Of course these problems with the comparison Juha himselfs sees and knows very well, the question that strikes my mind is, that how come then the conclusion for the British, who basically got the same stuff, just usually 1.5 years later than the Germans in most cases..?”

Heh, You even quoted my sentence “Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late…”

So I was aware of that.

Soren
“Also why in the world would you ever compare the 17 pdr to the PaK 40 ?? Why not compare it to the more powerful 7.5cm PaK42 KwK42 L/70 ? This gun was as powerful as the 17 pdr, more accurate and weighed less.”

Because how many PaK 42 were made, IIRC 150. PaK 40 was Germany’s standard A/T gun That’s my reason. I don’t wrote on KwKs because I also think that Germans were right in the thinking that tank gun needed acceptable HE shell and British were wrong in thinking that AP performance is everything and shot will do and mgs could keep down enemy infantry and A/T gunners. Even if every sqn had 2 3” close support tanks. In a way British thinking was in a line with German thinking with Pz IIIs and PzIVs but Pz IIIs always had also HE shell capacity and that was a fundamental advantage to Germans. I think we can agree at least on that.

“compare the 5.7cm 6 pdr to the German 3.7cm AT gun, a gun comparable to British 3.7cm 2 pounder ! The German equalant to the British 6 pdr, the 5.0cm L/60, was just as good a hole puncher as the 6 pdr.”

If you read carefully I was comparing 2 pdr with 3.7cm PaK 36 and 6 pdr with 5cm PaK 38, and if you will check the numbers 6 pdr had clearly better penetrative power.

“Already in 1942 the Germans were deploying high velocity 7.5cm 8.8cm AT guns while the Allies still relied on the 6 pdr and low velocity 7.5cm guns. The German 8.8cm FlaK 36”

IIRC there were no 8.8cm AT guns around in 1942 and the fact that Rommel had to use his meagre 88mm AA gun resources as A/T guns and lower the AA defence of his supply lines IMHO proves besides German tactical flexibility also the lack of penetrative power of his A/T guns.

“And in 1943 the Germans introduced the best AT gun of the war, the 8.8cm PaK 43 L/71. “

IMHO PaK 43 was too heavy, of course maybe a must on Eastern Front but on Western Front PaK 40 was IMHO better being significantly smaller and lighter and adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crodiles. And on JagdPanther I’m sure we agree.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Nov 26, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> Well here it should be mentioned the 25 pdr itself was much less flexible in this regard.* It had only 4 degrees of traverse to the left/right*; anything more required the gun itself to be turned on it`s turntable platform. /
> 
> 
> > No one is disagreeing with that
> ...


----------



## Udet (Nov 26, 2007)

Juha said, quote:

"To my understanding you can blame Soviets for that they happened to appear in Berlin and put all German projects to end."

Whenever i see someone resorting to this sort of arguments -if we can call this an argument-, we are before someone definitely running out of any actual argument.


----------



## Juha (Nov 27, 2007)

PlanD
“The Germans used forward trenches with skeleton crews to fool the Soviet spotters into believing this was the front-line, it was an effective counter to the Red Army's massive artillery barrages. Once the barrage was over the German army would move back into place, and the Soviets would be ... well, surprised to say the least.”

Yes, but IIRC that worked seldom because usually main Soviet attacks surprised Germans. And I’m aware, whatever Germans told to Finnish staff officers, that not all Soviet big offensives succeeded, for example that over Mius in August 43 and those west of Orel against was that Panther Stellung in Autumn 43. But usually Soviet “strategic strikes” achieved a breakthrough.

Soren
“British medium artillery wasn't any better than German medium artillery”

As medium I meant German 15cm sFH and 10cm sK 18 vs British 5.5in gun-howitzer and 4.5in gun (cannon). They were clearly most numerous artillery pieces after leFHs and 25pdrs in their respective armies and all weighted around 5,5 tonnes.

Kurfürst
“the comparison on penetration figures alone is somewhat misleading, given the British preference (hmm, again followed by nobody else..) for solid AP rounds, which boosted penetration figures slightly, but lacking HE burster inside the shell, the post-armor effects were not the catastrophic as the ones descibed by British experience with German APHE rounds in the desert.”

Now that is to certain extent true but if we look Wittmann in Normandy. In Villers-Bocage as long as there wasn’t any penetrative hits his Tiger could ran rampage but the first shot which penetrate put end of that even if the crew could bail out unwounded. And if there had been British infantry around the situation might have been very bad for Wittmann and his crew. Lesson: the most important thing to A/T gun is to ability to pierce armour of enemy tanks.
And combat at Gaumesnil showed that a shot could be very lethal when Wittmann and his whole crew perished after hits from a Firefly. 

The effects after hit(s) varied, in the history of 6th Guards Tank Brigade there is a story when a Churchill got 3 KwK 42 hits through turret but the crew bailed out unhurt, only thing which really was hurt was the crew’s opinion on the AP qualities of their 75mm gun, they had hit twice into Panther’s glacis plate without effect. 
And I have read rather sad stories on Panther crews when their tank was hit by Shermans but I don’t know if they were British or US so shot or APHE I don’t know but from British stories one can see that shot hits brew up panzers time to time.

And at the next armoured conflict on which I knew something from both sides is Oct 1973 Middle East War during which IIRC the most effective tank cannon ammo were 105mm SABOT and 115mm penetrating rod or arrow, both solid.

Kurfürst and Udet
If you have difficulties to accept that what happened in spring 45 had a decisively effect on 3rd Reich arms development programs maybe a look a history book helps.

Juha


----------



## plan_D (Nov 27, 2007)

_"Yes, but IIRC that worked seldom because usually main Soviet attacks surprised Germans. And I’m aware, whatever Germans told to Finnish staff officers, that not all Soviet big offensives succeeded, for example that over Mius in August 43 and those west of Orel against was that Panther Stellung in Autumn 43. But usually Soviet “strategic strikes” achieved a breakthrough."_

I don't think they surprised the German defenders, but more often than not they did over-whelm them by late in the war. Nevertheless the Germans did adapt strategy, and it would have proven an excellent method if the numbers had been somewhere near equal.


----------



## Juha (Nov 27, 2007)

Hello Plan D
IIRC Soviets usually achieved surprise but I don't have time to check all their attacks but surely the attack that smashed AG Centre, Germans excepted attack against Model's AG, which was next to south, and the attack straight after the last German big offensive in East in Hungary in 45, surprised Germans. I think German generals would have adapted to Soviet strategy better without Hitler's interference, but the "hold the line at all cost" mentality tended to turn military setbacks to catastrophes.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

*Juha,*

You're simply not right in your assumption that British guns were better hole punchers for any given caliber, and you're not helping your own argument with your attempts to compare larger caliber British guns with smaller caliber German ones.

