# WWII Tank Gun Specifications



## Soren (Jan 8, 2010)

Here's a complete specifications list for most of the tank guns used during WW2. Hope you all enjoy it, it has been hard work assembling all the information, costng a good few months of research and even some money for some information only accessible through microfilm copies.

I've looked through US, German British manuals, modern day data and so on to make sure everything is 100% accurate. I've got data on more guns which I can add on demand, but this will have to do for now, its time consuming work writing all this down.

*12.8cm PaK44 L/55*

Projectile weight: 28.3 kg PzGr.43 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.727
Muzzle Velocity: 935 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 12370 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 96.13 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 253mm
1,000m = 237mm
1,500m = 222mm
2,000m = 208mm
2,500m = 195mm
3,000m = 182mm_
_________________________________________________

*8.8cm KwK43 L/71*

Projectile weight: 10.4 kg PzGr.39/43 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.342
Muzzle Velocity: 1000 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 85.49 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 219mm
1,000m = 204mm
1,500m = 190mm
2,000m = 176mm
2,500m = 164mm
3,000m = 153mm_
_________________________________________________

*10cm D-10*

Projectile weight: 15.88 kg BR-412D APBC
Sectional Denisty: 1.588
Muzzle velocity: 887 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 6246 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 79.52 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 211mm
1,000m = 185mm
1,500m = 161mm
2,000m = 141mm
2,500m = 123mm
3,000m = 108mm_
_________________________________________________

*7.5cm KwK42 L/70*

Projectile weight: 7.2 kg PzGr.39/42 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.280
Muzzle Velocity: 925 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3080 KJ 
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 69.7 KJ 

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 168mm
1,000m = 149mm
1,500m = 132mm
2,000m = 116mm
2,500m = 103mm
3,000m = 91mm_
_________________________________________________

*7.62cm 17pdr *

Projectile weight: 7.7 kg Mk.8T APCBC
Sectional Density: 1.326
Muzzle Velocity: 883 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3001 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65.8 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 163mm
1,000m = 150mm
1,500m = 137mm
2,000m = 126mm
2,500m = 116mm
3,000m = 107mm_
_________________________________________________

*12.2cm D-25T L/43*

Projectile weight: 25 kg BR-471B APC
Sectional Density: 1.679
Muzzle Velocity: 780 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 7605 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 183mm
1,000m = 162mm
1,500m = 144mm
2,000m = 129mm
2,500m = 118mm
3,000m = 108mm_
_________________________________________________

*9.0cm M3 L/53*

Projectile Weight: 10.94 kg M82 APCBC 
Sectional Density: 1.350
Muzzle Velocity: 853 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3980 KJ 
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 62.56 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 164mm
1,000m = 151mm
1,500m = 138mm
2,000m = 127mm
2,500m = 115mm
3,000m = 104mm_
_________________________________________________

*8.8cm KwK36 L/56*

Projectile weight: 10.2 kg PzGr.39-1 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.317
Muzzle Velocity: 773 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 51.09 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 151mm
1,000m = 138mm
1,500m = 126mm
2,000m = 116mm
2,500m = 106mm
3,000m = 97mm_
_________________________________________________

*8.5cm D-5T L/54*

Projectile weight: 9.2 kg BR-365 APBC 
Sectional Density: 1.273
Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2885 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 50.84 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 121mm
1,000m = 102mm
1,500m = 88mm
2,000m = 77mm
2,500m = 69mm
3,000m = 63mm_
_________________________________________________

*7.6cm M1 L/55*

Projectile weight: 7.0 kg M62 APCBC(HE) 
Sectional Density: 1.211
Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2195 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.38 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 116mm
1,000m = 106mm
1,500m = 97mm
2,000m = 89mm 
2,500m = 81mm
3,000m = 74mm_
_________________________________________________

*7.5cm KwK40 L/48*

Projectile weight: 6.8 kg PzGr.39 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.208
Muzzle Velocity: 790 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2122 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.03 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 123mm
1,000m = 109mm
1,500m = 97mm
2,000m = 86mm
2,500m = 76mm
3,000m = 68mm_
_________________________________________________

*5.7cm 6 pdr L/52*

Projectile weight: 3.23 kg Mk.9T APCBC
Secional Density: 1.005
Muzzle Velocity: 831 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 1115 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 43.69 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
_500m = 103mm
1,000m = 90mm
1,500m = 78mm 
2,000m = 68mm
2,500m = 60mm
3,000m = 52mm_
_________________________________________________

Penetration data derived from _WW2 Armor Gunnery_ by Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird, who's figures are based on US test firings conducted at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds USA.


----------



## Juha (Jan 8, 2010)

Hello Soren
thanks for posting.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 8, 2010)

You're welcome. I'll post some more later when I get the time.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 8, 2010)

Providing AP data at zero target angle is not very useful since this was almost impossible to achieve in actual combat. The data above appears to be calculated and not based upon real testing.

17 pdr
Mk 8T
MV=884 m/s
Armour=MQ 
TA=30° 
457m=140mm 
914m=130 
1371m=120 
1828m=111
17pdr Handbook, AVIA 46 187, AVIA 22 511-514 

75mm L70 
39/42 (Pzgr. 39/42)
MV=925 m/s
Armour=MQ
TA=30° 
500 m: 124 mm
1000 m: 111 mm
1500 m: 99 mm
2000 m: 89 mm
Germanys Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy by Thomas L. Jentz, Schiffer Military History Hardcover, 1997


----------



## parsifal (Jan 9, 2010)

Soren

Great effort, but Im sure your figures are going to be debated. You should be ready to accept that


----------



## Juha (Jan 9, 2010)

Hello
from "Fire and Movement", RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975, pages 22–25. "Penetration v. homogenous armour at 30º, at ranges in yards". The armour is machineable quality.

6pdr Mk 5
500____1000_____1500____2000y
87_______80_______73______67mm

Ammo must have been Mk X T APCBC 7.13lb (appr.3,23kg) 2780fps (appr. 847m/s). One explanation is the differences between US and GB ammo. In US test the shot loss its penetration power faster than in GB test. When we use simple LOS principle the first two figures are appr. equal but then the US test gives weaker performance than the GB test.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Providing AP data at zero target angle is not very useful since this was almost impossible to achieve in actual combat. The data above appears to be calculated and not based upon real testing.
> 
> 17 pdr
> Mk 8T
> ...



Got some more data from a friend.

OK, so here's the actual UK trials data, showing calculated penetration of:
162mm @ 1000yds (0deg target angle)
139mm @ 2000yds (0deg target angle)
and penetration at 30deg target angle = to the figures above, based upon actual firing tests against German tanks with homogeneous (non face hardened) armour.


----------



## Juha (Jan 9, 2010)

Hello dunmunro
thanks for the info

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

On the paper Dunmunro provided I see 155mm mentioned at 1,000 yards and 132mm mentioned at 2,000 yards for the 17 pdr against vertical plates (The quality of British plates is unknown). The US tests (In which all results were down adjusted into meter results) with 17 pdr firing the Mk.8T APCBC projectile established a penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour of 150mm at 1,000m and 126mm at 2,000m, converting that back into yards and the figures correspond perfectly.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Providing AP data at zero target angle is not very useful since this was almost impossible to achieve in actual combat. The data above appears to be calculated and not based upon real testing.



