Alternative light and anti-tank guns, 1935-45 (3 Viewers)

Maybe not the answer for anti-tank artillery, but back in '36 someone had the idea of taking over the anti-tank part of the panzerwaffe with half-tracks armed with a relatively short 75mm L40.8 gun. The idea did not go through, the cannon was not further developed. At the end, it was only in 1941 that two copies of the Pz.Sfl. II finished in North Africa. The gun itself wasn't too impressive (for 1941) but in 1938/40 it would have been a significant improvement over the Pak 36. And it might have been small enough to cram into a PZ III or convert into an AT gun variant. In any case, it would make confusion in the classification / doctrine between PZ III / PZ IV because it would be a stronger AT than the 3.7 cm KwK 36 and more destructive than the short 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24. If that gun had been adopted early enough and had proven successful, the question is whether they would make two (medium) tanks at all, and what the battles during Barbarros (or in N. Africa) would have looked like.

Zmauky said:

Maybe not the answer for anti-tank artillery, but back in '36 someone had the idea of taking over the anti-tank part of the panzerwaffe with half-tracks armed with a relatively short 75mm L40.8 gun.

Click to expand...

I'd say that the L40.8 gun would've been just fine for the AT gun role for the 1st 30 months of the ww2. Sorta equivalent of the Soviet 76 mm guns made in tens of thousands, or the French/US/Polish 75mm gun that were made in many thousands.
Also very suitable for arming the tanks and Stugs.

The 75 mm Modèle 1897 guns modified with a lowered mount used by the 1st Free French Brigade at Bir Hakeim were peculiarly efficient against the German and Italian tanks.




Photo (C) Paris - Musée de l'Armée, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / image musée de l'Armée

z42 said:

Given the shortage of tungsten, was there any consideration of using steel penetrators in APCR style shells? Something like that could have provided better penetration than the "standard" APCBC?

Click to expand...

Yes, the Brandt steel-core APCR, with the French also testing steel-cored rounds for APDS and squeezebore rounds due to tungsten not being well-known yet and being rarer and more expensive. Tungsten was deemed promising however.

The British studied steel-cored APDS in the 1950s. In general, this was better than full bore APCBC (almost not advantages at high angles, but better penetration at low ones and a longer point blank range owing to the higher velocity) while still being worse than tungsten cores.

Shortround6 said:

The French were fooling around with a discarding sabot round in the very late 30s and may have put some into service in 1940 but this was to improve their somewhat low velocity 37mm ( or 47mm?) tank guns and may not have needed Tungsten.

Click to expand...

It was in service, the mle.1935 and 1937 steel-core APCR were selected since 1935 (along with new HE pending some testing with the fuzes). In fact, a letter from early 1935 noted that the short 37mm had been intended to be removed from service, and as a result the stocks of old AP and HE were rather depleted. When it was decided to keep it in service longer, it had been urged to refill the stocks with Brandt APCR and HE. I have never been able to have full numbers for stocks but this projectile is explicitly mentioned in accounts of the Battle of France. In fact, it was mentioned in reports that 37mm ammo was solid shot, which the obsolete mle 92-24 APHE wasn't. In period accounts of the battle, the Brandt projectile is often mentioned, along with the fact that it could still penetrate the 30mm of german tanks at short ranges and could be effective in spite of the gun's extreme weakness. The issue was that standard loadouts called for a very high proportion of HE. Throughout the battle, the proportion of APCR increased 30 and eventually 60%. What was not in service yet was the 37/25 APDS, of which 200 thousand had been ordered.

tomo pauk said:

Another way of saying that Soviets went for quantity as the priority no.1.

Click to expand...

I don't see any logical connection. ZIS-3 is a rare example when both quality and quantity were not in contradiction. ZiS-3 was extremely technological, but not at the expense of performance, it was a minimal compromise.

tomo pauk said:

Ah, yes.
Post the pic of the museum piece, taken decades after the fact, and pretend that it proves your point.

Click to expand...