As already stated the Germans fielded high velocity 7.5cm 8.8cm AT guns already in 1942, by which time the Allies still relied on the 6 pdr and the low velocity 7.5cm M3. 

The 8.8cm FlaK 18 36 was succesfully converted into an effective AT gun already in 1938 during the Spanish civil war, so by 1941 the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 was already a dedicated AT gun. In 1942 the Germans started fielding the 7.5cm PaK42 L/70, a gun which features an even better penetrative power than the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36. Both of these guns were highly effective AT guns capable of penetrating the frontal armour of the Matilda Churchill tanks past 3km with their std. AP projectile. 

*8.8cm FlaK 18/36 KwK36 L/56*

Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39-1 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr-39-1 APCBC): 773 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ

*7.5cm PaK42 KwK42 L/70*

Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39 APCBC): 6.8 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr.39 APCBC): 936 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 2978 KJ

Not until mid 1943 did the Allies (British) field a comparable AT gun, the 17pdr, but by then the German were already starting to field the super high velocity 8.8cm PaK43 which would completely outclass any Allied AT tank gun in terms of armour penetrating capability throughout the war.

*8.8cm PaK43 KwK43 L/71*

Projectile Weight (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 1,000 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ

*77mm 17 dpr*

Projectile Weight (APBC No HE content): 7.7 kg
Muzzle Velocity (APBC no HE content): 883 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 3001 KJ


Now surprisingly enough, eventhough the large difference in power, the weight between the PaK43 17pdr wasn't much at just 300 kg, and this is despite the PaK43 being both a larger caliber and much more powerful gun. The reason for this was the more advanced German gun industry which continually produced more simply designed powerful guns than the Allies, for which there are countless of examples.

Moving on to 1944 the Germans were starting to field the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 AT gun and were already finished with the KwK44 design, thus again allowing the Germans to be one step ahead of the Allies which by then hadn't yet been able to produce a gun able to come close to the performance of the 8.8cm PaK43 KwK43.

*12.8cm PaK44 KwK44 L/55*

Projectile Weight (Pzgr.43 APCBC): 28 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 860 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 10354 KJ


Now as to our debate about artillery, I still can't follow your reasoning for why you would ever consider 25 pdr a better artillery piece than the LeFH 18, esp. considering that the LeFH 18 both out-gunned out-ranged the 25 pdr. Moving on to heavier artillery the Germans fielded the unrivalled 15cm 17.3cm K-18, so again here the Germans were ahead. 

The Allies benefitted from always having more artillery available, true, but that doesn't make their individual pieces better.


----------



## Juha (Nov 28, 2007)

Hello Soren
now 2pdr (40mm) and 3.7cm PaK 36 can well be compared because a) both were the main A/T guns of respective armies in May-June 40 campaign and b) had calibre more or less same. The difference was in design philosophy. As Kurfürst made clear in his message PaK 36 had some desirable features but it clearly lacked punch as was made terrible clear in France in 40 and in Soviet Union in 41. Most of French tanks, excluding WWI vintage FT-17s and the light tanks which IIRC French called something like tracked armoured cars, with 40mm cast armour were very difficult targets to PaK 36, not to speak French heavy tanks with 60mm armour or GB’s I-tanks, only few around, with 60 or 78mm armour. And that led to much unnecessary losses among German infantry and A/T troops.

Now because of failings of PaK 36 IMHO one cannot claim that all German A/T guns were excellent. In fact IMHO only with 7.5cm PaK 40 German A/T units got adequate gun ie in early 1942. 5cm PaK 38 was adequate against British except maybe against I-tanks but by better tactics and flexible use of field artillery and 88mm DAK could handle situation. IMHO was an A/T gun good or bad depends the enemy tanks, so PaK 38 was clearly more acceptable in desert than in Soviet Union.

“The 8.8cm FlaK 18 36 was succesfully converted into an effective AT gun already in 1938 during the Spanish civil war, so by 1941 the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 was already a dedicated AT gun.”

It was still a Flak gun not A/T gun and a 88 at frontline in A/T mission was away say from Benghazi and meant less protection to very important supply harbour. And when we remember that the failures in supply was one of main reasons for the downfall of DAK that wasn’t a good situation.

“In 1942 the Germans started fielding the 7.5cm PaK42 L/70”

Checked the production, only 253 made, when compared to some 9.000 PaK 40s made, it clearly wasn’t a major weapon in Germany’s armoury. Same to ingenious 7.5/5.5cm PaK 41.

As I wrote earlier the first combat use of 17pdr was in March 43

“the weight between the PaK43 17pdr wasn't much at just 300 kg,”

I have the weight of 17pdr as 2920-3000kg depending on source and 3650kg for Pak 43

“Moving on to 1944 the Germans were starting to field the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 AT gun”

Now IMHO a 10 ton PaK wasn’t a very bright idea, why not use 10cm sK 18 or design 12.8cm sK 44 instead. Same goes to JagdTiger, IMHO with some 73 tons weight it was too heavy and unwieldy, I think Soviet were wiser with 46 ton ISU-122 and -152. And on German side IMHO JagdPanther was a much better weapon than JagdTiger.

British had A/T crisis in desert up to the arrival of 6pdr, cannot recall exact date but at least in Oct 42 it was in use at 8th Army. First Tigers were in action in Tunis early of Dec 42, but because of there was at max 20 of them (The sPzAbt had the early 20 PzVIs and 25 PzIIIs TOE) before March 43 that wasn’t a major crisis and in March 17pdr arrived which was more or less adequate against PzVI and V. In NW Europe I cannot remember but a few cases when British had problems with German tank attacks, all after British deep penetrations when their vanguard tank units got in trouble, in Villiers-Bogage, during Goodwood and 11th ArmDiv at W/NW of Vire. But that was more on question of tank armament maybe also on tactical handling of 17pdr units ie they were too far rear. The 21st PzD’s attack on 6 June 44 was rather easily handled by British A/T screen same to II SSPzCorps attack against was that Scottish Corridor. If you know more cases of British problems I would like hear on them.

IMHO the best A/T gun was smallest/lightest adequate, bigger than that made them easier to locate and more difficult to handle, less than adequate was a crime against front line soldiers.

“LeFH 18 both out-gunned out-ranged the 25 pdr” 
It fired heavier shell but according to my sources had only 72meter longer range, which IMHO was irrelevant.

“Moving on to heavier artillery the Germans fielded the unrivalled 15cm 17.3cm K-18, so again here the Germans were ahead.”

