# WW2 Tank Gun Comparison



## Soren (Nov 14, 2007)

WW2 Tank Gun comparison

I thought it would be interesting to compare the performance, potency energy of the premier high velocity tank guns of the west in WW2 in depth detail, so here we go. 

*8.8cm KwK43 L/71*

Projectile weight: 10.4 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.910
Muzzle Velocity: 1000 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 85.49 KJ

*7.5cm KwK42 L/70*

Projectile weight: 6.8 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.719
Muzzle Velocity: 936 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2979 KJ 
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 67.43 KJ 

*7.62cm 17pdr *

Projectile weight: 7.7 kg (AP)
Sectional Density: 1.886
Muzzle Velocity: 883 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3001 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65.8 KJ

*9.0cm M3 L/53*

Projectile Weight: 10.94 kg (APBC) 
Sectional Density: 1.921
Muzzle Velocity: 853 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3980 KJ 
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 62.56 KJ

*8.8cm KwK36 L/56*

Projectile weight: 10.4 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.910
Muzzle Velocity: 773 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 51.09 KJ

*7.6cm M1 L/55*

Projectile weight: 7.0 kg (APCBC) 
Sectional Density: 1.724
Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2195 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.38 KJ

*7.5cm KwK40 L/48*

Projectile weight: 6.8 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.719
Muzzle Velocity: 790 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2122 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.03 KJ


The best performers in terms of their size compared to their potency energy are clearly the 8.8cm KwK43, 7.5cm KwK42 7.62cm 17pdr, these three also feature the best penetrative performance of all the guns above which is also proportionate to their KE pr. cm^2.

Next I'll post the Aberdeen test results for each gun against 240 BHN RHA armour.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 14, 2007)

Soren said:


> WW2 Tank Gun comparison
> 
> I thought it would be interesting to compare the performance, potency energy of the premier high velocity tank guns of the west in WW2 in depth detail, so here we go.
> 
> ...



So, in order to discuss performance beyond the muzzle - what are the ballistic coeficients/retained velocity at 1000 and 2000 meters?


----------



## Soren (Nov 14, 2007)

Well the BC of APCBC, APBC, APC AP projectiles of this kind of caliber are very similar. But looking at penetrative performance over distance the German Pzgr.39 seems to hold its velocity better for any given caliber than the rest, although we're talking small amounts here.

With a starting velocity of 1,000 m/s (As in the KwK43) the 8.8cm Pzgr.39 retains its speed extremely well, the velocity being in excess of 775 m/s at 2,700m. (Thats faster than the MV of the KwK36)


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 14, 2007)

I don't know that much about the specific ballistic characteristics of the various tank guns used during WWII (but apparently you do, Soren), but I do know that I have read in several places that in the opinion of many, the best tank gun was the KwK 43 L/71 as fitted on the Jagdpanther and the Tiger II.

However, I would be curious to know what the ballistic characteristics of the 12.8cm PaK 44 L/55 as fitted to the Jagdtiger are. I know that it was the largest-calibre tank gun to be used during WWII, but I don't think it was as effective as the KwK 43 L/71; correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Soren (Nov 15, 2007)

Well the 12.8cm Kwk44 L/55 was the largest and most powerful AT gun of WW2, but it fired a two piece round where the projectile charge (Which was contained in a large brass cartridge) were loaded into the breech seperately. This meant a rather low rate of fire, and since the 8.8cm KwK43 already was capable of destroying any Allied tank past 3.5km the 12.8cm KwK44 was unnecessary large powerful, thus less effective than the 8.8cm KwK43.


----------



## Glider (Nov 15, 2007)

I would be interested in the performance of the APDS shell used in the 17pd. At the time it was quite a revolutionaly shell but I have always wondered how it stacked up against 'normal' shells.

If you could give some guidance it would be appreciated.


----------



## Civettone (Nov 15, 2007)

Well, the good thing about the 12.8 was that it held its energy better over large distances. With the arrival of the IS series, the 8.8 was insufficient over large distances. Plus, the 12.8 was better at destroying fortifications, again over large distances. As such the JagdTiger was excellent if used in the right way: for long range engagements, never close combat.

Those anyone have any background information on the German 10.5 cm tank cannon? It was to be used with the latest Tiger IIs and E-75s, perhaps also with the JagdPanther II. 
Do you think it also had two piece rounds?

Kris


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 15, 2007)

Civettone said:


> Well, the good thing about the 12.8 was that it held its energy better over large distances. With the arrival of the IS series, the 8.8 was insufficient over large distances. Plus, the 12.8 was better at destroying fortifications, again over large distances. As such the JagdTiger was excellent if used in the right way: for long range engagements, never close combat.
> 
> Those anyone have any background information on the German 10.5 cm tank cannon? It was to be used with the latest Tiger IIs and E-75s, perhaps also with the JagdPanther II.
> Do you think it also had two piece rounds?
> ...



The 10.5 le FH 18 was originally an artillery piece designed after WWI by Rheinmetall and, later, developed into an anti-aircraft piece during the early part of WWII; it fired single-piece ammunition, including high explosive, smoke, tracer, hollow-charge and incendiary. I don't know much about it's development into an anti-tank piece.


----------



## Soren (Nov 15, 2007)

> Well, the good thing about the 12.8 was that it held its energy better over large distances.



At any practical range this is completely irrelevant as the energy retention is pretty much the same for both rounds out to 3km. 



> With the arrival of the IS series, the 8.8 was insufficient over large distances.