What exactly are the claims to this photo? The story of this gun can be requested from the museum staff. And it is not the only one of its kind.

tomo pauk said:

Nobody said that pak 40 was perfect. But even imperfect it took a toll on the Soviet tanks, and that was in good part due to the actual ability of the gun to do it's job. The Soviet way of using of the tanks helped with the kill score.

Click to expand...

If the Soviets had not helped, the imperfections of the gun would have shown up much more vividly. Estimates of effectiveness without taking into account enemy strength are not correct. One should read what the Allies write about the use of the Pak 40 in the West - I have too superficial ideas about it.

tomo pauk said:

Same as with the 5cm pak taking against the T-34 and with PzGr.39 - provided the enemy makes mistakes, like exposing the weaker sides on the short ranges, and that hit is perfect (ie. shot does not hit anything before the actual armor, like the headlight, tools, spare tracks etc.).

Click to expand...

?? PzGr39 penetrated even T-34 frontal armor using the normalization effect provided by the welded cap of high hardness. I have already mentioned it above. No special tricks were required. The 57mm BR-271SP projectile was guaranteed to penetrate the frontal armor of any Soviet tank at a range of about 600m for heavy tanks and 1000m for medium tanks.

tomo pauk said:

In my book, 'increase of caliber' means that Germans move to the 50/52mm by the time French and Czechs were moving on 47mm, as well as that German 75mm guns (like the 75 n.A., or the FK 38) are anti-tank-capable ASAP, with AP abilities no worse than the French 75 by 1939.

Click to expand...

The Germans needed to go further - up to 57mm as the main anti-tank caliber. 75mm as a reinforcement, but without excessive power.

tomo pauk said:

I know that not all the F22s were rechambered. These that were, were called pak 36(r).

Click to expand...

According to the Russian wiki the rechambered guns were designated simply Pak 36 (without the "r", the 37mm German anti-tank gun designated 3.7cm Pak 35/36), but I'd like to find German references - unfortunately I have just some fairly superficial books on German artillery.

tomo pauk said:

These that were not, were still called FK 36(r) - if we believe Wikipedia - or the FK 296(r).

Click to expand...

I would appreciate a bit more reliable source.

Given a lot of hindsight and study it seems that the 57mm was pretty much in the sweet spot. Perhaps a 60 or 65m gun would have been better but tooling for 57mm ammo and barrels existed in a number of countries and existing tooling often trumped slight advantages in theoretical calculations.

The Soviet 57mm and British 6pdr are similar in capability and weight.
Unknown to both countries and the US was that rapid growth in tank size sort of leveled off in 1943-44 and that the 57mm would be a viable weapon for most targets for a while.
British 6pdr would punch through more armor than the 75mm gun on the Sherman, not a lot more but still
The weight of both guns was significantly lower the German Pak 40 or the US 76mm let alone the US 3in or British 17pdr so manhandling was still possible, even if not easy.

British 6pdr used two different barrel lengths and a wide variety of uncapped shot, capped shot, APCBC shot and finally the discarding sabot so published penetrations are all over the place.
Against the Germans the 57mm guns would handle everything but the Tiger I, the Panther from the front and the Tiger II but they only build under 500 Tiger IIs and lugging around 3000kg of towed gun to handle the Tiger IIs was pretty much a waste. 57mms would handle Panthers from the side or rear at well past 1000 meters or any practical range.
I am sure the Soviet 57mm would do pretty much the same.

The 57mm guns were heavier than the German Pak 38 or anyones 47mm but they were also a definite step up the ladder in capability against armor. They also would have been a step in HE capacity (and the British loaded more) but neither is close the 75/76 guns.

Shortround6 said:

The Soviet 57mm and British 6pdr are similar in capability and weight.
Unknown to both countries and the US was that rapid growth in tank size sort of leveled off in 1943-44 and that the 57mm would be a viable weapon for most targets for a while.

Click to expand...

I think we can add Germany to that list as well, considering they developed and deployed the long-barreled 88L71 and the monstrous 12.8cm AT gun. One wonders how many targets they really encountered where the shorter barrel 88L56 and the long barrel 75L70 wouldn't have been enough.

Shortround6 said:

The 57mm guns were heavier than the German Pak 38 or anyones 47mm

Click to expand...