Is isn't calculated, it is based on REAL test results, just as your paper proves (Which btw is mentioned in Livingston Bird's book). That it doesn't conform to how you imagine things were is another matter.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

And btw folks, the list is supposed to 100% accurate, so if you see something is wrong with it then speak up and make your case. But remember it must be based on actual fact on not feelings. I have been looking through many manuals, books, microfilms and test results sheets to confirm that all figures are correct. I am in particular very confident in the validity of the penetration figures, as Livingston Bird provide as many sources as they do, taking all tests conducted in all countries into consideration in their book, which includes many of the papers I have had to pay to obtain. Furthermore it proves as quite an insurance to see that the penetration performance of the guns corresponds closely to the KE their projectiles possess pr. cm^2, proving that physics backs up the results.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 9, 2010)

Soren have you data for 77 (Comet guns)? and for italian 90? (i know this is not a tank gun)


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

As I stated homogeneous plate = non hardened and C = face hardened, so the UK figures show [email protected] and [email protected] 2000yds, both at zero target angle.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

Soren said:


> And btw folks, the list is supposed to 100% accurate, so if you see something is wrong with it then speak up and make your case. But remember it must be based on actual fact on not feelings.* I have been looking through many manuals, books, microfilms and test results sheets to confirm that all figures are correct.* I am in particular very confident in the validity of the penetration figures, as Livingston Bird provide as many sources as they do, taking all tests conducted in all countries into consideration in their book, which includes many of the papers I have had to pay to obtain. Furthermore it proves as quite an insurance to see that the penetration performance of the guns corresponds closely to the KE their projectiles possess pr. cm^2, proving that physics backs up the results.



LOL, and when you find data, and there's lots of it, regarding UK guns, showing much better results against actual targets you simply dismiss it!

KE results ignore the design of the AP projectile which has a decisive effect on the final result.


----------



## delcyros (Jan 9, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> 17 pdr
> Mk 8T
> MV=884 m/s
> Armour=MQ
> ...



I just plotted the figures for these two (powerful) guns on one graph for better readability and comparability. More tests are necessary to be conclusive but guessing from just these two datasets, they may indicate a 5 to 8% advantage for the 17pdr. gun at obliquity impact condition.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

Thanks for that info. The data posted by Soren also shows a much steeper decline in penetration for the L/70 gun versus the 17 pdr, and this is to be expected if the 17 pdr performs better at higher target angles:

7.5cm KwK42 L/70
2,500m = 103mm
3,000m = 91mm
_________________________________________________

7.62cm 17pdr
2,500m = 116mm
3,000m = 107mm

This could represent better ballistic performance from the 17 pdr APCBC projectile, or more likely, it represents much better penetration at higher obliquity, and this would be a decided advantage in combat.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Soren have you data for 77 (Comet guns)? and for italian 90? (i know this is not a tank gun)



On th British 77mm yes, the Italian 90mm, no I'm sorry. The 77's performance is listed below:

77mm HV APCBC projectile against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates:
500m = 137mm
1,000m = 126mm 
1,500m = 116mm
2,000m = 106mm
2,500m = 98mm
3,000m = 90mm


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

The reason for the slightly steeper decline in velocity for the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 projectile vs the 7.62cm Mk.8T is 1.) Mk.8T is heavier and 2.) The Mk.8T abit more aerodynamically efficient for a reason being described below. For the 7.5cm KwK42 a new version of the PzGr.39 was designed, designated the PzGr.39/42, it was abit heavier at 7.2kg than the older 6.8 kg PzGr.39 used in the KwK40 Pak40, and abit less aerodynamically efficient as it was designed to perform better against highly sloped armour. In short the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 APCBC(HE) was designed on purpose to better defeat armour at very steep angles, performing better against sloped armour than the 7.62cm Mk.8T APCBC in US tests. 

So while the 17pdr was more effective against vertical plates, the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 performed better against angled plates. 8.8cm PzGr.39 projectiles of all types were different in design and were amongst the most aerodynamically efficient AP projectiles made during WW2.

Here's the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42, note the unusual design, this was to enable it to better defeat sloped armour:





And the 8.8cm PzGr.39-1, a much more streamlined design, the most aerodynamically efficient projectile fired by any tank gun during the war:


----------



## parsifal (Jan 9, 2010)

Vincenzo said:


> Soren have you data for 77 (Comet guns)? and for italian 90? (i know this is not a tank gun)




Hi Vincenzo

The 90 mm gun fired a 22.2 lb AP round at a muzzle velocity of 2,756'/sec.6 It's maximum range was 15,000 yards.6 It could penetrate 5.63"@0° at 500 yards.

I t makes for an interesting comparison with the German 88mm series...according to Sorens list the 88 could penetrate 219 mm, at that range whilst the Model 53 could penetrate 143 mm. That seems an awfully big difference


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

A slightly better ballistic performance doesn't explain the fact that the Panther starts out at 168mm and ends up at 91mm, while the 17 pdr starts out at 163mm and ends up at 107mm, since if the L/70 has better high target angle performance this should offset the increase in target angle at long range which occurs as a natural result of the projectile trajectory.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> A slightly better ballistic performance doesn't explain the fact that the Panther starts out at 168mm and ends up at 91mm, while the 17 pdr starts out at 163mm and ends up at 107mm, since if the L/70 has better high target angle performance this should offset the increase in target angle at long range which occurs as a natural result of the projectile trajectory.



It may surprise you to know how flat the trajectory of a 800+ m/s cannon actually is. We're not talking howizter trajectories here.

Also take a look at the 8.8cm PzGr.39-1's performance, it goes from 151mm to 97mm, that's better than both.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 9, 2010)

parsifal said:


> Hi Vincenzo
> 
> The 90 mm gun fired a 22.2 lb AP round at a muzzle velocity of 2,756'/sec.6 It's maximum range was 15,000 yards.6 It could penetrate 5.63"@0° at 500 yards.
> 
> I t makes for an interesting comparison with the German 88mm series



thank you. This is a british test? afaik italian standard AT round had HE fillers so were AP(HE) or APBC(HE)

p.s. unlucky italian 90mm carriage was more large and high of that of 88 so the use as ATG of this AAG was not so easy. (almost this is the common explanation, i not checked but maybe also the italian gun it's longest (the misuration it's not same in italian army and in german army)


----------



## parsifal (Jan 9, 2010)

The source says that it was from data obtained at Aberdeen in 1968. I dont know any more than that


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

Here's data from the same source for the 17 pdr APDS:
500m = 256mm
1,000m = 233
1,500m = 213
2,000m = 194
2,500m = 178
3,000m = 162

Perhaps Soren could post the data for the 6 pdr APDS?


----------



## Juha (Jan 9, 2010)

Hello
"Fire and Movement", RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975, pages 22–25. "Penetration v. homogenous armour at 30º, at ranges in yards". The armour is machineable quality.

6-pdr Mk 3 or 5 APDS [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] 1500, [email protected] 2000

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Here's data from the same source for the 17 pdr APDS:
> 500m = 256mm
> 1,000m = 233
> 1,500m = 213
> ...



Sure can, but like I've said before APDS was a poor ammunition type during WW2, it was inaccurate and poor against sloped armour, had poor killing power once penetration was achieved and in short supply. So I really do not understand why you're so obsessed with this projectile type. APCBC rounds were the most lethal AP projectiles used during WW2, and were prefered for that very reason, Firefly gunners prefering the APCBC over the APDS round.

*5.7cm 6pdr L/52 gun with APDS:*
500m = 160mm
1,000m = 140mm
1,500m = 123mm
2,000m = 108mm
2,500m = 95mm
3,000m = 83mm


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

6 pdr APDS 4000fps 
0 targe angle MQ armour	
500yds=173mm 
1000yds = 153
2000yds = 119

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index....er-anti-tank-gun&catid=40:anti-tank&Itemid=58


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

Fits well with the US test results once adjusted into meter results.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

Soren said:


> Sure can, but like I've said before APDS was a poor ammunition type during WW2, it was inaccurate and poor against sloped armour, had poor killing power once penetration was achieved and in short supply. So I really do not understand why you're so obsessed with this projectile type. APCBC rounds were the most lethal AP projectiles used during WW2, and were prefered for that very reason, Firefly gunners prefering the APCBC over the APDS round.



You've certainly said this and been corrected for saying it, but 6 pdr APDS was not inaccurate and had none of the problems that 17 pdr ammo had. 6 pdr APDS was more accurate than APCBC, and it was available from day one of the Normandy Campaign.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> You've certainly said this and been corrected for saying it, but 6 pdr APDS was not inaccurate and had none of the problems that 17 pdr ammo had. 6 pdr APDS was more accurate than APCBC, and it was available from day one of the Normandy Campaign.