That however is completely wrong Civettone, the IS-2 was vulnerable to the 8.8cm KwK43 even past 3.5km, the KwK43 easily penetrating any part of the IS-2's turret beyond this distance, and the lower hull was very vulnerable at this range to the KwK43 as-well. 

The performance of the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71 against 240 BHN RHA armour at the Aberdeen proving grounds was as follows:






As you can see the 8.8cm KwK43 will penetrate 153mm's of high quality armour at 3,000m with its std. AP round, this clearly means that the IS-2 (Which didn't even feature the same quality armour) couldn't feel safe at any range really.

Nashorn Tiger crews reported the complete destruction of several IS-2 tanks past 4,700m as-well as several SU-122, SU-152 SU-100 TD's .


----------



## Civettone (Nov 25, 2007)

SoD, thanks but you're talking about the howitzer artillery gun. I'm talking about a tank gun. It was suppose to be the new gun of the Tiger II and the Panther II. Yet there is little known of its penetration values as the only ones I can find are with the dubious PzGr.rot which are some sort of HEAT shells.


Soren, I tend to follow official German tests on this. At 2 km penetration was 132mm. A 12,8cm had 148mm. 
Heavier objects tend to hold their energy better. At least with similar resistance and initial muzzle velocity. Or else I don't know why the Germans pushed on with the 12.8.

Kris


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2007)

The official German figures were obtained against top quality German armour plates layed back at a 30 degree angle. The results from the tests at the Aberdeen proving grounds were obtained against 240 BHN RHA armour at a vertical impact angle and represents the penetrative capability of the KwK43 against Allied armour. 

The British tested the Pak 43 and obtained the following results against 30 degree sloped armour plates of their own very hard type (Slightly brittle though): 167mm at 1,300y, and 139mm at 2,200y.

As to why the Germans wanted to adopt the KwK44 12.8cm L/55 as soon as possible, that was purely because of its enormous anti personnel capability. As you can see the penetration performance was similar to that of the 8.8cm KwK43 which was already the most powerful gun to be put on a tank with a turret.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 25, 2007)

_"As you can see the 8.8cm KwK43 will penetrate 153mm's of high quality armour at 3,000m with its std. AP round, this clearly means that the IS-2 (Which didn't even feature the same quality armour) couldn't feel safe at any range really."_

The IS-2 wasn't safe against the Tiger or Panther, let alone the Tiger II, at above combat ranges up to 2km. I've mentioned the poor quality of IS-2 production before.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 25, 2007)

Soren said:


> WW2 Tank Gun comparison
> 
> I thought it would be interesting to compare the performance, potency energy of the premier high velocity tank guns of the west in WW2 in depth detail, so here we go.
> 
> ...



Do you also have figures for the British 25 pounder? I know it wasn't a great antitank gun, but I have read it was used because of the poor performance of the 2 pounder against the newer German tanks. Was the 25 pounder about 85 mm?


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2007)

Absolutely Freebird, I'll post it as soon as I get home.


----------



## Freebird (Nov 26, 2007)

Soren said:


> Absolutely Freebird, I'll post it as soon as I get home.



I found the listing for the 25 pounder, its 87.6mm. I think the antitank capability was not great, it was a secondary function (probably used when the 2 pounder became ineffective, before the 6 17 pounder showed up)

I wonder if they ever used any of the captured 88mm's?

I copied this from Wikepedia, so take that for what it's worth.

The 25 pounder's main ammunition was the High Explosive (HE) shell, but it could fire base ejection smoke, star and flare shells, Shell (projectile)#Chemical chemical shells, and smoke shells were sometimes reloaded with propaganda leaflets. In the direct fire role, the 25 pdr was also supplied with a limited amount of 20 pound (9 kg) solid armour piercing (AP) shot, later replaced with a more potent version with a ballistic cap. A shaped charge anti-tank shell was under development in Canada, but the introduction of the 17 Pounder dedicated anti-tank gun ended its development. After the Second World War UK replaced AP shot with a HESH shell.

Even by WWII standards, the 25 pdr was at the smaller-end of the scale although it had longer range than most other field equipments. However, it was designed to support the proven British doctrine of suppressive (neutralising) fire, not the concept of destructive fire that had proved illusory in the early years of World War 1. Most forces had entered the war with even smaller 75 mm designs, but had quickly moved to 105 mm and larger weapons. Nevertheless the 25 pdr was considered by all to be one of the best artillery pieces in use. The devastation caused by the gun (and the speed at which the British artillery control system could respond) in Normandy and the rest of North-West Europe made many German soldiers believe that the British had secretly deployed an automatic 25 pounder.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2007)

Hi guys, sorry I haven't posted the Aberdeen test results yet, been away from home abit longer than expected, when I get home this sunday I'll post them.


----------



## Soren (Dec 5, 2007)

Ok guys, here is what you've been waiting for..

The test firings done at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA revealed the following penetrative performance of the various guns (I added the 25 pdr 122mm D-25T for you guys as-well):

*88mm KwK43 L/71 88mm KwK36 L/56*





*17 pdr 25 pdr*





*90mm M3 L/52*





*75mm KwK42 L/70*





*122mm D-25T L/46*






PS: The reason I'm posting excerpts and not entire pages are for copyright reasons; If you want the performance specs on all the guns then buy the book, its worth every penny!

Enjoy!