I have never argued that British had better or even equal heavy artillery but my point was that contrary your claim that German guns were superior across the board British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and medium artillery was much more numerous and important than heavy artillery. I’m not claiming that all British guns were better than Germans but that in one important class they were better. And that except say 1½ years in desert British A/T guns were adequate. And as I have wrote earlier even if PaK 40 was less powerful than 17pdr it was adequate in most situations in West and so was a good choice to Germans and 17pdr was a good choice to British, even if it was heavier of than PaK 40 because Germans had better armoured tanks so British needed more powerful weapon as their standard heavy A/T gun. 

Juha


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2007)

I have to support everything that Juha has posted. I have some information on the British AT guns that may be of interest

17pd
Projectile weight 
17pd APC MV 950 f/s
7.63pd APDS MV 3950 f/s (note: penetration was roughly double the APC shell at 1000yd)
Weight
Travel 6,700lb
In firing position 6,445lb.

So in summary the 17pd seems to be more powerful than listed in the posting above and with APDS penetration more than capable of taking on the panther and early Tiger tanks despite the lighter projectile. 

The reason why the 6pd was later than expected was to do with the losses in France. The gun was ready for production in 1940 but it was decided not to distrupt production of the 2pd as numbers were needed to face an invasion and to replace losses. Production had to wait for a new production line to be set up, hence the delay.

Re establishments - 
By September 1943 the official position for European Theatres was:
AT Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 6-pdr and 4 × 17-pdr in 3 troops. 
In early 1944 this changed to:
AT Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 17-pdr and 4 × 6-pdr in 3 troops.
Its worth noting that the infantry units had their own AT guns initially 2pd changing to 6pd during 1943 as numbers built up.
From 1943 onwards its fair to say that an Infantry Divison was capable of putting up significant resistance to an enemy tank attack.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

For crying out loud Juha! 

Why is it you insist upon dodging the main issue here ?

Fact is the FlaK 18/36 was both an AA AT gun as of 1938, a protective shield even being added to the gun in 41 as a means of better protecting the crew when engaging ground units. This didn't hinder its use as a AA gun in any way though, which you can see below. Besides its success as both a AT AA gun the FlaK 18/36 also operated with great success as an artillery piece, laying down very effective barrages and surpressive fire at long ranges. So the FlaK 18/36 was a multipurpose gun in every sense of the word, being very useful as both an AT, AA Artillery piece. And this gun had been available to the German AT crews since 1938!














As to wether I know of any other incidents where the Allies got in trouble because of German AT guns, YES I do and PLENTY! For one I remember an incident in Bocage where a single 88 carefully placed at a cross road took out tenfolds of Allied tanks before running out of ammunition, and that was without moving an inch from its starting position. 

The PaK43 weighed in at approx. 3,300 kg to 3,600 kg depending on the carriage, and so it wasn't much heavier than the 17pdr, despite being massively more powerful than the 17pdr.

Glider,

The APDS ammunition wasn't effective past 500m because of its very bad accuracy, and eventhough its penetration performance looks impressive it fell drastically with armour slope. And then there's the fact that it had a very unfortunate habbit of shattering against the armour of the Tiger Ausf.E, even at point blank range! Imagine the look on a 17pdr gunner's face when he sees his supposedly highly effective APDS round fails penetrating the near vertical frontal armour of the Tiger Ausf.E! Must have been quite a sobering experience!


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2007)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> 
> The APDS ammunition wasn't effective past 500m because of its very bad accuracy, and eventhough its penetration performance looks impressive it fell drastically with armour slope. And then there's the fact that it had a very unfortunate habbit of shattering against the armour of the Tiger Ausf.E, even at point blank range! Imagine the look on a 17pdr gunner's face when he sees his supposedly highly effective APDS round fails penetrating the near vertical frontal armour of the Tiger Ausf.E! Must have been quite a sobering experience!



The chances of a 17pd hitting a 6ft x 6ft target at 1000 yds was 98%, at 2000yds 80% so I don't know where you get the accuracy problem from.
Re shattering again I don't know where you got your info from, I have never heard of that probem either.


----------



## AL Schlageter (Nov 28, 2007)

I have heard that the quality of German armour went downhill as the war progressed.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

I'd very much like to see the source that claims the 17pdr to have a 98% chance of hitting a 6x6 ft target at 1000y with the APDS round, let alone the APBC round! IT DOESN'T EXIST!

And a 80% hit rate against a 6x6 ft target at 2000y sounds like a load of BS in my ears, even with the std. APBC round.

Regarding the shattering of the projectile: Read Thomas L. Jentz books on the Tiger where numerous incidents of this happening are cited, and read Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird's book "WW2 armor Gunnery" where the so called "shatter-gap" is explained in detail.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

AL Schlageter said:


> I have heard that the quality of German armour went downhill as the war progressed.



Not until the later stages of 1944 where esp. the quality of some Panther's armour started declining.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

Here's a test refered to by Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird in two parts, and read this carefully Glider!:

_*U.S. Army Firing Test No.3
U.S. Army Firing Tests conducted August 1944 by 12th U.S. Army Group at Isigny, France.
Board of Officers
APO 655*

30 August 1944

SUBJECT: Final report of board of officers appointed to determine comparative effectiveness of ammunition of 76mm gun and 17pdr gun.

TO: Commanding General, Twelfth Army Group.

1. The board convened pursuant to the attached order at the firing range established by First U.S. Army near Isigny, France at 1030 hours, 19 August 1944 and conducted firing tests against the front plate of German Panther Tanks. The firing was continued, as the weather and the availability of target tanks permitted, on 20 and 21 August 1944. Because of the urgency of the test, a preliminary report, dated 21 August 1944, was submitted on 22 August 1944.

2. Ammunition
a. The characteristics of the standard ammunitions tested are shown below:

Ammunition M/V Complete
Rd. Wt. Projectile
Weight Description 
76mm APC M62
(Lot# ODCM-104) 2600 24.80 15.44 Armor piercing cap, windshield, base fuze, and tracer. 
76mm HVAP T4
(Lot# PA 9-1) 3400 18.90 9.50 Light weight projectile with 3.9 lb tungsten carbide core 1½" in diamter in steel sheath. Aluminium body, steel base, windshield, and tracer. 
17pdr APCBC
(Lot# JIB 3/44-2301) 2900 35.50 17.00 Armor piercing cap, windshield, and tracer. 
17pdr SABOT
(Lot# KBY 7/44-Lot 2) 3950 26.30 08.15 Discarding SABOT with 3.9 lb tungsten carbide core 1½" in diameter, steel base, and tracer. 

b. In addition to the above ammunitions, the board fired 76mm HVAP projectile from a 17pdr anti-tank gun, with 17pdr APCBC and 17pdr SABOT propelling charges in a 17pdr APCBC cartridge case.