You're making one untrue claim after the other. 6 pdr APDS ammunition was not at all more accurate than APCBC, the APDS rounds of the time all suffered from the same problems, and again they were in short supply. And where exactly have I ben corrected on this issue? So far I've only seen you being corrected after making claims again and again and again.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

Soren said:


> You're making one untrue claim after the other. 6 pdr APDS ammunition was not at all more accurate than APCBC, the APDS rounds of the time all suffered from the same problems, and again they were in short supply. And where exactly have I ben corrected on this issue? So far I've only seen you being corrected after making claims again and again and again.


http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/best-tank-ww2-20189-9.html#post615840
Accuracy:






First round accuracy was better for APDS. 6 pdr had none of the consistency problems that hampered the 17 pdr APDS. However, since APDS did not have tracer it was harder for the gunner to improve his aim on subsequent shots.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

Those are estimated chances, hence the good performance of the 17 pdr APDS round on that sheet. In reality the APDS rounds proved poorin terms of accuracy, as demonstrated in actual tests.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

Soren said:


> Those are estimated chances, hence the good performance of the 17 pdr APDS round on that sheet. In reality the APDS rounds proved poorin terms of accuracy, as demonstrated in actual tests.



LOL, show some tests were the 6 pdr APDS did poorly.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> LOL, show some tests were the 6 pdr APDS did poorly.



I can show you tests where the 17 pdr APDS did A LOT worse than on that sheet. So why would the 6 pdr be any different? Was the APDS design for the 6 pdr different? Did it somehow by a miracle avoid the issues which plagued the 17 pdr's APDS rounds?

Sorry I dont buy it.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 9, 2010)

There were some major differences between the 6 pdr and 17 pdr that had a large impact on APDS accuracy:





As I and others have pointed out, the 6 pdr APDS did not suffer from accuracy problems, except those caused by the extreme MV and lack of tracer. 17 pdr APDS ammo needed to be manufactured to much higher standards than APCBC and 17 pdrs firing APDS needed to keep their barrels very clean as the aluminium from the sabot fouled them rapidly. 

Regarding 6 pdr APDS:

"_...Indeed. the 6 pdr AT gun, either towed or carried in the Churchill, was preferred for AT actions, especially when equipped with the new APDS ammo, which greatly enhanced AP capabilities. Montgomery commented on the popularity of the 6 pdr with sabot ammo in his memo no 506 of 6 July (1944) whilst simultaneously criticising the (Allied) 75mm gun..._"p130.
British armour in the Normandy campaign, 1944
By John D. Buckley

The 6 pdr with APDS was a fearsome weapon with few drawbacks over the same gun with APCBC ammo. 17 Pdr APDS was not inherently inaccurate but demanded better manufacturing standards and it was harder to keep a 17 pdr firing accurately with APDS with increased fouling and gun wear. Theoretically 17 pdr APDS was more accurate than APCBC, but in practise this was not always the case. 

In any event, I'm interested in the data Soren is presenting, but I have some reservations about its accuracy and applicability to actual combat, while APDS ammo was used widely and successfully by 21st AG, much to the discomfort of German armour. At 500 meters, 17 pdr APDS is number one in penetration according to Soren's own data, while the 6 pdr is only slightly behind the 75mm L/70.


----------



## Soren (Jan 9, 2010)

That's all fine and dandy but are there actual tests available to confirm the theory? Fact is that the 17 pdr performed far worse with APDS ammunition than the sheet estimates, and so pure logic tells us that the 6 pdr would suffer from the same issues. You have now provided documentation for why the 6 pdr probably didn't suffer from the same issues with accuracy, but we have no real tests to confirm it, as we have with the 17 pdr which proved to have poor accuracy with APDS ammunition.

If you can find real tests that conclude good accuracy with a large sample of 6 pdr APDS ammunition as the Germans did with all their ammunition types, then you will have convinced me that the 6 pdr was accurate with APDS ammunition.

Even so APDS ammunition still suffered from problems with lack of destructive power after penetration, shattering and low availability. All countries had sub caliber ammunition which could penetrate a lot of armour, but due to shortages in tungsten it never became available in huge numbers, and due to its lack of destrutive power after penetration it was generally turned down in favour of APCBC ammunition which also worked better against highly sloped armour.


----------



## Juha (Jan 9, 2010)

On availability of 6pdr Sabot, production, in 1944 217.000, in 1945 158.000.

Penetration ability against sloped plate, in this case 17pdr against the 80mm thick glacis plate of a Panther:
(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…

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

From the same paper:
_"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."_


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 10, 2010)

Soren said:


> That's all fine and dandy but are there actual tests available to confirm the theory? Fact is that the 17 pdr performed far worse with APDS ammunition than the sheet estimates, and so pure logic tells us that the 6 pdr would suffer from the same issues. You have now provided documentation for why the 6 pdr probably didn't suffer from the same issues with accuracy, but we have no real tests to confirm it, as we have with the 17 pdr which proved to have poor accuracy with APDS ammunition.
> 
> If you can find real tests that conclude good accuracy with a large sample of 6 pdr APDS ammunition as the Germans did with all their ammunition types, then you will have convinced me that the 6 pdr was accurate with APDS ammunition.
> 
> Even so APDS ammunition still suffered from problems with lack of destructive power after penetration, shattering and low availability. All countries had sub caliber ammunition which could penetrate a lot of armour, but due to shortages in tungsten it never became available in huge numbers, and due to its lack of destrutive power after penetration it was generally turned down in favour of APCBC ammunition which also worked better against highly sloped armour.



I think it is incumbent upon you to find data to prove your claim that 6 pdr ammo was inaccurate. I and others have pointed out that 6pdr APDS did not have accuracy problems. I have provided data showing you why this is case and I have showed you the differences between the guns that allowed the 6 pdr to fire APDS with no loss in accuracy. 

APDS was more destructive than APCBC because it was more likely to penetrate! When it did penetrate at equal ranges to APCBC it had more residual SV and caused more damage inside the tank. APDS was not in sort supply, relative to specialized tungsten core shot. APDS performed as well as any round when striking highly oblique targets.


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2010)

Hello Soren
and the explanation why 17pdr Sabot didn't work well at U.S. Army Firing Tests conducted August 1944 by 12th U.S. Army Group at Isigny, France, from the same paper, straight after my earlier quote.

"The conflict between these results and those obtained by the board is explained 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."

So 17pdr Sabot used in Isigny was most probably sub-standard, so it's rather useless to draw too much from it on the behaviour of 17pdr Sabot.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

Stop saying you and others have pointed something out when you're the only one making the claims Dunmunro.

An no APDS rounds were not as good against sloped armour as any other round, APDS APCR rounds suffered a greater loss in penetration performance with increases in armour slope than APCBC rounds did. Sorry but that's how it is. And when the APDS round did penetrate it didn't do as much damage as APCBC rounds, esp. not those equipped with an internal explosive charge. And again, APDS was in short supply.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> and the explanation why 17pdr Sabot didn't work well at U.S. Army Firing Tests conducted August 1944 by 12th U.S. Army Group at Isigny, France, from the same paper, straight after my earlier quote.
> 
> "The conflict between these results and those obtained by the board is explained 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."
> ...



Juha,

In terms of its behavior in regards to accuracy it can definitely be relied upon, esp. since the inaccuracy is confirmed by other sources and explained in detail by others. I would however not rely on the armour penetration performance of the APDS rounds in those tests, as this was going to be affected if Col. Cole was right.


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2010)

Yes, I meant the ability to penetrate.
accuracy of 17pdr Sabot wasn't very good, all 5 shots hits the Panther from 700y but only 2 the aiming point, the glacis. But 3 penetrated, so 60% chance to disable a Panther from 700y head on, not bad but definitely worse than Panther's chances to disable Firefly from 700y, IMHO Panther chances in similar conditions would have been near 100%.

Juha


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 10, 2010)

Soren said:


> Stop saying you and others have pointed something out when you're the only one making the claims Dunmunro.