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 24, 2008)

1)Tank gun 75mm-76.2mm

UK 7.62cm 17pdr L/56
Projectile weight: 7.71kg (AP)
Sectional Density: 1.886
Muzzle Velocity: 883 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3006 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65.94KJ

German 7.5cm KwK42 L/70
Projectile weight: 6.8 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.719
Muzzle Velocity: 925 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2909 KJ 
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65.88 KJ 

USA 7.6cm M1 L/55

Projectile weight: 7.0 kg (APCBC) 
Sectional Density: 1.724
Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2195 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.38 KJ


2)Standard AA/tank gun 85mm-90mm

USA 9.0cm M3 L/53 
Projectile Weight: 10.94 kg (APBC) 
Sectional Density: 1.921
Muzzle Velocity: 853 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3980 KJ 
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 62.56 KJ

UK 9.4cm QF3.7 L/50
Projectile Weight: 12.7 kg (APCBC) 
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3983 KJ 
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 57.42 KJ

German 8.8cm KwK36 L/56
Projectile weight: 10.4 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.910
Muzzle Velocity: 773 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 51.09 KJ

USSR 8.5cm 52-K L/55
Projectile weight: 9.2 kg (APBC)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 2885 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 50.88 KJ


3) Lengthened AA gun 85mm-90mm

German 8.8cm KwK43 L/71
Projectile weight: 10.4 kg (APCBC)
Sectional Density: 1.910
Muzzle Velocity: 1000 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 85.49 KJ

USA 9cm T15E2 L/70 (WWII seperated ammo, post war fixed ammo)
Projectile weight: 10.94 kg (APBC-T)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 975 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 81.78 KJ

USSR 8.5cm D-5S-85BM L/70?
Projectile weight: 9.2 kg (APBC)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 950 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 4151 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 73.19 KJ
(Some recources say 1000-1100m/s muzzle of long 85mm)
----------------------------------------------

4) 100-105mm Tank/AA gun 


USA 10.5cm T5E1
Projectile weight: 17.69kg (AP)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 928m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 7187 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 83.04KJ

USSR 10cm D10T L/54
Projectile weight: 15.6 kg (AP)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 900m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 6318 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 80.48 KJ


German 10.5cm Flak 38-39 
Projectile weight: 15.56kg (AP)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 880m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 6025 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 69.62KJ


5) Heavy AA/tank gun 120mm-130mm

USSR 13cm S-26 
Projectile weight: 33kg (AP)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 900m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 13365 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 100.74KJ

USA 12cm M1/T53 L/60
Projectile weight: 22.7kg (AP)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 945m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 10136 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 89.67KJ

German 12.8cm Kwk44 L/55
Projectile weight: 28.3kg (AP)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 845m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 10103 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 78.55KJaa

USSR 12.2cm D25T L/43
Projectile weight: 25kg (AP)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 781m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 7625 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65.26KJ

6) Super heavy AA/assault gun 150mm-152mm

Japan 15cm AA gun
Projectile weight: 50kg (AP)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 930m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 21623 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 122.42KJ 

USSR 15.2cm ML-20
Projectile weight: 48.8kg (AP)
Sectional Density: ***
Muzzle Velocity: 600m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 8784 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.43KJ

------------------------------
The most dreadful tank/assault gun is USSR 130mm S26 on ISU130 in 1945, but never serviced(not necessary?).


For German E50/E75 tanks, possible gun is 88mmL/100, 128mmL55, 105mmL?.

German 128mmL55 is inferior to USSR 130mm S26 and USA 120mm T53 while the latter are probably equipped on allied vehicles if WWII continues.

German 105mm Flak39 is inferior to USA 105mm T5E1 or USSR 100mm D10T.

German 88mmL100 is just a tale..............


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2008)

You know I have to ask, are you Schwarzpanzer mr. Tempest ??

As for your gun comparison, there are so many inaccuracies in it that it can't be used at all. For one the German 128mm L/55 KwK/PaK44 fired a *28.3 kg* APCBC projectile at 845 m/s, making it superior to all other AT guns fielded during the war. Next is the 10.5cm regular solid AP projectile, it weighes 15.56 kg. 

Besides this the Germans were working on a 155mm AT gun even more powerful than the 128mm PaK44, to be used on the E-100 design which was near completion during the end of the war.


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> You know I have to ask, are you Schwarzpanzer mr. Tempest ??
> 
> As for your gun comparison, there are so many inaccuracies in it that it can't be used at all. For one the German 128mm L/55 KwK/PaK44 fired a *28.3 kg* APCBC projectile at 845 m/s, making it superior to all other AT guns fielded during the war. Next is the 10.5cm regular solid AP projectile, it weighes 15.56 kg.
> 
> Besides this the Germans were working on a 155mm AT gun even more powerful than the 128mm PaK44, to be used on the E-100 design which was near completion during the end of the war.




You are right, I'll amend my calc. Could you give me some information about German 155mmAT? 


USA 155mm T7 tank gun, 700m/s ,43kg HE shell, fire rate 2/min with 2 loader....




> For one the German 128mm L/55 KwK/PaK44 fired a *28.3 kg* APCBC projectile at 845 m/s, making it superior to all other AT guns fielded during the war.



hmmm......In WWII, USA 120mm M1 AAgun or T53 tank gun is more powerful than 128mm kwk44, but they are in north america, not in Europe.

120 mm M1 gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even in Europe, there is USSR 130mm S26 experimental assault gun which is even more powerful than USA T53 tank gun.


----------



## Soren (Nov 25, 2008)

There isn't much data on the 150mm KwK44 or the 170mm version also considered, but the MV would be over 920 m/s. But since the reload rate would be extremely slow with either of these guns, the 128mm L/55 L/60 already in service which were more powerful than ever needed were prefered to be he main armament of the design.