3. Nature of Test
a. The above ammunitions were fired at the front plate of three Panther tanks. The general characteristics of the frontal armour are: Glacis Plate 85mm (3.35") at 55º and Nose Plate 65mm (2.56") at 55º. using U.S. armor basis curve, the verticle equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36") and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47"). Due to the inclination of the ground, the angle with the verticle of the glacis plates on the tanks used in this test were: 57º 34', 57º 05', and 56º 53'. The nose plate on one of the tanks tested measured 66.67mm (25/8").

b. Wide variation was found in the quality of glacis plate on the three tanks. Tank No.2 (hereafter referred to as the "best plate") sustained 30 hits as ranges from 600 to 200 yards without cracking. Tanks Nos.1 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "average plate") cracked after relatively few hits. All conclusions are, therefore, based solely on the relative performance of rounds fired at a single plate. Comparisons are not made between rounds fired at different plates. Also, the performance of any ammunition in this test cannot be considered a criterion as to the range at which it will penetrate the front plate of a Panther tank... [last few words of sentence are illegible].

c. Effectiveness was determined by balancing penetrations against the number of rounds fired and the number of hits obtained on the specific plate.

d. A penetration was defined as occuring only when the projectile passed completely through the plate. Only fair hits were considered in determining penetrations. Rounds striking edges of the plate, welds and junctions of the plate, and cracks in the plate were not fair hits.

e. The line of fire was approximately perpendicular to the lateral axis of the target tanks.

f. The 17pdr guns were fired by two superior British enlisted gunners. The 76mm gun was fired by two officers with considerable test firing experience.

4. Results of Test
a. A tabulation of the detailed results, with photographs, is attached as Appendix A1.

b. Accuracy

(1) A tabulation does not present a true picture of the comparative accuracy of the various ammunitions. With all the standard rounds, except 17pdr SABOT, the accuracy was such as to warrant attempting to hit specific parts of the front plates. In general this was successful, but some rounds fired at the lower glacis struck the upper nose, and vice versa. In addition, it was not possible to position all the tanks so that the nose was not, at least partially, hidden by the ground line. Therefore, it is felt that a better measure of accuracy can be obtained by considering the nose and glacis as one target.

(2) On this basis all twenty-two (22) rounds of 76mm HVAP, T4, and all twenty-three (23) rounds of 17pdr APCBC hit the target. Only one (1) of eight (8 ) rounds of 76mm APC, M62, which fell short attempting to hit the nose, failed to hit the target. *Forty-two (42) rounds of 17pdr SABOT were fired and only 57% [24 rounds] were hits.* More rounds of 76mm APC, M62 were not fired since its accuracy had been well established in previous firing in the U.S. by two members of the board.

(3) Insufficient firing was conducted with 76mm HVAP projectile with 17pdr APCBC and 17pdr SABOT propellant to determine definite sight settings for a conclusive accuracy test. The results of the limited firing indicated that these rounds are of an accuracy comparable with 76mm HVAP and 17pdr APCBC. _


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

_c. Penetration

(1) At 600 yards, 17pdr APCBC penetrated the lower nose of tank No.1 (average plate), while 76mm HVAP failed to penetrate.

(2) At 400 yards, one round out of four fair hits of 17pdr SABOT penetrated the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). This was the only penetration of this plate by a fair hit with any of the ammunitions (including 76mm HVAP w/17pdr APBC propellant, 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant) at ranges 200 yards and over.

(3) At 400 yards, one round out of one fair hit with 17pdr APCBC and one round out of one hit with 17pdr SABOT penetrated the lower nose of tank No.2 (best plate). Both rounds of 76mm APC, M62 failed to penetrate, and one round of 76mm HVAP penetrated while the second round failed to penetrate. Two rounds out of two hits of 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant also penetrated.

(4) At 200 yards one fair hit with each of the standard ammunitions failed to penetrate the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). The relative depths of the partial penetrations at this range were as follows:
(a) 17pdr APCBC - 2"
(b) 17pdr SABOT - 1 7/8"
(c) 76mm HVAP - 1 5/16"
(d) 76mm APC, M62 - 1"

(5) At 200 yards firing at the glacis of tank No.3 (average plate) one round out of four fair hits with 76mm HVAP penetrated, this round, after partially penetrating, ...[illegible word]... and penetrated the plate ...[illegible word]... . One round of 17pdr SABOT penetrated and one round failed to penetrate at this range. One fair hit with 17pdr APCBC failed to penetrate, but cracked the plate. The second round striking within 6" of the first round penetrated.

(6) In contrast to the results obtained in this teast with 17pdr SABOT, in firing conducted by First U.S. Army at Balleroy on 10 July 44, 5 rounds were fired at the front plate of a Panther tank at 700 yards. Examination of pictures of this firing indicates that the first round struck the mantlet, the second between the track and the nose plate, the third at the junction of the nose and glacis and penetrated. The fourth and fifth were fair hits on the glacis and both penetrated. The conflict between these results and those obtained by the board is expalined by Col. A. G. Cole, Deputy Director of Artillery, Ministry of Supply. Col. Cole witnessed part of the test and states that the ammunition lot furnished the board had not been proof fired. He further states that, in his opinion, the lot is of sub-standard manufacture and if proof fired would not have been accepted.

(7) 76mm APC, M62 fair hits which failed to penetrate caused no cracking of the plate of average quality. 76mm HVAP, 17pdr SABOT, and 17pdr APCBC caused cracking in varying degrees. In general, 17pdr APCBC caused greater damage to the plate than 17pdr SABOT or 76mm HVAP. 

5. Findings
a. The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4. *It is, however, definitely inferior to these ammunitions because of its inaccuracy.* The board invites attention to the fact that its findings and conclusions apply only to the ammunition furnished it and may not apply to good quality 17pdr SABOT.

b. The accuracy of 76mm APC, M62 is satisfactory. However this ammunition is definitely inferior to either the 17pdr APCBC or the 76mm HVAP, T4, because of its poor penetrating power.

c. The 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4, are both highly accurate ammunitions. In the opinion of the members of the board, two of whom have had considerable experience test firing British and American tank and antitank weapons, the 76mm HVAP, T4 is the most accurate tank or antitank ammunition encountered to date.

d. The 17pdr APCBC is more effective against the front of a Panther tank than is the 76mm HVAP, T4. Its margin of superiority is not great. Neither one can be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate in one fair hit on average quality plate.

e. Combining 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr APCBC propellant offers no advantages over a standard ammunition.

f. Because of its accuracy and since the core is essentially the same as that in 17pdr SABOT, 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr SABOT propellant may provide an ammunition superior to 17pdr SABOT as regards accuracy and to 17pdr APCBC and 76mm HVAP as regards penetration.

6. Conclusions
*a. That the 17pdr SABOT of the lot tested is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition because of its inaccuracy.*

b. That the 76mm APC, M62 is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition for use against heavy armor because of its inferior penetration.

