Best Tank of WW2

[vinnye]

The angle helps too!
This increases the effective thickness significantly!
I don't think there were many Allied tank crews that would square up to a Tiger if they had any choice. The Firefly had a gun that could hurt the Tiger at a reasonable range - that is why they had a premium put on their heads! Unfortunatley it did not have the armour to withstand a hit by a Tiger at long range.

 

[fastmongrel]

You do realize that the armour of the Tiger was so tough that the APDS projectile would likely simply shatter once it hit it right?

If the 6 pounder APDS struck at a normal angle shattering is not a particular problem and the 6 pounder was better in this respect than the 17 pounder.

Plus the fact that the effectiveness of APDS rounds falls off very sharply as soon as any impact angle is added.

True but that happens to any shot hitting angled armour its not a unique problem to APDS

Furthermore the accuracy of the APDS round was very bad, making hits at 2000 or even 1000 yards very unlikely.

The 6 pounder firing APDS wasnt inacurate I think you might be mixing it up with the 17 pounder APDS which had problems with sabot petal seperation leading to some wild shots. I doubt a Cromwell gunner could consistently hit a Tiger I at any range over 1,000 yards but if he hit the 6 pounder APDS could penetrate particulary a hit on the side armour would penetrate at any visible range.

Consistently hitting a moving tank sized target at 2,000 yards is still a problem for a modern tank with stabilised sights and armament. With WWII technology shooting at a stationery tank is still a suck it and see shot at ranges over 1,000 yards. Certainly tanks made hits at these ranges but not consistently there are too many variables like barrel temp (a cold barrel can send your first round way off course) barometric pressure, how long since the sights were zeroed, have you done a lot of shooting recently every shot wears the rifling particulary the first foot or 2 affecting the accuracy.

In 1985 when I finished my service in the Royal Tank Regiment as a crew on the ranges with our fully stabilised laser sighted 120mm armed Chieftain we would be pretty happy shooting at a stationery 2,000 yard target reckoning to hit first time probably 75% of the time with a 100% hit second time but a moving target and first shot would drop to 50% or there abouts and never hitting 100% of the time no matter how many times we fired. This is with equipment and accuracy undreamt of by any WWII tankie

 

[Soren]

If the 6 pounder APDS struck at a normal angle shattering is not a particular problem and the 6 pounder was better in this respect than the 17 pounder.

It was a problem esp. at normal angles and at short ranges fastmongrel.

True but that happens to any shot hitting angled armour its not a unique problem to APDS

The rate at which the penetration performance decreases with increases in impact angle is unique to APDS APCR projectiles fastmongrel. APCBC projectile retain their penetration performance a lot better with increases in impact angle than either APCR or APDS projectiles.

The 6 pounder firing APDS wasnt inacurate I think you might be mixing it up with the 17 pounder APDS which had problems with sabot petal seperation leading to some wild shots. I doubt a Cromwell gunner could consistently hit a Tiger I at any range over 1,000 yards but if he hit the 6 pounder APDS could penetrate particulary a hit on the side armour would penetrate at any visible range.

The problem was the same with the 6pdr as it was a design flaw in the APDS projectile itself, and this made it wildly inaccurate compared to std. AP projectiles used at the time.

Consistently hitting a moving tank sized target at 2,000 yards is still a problem for a modern tank with stabilised sights and armament. With WWII technology shooting at a stationery tank is still a suck it and see shot at ranges over 1,000 yards. Certainly tanks made hits at these ranges but not consistently there are too many variables like barrel temp (a cold barrel can send your first round way off course) barometric pressure, how long since the sights were zeroed, have you done a lot of shooting recently every shot wears the rifling particulary the first foot or 2 affecting the accuracy.

In 1985 when I finished my service in the Royal Tank Regiment as a crew on the ranges with our fully stabilised laser sighted 120mm armed Chieftain we would be pretty happy shooting at a stationery 2,000 yard target reckoning to hit first time probably 75% of the time with a 100% hit second time but a moving target and first shot would drop to 50% or there abouts and never hitting 100% of the time no matter how many times we fired. This is with equipment and accuracy undreamt of by any WWII tankie

I've seen Leopard II tanks hit stationary targets first time 100% of time at 2,500 meters. I know what these tanks are capable of.