By the end of the war the first full prototype of the E-100 was nearly ready, a month or two away from entering trials. The Allies found the complete hull chassis, tracks etc etc of the prototype: 















When completed the prototype would've looked as such (With thick armored skirts):













A version with a MAUS turret and either the 150mm or 170mm KwK44 was also suggested:


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 25, 2008)

Great pictures. I believe german can build 150mm AT gun like Japanese. Japan 150mm AA gun is 9 meters long.....

BTW, E100 need 1000HP+ engine, such as aero piston engine. In WWII, it is possible to incoperate aero engine, e.g Merlin and ailison V1710 and german 1000+HP ,but the cost is high even USA can't afford it unless they all switch to jet plane.

In 1945 US heavy T34 is also a monster, powerful T53 120mm gun,very thick armor, E100's opponent....


----------



## Soren (Nov 26, 2008)

The problem with the T29, T30 T34 US heavies was that they were extremely heavy and didn't use an especially powerful engine, plus the sides rear of the hull were extremely poorly armoured at ~50mm. Furthermore it must be remembered that these tanks wouldn't have stood ready before sometime in 1947, two years after the end of the war, where'as the E-100 would've been ready in mid 45.


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 26, 2008)

German powerful engine is just a tale. E100 = mobile battery.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> The problem with the T29, T30 T34 US heavies was that they were extremely heavy and didn't use an especially powerful engine.




Correct me if I am wrong but:

*E-100:* 
140 Tons
700hp V-12 Maybach HL230 (It was however proposed to usa 1200hp HL234)

*T-29:* 
60 Tons 
650hp Engine Ford GAC four cycle 60 degree V12

*T-30:*
65 Tons
704hp Continental AV1790-3 

*T-34:*
Was just a converted T-29 and a converted T-30

Therefore how was the weight and power a problem with the T-29, T-30 and T-34, but not a problem with the E-100?

I will admit, I do not know much about tanks, but logic tells me the E-100 was plauged by these problems more.


----------



## TempestMKV (Nov 27, 2008)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but:
> 
> *E-100:*
> 140 Tons
> ...




yes,
1) Even with 1200HP, E100 is still lack of power.

2) Post war tanks hadn't got 1200HP engine until 1970s. Postwar Panzer I in 1965 was of only 830 HP. 

3)There is technically possible to employ aero engine(over 1000HP) on tanks in WWII, but allied aero piston engine was as good as axis, btw, aero engine is quite expensive.

4) 700 HP HL230 engine was "overclocking", very bad reliability.


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2008)

That is incorrect Tempest, the HL230 ran very reliably at 700 HP.


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2008)

As for the E-100 production version, it featured the HL 234 engine which from std. had an output of 800 HP, but it was boosted to over 1,200 HP. The production version was to have the HL 234 engine, only the prototype was to be using the HL 230. 

And as for the US T-34, it weighed 71.8 tons and it was very poorly armoured on the sides. Plus there were serious problems with the transmission and reliability of the tank in general, the Allies simply not having enough experience with such heavy tank designs. But these are really moot facts to point out when these designs would'nt have stood ready for service before 1947, a full 2 years after the E-100.


----------



## Soren (Nov 27, 2008)

TempestMKV said:


> German powerful engine is just a tale. E100 = mobile battery.



And what do you base that on ?


----------



## Glider (Nov 28, 2008)

I think the nearest the UK got to this was the Tortoise Assult Gun which went into production and like the Centurion just missed the war.


----------



## Soren (Nov 28, 2008)

Yup that's correct. Luckily for the German tankers the Centurion didn't make it into service before the end of the war, cause unlike all the other Allied heavy tank designs the Centurion was actually a good design. Had the Centurion made it into WW2 it would've proven a menace for most German tanks, packing a truly awesome punch, comparable to that of the Panther, while being very well armoured.


----------



## Juha (Nov 28, 2008)

Soren
judging from photos which shows a hull without engine or turret in May 45, at best E-100 proto would have been ready by mid 45, but when E-100 would have been ready for production? Nobody knows.

Juha


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 29, 2008)

Soren said:


> As for the E-100 production version, it featured the HL 234 engine which from std. had an output of 800 HP, but it was boosted to over 1,200 HP. The production version was to have the HL 234 engine, only the prototype was to be using the HL 230.
> 
> And as for the US T-34, it weighed 71.8 tons and it was very poorly armoured on the sides. Plus there were serious problems with the transmission and reliability of the tank in general, the Allies simply not having enough experience with such heavy tank designs. But these are really moot facts to point out when these designs would'nt have stood ready for service before 1947, a full 2 years after the E-100.



Based off what you are telling me, the E-100 was still way underpowerd. More so than the T-29, T-30 and T-34.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 29, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> judging from photos which shows a hull without engine or turret in May 45, at best E-100 proto would have been ready by mid 45, but when E-100 would have been ready for production? Nobody knows.
> 
> Juha



The E-100 was originally designed to mount the same 55-ton turret as the _Maus_ (to put this in perspective, the turret for the Maus _alone_ weighed almost as much as a battle-weight _Tiger I_), with the 12.8 cm KwK 44 L/36.5 cannon. The E-100 was only one in a whole series of so-called E-series tanks designed at the end of the War, with the E-100 being the largest (and most powerfully armed) design; the tracks for the E-100 were 100 cm wide, or almost 40 inches across! The original engine was the standard Maybach HL 230 P30 but, as Soren said, it was planned to install a 1,200 HP Maybach HL 230 with supercharging and fuel injection in the production version. However, even with the increase in horsepower, this still meant a power-to-weight ratio of 8.5 HP/ton (lower than all of the other German "heavies": the _Panther_ had a PTW ratio of 15.6 HP/ton, the _Tiger I_ had a PTW ratio of 12.3, and the _Tiger II_ had a PTW ratio of 10.1).