*c. That the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4 are considered the best antitank ammunitions available in these calibers for use against heavy armor. The 17pdr APCBC is somewhat superior to the 76mm HVAP, T4, against the Panther Tank. Neither one can be be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther in one fair hit on average quality plate.*

d. That the possibilities should be investigated of using 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr SABOT propellant, if 17pdr guns are made available to U.S. units.

Andrew P. O'Meara, Colonel, F.A., President.
Francis B. Shearer, Colonel, Ord, Member.
John B. Routh, Lt Col, F.A., Recorder._


----------



## Juha (Nov 28, 2007)

Soren
I know the shield, my point was that the 88 was either at front line or giving AA protection to a supply harbour, it could not be in two places at same time. Rommel had only limited amount of 88s and at least time to time Allied activitely bombed his supply ports with good results so those 88s at front line would have needed also at Beghazi etc

And I asked on British troubles with German tank attacks, both sides found out that bogage was terrible country for tank attack. And the British troubles with German A/T guns in bogage are well known.

If I have not thanked earlier I thank now for the photos of 15cm K-18 and 24cm K-3, haven’t see them earlier.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

Juha, 

Why change the subject ? That the 88's in Africa were mostly present at the frontline has nothing to with what we were discussing.


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2007)

First class info Soren many thanks. Can I ask which of the books that you mentioned contains this, as you may have solved my Christmas present problem for my wife?

Obviously your info is far more detailed than mine, I can only assume that the % figures I have for accuracy, relate to the APCBC shell, clearly it cannot be the APDS. 

Quality of ammunition seems to be a major problem which would be a worry in the field. Section (6) says that five 17pd SABOT shots were fired at 700 yards at a Panther, 5 hit and three penetrated which is a pretty good average I would have thought. 
However they are right, the performance in these tests was very dissapointing, no question.

Also of interest is the varied quality of the German plate on the front of the Panthers mentioned at the start of the article.

Re the Shatter gap as far as I can tell this applied to nearly all allied shells not just the APDS shells, the US 76mm is often mentioned. That said I clearly don't access to the books you mentioned, but its worth noting than none of the shells fired in this test seem to have shattered.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2007)

You're welcome Glider.

The books I'd recommend and from which most of the info is from are the ones I mentioned before. The Isigny tests are refered to many times by other respectful sources as-well. The info itself is from declassified documents released in 1988.

As to the shattering of the Allied projectiles (Esp. that of the APDS), this was mostly against the armour of the Tiger, not the late production Panthers which armour wasn't of the same quality - hence why no projectiles shattered in those tests. The 17 pdr APDS projectiles were witnessed to simply shatter against the armour of the Tiger at short to point blank ranges, much to the surprise of those poor British gunners who suddenly found themselves in a rather hairy situation.

As to questioning of the quality of the projectiles fired in those tests (Which was primarily raised because of the disbelief that the accuracy could be that bad), this has already been settled and the projectiles were of normal quality so the tests are representative of how the APDS projectile behaved. You can read further about this in Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird's book.

Finally if you want the comparative test results for each gun conducted at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA, then stick around the Tank Gun Comparison thread in the WW2 General sub forum, I'll be posting the results soon.


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2007)

Thanks again for the info. Its only fair to tell you that I remain to be convinced about this poor ammunition being the norm. There are three reasons for this.
1 - Logic
The APDS shell in this test had a marginal improvement in penetration and a disasterous result in accuracy. No army would pass such ammunition for use in the front line. As your test rightly point out, it isn't close to good enough.
2 - The Previous test
As mentioned a previous test showed not just greater accuracy but a very significant improvement in penetration.
3 - Experience of participants
The people taking part in the test are experts and they mention the probability of a problem with the ammo
4 - Other Sites
I don't have the books you mention, but I have found a number of sites which support the significant improvement in penetration of the APDS shell. There are a number but the following is one that impressed me for the detail it goes into and the sources that it quotes, many of which are the books you quote
. Its also neutral in tone, covers all the major armies as well as all aspects of the topic such as the tests, metal hardness etc. 
I think you will find it of interest
Introduction to References

Enjoy and thanks again for the info


----------



## Soren (Nov 29, 2007)

Well read Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird's book and you'll be convinced Glider. Other than that let me answer your points:

1.) Logic, yes, and like I said the penetrative performance of the APDS projectile fell off sharply with slope, and the Panther's frontal hull armour is angled at 55 degree's from vertical - hence the results. The APCBC projectile is less affected by the slope and therefore comes close to or supercedes the penetration of the APDS projectile. Furthermore as already stated the quality of the Panther's armour varied a lot, so the previous test results at Balleroy are highly likely to have been achieved against a Panther with substandard quality armour. So yes logic does apply, but only if you understand the merrits of each type of projectile and the current state of the targets.

2.) The ammunition used is the same as what was handed over to the armoured regiments in Europe. That Col. Cole mentions that he is of the opinion that the furnish of the rounds is sub std. is his opinion of the rounds when compared to the std. quality of the rounds normally used in US testing. But this was in France, not Aberdeen USA, so test quality ammunition wasn't available. 

3.) Accuracy shouldn't be affected much by the superficial furnish of the projectile, and certainly not to the degree that 57% of the rounds fired at 400y miss their target (A Panther) completely (Note that the othe projectiles performed fine in terms of accuracy). The test clearly illustrates that the accuracy of the APDS projectile isn't good to begin with. Remember that this early APDS projectile was without any form of stabilization in the air and was of very light weight after discarding the Sabot, and thus more prone to be affected by wind.


----------



## Soren (Nov 29, 2007)

As to the site you forwarded me Glider, yes I know of it already and it is indeed a great site, esp. considering all the sources used as reference. (Ian V. Hogg being one of them)

But notice the penetration figures are the official ones against 30 degree sloped armour.


----------



## Juha (Nov 29, 2007)

Soren
IMHO I didn’t change the subject, you began to talk the use of 88 as an A/T gun and I only noted the downside of that. Using expensive and specialized AA gun in A/T work means lessening of own AA protection because the gun can be only at one place in time and because, as you should know, a heavy AA gun is an effective AA weapon only when connected to its predictor. And if we are taking along to A/T discussion all guntypes used in A/T work we get a great variety of guns. Most effective German gun used in A/T work during the great tank battle in Lithuania on 24-25 June 1941 was 15cm sFH 18, 4th PzDiv used in 1941 in Soviet Union to attach to its vanguard Kampfgruppe 2 88s and 2 10cm sK18s as a safeguard against heavy Soviet tanks. Soviet Union used it’s field artillery pieces and AA guns to bolster its PaK fronts. And British used its 25pdr (87,x mm) in A/T role and it also had a shield and its AP round was capable to pierce the max 50mm armour of PzIVs up to appr. 1.000m, British also used at times in NW Europe in 1944 their 3,7in (94mm) AA gun in ad hoc A/T screens when the fast advance left gaps between first line units.

