Best Tank of WW2

[Soren]

C =cemented armour, which is another way of stating face hardened armour. Once again you launch into an improbable explanation for results that challenge the data you are presenting.

Improbable? Well you then explain the better results against RHA vs FH armour in those "test" results you posted then. One thing is for sure, if C really is for FH armour and not just C for Calculated, then it can't have been the Mk.8T which was fired. It simply must have been some other projectile.

 

[dunmunro1]

Or UK cemented armour was more resistant than that used in the data you are presenting. FH armour will be more variable in its quality than RHA because it is more complex to produce.

 

[Soren]

Or UK cemented armour was more resistant than that used in the data you are presenting. FH armour will be more variable in its quality than RHA because it is more complex to produce.

And you called my explanation improbable?? Stop accusing me of something you are yourself guilty of. Sorry but FH armour is FH armour, and the Brits were no better at making it than the US or Germany, Germany infact had the most experience with it. Fact is that APCBC projectiles perform better against any type of FH armour than they do against pure RHA, there's no getting around that Dunmunro.

 

[Juha]

Now all I can say on British cemented is that at least that used by RN was exceptionally good, clearly more resistant to hits than that used by USN during the WWII according to US tests post-war.

Juha

 

[Soren]

Now all I can say on British cemented is that at least that used by RN was exceptionally good, clearly more resistant to hits than that used by USN during the WWII according to US tests post-war.

Juha

That might very well be, but it would still behave worse against APCBC projectiles than would pure RHA.

 

[Soren]

Ok looked abit around for some more info on British tests, and the British apparently tested their guns against armor plates not nearly as resistant as 240 BHN RHA plates, face hardened or not, they were generally too brittle. Explaining the results. The Churchill tank apparently suffered from the same problem, using armour way to hard for its thickness at some 450 BHN, often cracking spalling on the inside when hit.

 

[Soren]

Anyway lets take this to the appropiate thread for it: http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/wwii-tank-gun-specifications-22607-2.html

 

[dunmunro1]

And you called my explanation improbable?? Stop accusing me of something you are yourself guilty of. Sorry but FH armour is FH armour, and the Brits were no better at making it than the US or Germany, Germany infact had the most experience with it. Fact is that APCBC projectiles perform better against any type of FH armour than they do against pure RHA, there's no getting around that Dunmunro.

FH armour varies widely in its quality and resistance to projectiles. For thick naval plates, the RN had FH armour that was far superior to USN armour and somewhat better than KM armour as well. In general, the UK had more experience with armour and AP projectile design than any other country, including Germany.

 

[Soren]

FH armour varies widely in its quality and resistance to projectiles. For thick naval plates, the RN had FH armour that was far superior to USN armour and somewhat better than KM armour as well. In general, the UK had more experience with armour and AP projectile design than any other country, including Germany.

Sorry but that's quite simply untrue. But you're welcome to try and back it up.

 

[dunmunro1]

let's see:
2 pdr versus 37mm
6 pdr versus 50mm
6 Pdr APDS versus 75mm
17 pdr versus 88mm
17 pdr APDS...

The UK always had a lead over Germany in AP gun and projectile design, and the other major powers involved in WW2, your own data shows this, although you've been careful not to present any data on the APDS round. We've been arguing over the merits of a 57mm UK gun versus a 75mm German gun, but once we introduce APDS the contest is over. The UK began intensive study of armour and AP weapon performance after Jutland, and they never let go of that lead until well after WW2. Even Canada was well ahead of Germany in terms of APDS design.

 

[Vincenzo]

let's see:
2 pdr versus 37mm
6 pdr versus 50mm
6 Pdr APDS versus 75mm
17 pdr versus 88mm
17 pdr APDS...

The UK always had a lead over Germany in AP gun and projectile design, and the other major powers involved in WW2, your own data shows this, although you've been careful not to present any data on the APDS round. We've been arguing over the merits of a 57mm UK gun versus a 75mm German gun, but once we introduce APDS the contest is over. The UK began intensive study of armour and AP weapon performance after Jutland, and they never let go of that lead until well after WW2. Even Canada was well ahead of Germany in terms of APDS design.

i've no words

 

[Juha]

Hello dunmunro
while I agree that British were forefront in armour business after their research on Jutland that not always shown up on battlefields. The material losses in France in 1940 forced British hand together with losses on production capabilities because of the impact of the Great Depression. IIRC the development of 6pdr began in 1938 and it was more or less ready for production at the time of Dunkirk but after that the numbers became overriding factor, thinking was that it was better have some 2pdrs than a few 6pdrs because after Dunkirk UK was almost without A/T guns, so production of 6pdr was delayed appr one year, so it was more of contemporary of 75mm Pak 40 than 50mm PaK 38 even if it could have been contemporary of the latter. But 17pdr was near contemporary of the 75mm Pak 40, so at that point British got again more powerful standard A/T gun than VM. 2pdr was clearly more powerful than 37mm Pak 36 but the thinking behind those guns was different, 2pdr was heavier and more powerful, 37mm was lighter, more easily to manoeuvre but clearly less powerful-