Did you not read this post?
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/best-tank-ww2-20189-9.html#post615840


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

Juha said:


> Yes, I meant the ability to penetrate.
> accuracy of 17pdr Sabot wasn't very good, all 5 shots hits the Panther from 700y but only 2 the aiming point, the glacis. But 3 penetrated, so 60% chance to disable a Panther from 700y head on, not bad but definitely worse than Panther's chances to disable Firefly from 700y, IMHO Panther chances in similar conditions would have been near 100%.
> 
> Juha



True. The Panther's gun would've had no problems penetrating the Sherman's armour that's for sure, the rest depends upon what damage the projectile does once it enters the inside of the tank. But I'd like to point out that ude to the fact that the APCBC round was better against sloped armour it therefore likely be able to penetrate the Panther's glacis from a longer range with greater success than the APDS round, probably out to 850 to 900 yards.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 10, 2010)

I found some accuracy test data for the 6 pdr:








This test also featured 17 pdr shots but these are complicated because the 17 pdr gun crew was not very experienced.

To summarize the results:

Tiger and Panther targets
at 1000 yds for 17 pdr
at 600 yds for 6 pdr.

17 pdr APDS lot 1 = 5 fired = 1 hit which holed the glacis plate after passing through track guard.
17 pdr APDS lot 2 (mackie) = 6 fired = 6 hits but only 1 fatal hit
17 pdr APCBC = 14 fired = 7 misses 

6 pdr APDS = 24 fired = 1 miss
6 pdr APCBC = 31 = 4 misses


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

I don't think that report should be used as a benchmark for the accurracy with different ammunition types as it wasn't a test meant to test accuracy and because of the clear misjudging of range on a magnitude as great as 300 yards short. Misjudging range with higher MV rounds is also harder as they simply don't plummit as fast with range.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 10, 2010)

Soren said:


> I don't think that report should be used as a benchmark for the accurracy with different ammunition types as it wasn't a test meant to test accuracy and because of the clear misjudging of range on a magnitude as great as 300 yards short. Misjudging range with higher MV rounds is also harder as they simply don't plummit as fast with range.



The 6 pdr results were not effected by ranging errors. The accuracy of the 6 pdr APDS is noted, in fact, and match the expected results for the two ammo types.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

I don't like it that any rounds missed at all at that range (600y) Dunmunro. The 6 pdr should be able to hit with every single round using APCBC at 600 yards, esp. on a target as big as the Tiger Panther. And if the APDS rounds were as accurate as the APCBC rounds I'd expect no misses with that either. Something wasn't done right, the gun was more accurate than that, and the simple fact that it wasn't a test specifically tasked to determine accuracy also has me lean more in this direction.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 10, 2010)

Soren said:


> True. The Panther's gun would've had no problems penetrating the Sherman's armour that's for sure, the rest depends upon what damage the projectile does once it enters the inside of the tank. But I'd like to point out that ude to the fact that the APCBC round was better against sloped armour it therefore likely be able to penetrate the Panther's glacis from a longer range with greater success than the APDS round, probably out to 850 to 900 yards.



Please provide some data showing that the APCBC round is better against sloped armour. This statement runs completely contrary to all the penetration data that I've seen. Even if the APDS performance falls off to a relatively greater degree with increasing target angle it still has such a lead that the APCBC will never catch up.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 10, 2010)

Soren said:


> I don't like it that any rounds missed at all at that range (600y) Dunmunro. The 6 pdr should be able to hit with every single round using APCBC at 600 yards, esp. on a target as big as the Tiger Panther. And if the APDS rounds were as accurate as the APCBC rounds I'd expect no misses with that either. Something wasn't done right, the gun was more accurate than that, and the simple fact that it wasn't a test specifically tasked to determine accuracy also has me lean more in this direction.



The chart I provided here:
http://www.sfu.ca/~dmunro/images/accuracy.jpg
shows a 50% hit probability at 1000 yds for the APCBC and 1100 yds for the APDS. The 100 percent probability range for APCBC is most likely to be ~500 yds, so at 600 yds we can expect ~90%, which is what the results showed - 87% for the APCBC and 97% for APDS. In any event if 6 pdr APDS had a tendency to be inaccurate it certainly didn't show up.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Please provide some data showing that the APCBC round is better against sloped armour. This statement runs completely contrary to all the penetration data that I've seen. Even if the APDS performance falls off to a relatively greater degree with increasing target angle it still has such a lead that the APCBC will never catch up.



Data ? I have provided plenty of data to prove that fact already. Also if you don't understand why APCBC rounds are more effective against sloped armour than solid shot AP then I suggest you read up on it. I can tell you that it was simply the addition of a soft metal cap which improved the penetration performance against sloped armour as compared to uncapped projectiles. The APDS round, being a solid shot itself once the shoe had seperated, behaved just the same as a normal solid shot AP round.


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2010)

Hello Soren
Quote:” the APCBC round was better against sloped armour it therefore likely be able to penetrate the Panther's glacis from a longer range with greater success than the APDS round, probably out to 850 to 900 yards.”

Now that was not the finding of the Isigny test, their report stated: ” 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.” 
Of course with 17pdr APCBC the gunner could aim the middle horizontal band of the mantlet or those parts of turret front visible, both of which were penetrable to APCBC from fairly long distances but they were clearly smaller targets than the glacis. The sideprotection of Panther wasn’t never a problem, even 2pdr without littlejohn could penetrate Panther’s turret side from appr. 400y.
at Balleroy both fair APDS hits from 700y on glacis penetrated as did the hit at the junction of the nose and glacis. Only a very small sample but indication is that good quality 17pdr sabot penetrates from that distance the glacis if it hits.

Juha


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2010)

Hello dunmunro
thanks again for the info!

Juha


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 10, 2010)

No problem. I just want to put this image:




here, for the sake of continuity.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

Tank nose down by 6 degree's, that means the effective slope of the Panther's glacis was reduced to 49 degrees from an original 55 degrees. That will make a noticable difference, and clearly did compared to the Insigny tests.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 10, 2010)

it does aid penetration of the glacis plate, but then it also adds 6 degs to the nose plate, putting it at 61deg and, of course, there is also a 10deg target angle.


----------



## Soren (Jan 10, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello
> from "Fire and Movement", RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975, pages 22–25. "Penetration v. homogenous armour at 30º, at ranges in yards". The armour is machineable quality.
> 
> 6pdr Mk 5
> ...



Seems more likely that these results were achieved at a 90 degree angle (If it was the Mk.5T atleast), then they also fit well with the US test results. A penetration performance of 67mm of RHA armour angled at 30 degree at 2,000 yards seems way above what any APCBC projectile of that weight and velocity is capable of.


----------



## Juha (Jan 10, 2010)

Hello
re scan in dunmunro's message #55, now IMHO that's clearly a Tiger.

Soren
I cannot help, usually RAC Tank Museum info is good. As I wrote earlier US tests might well be made using US made ammo. They produced both 57mm A/T gun and ammo for it, so it would have been natural to use them and not transport a British gun and British ammo to the States.