So, back to business, You claim “Throughout WW2 German AT tank guns were THE best in the world.” 
can be prove wrong by the fact that 3.7cm PaK 36 wasn’t the best but among the worst AT guns in 1939-40 because it had serious lack of penetrating power. British 2pdr, French 47mm, Czech 4.7cm (used by Germans), Soviet 45mm A/T gun and Swedish Bofors 37mm A/T gun (used also by Polish and Finns) were all more powerful, French 25mm A/T gun had about the same penetration power than PaK 36. Things were made worse by the fact that French tanks were better armoured than their German counterparts which highlighted the lack of punch of PaK 36.
Of course Germans tried to rectify the situation and when 5cm PaK 38 arrived it was among the best or the best around, qualification because I don’t remember when the first batch of Soviet 57mm ZiS 2 A/T guns was made.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 29, 2007)

Juha said:


> I have never argued that British had better or even equal heavy artillery but my point was that contrary your claim that German guns were superior across the board British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and medium artillery was much more numerous and important than heavy artillery.



So what British medium arty pieces were superior to their German counterparts? I struggling for examples.

The 25pdr gun-howitzer was clearly inferior to it`s foreign counterparts, it simply lacked punch compared to the 10.5cm leFH18, and others. Worse, the 25 pdr production just couldn`t keep up with demand and in reality many British divisions had to make with 4.5" howitzers from WW1, another unimpressive piece with just 6040m range, ie. firing the same sized shell as the German 10.5cm, to half the distance. Some 2200 25 pdrs (or rather, 18 pdrs converted, up bored etc. to 25 pdr) were completed by 1940, by which time the Germans had a bit over 5300 alone from the leFH18. To throw some pepper into the wound, far too many 25 pdrs were left behind at Dunkerque.

Same with the 4.5" gun. Being the heaviest piece available for the division (if it was attached, at all) for a long time time, it again clearly lacked punch. It was somewhat comparable to the German 10.5cm K18, being a long range piece, but too much gun for a too little shell. 

Again, the 4.5" was, as opposed to some of your wishful thinking, just not availabe. Up to 1940, a mere _21 pieces_ were completed, and production was slow and limited even afterwards.

The sad new was it was supposed to be a counter to the Germans divisional medium arty, namely the 15cm sFH 18, which already fired a shell about twice as big, worse, the Germans had about 1500 of these 15cm Howitzers by 1940, which also outranged the 25 pdrs. In contrast, the production of the 4.5" medium gun was slightly below 1000 for the entire war. Due to the shortage of both 4.5", the actual piece issued as a heavy piece to add weight to 25 pdr batteries was.. well, again a WW1 piece, the OBL 6" howitzer, firing a 39 kg shell to just 10 400 meters.

Bottom line what the British had in reality instead of 25pdrs and 4.5" medium guns in their divisions were various obsolate pieces scraped from the bottom of the barrel labeled 'Leftovers from WW1'. 

The 5.5" gun-howitzer as again simply not available. _Five_ were produced until 1940, and it was not until 1942 the gun even got into action. Some 1679 pieces were completed by the end of the war, not much by any standard, considering the guns themselves were not available until the 2nd part of the war. 

The comperative production figure for the 15 cm German gun and howitzer production (here I only include FH18, K18, K39) were about 6800 pieces between 39-45, to which pre-war production should be added (some 1350 FH18s available at the start of the war). It is noteworthy though that the FH 18 was not the only 15cm howitzer available to the Wehrmacht Division, they also used a fairly large number of large infantry guns, in this class the 15cm sIG 33. 

These were light, shorter ranged pieces that were supposed to accompany the infantry, firing a 38 kg shell to some 4650 meters; 410 of these were available at the start of the war, and around 4100 were produced by the war ended. I`ll ommit the 7.5cm IGs, though these were very numerous (some 3000 were adding direct fire support to the infantry, and further 11 000 produced during the war).



> I’m not claiming that all British guns were better than Germans but that in one important class they were better. And that except say 1½ years in desert British A/T guns were adequate..



... really? Then why so much reliance on the 25 pdr howitzers in a last-ditch AT effort? If you use expensive field guns for AT work with regularity, something has gone terribly wrong already.



> And as I have wrote earlier even if PaK 40 was less powerful than 17pdr



Of course. You like unfair comparisons, you keep comparing British AT guns which weight a ton or two more than the other and arrived a year later, and you keep comparing guns of which a dozen was available at a given time to guns of which were thousends were avaible in field use.

Then of course your forget your own criteria when you want to argue about the other side. 

A perfect example of that is your dismissal of the 5cm Pak 38, when you claimed it couldn`t be compared to the 2pdr (it`s late contemporary, as the 2pdr was around just too long), because the Pak 38 was not around in the Battle of France (in reality, production of the PaK 38 begun in 1940, with 390 being made by the end of the year, and by Barbarossa, 1064 were in service, so the two guns only missed each other in 1940 by a few months due to the British retreat and surrender of France effectively ending any land action between the Western Allies and the Germans for a good bit of time).

Somewhat later on, you claim the 6pdr and the PaK 38 are comparable. Well then I ask, how many 6 pdr guns were available to the British on the Balkans? Or in Africa, 1941? Could it be the 6 pdr did not came until May 1942, the same month the 7.5cm PaK 40 saw it`s baptism of fire?

Yet you compare the earlier PaK 38 to the 6pdr ATG. I must say you are an extremely biased and manipulative fellow.

Again :

The 2 pdrs contemporaries were the 3.7cm and 5cm PaKs. The 3.7cm weights half as much, and performance is comparable considering the defiencies of the 2pdr`s ammunition, which was unable to deal with German tanks in the desert (whereas the 3.7cm could handle all but the - rare - British heavy tanks) . The 5cm gun clearly outclassed the 2pdr, and with it`s tungsten cored rounds, it could handle anything.

The 6 pdrs contemporary (as a matter of fact, I believe, it preceeded it) was the 7.5cm PaK 40, it both timeframe and weight class. 

The 6pdr was obsolate already when it appeared on the field, as it simply couldn`t handle even the uparmored versions of the Pz III and IV with it`s deficient AP ammuntion, even at point-blank range. There is not much competion between the 6pdr and the PaK 40, the latter is simply a superior piece.

The 17 pdrs contemporary, in both weight and timeframe, was the 8.8cm PaK 43. Again, you can argue until you`re blue in the face that it isn`t, using the usual double standards.