----------



## Soren (Nov 29, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> judging from photos which shows a hull without engine or turret in May 45, at best E-100 proto would have been ready by mid 45, but when E-100 would have been ready for production? Nobody knows.
> 
> Juha



Seeing how quickly the Germans were fielding new designs I believe that the production version would've started service in late August or September.


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2008)

I would be very suprised. From an incomplete, untested prototype to production of something this huge in three months, not a chance.

The Tiger II took much longer than that and had a suspension based on the Elefant.


----------



## Juha (Nov 30, 2008)

Soren
IIRC first Panther proto was ready in Sept 42, first combat deployment was Aug 43 and it was clearly mechanically unreliable at that time at the level being occasionally capable self-destruction. And Germans had problems with final drives in much lighter and much less powerful tanks than E-100 still in 45.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Nov 30, 2008)

Soren, I just figured I would put it another way. This is probably not the best way to compare, but it sort of shows my point. Again I am not a big tank guy, so this discussion is very interesting me. I am learning some good stuff from everyone.

E-100: 8.5hp per ton.

T-29: 10.8hp per ton.

T-30: 10.8hp per ton.

T-34: 9.8hp per ton.

So again Soren, how is the E-100 not plagued by the same problem as the T-29, T-30 and T-34? In my opinion it is plagued even more.

The Germans made great tanks, but the E-100 was overkill, not needed, too heavy and probably too slow and unmaneuverable.


----------



## Glider (Nov 30, 2008)

Looking at these numbers I am tempted to believe that the ground pressure is at least as important. The T34 was no slouch in its performance but if you just went on these figures you would think that it had a terrible performance.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

Adler,

The problem with the T-29, 30 34 is that it is the first true heavy tank that the US designed, and the reliability was worse than that of any German heavy tank, the transmission esp. being completely unsuited for the task and exhibiting extremely bad reliability.

The E-100 featured wider tracks than US T-protos, a new transmission optimized for a vehicle its weight and a much higher HP torque engine. And the problems the Tiger was plagued with were likely not going to be shared by the E-100 as it actually used a gearbox suitable for its' weight.


----------



## Soren (Nov 30, 2008)

Glider said:


> Looking at these numbers I am tempted to believe that the ground pressure is at least as important. The T34 was no slouch in its performance but if you just went on these figures you would think that it had a terrible performance.



Glider remember it's the US T34 heavy prototype tank we're talking about, not the Soviet T-34


----------



## Glider (Dec 1, 2008)

Whoops


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 1, 2008)

Very interesting stuff guys and like Adler, Im no tank guy....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Adler,
> 
> The problem with the T-29, 30 34 is that it is the first true heavy tank that the US designed, and the reliability was worse than that of any German heavy tank, the transmission esp. being completely unsuited for the task and exhibiting extremely bad reliability.



How can you say that, when compared to the E-100? You can not. That is nothing but speculation on your part. The E-100 was never completely built. So to say that the E-100 would have been better than teh T-29, T-30 or T-34 is a very false statement on your part.

Think about it. You are doing nothing but speculation here...


----------



## m kenny (Dec 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> By the end of the war the first full prototype of the E-100 was nearly ready, a month or two away from entering trials. The Allies found the complete hull chassis, tracks etc etc of the prototype:



The SINGLE E-100 prototype was far from being complete. To claim it would be in service anytime in 1945 is a complete stretch. Production plans for the Maus had been shelved by October 1943 and apart from 2 protypes and partialy assembled/cut hulls the whole of the armour plate set aside for it was turned over to Stug production. The 5 hulls that had been partialy assembled/started are what we keep seeing in photos.
The E-100 was the Krupp design for the Maus contract. When their model was rejected in favour of the Porsche Maus the design was resubmitted for the E series development.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

ADLER!!!!

If I remember correctly, and I am very sure of myself of this one, the T-34 had a 500 hp diesel engine and the early versions weighed 29 tons, while the later versions with the 85 mm gun weighed 35 tons or less. That comes to between 17 h.p. to 14 h.p. per ton, WAY above the 9.8 figure you quoted...

I was a Tank fan even before I was interested in birds, and I know that 10 hp per ton is the lowest practical limit for a battlefield use tank - at that low power you either limit them to 5 mph tops or you will get them breaking down left and right.

The t-34 gained its near legendary reputation on the battlefield as much for its reliability (especially models built after 1942) as for its sloping armour and its gunpower. And that reliability came largely from its high (for a tank) power to weight ratio.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

OOOOPS sorry Adler....I just now noticed that you were talking about the *UNITED STATES* T-34....

Why did the dingdongs call it the T-34 when they knew perfectly well that the russkies had a tank with the same designation!!!!


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

Why has no one included the technological marvel of german tank guns of WWII, the 75/55. which the germans were forced to shelve only because they did not have access to the kind of Tungsten in the quantities needed to build this truly wonder weapon? Light enough to be put into even a Panzer III hull, it could punch through armour at a level comparable to the L/70 75 mm gun of the Panther that weighed twice as much!


----------



## lesofprimus (Dec 7, 2008)

Because it wasnt used in a combat situation??? Theoretical and "it coulda been" really dont amount to much here...


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 7, 2008)

Yep, but it could have been - BY THE ALLIES - they had access to a kazillion tons of tungsten in WW II...if they had the brains to think of it as well!!!


----------



## TempestMKV (Dec 8, 2008)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Yep, but it could have been - BY THE ALLIES - they had access to a kazillion tons of tungsten in WW II...if they had the brains to think of it as well!!!