Juha


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 10, 2010)

I found the data for the Panther in message 55, and it states that it was nose down by 4.5 to 5 degrees.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

I've gathered all the data Soren has presented and posted it here, rank ordered by penetration at 500m:


17 pdr APDS against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates:
500m = 256mm
1,000m = 233
1,500m = 213
2,000m = 194
2,500m = 178
3,000m = 162

___________________

12.8cm PaK44 L/55

Projectile weight: 28.3 kg PzGr.43 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.727
Muzzle Velocity: 880 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 10957 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 85.15 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 253mm
1,000m = 237mm
1,500m = 222mm
2,000m = 208mm
2,500m = 195mm
3,000m = 182mm

__________________________

8.8cm KwK43 L/71

Projectile weight: 10.4 kg PzGr.39/43 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.342
Muzzle Velocity: 1000 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 85.49 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 219mm
1,000m = 204mm
1,500m = 190mm
2,000m = 176mm
2,500m = 164mm
3,000m = 153mm
_________________________________________________

10cm D-10

Projectile weight: 15.88 kg BR-412D APBC
Sectional Denisty: 1.588
Muzzle velocity: 887 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 6246 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 79.52 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 211mm
1,000m = 185mm
1,500m = 161mm
2,000m = 141mm
2,500m = 123mm
3,000m = 108mm
_________________

12.2cm D-25T L/43

Projectile weight: 25 kg BR-471B APC
Sectional Density: 1.679
Muzzle Velocity: 780 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 7605 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 183mm
1,000m = 162mm
1,500m = 144mm
2,000m = 129mm
2,500m = 118mm
3,000m = 108mm
________________

76.2cm 17pdr with AP
Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:

500m = 175mm
1000m = 147mm
2000m = 105mm
2500m = 88mm
3000m = 74mm
________________________

7.5cm KwK42 L/70

Projectile weight: 7.2 kg PzGr.39/42 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.280
Muzzle Velocity: 925 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3080 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 69.7 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 168mm
1,000m = 149mm
1,500m = 132mm
2,000m = 116mm
2,500m = 103mm
3,000m = 91mm
______________________

9.0cm M3 L/53

Projectile Weight: 10.94 kg M82 APCBC
Sectional Density: 1.350
Muzzle Velocity: 853 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3980 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 62.56 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 164mm
1,000m = 151mm
1,500m = 138mm
2,000m = 127mm
2,500m = 115mm
3,000m = 104mm
______________________

7.62cm 17pdr

Projectile weight: 7.7 kg Mk.8T APCBC
Sectional Density: 1.326
Muzzle Velocity: 883 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3001 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65.8 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 163mm
1,000m = 150mm
1,500m = 137mm
2,000m = 126mm
2,500m = 116mm
3,000m = 107mm
________________________

5.7cm 6pdr L/52 APDS against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates:
500m = 160mm
1,000m = 140mm
1,500m = 123mm
2,000m = 108mm
2,500m = 95mm
3,000m = 83mm

_________________

8.8cm KwK36 FlaK18/36 L/56

Projectile weight: 10.2 kg PzGr.39-1 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.317
Muzzle Velocity: 773 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 51.09 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 151mm
1,000m = 138mm
1,500m = 126mm
2,000m = 116mm
2,500m = 106mm
3,000m = 97mm
_________________________________________________


77mm HV APCBC projectile against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates:
500m = 137mm
1,000m = 126mm
1,500m = 116mm
2,000m = 106mm
2,500m = 98mm
3,000m = 90mm

______________________

7.5cm KwK40 L/48

Projectile weight: 6.8 kg PzGr.39 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.208
Muzzle Velocity: 790 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2122 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.03 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 123mm
1,000m = 109mm
1,500m = 97mm
2,000m = 86mm
2,500m = 76mm
3,000m = 68mm

__________________________________

7.6cm M1 L/55

Projectile weight: 7.0 kg M62 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.211
Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2195 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.38 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 116mm
1,000m = 106mm
1,500m = 97mm
2,000m = 89mm
2,500m = 81mm
3,000m = 74mm
____________________

5cm KwK39 L/60 penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:
APCR projectile:
500m = 108mm
1,000m = 72mm
1,500m = 48mm
2,000m = 32mm
2,500m = 21mm
3,000m = 14mm

_________________________________________________

5.7cm 6 pdr L/52

Projectile weight: 3.23 kg Mk.9T APCBC
Secional Density: 1.005
Muzzle Velocity: 831 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 1115 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 43.69 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 103mm
1,000m = 90mm
1,500m = 78mm
2,000m = 68mm
2,500m = 60mm
3,000m = 52mm

________________________

5cm KwK39 L/60 penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:

APC projectile:
500m = 82mm
1,000m = 64mm
1,500m = 49mm
2,000m = 38mm
2,500m = 30mm
3,000m = 23mm
___________________

7.5cm M3 L/38.5 penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:

M72 APCBC, MV = 2,030 fps:
500m = 81mm
1,000m = 73mm
1,500m = 65mm
2,000m = 59mm
2,500m = 53mm
3,000m = 47mm

_____________________

US 7.5cm M1 L/31 gun's performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour for comparison:

APCBC projectile: MV= 1850fps
500m = 72mm
1,000m = 65mm
1,500m = 58mm
2,000m = 52mm
2,500m = 47mm
3,000m = 42mm
_______________________


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> I've gathered all the data Soren has presented and posted it here, rank ordered by penetration at 500m:
> 
> 
> 17 pdr APDS against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates:
> ...



i'm again w/o words

this is from Soren post nr 1:

7.62cm 17pdr

Projectile weight: 7.7 kg Mk.8T APCBC
Sectional Density: 1.326
Muzzle Velocity: 883 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3001 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65.8 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 163mm
1,000m = 150mm
1,500m = 137mm
2,000m = 126mm
2,500m = 116mm
3,000m = 107mm


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

Soren posted the data for the 17pdr APDS ammo here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/best-tank-ww2-20189-12.html#post618532

The data on the 17 pdr APCBC is futher down the list.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2010)

other guns have "high penetration" shell put in a list the only apds of 17 pdr it's a distortion, give a false impression.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

I posted the data that he has presented, including the APCR data for the 5cm gun.


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2010)

if you interessed to that test somewhere, in this forum, there are a large scan of data posted some time ago


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

It's a big forum, but if you or anyone can point me to it, I'd appreciate it.


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2010)

Dunmunro,

The other guns were tested with APCR rounds aswell, but seeing as APCR APDS rounds lacked the destructive power of APCBC rounds I didn't add them. Loaded with APCR the KwK43 penetrated over 282mm of armour at 500m and 177mm at 3km.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sigh, a round that doesn't penetrate is unlikely to be very destructive. 

You are certainly welcome to add more data.


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> Sigh, a round that doesn't penetrate is unlikely to be very destructive.



Well dumunro the funny thing here is that the 6 pdr was the only gun which at all benefitted from the APDS design during the war. So while I might understand you adding it into the list for the 6 pdr, esp. since it seems the 6 pdr could actually hit something with this round, I can't understand why you'd want to add the 17 pdr APDS data seeing as it was near useless for this gun. And again it was in short supply.



> You are certainly welcome to add more data.



Well I could add all APCR results, but these were also in short supply, and like with the APDS round their performance against sloped armour wasn't as good as that of APCBC rounds for similar 90 degree penetration power.


*8.8cm KwK43 L/71 performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:*
Projectile: 7.3 kg PzGr.40/43 APCR
MV: 1,130 m/s
500m = 282mm
1,000m = 257mm
1,500m = 234mm
2,000m = 213mm
2,500m = 194mm
3,000m = 177mm


----------



## Vincenzo (Jan 11, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> It's a big forum, but if you or anyone can point me to it, I'd appreciate it.



sorry i rememebr to saw it but i don't remember where, i just saw all best tank thread but aren't there


----------



## m kenny (Jan 11, 2010)

Soren said:


> I can't understand why you'd want to add the 17 pdr APDS data seeing as it was near useless for this gun. And again it was in short supply.



For the 17pdr 37,000 rounds in 1944 and 140,000 in 1945. 
There were roughly 600+ 17pdr A/T guns and 500 Firefly guns available in the late summer of 1944 in France.


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2010)

In terms of actual penetrative power possessed by the guns in question at the muzzle, measured in KJ pr. cm^2, they rank as follows:

1.12.8cm Pak44 L/55
2. 8.8cm KwK43 L/71
3. 10cm D-10
4. 7.5cm KwK42 L/70
5. 7.62cm 17 pdr
6. 12.2cm D-25T
7. 9cm M3 L/53
8. 8.8cm KwK36 L/56
10. 7.7cm HV
11. 8.5cm D-5T L/54
12. 7.6cm M1 L/55
13. 7.5cm KwK40 L/48
14. 5.7cm 6 pdr
15. 5cm KwK39 L/60 
16. 7.62cm F34 Zis-5 L/41.4
17. 7.5cm M3 L/38.5


----------



## Juha (Jan 11, 2010)

Hello Soren
As Balleroy test showed, 17pdr APDS shot could hit and penetrate Panther’s glacis from reasonable ETO distance from which 17pdr APCBC may well not penetrate. Sabot was less accurate, so British choices were when engaged Panther head on, use Sabot and hoped a hit or use APCBC and aim at much smaller targets at the front of the turret. 17pdr Sabot was rare in 44 but not much so in 45. Production in 44 37,000 and in 45 up to 31.5.44 140,000.