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Juha 17 pdr was near contemporary to 88 pak 43 more that 75 pak 40
some data
6 pdr 1st action may '42 75 pak 40 first action maybe december '41
17 pdr 1st action feb '43 (on 25 pdr carriage) 88 pak 43 summer '43

 

[m kenny]

Introduction to Weapons Data

 

[Soren]

let's see:
2 pdr versus 37mm
6 pdr versus 50mm
6 Pdr APDS versus 75mm
17 pdr versus 88mm
17 pdr APDS...

The UK always had a lead over Germany in AP gun and projectile design, and the other major powers involved in WW2, your own data shows this, although you've been careful not to present any data on the APDS round. We've been arguing over the merits of a 57mm UK gun versus a 75mm German gun, but once we introduce APDS the contest is over. The UK began intensive study of armour and AP weapon performance after Jutland, and they never let go of that lead until well after WW2. Even Canada was well ahead of Germany in terms of APDS design.

Your blinded by your bias, that's all there is to say.

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. I can for the love of God not understand why you're so obsessed with this projectile type.

Also as for your little comparison, again you're wrong, German guns of the same caliber size were usually better than British, US Soviet guns. And the Germans were also the ones with the most experience within the field of armour projectiles, being the first to deploy boat tail designs and establish certain thickness to hardness standards within the armour industry to obtain the best quality plates in the world. The US were the second nation to follow this line.

 

[dunmunro1]

Yes, I agree that production difficulties delayed the introduction of the 6 pdr and this has created the impression that the UK fell behind in AP design. The German army was certainly good at improvising, using the 88mm, for example as an ad hoc AT gun, while the UK very rarely used their 3.7" AA gun for the same purpose, although it had an AP round available. In general. however, the UK used its lead in AP research to stay one step ahead of the German army, and far ahead of everyone else. It is almost enough to make one weep, when you realize that the UK was urging the USA to mass produce the Sherman with a 17 pdr in the USA, every Sherman in Normandy could have been the equivalent to a Firefly. The decision to replace the 6 pdr with the 75 mm OQF was really crazy, and again gave the impression that the UK had fallen behind in AP design, when 6 pdr/APDS Cromwells would have been far superior in the AT role and the UK had thousands of them sitting in depots in the UK while UK tanks crews in Normandy were bouncing 75mm rounds off German tanks...Luckily some sanity remained and 6 pdr Churchills were reintroduced to Normandy where their APDS guns gave them a massive edge over the 75mm Churchill. The Canadian Army was sitting on over 1000 6 pdr Ram tanks in the UK, that actually had thicker armour and a far superior gun than the Shermans they had to fight with. Crazy!

 

[Juha]

Hello Vinzenco
88mm PaK was never a stardard A/T gun for WM divs, check the TOEs, 17pdr otherwise was for British divs in ETO, also check the relevant TOEs.

On service entry. The first combat development is a different thing, it was much faster to put a gun to raiway wagon in Germany and sent the train to Russia than to put a gun on a ship, sent the ship around the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt and from there to the front.

Juha

 

[Vincenzo]

Hello Vinzenco
88mm PaK was never a stardard A/T gun for WM divs, check the TOEs, 17pdr otherwise was for British divs in ETO, also check the relevant TOEs.

On service entry. The first combat development is a different thing, it was much faster to put a gun to raiway wagon in Germany and sent the train to Russia than to put a gun on a ship, sent the ship around the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt and from there to the front.

Juha

1st true but was talking on ATG technology, if WM use indipendent AT unit for 88 it's no relevant.

true but idk what road take the 17 pdr for go in tunisia, there is some more short of Good Hope route (also air route)

 

[Soren]

Well let's compare the guns in question:

8.8cm KwK43 Pak43 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
________________________________________

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
_________________________________________________

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
_________________________________________________

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
_________________________________________________

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
_________________________________________________


As most historians agree, it is pretty clear that when it came to armour armament, the Germans were ahead throughout the war.

 

[Soren]

Hello Vinzenco
88mm PaK was never a stardard A/T gun for WM divs, check the TOEs, 17pdr otherwise was for British divs in ETO, also check the relevant TOEs.

On service entry. The first combat development is a different thing, it was much faster to put a gun to raiway wagon in Germany and sent the train to Russia than to put a gun on a ship, sent the ship around the Cape of Good Hope to Egypt and from there to the front.

Juha

And yet the Germans had 88's, Pak40's Tigers in Tunisia before the Brits had 17 pdr's there.