US 76mm tungsten APCR was not many, mainly supplied for tank destroyers, but some M4A3 crew bought some APCR shells privately.

From 1944, Every T34-85 had 4 tungsten APCR shells, and every Su85/m/100 had 8 shells.

Allied have brain.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 10, 2008)

Sorry Tempest...perhaps I wasn't quite clear. I meant tungsten shells COMBINED with the 'squeezebore' technology that required them. 

Modern tank guns don't use the squeezebore because APDS and later APFSDS technology developed, but that technology was not mature enough yet in WW II, although many attempts in that direction were made. 

Squeezebore was, by contrast, a workable and mature technology. The only problem was that it needed lots of tungsten...and that was what the germans didn't have.


----------



## Juha (Dec 10, 2008)

Hello BB
British used 'squeezebore' technology during WWII. Its armour cars could be and were equipped with LittleJohn adapters, which when fitted made 2pdr a 'squeezebore' gun. In NW Europe usually half of a/cs had the adapter fitted half didn’t, the latter had so HE capacity.

And British used APDS, there were some “collar” separation problems which caused sometimes accuracy problems but the ammo was in use.

Juha


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 10, 2008)

Are you quite sure that we are talking about the same thing, friend Juha? By squeezebore I meant the technology that has a barrel that is wide at the base and narrows down near the barrel tip (eg the German 75/55) and which absolutely must have a FLANGED tungsten shell to work.

As for APDS, it was precisely those seperation problems that made this technology immature for ALL SIDES (it was a belgian invention, the Germans experimented with it too) during WW II.


----------



## Juha (Dec 10, 2008)

Yes
I cannot remember to how small 40mm 2pdr shot was squeezed, say to 30mm. 

And for APDS, British solved the promlems to the extend that it was videly distributed to the troops, first for 6 pdr, say in July 44 and then to 17 pdr in Aug 44. But IIRC the separation problems very completely solved by Canadians in 50s.

Juha


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Dec 10, 2008)

Thanks for that post, Juha. I will go check on those facts now...

Rgds, BB


----------



## Glider (Dec 11, 2008)

Juha said:


> Yes
> I cannot remember to how small 40mm 2pdr shot was squeezed, say to 30mm.
> 
> And for APDS, British solved the promlems to the extend that it was videly distributed to the troops, first for 6 pdr, say in July 44 and then to 17 pdr in Aug 44. But IIRC the separation problems very completely solved by Canadians in 50s.
> ...



I can support this statement. The Littlejohn adapter squeezed the 40mm shell down to approx 30mm increasing the MV by about 50% giving a penetration of 88mm at 450 yards. Thats enough to be a major threat to the side armour of most of the German tanks in service.

Clearly an A/C would run if faced with a MBT thats what they were designed to do, but there is no doubt that the technology of a sqeezebore was in use.


----------



## Soren (Dec 13, 2008)

The problem with the APDS rounds was the high inaccuracy and the very brittle penetrator. The 17 pdr APDS projectiles were known to fail to penetrate the glacis plate of the Tiger Ausf.E at close ranges, the projectile shattering on impact. Not so good.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

I know that there were some problems with some quality control issues of the manufacturing of the ammunition. That said they were known to work and destroy a number of the larger German tanks.
This sort of thing wasn't uncommon and if I remember correctly there was a fair difference in the quality of German armour plate. In mass production in a war situation these things do sometimes happen.

Am I right in saying that one of the first Tiger I tanks was knocked out by a 6pd?


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

Well the thing is it had nothing to do with quality issues, the design of the APDS round just wasn't very good and the accuracy suffered badly. Finally the penetrator was way too brittle, and this caused a lot of trouble against tanks such as the Tiger. 

As for a Tiger being knocked out by 6 pdrs, well I've heard about that, from flanking shots at point blank range. I believe one was taken out this way in Tunisia.


----------



## Juha (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren
You know the report of the US 12 Army Group test at Isigny so you know also this section of the report:

"(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."

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren
Can you support your comment re the 17pd. I admit that I had heard that it wasn't as accurate as the US 76mm which was by common consent one of the most accurate of the allied tank guns. However that doesn't mean that the gun was a bad as you imply.

I have found the following %age chances of a hit at different ranges of British Anti Tank Guns and the 17pd may not be as good as the best, but its pretty good.

Table 2 - Chance of Hitting a Vertical 6ft × 6 ft Target 
Gun 1000 yds	2000 yds 5000 yds
2-pdr 90%	40% 1%
6-pdr 96%	55% 3%
17-pdr 98%	80% 15%
25-pdr 80%	45% 7%

I have not been able to find anything to support your statement that the 17pd APDS was a poor design and would appreciate any information to support your view, plus of course your comment on the accuracy. 
I wouldn't be that suprised if there had been some problems with early 6pd APDS ammo as the design was new but would have expected it to have been addressed by the time the 17pd came on stream.

If it helps the data for the above table was on the followng site.
ANTI-TANK


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

Sorry folks, I thought that I had sorted the spacing out but it went wrong.


----------



## Juha (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren
British instructions were to use in 17pdr APCBC at shorter ranges, because it was perfectly capable to penetrate the armour of Tiger I at short and medium ranges, APDS was to be used only at longer ranges when there was doubt of the pnetrative ability of APCBC. It would have been absurd to use APDS, which was a special ammo if APCBC, ie standard ammo, was enough. and after all if both were capable to penetrate APCBC was more lethal.

Juha


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 14, 2008)

AFAIK the 17pdr APDS round had issues with accuracy beyond ca 500 yards indeed. There wasn't much point of firing it any further, given that it would give away position and yield uncertain results.