Now APCR for 8.8cm KwK43 was very rare but on the other hand it didn’t usually need it, it was powerful enough with APCBC.

On APDS lethality, now British penetrators were bigger than German ones when compared to the size of complete round, that of 6pdr APDS had same diameter than that of 8,8cm APCR. And after all APDS was the round of 60s and 70s before smooth bore arrow penetrators game in fashion. So post-war it was seen that main point was to achieve penetration and after all APDS has enough lethality with the splinters of armour it took with it inside the tank.

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2010)

m kenny said:


> Fotr the 17pdr 37,000 rounds in 1944 and 140,000 in 1945.



And yet it was still rare on the battlefield.


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2010)

Juha said:


> On APDS lethality, now British penetrators were bigger than German ones when compared to the size of complete round,



That only goes in comparison to APCR rounds. APCBC penetrators are the same diameter as the barrel.



> And after all APDS was the round of 60s and 70s before smooth bore arrow penetrators game in fashion


.

APDS is just the designation, there is a big difference between the WW2 APDS ammunition and that used in the 60's 70's.



> So post-war it was seen that main point was to achieve penetration and after all APDS has enough lethality with the splinters of armour it took with it inside the tank.



After the war tanks got thicker and thicker armour, nessecating the use of small diameter solid shot projectiles in order to achieve enough penetration power. Tanks also became more buttoned up, being designed to withstand chemical attacks, and this in turn increased the killing power of solid shot rounds when they succeeded in penetrating the armour, the increased internal air pressure temperature being as big a killer as splinters.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

Soren said:


> And yet it was still rare on the battlefield.



No it wasn't rare but then 21st AG didn't meet much German armour after the 17 pdr APDS became readily available, so it was probably rarely used.

BTW, speaking of rare, do you have data on the 32 pdr/ 3.7" gun, with AP, APCBC and APDS ammo?


----------



## Soren (Jan 11, 2010)

The British 3.7" gun was never tested against armour by the US, so no figures on that gun.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 11, 2010)

dunmunro1 said:


> A slightly better ballistic performance doesn't explain the fact that the Panther starts out at 168mm and ends up at 91mm, while the 17 pdr starts out at 163mm and ends up at 107mm, since if the L/70 has better high target angle performance this should offset the increase in target angle at long range which occurs as a natural result of the projectile trajectory.



It worth noting that British tank AP rounds were solid shots, ie. greater sectional density at the expense of lethality, whereas German AP rounds were shells with an small explosive filler.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 11, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> It worth noting that British tank AP rounds were solid shots, ie. greater sectional density at the expense of lethality, whereas German AP rounds were shells with an small explosive filler.



It would be interesting to see the relative performance at 30 deg target angle.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 11, 2010)

Kurfürst said:


> It worth noting that British tank AP rounds were solid shots, ie. greater sectional density at the expense of lethality, whereas German AP rounds were shells with an small explosive filler.



There were problems with the delay fuses not always working. I believe there was a high falure rate (10%+) and the problems getting a reliable base fuze was one of the reasons the British stopped making them.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 12, 2010)

Juha said:


> On APDS lethality, now British penetrators were bigger than German ones when compared to the size of complete round, that of 6pdr APDS had same diameter than that of 8,8cm APCR. And after all APDS was the round of 60s and 70s before smooth bore arrow penetrators game in fashion. So post-war it was seen that main point was to achieve penetration and after all APDS has enough lethality with the splinters of armour it took with it inside the tank.
> 
> Juha



In the test that I discussed here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/wwii-tank-gun-specifications-22607-4.html#post618816

The UK measured the APCBC and APDS hits for lethality by placing wooden mannequins and dummy ammo in the captured German tanks used as targets. When penetration occurred the APDS rounds were just as lethal, if not more so.

Summary of 6pdr hits:

6 pdr APCBC:
note: 18 of 31 APCBC rounds were fired against the side of the target tanks and 13 against the frontal armour.This made the APCBC rounds inherently more lethal and more likely to hit stored ammo.

Round number and results of each hit:


22-1w - DA
23-2w-fire
25-1k
27-1k-2w
40-DA
41-CF
55-1w
56-nil
63-nil
75-3w
76-1k-1w-CF
80-Iw-CF
----------
11w-3k for 10 penetrating hits/31 rounds fired


6 pdr APDS:
Note: 11 of 24 rounds were fired against the side of the target tanks and 15 against the frontal armour. This made the APCBC rounds inherently more lethal and more likely to hit stored ammo.

18-1w-CF
21-2w
29- 2w
27 - 1k 3w
29-2w
34 - nil
37-1k-3w
39-3w-DA
72 - 3k
66-nil
67 - 3w
--------
19w-5k for 11 penetrating hits/24 rounds fired

It is quite obvious that the APDS is more lethal despite the disadvantage that more of the hits had to pass through thicker armour and an area of the tank that was less likely to have stored ammo.

K = killed
w = wounded
CF = cordite fire


----------



## Freebird (Jan 12, 2010)

Is there a standard multiplier to convert penetration at vertical to penetration of a 30 or 45 deg plate? 

Could we also have a list of the AT guns? Pak 38, 39 40?

Was the performance of a 6pdr AT gun or 88mm FLAK gun the same as tank mounted versions?




dunmunro1 said:


> I've gathered all the data Soren has presented and posted it here, rank ordered by penetration at 500m:
> 
> 
> 17 pdr APDS against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates:
> ...


----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2010)

m kenny said:


> There were problems with the delay fuses not always working. I believe there was a high falure rate (10%+) and the problems getting a reliable base fuze was one of the reasons the British stopped making them.



This was a problem the British faced, not the Germans, the Germans figured out how to make fuzes that worked.


----------



## dunmunro1 (Jan 12, 2010)

freebird said:


> Is there a standard multiplier to convert penetration at vertical to penetration of a 30 or 45 deg plate?
> 
> Could we also have a list of the AT guns? Pak 38, 39 40?
> 
> Was the performance of a 6pdr AT gun or 88mm FLAK gun the same as tank mounted versions?



The effect of target angle is a complex problem, but as a rule of thumb, you could multiply the values by about .8 for 30 degs, .6 for 45 degs and .4 for 60 degs, but one really needs to go on a case by case basis and use a penetration table and/or a computer to estimate the actual value for each type of round and each gun and use the actual armour type of the target. Here's a wikipedia article on this topic:
Sloped armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AFAIK, the AT guns were identical to the same gun mounted in a tank.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 12, 2010)

There was also a KwK 40 L/43 correct?

--------------------------------
7.5cm KwK40 L/48

Projectile weight: 6.8 kg PzGr.39 APCBC(HE)
Sectional Density: 1.208
Muzzle Velocity: 790 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2122 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.03 KJ

Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 123mm
1,000m = 109mm
1,500m = 97mm
2,000m = 86mm
2,500m = 76mm
3,000m = 68mm


----------



## Soren (Jan 12, 2010)

There sure was, the performance of that gun was nearly the same as that of the L/48, penetration performance differing on average by 2mm, so virtually the same performance as the L/48.


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 12, 2010)

m kenny said:


> There were problems with the delay fuses not always working. I believe there was a high falure rate (10%+) and the problems getting a reliable base fuze was one of the reasons the British stopped making them.



Thanks. I was more referring to it as a possible cause to better external and penetration ballistics (all things equal).

IIRC there was a test done with British, US and German 75/76mm rounds, fired at the same velocity, showing these differences during penetration.


----------



## Juha (Jan 12, 2010)

Hello Soren
Quote:"This was a problem the British faced, not the Germans, the Germans figured out how to make fuzes that worked."