The difference is, the Pak 40 was available, the 17 pdr was not for a long time, the PaK 40 was a standard piece, was not, not even by Normandy. Again, you can continue with the wishful thinking about it being so, similiarly as 'numerous' 4.5" and 5.5" guns. The truth is still, these guns were simply not available for too long, and the British artilerry had to do with obsolate pieces for most of the war. This does not decriment British designers, who were just as capable as any other, but rather, the British industry`s capacities to support the troops with up-to-date pieces.


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 29, 2007)

Juha said:


> So, back to business, You claim “Throughout WW2 German AT tank guns were THE best in the world.”
> can be prove wrong by the fact that 3.7cm PaK 36 wasn’t the best but among the worst AT guns in 1939-40 because it had serious lack of penetrating power. British 2pdr, French 47mm, Czech 4.7cm (used by Germans), Soviet 45mm A/T gun and Swedish Bofors 37mm A/T gun (used also by Polish and Finns) were all more powerful, French 25mm A/T gun had about the same penetration power than PaK 36.



It doesn`t seem to me a fact until you support the statement with something substantial.

Be sure to include in your comparisons : weight of gun, effects of face hardened armor vs. uncapped AP rounds, availability of the gun.



> Things were made worse by the fact that French tanks were better armoured than their German counterparts which highlighted the lack of punch of PaK 36.



Hmmm, most French tanks had not especially thick armor which the PaK 36 could handle. It even had a chance to handle the heavier 

British tanks in the 1940 OTOH were as a rule very poorly armored, vulnerable even to anti-tank rifles, autocannons. The Pak 36 was an overkill against these. I wonder about which Polish tankette would pose a problem to the Pak 36 either. The heaviest French tanks were indeed a challange, but even these could be handled with tungsten cored munitions, albeit only at short range with good conditions.



> Of course Germans tried to rectify the situation and when 5cm PaK 38 arrived it was among the best or the best around, qualification because I don’t remember when the first batch of Soviet 57mm ZiS 2 A/T guns was made.



Well the Zis 2 had two lifes, actually, it entered production a month before Barbarossa, but was soon withdrawn from production, and re-entered service just before Kursk, in June 1943.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 29, 2007)

_"so the two guns only missed each other due to the premature British retreat by a few months)."_

Another anti-British comment there; what is it with the recent digs at Britain from a lot of members? There was nothing premature about the British retreat - let's all be reminded that Britain went over the Channel to help France out. 
The artillery discussion is all well and good, and I'm siding with you on this matter, but your anti-British Axis bumming comments are just uncalled for. A simple "due to the British retreat.." was needed, instead of having a go at the only Allied country who was there from day one to days end...or maybe you don't like it that Britain fought against the Axis?


----------



## Kurfürst (Nov 29, 2007)

You`re right, I`ve edited the part.


----------



## Juha (Nov 29, 2007)

Kurfürst
while talking on medium artillery I meant the situation in NW Europe in 1944-45, I admit it’s a narrow view and that I didn’t state that qualification. Anyway my examples were from Normandy in 44 of which have a good OoB of British Army but have almost nothing on German OoB below division level, only a notion that they had only one battalion of 17cm K 18s there but even that could be false. 

“Some 2200 25 pdrs (or rather, 18 pdrs converted, up bored etc. to 25 pdr) were completed by 1940, by which time the Germans had a bit over 5300 alone from the leFH18. To throw some pepper into the wound, far too many 25 pdrs were left behind at Dunkerque.”

British army was much smaller than Germany’s so it naturally needed less artillery. 

“so the two guns only missed each other in 1940 by a few months due to the British retreat and surrender of France effectively ending any land action between the Western Allies and the Germans for a good bit of time.”

I’m perfectly aware of that. 

Quote:
I’m not claiming that all British guns were better than Germans but that in one important class they were better. And that except say 1½ years in desert British A/T guns were adequate.. 
“... really? Then why so much reliance on the 25 pdr howitzers in a last-ditch AT effort? If you use expensive field guns for AT work with regularity, something has gone terribly wrong already. “

Because I meant in that 1½ year time from March/April 41 to Sept/Oct 42 ie the time when British had to use 25pdr in A/T work. see the one above point.

“Somewhat later on, you claim the 6pdr and the PaK 38 are comparable. Well then I ask, how many 6 pdr guns were available to the British on the Balkans? Or in Africa, 1941?”

Again see the one above point.

“Yet you compare the earlier PaK 38 to the 6pdr ATG.”

Do you always get so agitated that you lost your ability to understand English text when someone says something positive on British equipment? How many times I must quote my own text that got you so agitated

Quote: “Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.”

I even wrote the big with capital letters but seemingly no avail. So if you please read the quote slowly and then tell me what is wrong in it!

“perfect example of that is your dismissal of the 5cm Pak 38, when you claimed it couldn`t be compared to the 2pdr”

I never said that, I only said when you or Soren wrote that I cannot compare 2pdr with PaK 36 that that is a valid comparation for May-June 40 French campaign. If someone is comparing the situation in Desert in 41-42 it’s of course OK to compare 2pdr with PaK 38.

“The 6pdr was obsolate already when it appeared on the field, as it simply couldn`t handle even the uparmored versions of the Pz III and IV with it`s deficient AP ammuntion, even at point-blank range.”

I recommended that you check the test results British and US AP ammo versus German tanks from Jentz’s Panzertruppen 1 p. 284. That gives test results not someone’s opinion.

“the PaK 40 was a standard piece, was not, not even by Normandy.” 

But the numbers of PaK 40s in German Infantry Divs in Normandy was very low, IIRC average only 13 per div. That’s a low number.

“Be sure to include in your comparisons : weight of gun, effects of face hardened armor vs. uncapped AP rounds, availability of the gun.”

Now the best is always difficult to define so I used the system Soren seems to have used in his messages, ie penetrative power as decisive factor, weight of the round and the muzzle velocity. IMHO it’s fair to use Soren’s own system.


“British tanks in the 1940 OTOH were as a rule very poorly armoured”
Latest Cruisers, IVAs? maybe, in France in 40 had the same 30mm basic armour than German mediums, earlier cruisers had 14mm basic armour.

“Well the Zis 2 had two lifes, actually, it entered production a month before Barbarossa, but was soon withdrawn from production, and re-entered service just before Kursk, in June 1943.”

Thanks for that I knew that it has two lifes and that the second began in June 43 but didn’t know when the first began, only that it was there at the beginning of Barbarossa, at lest a few I mean.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Nov 29, 2007)

Kurfürst said:


> So what British medium arty pieces were superior to their German counterparts? I struggling for examples.
> 
> The 25pdr gun-howitzer was clearly inferior to it`s foreign counterparts, it simply lacked punch compared to the 10.5cm leFH18, and others.