The Tunisia Tiger wasn't really 'knocked out' by the 6 pdr, they got a lucky shot at the bottom of the gun, which slipped off and hit the joint where the turret and the hull meet, and jammed to turret. The crew perhaps panicked, or realized there is not much they can do for the moment with their turret jammed, bailed out, and there was no possibility to blow the tank.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> AFAIK the 17pdr APDS round had issues with accuracy beyond ca 500 yards indeed. There wasn't much point of firing it any further, given that it would give away position and yield uncertain results.



You certainly could be right Kurfurst ,but the site I mentioned would seem to disagree with you, as would the firing test that Juha mentioned.

Have you any supporting evidence for your comment as I would like to get to the bottom of this if possible.

Thanks


----------



## Juha (Dec 14, 2008)

Hello Kurfürst
If one was dueling or for some other reason tried to knock out Panther from front sector from 750m with 17pdr IMHO it was best to use APDS, hit probablity lower but if hit there were good change to penetration, with APCBC IMHO only a narrow strip of the middle of mantlet or the small areas of turret front visible or the nose plate (meaning the lower hull) were penetrable, maybe also glassic if it happened to be very poor quality.

Against Tiger I, APCBC because it was more accurate and more lethal and well able to penetrate.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Dec 14, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> AFAIK the 17pdr APDS round had issues with accuracy beyond ca 500 yards indeed. There wasn't much point of firing it any further, given that it would give away position and yield uncertain results.



And yet many Unit accounts tell of first shot hits at 1000/2000 yds.
Clearly there was an issue with the trials ammo but it seems in the field a good gunner could get results. It seems the problems with one type of shot is used as a yardstick for the guns overall performance. Wittmann's group were at around 800-1000 yds when they got hit (lucky shot x 3?) the gunner had never fired a shot in anger before and was far from an expert.
Using the theoretical tables for such ranges he had at best a 45-57% chance of a hit. He fired 2 rounds at the Tiger he selected and both hit. He then backed away whilst being fired at by another Tiger ( 3 shots and they all missed). Later he engaged the second Tiger- one round, one hit. I have no information for the third Tiger he hit.


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

And who says that Wittmann's Tiger wasn't hit by an APCBC projectile ???

Also I'd certainly like to see the reports which claim first shot hits at 2000y with the APDS round, heck I'd like to see the 1000y claims as-well.


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

Glider,

The British APDS round had issues with accuracy because of its design, IIRC the sabot or shoe was at fault. After having been fired the sabot didn't seperate properly, transferring instability to the penetrator.


----------



## Juha (Dec 14, 2008)

Hello m_kenny
I agree with Soren in that that I haven't see info that Elkin? (Gordon's gunner)used APDS, it was early August, was there APDSs in use in that time in Normandy? Troops got first patches of it in Aug. And anyway APCBC or APC, IMHO against vertical armour of Tiger IMHO there wasn't much difference in penetration ability of those two, were both capable to penetrate Tiger's side armour at 800m. Elgin got the 3rd Tiger with one shot, it also burnt, all crew KIA.

Juha


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> Glider,
> 
> The British APDS round had issues with accuracy because of its design, IIRC the sabot or shoe was at fault. After having been fired the sabot didn't seperate properly, transferring instability to the penetrator.



I understand what you are saying. All I am asking is something to support it. I gave you the link to the site where I got my information and the %age hit chance was pretty good. It amy not equal the best but that doesn't make it useless. The site may be wrong but it seems to go into great detail and seems to be better than most.

Have you got a site or book reference to support your position?


----------



## m kenny (Dec 14, 2008)

The claims were that the 17pdr was only able to hit a target at 800 yds 57% of the time using APC. If this were the norm the Ekins must have been well above average (which he was not) because he achieved 100% with at least 3shots.
The point is APC/APDS ot not this battlefield performance was much better that claimed by the theoretical tables. It is not often that reality intrudes on the blizzard of penetration tables that abound on the web.
Personaly I see no real point in consulting such data when the battlefields were full of wrecks that were the results of actual combat. Why play with 'could be' data when you can see the 'what happened' reality.


----------



## Glider (Dec 14, 2008)

m kenny said:


> The claims were that the 17pdr was only able to hit a target at 800 yds 57% of the time using APC. If this were the norm the Ekins must have been well above average (which he was not) because he achieved 100% with at least 3shots.
> The point is APC/APDS ot not this battlefield performance was much better that claimed by the theoretical tables. It is not often that reality intrudes on the blizzard of penetration tables that abound on the web.
> Personaly I see no real point in consulting such data when the battlefields were full of wrecks that were the results of actual combat. Why play with 'could be' data when you can see the 'what happened' reality.



Good point


----------



## Kurfürst (Dec 14, 2008)

m kenny said:


> The claims were that the 17pdr was only able to hit a target at 800 yds 57% of the time using APC.



Nope, the issue raised was that the APDS round issued for the 17 pdr gun had dispersion issues which limited its usefullness above 500 yards or so considerably. There was nothing wrong with the 17 pdr full caliber AP rounds AFAIK.



m kenny said:


> If this were the norm the Ekins must have been well above average (which he was not) because he achieved 100% with at least 3shots. The point is APC/APDS ot not this battlefield performance was much better that claimed by the theoretical tables.



And this conclusion is drawn by a sample of _three_ shots made with an unknown type of ammo... Similiarly, 'many unit accounts' and 'full of wrecks' is hard to quantify.

Tigers sometimes achieved hits and kills at 4000+ meters with the 8,8, but that doesn't prove it was _the norm_. 