Not having data on Heer's APHE fuzes I can only say that at least KM had at least time to time problems with its fuzes. For ex of the shells fired by Prinz Eugen against Hood and PoW which hit substantial parts of target ships one detonated properly, the one which hit the boatdeck of Hood, one was dud, the one which ended into a 5.25in shell handling room of PoW, and the two which hit the after hull of PoW both exploded with only a mild/partial detonation. German A/T APHEs were good shells and it is a plus to be able to transport some HE inside an armoured box but as I and others have wrote, the main thing is to get penetration. An armoured box has the bad quality that the hot splinters of armour which a shot bring in with it have no way out, so they’ll bounce around in that confined place full of ammo, flesh and some delicate instruments until they hit something or until they are spent. So IMHO HE is good to have but penetration essential, if we leave out the big HE rounds.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Jan 12, 2010)

Soren said:


> This was a problem the British faced, not the Germans, the Germans figured out how to make fuzes that worked.




how many splinters from an AP shell/shot - Tanknet.org

WO 194/886.

50mm AP-HE they found that the bursting charge functioned 12 of 14 times after plate perforation
the 50mm AP-HE resulted in ignitions or explosions in 10 of 11 of the test shots.
88mm AP-HE failed to function following armor plate perforation in 3 of 3 tests.


_These tests were in essence conducted to determine behind armor effects of German 50mm AP-HE shell, German 88mm AP-HE shell, and British 6-pdr AP solid shot. Various combinations of ordnance were placed behind an armor plate secured to another plate. 


There is an armor plate in front, and various types of ordnance were secured to the back frame and plate -- materials that might commonly be included in the turret of a British tank in the Western Desert. This included tests conducted against an ammo box full of flares; or a MG ammunition magazines; or grenades; or smoke bombs; or “inert” 17-pdr HE projectiles. Each target ammunition component was subjected to a series of separate trials i.e. they would fire 2 or 3 rounds against the ammo box with flares. Set up the target plate place the flare box fire the shot or shell; assess the damage than reset the target put a new box of flares out or new box of MG ammo or new grenades or whatever, than shoot the next test projectile and again assess effects.

Of interest and perhaps not much of a surprise to most folks that post to this particular forum (but in the interest of the unbathed masses that infest other non-tanknet forums ) is that the bursting charge in the German 50mm AP-HE were fairly effective at producing behind armor incendiary effects within the various target elements. 

Excluding the “inert” 17-pdr projectile tests, the 50mm AP-HE resulted in ignitions or explosions in 10 of 11 of the test shots. Flares igniting, granades exploding, small arms ammunition igniting, or smoke bombs exploding. The one case in which no ignitions or explosions occured within the test ordnance was one of the cases where the 50mm AP-HE bursting charge or base fuze did not function following perforation of armor plate.

There were also three tests of 50mm AP-HE fired against “inert” 17-pdr HE shells placed behind the armor plate target. By “inert” it is indicated that the propellant was removed from the cartridge, but the TNT filler and nose fuze were left in the projectiles. In one of theses tests the 50mm bursting charge didn't function. The other two resulted in significant perforations of the projectile and cartridge case. One 17-pdr had a nose fuze explode. But the TNT filler didn't detonate in any of the three tests even when the projectile casing was perforated. I suppose there is some likelihood that if the cartridge propellant was present, two of these tests might have resulted in behind armor ignition or incendiary effect from the propellant igniting.

Fourteen 6-pdr solid shot AP tests were also conducted using the same sort of behind armor ordnance arrangements grenades, smoke bombs, MG clips, flares, inert 17-pdr HE shells. Two tests were conducted against inert 17-pdr HE Shells. Of the remaining 12 test shots, only one resulted in behind armor ignition or explosion of ammunition -- several rounds from a Bren gun clip activated as a result of fragment strikes. Of the two 17-pdr HE shell targets, neither produced incendiary effect or explosion. Unlike the 50mm AP-HE trials the 17-pdr projectile casing was not perforated in either case, however both cartridge cases were damaged -- so as with the 50mm AP-HE trials there is some probability the propellant -- if it had been present -- might have ignited. 

Three 88mm AP-HE tests were conducted. Each of the three was conducted against a target element that consisted of an inert 17-pdr HE shell placed behind the target armor. No incendiary effect or explosion within any of the target ordnance occured. However two of the 17-pdr cartridge cases were damaged, so there was probably some potential for ignition had the cartridge propellant been present in the 17-pdr HE Shells. 
. _


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2010)

M_kenny,

The 8.8cm APHE shots used in that test were of the early 9.2 kg PanzerGranate type which was known to have issues with this and which wasn't used by Tiger or Pak guns, something you should've known, furthermore only 3 shots were fired. The BdZ fuzes used in all later types of AP shots were competely different designs, and these functioned extremely well and reliably, as can be seen with the 5cm shots fired in those tests as they were all of the later type design; hence their 90+% ignition rate. Tiger tank crews also reported that T-34's brewed up emmidiately 9 times out of 10 after the first hit. 

So next time check what it is you're quoting m_kenny, cause the 9.2 kg PanzerGranate wasn't used by Tigers or Pak guns, only initially by 88 FlaK pieces until the PzGr.39 appeared which used an entirely different fuze. The British on the other hand never overcame the problem with the fuzes and so trashed the idea entirely.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2010)

Juha said:


> Hello Soren
> Quote:"This was a problem the British faced, not the Germans, the Germans figured out how to make fuzes that worked."
> 
> Not having data on Heer's APHE fuzes I can only say that at least KM had at least time to time problems with its fuzes. For ex of the shells fired by Prinz Eugen against Hood and PoW which hit substantial parts of target ships one detonated properly, the one which hit the boatdeck of Hood, one was dud, the one which ended into a 5.25in shell handling room of PoW, and the two which hit the after hull of PoW both exploded with only a mild/partial detonation. German A/T APHEs were good shells and it is a plus to be able to transport some HE inside an armoured box but as I and others have wrote, the main thing is to get penetration. An armoured box has the bad quality that the hot splinters of armour which a shot bring in with it have no way out, so they’ll bounce around in that confined place full of ammo, flesh and some delicate instruments until they hit something or until they are spent. So IMHO HE is good to have but penetration essential, if we leave out the big HE rounds.
> ...



The KM did have issues with their fuzes from time to time, and the so did the Heer early in the war. The first PzGr designs used by all AT guns featured the BdZ-f type fuze and in the case of the 8.8cm guns a rather large HE cavity. Despite of the greater damage caused when the filler was ignited the fuze sadly wasn't very reliable, functioning a litte over half the time. This problem was investigated and solved with the next design using, the 8.8cm recieving the greatly improved BdZ. 5127 fuze which functioned over 90% of the time.


----------



## Juha (Jan 13, 2010)

Hello dunmunro
thanks a lot for the test results info in your message #82!

Hello Soren
thanks for the fuze info!

Juha


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2010)

You're welcome. There was also a later type of the early 8.8cm PzGr. with roughly the same large filler which featured an improved fuze, weighing in at 9.5 kg. (The new fuze design nessicating abit more steel) This round was used by FlaK pieces as-well.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 13, 2010)

Soren said:


> The 9.2 kg PanzerGranate wasn't used by Tigers or Pak guns, only initially by 88 FlaK pieces until the PzGr.39 appeared which used an entirely different fuze.




When did they change over to the new ammo? 40 or 41?


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2010)

freebird said:


> When did they change over to the new ammo? 40 or 41?



First really when the 8.8cm KwK36 came to the scene in 1942, and even then the old ammunition stocks were still used by the FlaK pieces.


----------



## Freebird (Jan 13, 2010)

But the problem was only in the HE fuses, not AP?


