As far as the best anti-tank gun, I'm impressed with the German 88. Overall, I believe it to be the best weapon of the war. With tanks, I'm kind of leaning toward the German Mark V Panther. I'm under the impression that it was built to offset the Russian T-34 and had early teething problems but overall, I believe it to be a very impressive weapon. The King Tiger is also a fine tank but I believe it to be underpowered, too slow to be used as an offensive weapon (I've heard it had a speed of about 25 miles per hour), and consumed too much fuel.
The Germans produced more quality anti-tank and tank cannons than any other country. However, the OQF 17pdr was a remarkable cannon and was punching in the same weight ranges as any German cannon. Including anti-tank guns though, the Soviets had some impressive artillery in that area.
I believe the KwK43 L/71 8.8cm to be the supreme tank weapon, it punched beyond all other weapons. Even at 2000m it was punching through 132mm of armour.
I think we all agree that the choice is between the 88L71 as mounted in the King Tiger and the Jadgpanther and as a ground mounting for the Germans and the 17pd for the allied.
Personally if I had to chose one it would be the 17pd. The only reason being that the 88 was larger than ideal when mounted on the ground. The 88L71 was more powerful but this was almost overkill as the 17pd was more than sufficient at battle ranges. Being lighter also enabled the British to use the 17pd in lighter tanks than would have been possible had we had to use the 88.
Fair point. The L56 was the versitile version mounted on the Tiger 1 and was more than good enough for dealing with the USA and UK tanks. It only started to struggle with the larger USSR tanks at long range where it started to be outgunned.
That said the 17pd would also have had problems in that situation. However as a general Tank and Anti tank gun we will have to agree to differ.
short lived, much too high for a serious AT weapon as it needed space due to the long barrel and much camo either natural or buildings. In fact even the low ride wheeled 8.8cm AT was much too heavy to turn and get into position for it's crew
The IS 2 had a maximum armour of around 160mm and at the end of 1944 the JS3 was coming into production with up to 230mm.
At 2000 meters the L56 could penetrate 110mm sloped at 30 degrees and at 1,500 meters 123mm. These distances could be reached on the Russian Steppes and there is little doubt that the L56 would have a tough time at these distances against the larger russian tanks.
Well my sources say 160 and I admit others say 120, but it doesn't matter as we both agree that the IS2 is vulnerable at up to 1000.
My argument was that the L56 would struggle at long range and 1000m isn't that long which I tried to back up with the figures at 1,500 and 2,000.
The standard combat ranges being 500-600 metres would make 1000 metres a good, long range advantage. As I have said in another thread, 3000m and closing the KwK36 could cause sufficient damage to the crew moral at around 3000m due to the heavy impact of a large shell. At around 2000m the KwK36 will start shocking the crew and has the possibility of collapsing the armour after a few hits (not highly unlikely due to IS-2M poor casting), it also could strike vital areas such as between turret and chassis. At 1,500m the KwK36 certainly would be doing damage to the IS-2M, penertration in German terms was 50% or more. At 1,500m I reckon a fair few shell splinters could well have entered the IS-2M.