Regarding the Tiger and frontal shots, in hull down position or turret hits the APDS's penetration surely come in handly, given the extreme protection offered by Tiger I mantlet+turret front vs. the single 100 mm plate on the hull.


----------



## Juha (Dec 14, 2008)

Hello Kurfürst
re my message #61, according to the 1st Army test at Balleroy, 17pdr APDS wasn't hopelessly inaccurate against a target 700y away.

Juha


----------



## m kenny (Dec 14, 2008)

Kurfürst said:


> Nope, the issue raised was that the APDS round issued for the 17 pdr gun had dispersion issues which limited its usefullness above 500 yards or so considerably. There was nothing wrong with the 17 pdr full caliber AP rounds AFAIK.



The trials carried out with 2 Firefly tanks in mid 1944 (WO165/135 Sept 1944)are the one most widely used to disparage the 17pdr gun. They say that APC has a 57.3% chance of a hit at 800yds (731mtrs) However there were issues raised that the batch of Guns used was sub-standard.





> And this conclusion is drawn by a sample of _three_ shots made with an unknown type of ammo... Similiarly, 'many unit accounts' and 'full of wrecks' is hard to quantify.



I just picked on the most famous (and thus all the parameters are known and can not be argued) example where a green gunner in his first action scored 100% with all his shots at at least 800yds. This is at odds with the performance graph mentioned above.
I have read a good number of British Unit accounts from 1944 and can tell you that references are made to Firefly hits at extreme ranges. I am not saying it is normal or that it was an everyday happening. It did happen and I remember thinking (as I read them) how this conflicted with the much publicised WO 165/135.


----------



## Juha (Dec 14, 2008)

Hello m_kenny
one slightly off topic question.
HEAT round of 95mm howitzer is usually credited with 110mm at 30deg penetration ability but Keith Jones in his IMHO excellent “64 days of a Normandy Summer” claims that when he became 2nd-in-C of his sqn and got a CS Cromwell to command he was defenceless against panzers with only HE and smoke ammo even if IIRC normal load of CS Cromwell incl 10% of HEAT rounds. Now both Jones and his gunner had no previous experience with 95mm. So my question, have you ever seen mentioned a pz kill by CS Cromwell? After all the given 110 mm at 30deg penetration ability of 95mm was the best the all Cromwell equipped reconnaissance regiments of Armoured Divs had in Normandy. It should have been enough even against Tiger I if one got a hit with the low MV howitzer.

TIA
Juha


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

I'm still waiting to see these claimed reports of green gunners hitting with 100% accuracy at 800m, and multiple first time hits with APDS rounds at 1000 2000 y....

Now as for the accuracy of the 17 pdr itself, I wouldn't assume it to be any worse or any better than any other similar gun of the war. The accuracy problem occured when using the APDS ammunition. The APCBC ammunition was by far the deadliest round available for the 17 pdr, and it was very accurate.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> I'm still waiting to see these claimed reports of green gunners hitting with 100% accuracy at 800m,



Joe Ekins, 8/8/44 at Cintheaux. See any book on Michael Wittmann.


----------



## Soren (Dec 14, 2008)

You so smartly ignored the second request. And as for Wittmanns Tiger, again, hit by APCBC round.


----------



## m kenny (Dec 14, 2008)

Juha said:


> Hello m_kenny
> one slightly off topic question................



I can't think of an example I have read. I think it would have stood out and caught my attention.
Jones was lucky in that the first time he went into action against reported Tigers he managed to stall his tank in a ditch near Vire.
He did mention (page 146) that the '95mm gun had no AP for Tigers'


----------



## m kenny (Dec 14, 2008)

Soren said:


> You so smartly ignored the second request. And as for Wittmanns Tiger, again, hit by APCBC round.



But then, as I explained earlier, I never said that it was using APCBC. The second request is redundant.
Ekins, a green gunner in his first action, had a 100% hit rate.


----------



## Glider (Dec 15, 2008)

Soren
You are the one banging on about the lack of accuracy of the 17pd *and *the breaking up of the APDS shell *and *the poor design of the APDS shell.

But you are the only one who hasn't provided any sources. Quoted is the web site to which I gave a link that gave the hit chances of the 17pd. Also quoted have been the firing trials, as well as live combat experiece.

So all we ask, is what are your sources. Otherwise your statements are built on quicksand


----------



## Juha (Dec 15, 2008)

Thanks a lot, m kenny. 
Yes, the ditching near Vire was a result of ”good” co-operation between Jones and his driver.
He also reveals on page 141 how untrained he and his gunner were with 95mm when giving indirect fire support to forward troops while closed down because airbursts turret became filled with smoke and cordite fumes until the operator remembered that the tank was fitted with a small extractor fan. When Jones switched it on situation became better.

Juha


----------



## Soren (May 12, 2009)

Glider said:


> Soren
> You are the one banging on about the lack of accuracy of the 17pd *and *the breaking up of the APDS shell *and *the poor design of the APDS shell.
> 
> But you are the only one who hasn't provided any sources. Quoted is the web site to which I gave a link that gave the hit chances of the 17pd. Also quoted have been the firing trials, as well as live combat experiece.
> ...



Glider,

My sources are the US test reports I've linked before, as-well as actual battlefield reports complaining about the APDS round. Fact of the matter is that all Sabot like projectiles of the era were less accurate than the std. AP projectiles. 

Also I never claimed the 17 pdr to be an inaccurate gun, so why is it you keep saying or shall I say "bang on" with this ? I really can't understand that. I think I made it pretty clear that the 17 pdr gun itself was a very accurate gun.


----------