----------



## m kenny (Jan 13, 2010)

Soren said:


> as can be seen with the 5cm shots fired in those tests as they were all of the later type design; hence their 90+% ignition rate.........................................
> 
> So next time check what it is you're quoting m_kenny,



Right. Let us compare my original statements with yours......





m kenny said:


> . I believe there was a high falure rate (10%+)



compared to:



Soren said:


> hence their 90+% ignition rate................
> Despite of the greater damage caused when the filler was ignited the fuze sadly wasn't very reliable, functioning a litte over half the time. This problem was investigated and solved with the next design using, the 8.8cm recieving the greatly improved BdZ. 5127 fuze which functioned over 90% of the time.




and:



Soren said:


> The British on the other hand never overcame the problem with the fuzes and so trashed the idea entirely.



compared to:




m kenny said:


> and the problems getting a reliable base fuze was one of the reasons the British stopped making them.



Lets look deeper:



Soren said:


> The 8.8cm APHE shots used in that test were of the early 9.2 kg PanzerGranate



There is nothing in the linked post that suggest it was this round. Note this sentence
_Two tests were conducted against inert 17-pdr HE Shells_
17pdr HE shells were not made until 1943.



Soren said:


> First really when the 8.8cm KwK36 came to the scene in 1942, and even then the old ammunition stocks were still used by the FlaK pieces.



So the claim is there were two seperate supply chains and 'older' ammo was diverted to the A/T guns?
Was there some order where we can check where this was indeed the rule?


----------



## parsifal (Jan 13, 2010)

Its certainly possible but seems unlikley. The shells would need special markings and specific regulations would need to have existed esp if the earlier round was compatible to the vehicle mounted weapons


----------



## Kurfürst (Jan 13, 2010)

Of interest to the thread, the old but pretty decent Guns vs Armor webpage:

Guns vs Armour 1939 to 1945


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2010)

m kenny said:


> There is nothing in the linked post that suggest it was this round. Note this sentence
> _Two tests were conducted against inert 17-pdr HE Shells_
> 17pdr HE shells were not made until 1943.



And so you automatically assumed it was APCBC shells fired, but it wasn't, I know of the test he speaks, the shells weighed 20.61 pounds (Not 22.5 lbs as the PzGr.39) and were of the PzGr. type. And these had frequent issues with the fuze.



> So the claim is there were two seperate supply chains and 'older' ammo was diverted to the A/T guns? Was there some order where we can check where this was indeed the rule?



What AT guns? The PzGr. already delivered were naturally used up, is there anything odd about this in your mind m_kenny? In 1941 during the invasion of Russia the FlaK 18/36's started out using PzGr's, it was not until late 41 before the PzGr.39 started being delivered en masse and the older PzGr was shifted out. In 1943 the PzGr.39/1 was introduced, this round featured higher quality steel. The next round to appear was the PzGr.39/43, meant specifically for the KwK43 Pak43 guns, featuring wider driving bands to better cope with the higher pressures which in turn increased average weight to 10.4 kg.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 13, 2010)

Soren said:


> And so you automatically assumed it was APCBC shells fired,



I made no claims as to the shell type. You are the one doing the assuming without any evidence to back your assumption.



Soren said:


> I know of the test he speaks, the shells weighed 20.61 pounds (Not 22.5 lbs as the PzGr.39) and were of the PzGr. type. And these had frequent issues with the fuze.



Can you post the data you have from WO 194/886. Date/location ect?
Do you have the original repost or if seen in a publication then the book details would help me locate it.


----------



## Soren (Jan 13, 2010)

I don't have the document, however like I said I know of it. Co-author of the book _WW2 Armor Gunnery_ Lorrin R. Bird actually wrote about it some years ago, and the shells were said to weigh 20.61 pounds, making them of the PzGr type. This also explained the results as the early PzGr's of all calibers suffered from unreliable fuzes. 

The later improved BdZ fuzed PzGr's reportedly worked extremely well, igniting more than 9 time out of 10, causing enemy tanks to explode or catch flames almost emmidiately after first penetration.


----------



## m kenny (Jan 16, 2010)

There are some interesting statements in the Tigerfibel. Contrary to the oft repeated claims for routine 3000-4000 meter 'kills' the booklet says:

_Armor-piercing shell 39: Hits tanks and loopholes to 2000 meters
Armor-piercing shell 40: Hits the heaviest tanks to 1500 meters(dispersion)

Up to 2000 meters the gun fires point blank.
Only at 3000 meters does it fire 1 out of 3 shots to the side.
At 4000 meters only every 4th shot hits (dispersion)
So always ask yourself whether firing at long range is worthile.

If your[moving] target is over 1200 meters-stop, for you would fire too much ammunition at moving targets._


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2010)

Page 76 from the Tigerfibel:






Directly translated:
_*You are at fault, not the cannon. *
Out to 2000m the 8.8cm hits its mark. First at 3000m does it miss 1 out of 3 shots. At 4000m every 4th shot hits. (Dispersion.)_

Not exactly what m kenny claims..

Page 77 from the Tigerfibel (Lessons on hitting the target, putting as minimum requirement that a target at 2700m is hit with the 3rd round by the gunner):





In short kills out to 3000 and even 4000m were very much possible, and indeed there were many incidents of this happening.


----------



## Soren (Jan 16, 2010)

Page 71 from the Tigerfibel:





Once more the correct translation is:
_*Panzergranate 39:*
Pierces tanks and defenses out to 2000m

*Panzergranate 40:*
Pierces the heaviest tanks out to 1500m. (Dispersion) First use it when the Panzergranate isn't sufficient._


----------



## m kenny (Jan 16, 2010)

Soren said:


> Once more the correct translation is:
> 
> Pierces tanks and defenses out to 2000M
> 
> Pierces the heaviest tanks out to 1500m. (Dispersion) First use it when the Panzergranate isn't sufficient.



So much clearer than my:

Armor-piercing shell 39: Hits tanks and loopholes to 2000 meters

Armor-piercing shell 40: Hits the heaviest tanks to 1500 meters(dispersion)

Oh by the way the wording I gave was not mine. It is taken directly from the Schiffer book by Spielberger. Someone should tell them how they got it so wrong.

And why are you so keen to answer me on these points but you completely ignore this request:

_Is there any reason why you can not post the images of the Tiger II's you claim have side penterations?
Why do you not post them?
If you can not post them tell me where I can find them.

I have to say I do not believe you have any such photos_

from
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww...ration-about-d25t-gun-15755-5.html#post622776


----------



## warlab_zorg (Feb 20, 2012)

I have a question, do you have info about Pak40 L46 penetration data ? Interisting data for PzGr 39 projectile. 

sorry for my bad english.


----------



## Juha (Feb 20, 2012)

Practically same as KwK 40 L/48, 

Juha


----------



## warlab_zorg (Feb 23, 2012)

Thank you, but as I know Pak40 have more powerful shell – 75x714R. KwK40 shell – 75x495R. So Pak40 gun must be more powerful against armor.


----------



## Shortround6 (Feb 23, 2012)

Not really. you Know the lengths of both cartridge cases but those figures do not give the diameter or tell you the working (chamber ) pressure. the 75x495R was 111mm over the rim while the longer 75x714R was only 100mm over the rim. case body's are slightly smaller than the rim. The longer case has about 83% of the volume of the shorter case for much of it's length. The British 77mm case (in the Comet) was only 441mm long and 102mm over the rim but operated at higher pressure.


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 23, 2012)

The MV for PzGr 39 (6,8 kg projectile) was 740 m/s for L43, 790 m/s for L48, 792 m/s for L46. 
The German choice of 5 (five) 7,5cm shell types is quite extraordinary


----------



## warlab_zorg (Feb 24, 2012)

Thanks!


----------



## dutchman (Jul 6, 2013)

As you know when they made assult guns and tank destroyers the Germans tended to "upgun" to the next level. It was a great way to get a heavier gun of a smaller chassie. Like the 75mm on the THNP chassie. Or the long 88 on the Nashorn. Did they ever try to put the "small 88" of the Tiger 1 into an assult gun or tank destroyer? This would have been as effective a tank killer as the PZKW 4's 75mm and though at 1000 meters and in the Panther would out preform it, as the distance increases the gap in the preformance narrows. Not to mention it's HE's abilities would be far better with the larger shell. 
I have never seen anything about them even attempting it, I would have thought they might have given it a look. Any thoughts???


----------