The 25pd had a smaller shell that is clear but matched the FH18 for range until 1943 (I think) when a modernised version of the FH18 came out which did give it additional range. 
I am sure that you will agree that there other factors that come to the fore when fighting a war. The 25pdr could be broken down into 13 parts and carried on a mule. The axal was shortened in the Far East so it could be towed more easily by a jeep and it fitted inside the standard C47 transport without being dismantled. I recognise that this wasn't a factor for the German Army but I admit, trying to fit an FH18 into a Ju52 would be fun to watch.



> Worse, the 25 pdr production just couldn`t keep up with demand and in reality many British divisions had to make with 4.5" howitzers from WW1, another unimpressive piece with just 6040m range


Its true to say that the 4.5" howitzer was important in France where 96 were lost. They were also important until the end of 1940 when production of the 4.5" gun improved the situation. However to pretend that the Germans were fully up to date in artillery is misleading.


> Some 2200 25 pdrs (or rather, 18 pdrs converted, up bored etc. to 25 pdr) were completed by 1940, by which time the Germans had a bit over 5300 alone from the leFH18. To throw some pepper into the wound, far too many 25 pdrs were left behind at Dunkerque.


True, 704 18/25pd guns were lost in France, but by the end of 1940 the British had 1,449 25pdrs plus 568 18/25 pdrs so the situation wasn't desperate as the main effort was preparing for an invasion plus the middle east. 
Re the German production. According to my sources Germany built 1,863 leFH18 in 1939 and 1940 together. As it entered production in 1935, I seriously doubt that Germany built 5,300 in total by the end of 1940. In 1941 Britain produced 3,173 25pds and Germany 1,160 leFH18 so there is no doubt that the UK were outproducing Germany in the critical early years.


> Same with the 4.5" gun. Being the heaviest piece available for the division (if it was attached, at all) for a long time time, it again clearly lacked punch. It was somewhat comparable to the German 10.5cm K18, being a long range piece, but too much gun for a too little shell.


True but they played a role as it proved usefull to have a CB role at this level.




> Again, the 4.5" was, as opposed to some of your wishful thinking, just not availabe. Up to 1940, a mere _21 pieces_ were completed, and production was slow and limited even afterwards.


Close but not quite. My sources give a figure of 63 by the end of 1940 still low but the British had around 100 60pdr guns. These were WW1 weapons but still very effective with a range of 15,000 yards.



> The sad new was it was supposed to be a counter to the Germans divisional medium arty, namely the 15cm sFH 18, which already fired a shell about twice as big, worse, the Germans had about 1500 of these 15cm Howitzers by 1940, which also outranged the 25 pdrs. In contrast, the production of the 4.5" medium gun was slightly below 1000 for the entire war. Due to the shortage of both 4.5", the actual piece issued as a heavy piece to add weight to 25 pdr batteries was.. well, again a WW1 piece, the OBL 6" howitzer, firing a 39 kg shell to just 10 400 meters.


There is no denying that German Heavy Artillery was better than the UK weapons until the 7.2in and American 155mm guns came on stream but after 1942 the normal weapons were the field units with 25 pds supported by the Medium regiments with 4.5in and 5.5in. 
Now the 60pdr Howitzer you mention was last used in action in the desert in 1942. Its also worth noting that the original shell which did have a range 10,300yds had been replaced with the Mk1D shell with a range of 15,500yds a performance which was at least respectable and better than some of the German 'modern' weapons.



> Bottom line what the British had in reality instead of 25pdrs and 4.5" medium guns in their divisions were various obsolate pieces scraped from the bottom of the barrel labeled 'Leftovers from WW1'.


Leftovers maybe, but modernised to a significant degree and as I said replaced by 1942.



> The 5.5" gun-howitzer as again simply not available. _Five_ were produced until 1940, and it was not until 1942 the gun even got into action. Some 1679 pieces were completed by the end of the war, not much by any standard, considering the guns themselves were not available until the 2nd part of the war.


As mentioned before they replaced guns that could hold their own and I do not see what the problem is with that. 



> The comperative production figure for the 15 cm German gun and howitzer production (here I only include FH18, K18, K39) were about 6800 pieces between 39-45, to which pre-war production should be added (some 1350 FH18s available at the start of the war). It is noteworthy though that the FH 18 was not the only 15cm howitzer available to the Wehrmacht Division, they also used a fairly large number of large infantry guns, in this class the 15cm sIG 33.


Fair comment but you forget that your 8,150 15cm weapons were against the 3,000 ish British weapons plus all the weapons produced by Russia. The German Army units was always outgunned by the British Army units and at the end of the day, that is what counts.



> .. really? Then why so much reliance on the 25 pdr howitzers in a last-ditch AT effort? If you use expensive field guns for AT work with regularity, something has gone terribly wrong already.


And the 88mm AA guns used as AT guns were cheap and of course, the Germans didn't rely on them did they.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 30, 2007)

Thank you, Kurfurst.

And once again, excellent debate (learning a lot).


----------



## Juha (Dec 1, 2007)

Find time to type a small part of the table fron Jentz’s book I mentioned.

By mid-42 , British carried out tests in Middle-East with captured German tanks. The table shows the ranges in yards at which the different types of German tank armour were completely penetrated. The angles of impact were the normal slope of the armour on the tank. 

PzKpfw III IV with 30mm thick plates, ie as in France 1940, standard 2pdr shot pierced at the range of 1300 – 1400 yards when firing from front.

This is in way supported by Oberst Kühn’s (CO of 3. PzBrigade) report on 4 June 1940, in which he wrote on Allied A/T guns
Accuracy of the anti-tank guns: the French 4.7cm is good, the French 2.5cm is very good, and the British 4 cm is excellent. Penetration ability of the enemy anti-tank guns at favourable angles against all German Panzers: the French 4.7cm is very good up to range of 600 meters, the French 2.5cm is very good up to range of 400 m (the frontal armour of the PzKpfw III was clearly penetrated by 2.5 cm. Experimental tests against captured tanks demonstrated that the 2.5 cm anti-tank gun was superior to German 3.7cm PaK), and the British 4 cm is excellent (better and more effective than the French 4.7cm anti-tank gun) at ranges up to 800 meters…source Jentz p. 132

I’m a bit puzzled on the claim that the 2pdr was better than 4.7 cm, even if 2pdr was very powerful for its calibre. Maybe French had 2 kinds of AP rounds of which one was uncapped and 3. PzBr had used that kind of ammo in its tests.

To the defence of 3.7 cm KwK L/45 it must be said that it seems that Germans reacted very effectively to the crisis of May 40 big tank battles. According to Mr Rausch Germans began to produce Pzgr. 40 (APCR) in June 40 and first PzIIIs used them around 10 June IIRC. According to him all 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40s first went to PzRgts and A/T units didn’t get them during BoF.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 2, 2007)

I have found some info re production figures which I have inserted into my last posting as it was more logical in that area.

Apologies for any confusion.


----------