Also in regards to the accuracy of a WW2 tank gun, well it just so happens that the Germans kept careful track of the performance of their guns, below you'll see the percentage of hits obtained with the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 gun during practice against 2x2.5m stationary targets as-well as the hit percentage during combat against stationary as-well as moving enemy AFV's:

Field tested accuracy of the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 tank gun against stationary 2x2.5m targets and in (combat):

PanzerGranate 39
500m = 100% (100%)
1,000m = 100% (93%)
1,500m = 98% (74%)
2,000m = 87% (50%)
2,500m = 71% (31%)
3,000m = 53% (19%)

PanzerGranate 40
500m = 100% (100%)
1,000m = 99% (80%)
1,500m = 89% (52%)
2,000m = 71% (31%)
2,500m = 55% (19%)

Source: Germany's Tiger tanks by Thomas L. Jentz

Additionally in German field reports it is mentioned that the Tiger mostly hit its intended target with the first round 100% of the time if the range is within 1,250 meters.

I'm sorry but the Cromwell is deadmeat against tanks such as the Tiger Panther, both possessing much more powerful guns, armour and much better optics. And for the same reasons the Cromwell was even struggling to keep up with the Panzer IV.

 

[m kenny]

It Also in regards to the accuracy of a WW2 tank gun, well it just so happens that the Germans kept careful track of the performance of their guns, below you'll see the percentage of hits obtained with the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 gun during practice against 2x2.5m stationary targets as-well as the hit percentage during combat against stationary as-well as moving enemy AFV's:

Field tested accuracy of the 8.8cm KwK36 L/56 tank gun against stationary 2x2.5m targets and in (combat):

PanzerGranate 39
500m = 100% (100%)
1,000m = 100% (93%)
1,500m = 98% (74%)
2,000m = 87% (50%)
2,500m = 71% (31%)
3,000m = 53% (19%)

PanzerGranate 40
500m = 100% (100%)
1,000m = 99% (80%)
1,500m = 89% (52%)
2,000m = 71% (31%)
2,500m = 55% (19%)

Source: Germany's Tiger tanks by Thomas L. Jentz

Additionally in German field reports it is mentioned that the Tiger mostly hit its intended target with the first round 100% of the time if the range is within 1,250 meters.

That is NOT what it says in the book 'Germany's Tiger Tanks Tiger I&II: Combat Tactics'.

Page 10.

All figures refer to stationary targets.
The first figure is the % of hits for firing during controlled test firing
The % in brackets is the variation expected due to differences between 'guns, ammunition and gunners'
There is also a warning:

"these accuracy tables do not reflect actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. The probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in theses tables."

In the Panzer Tracts book 'Dreaded Threat, The 8.8cm Flak 18/36/37 In The Anti-Tank Role' Jentz gives detailed ammo usage for '88' A/T guns in Russia and North Afrika. At 'normal' ranges the average was 11 rounds per claimed kill. At long range this increased to over 20. Even then a claim was not a confirmed kill.
In 1943-45 the German produced over 3.5 million rounds of 8.8cm AP ammunition. A lot must have missed!

 

[fastmongrel]

I've seen Leopard II tanks hit stationary targets first time 100% of time at 2,500 meters. I know what these tanks are capable of.

Sorry but no tank in existence or ever likely to be built can guarantee a 100% hit ratio not even a guided missile can guarantee a 100% hit ratio. There are simply far too many variables to hitting a target, the only way to come even close to a 100% ratio first shot would be to shoot on a range were you have personally measured the exact distance, with the engine switched off and just running on batteries to stop any vibration, with down range spotters giving you met data and a barrel that had fired just the right number of rounds. Pretty much what a competition marksman does to win a medal.

This is just not possible in any real life situation but it is sometimes done by arms manufacturers trying to sell some pork to a politician.

I knew several Bundeswehr tankies and they were very good very well trained and possibly the best tankies in the best tanks in the world. We were always jealous of the sheer quantity of shot they banged down range probably twice as much as the British taxpayer could afford but I never in 10 years saw a crew that could guarantee a 100% hit ratio and even with all the latest equipment it will still be an impossibility.

Any one with any military experience knows that what is printed in the manual is usually only good for one thing.

Emergency toilet paper.

 

[Soren]

m_kenny,

As it says in the book:

"These accuracy tables are based on the assumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained during controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion. The figures in the second column include the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunition and gunners. These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first hit was much lower than shown in these tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the second column"

Why leave out the parts in bold?

The target used during testing was a 2 x 2.5m plate.

And General der Panzertruppe Breith, commander of the III.Panzer Korps wrote the following:
"Based on experience in the recent battles, I issue the following instructions for the cooperation of Tigers with other weapons: As a result of its high performance weapon and strong armor, the Tiger should be used primarily against enemy tanks and anti-tank weapons and secondarily - and then only as a complete exception - against infantry units. As experience has shown, its weapons allow the Tiger to fight enemy tanks at ranges of 2,000 meters and longer, which has especially worked on the morale of the opponent. As a result of the strong armor, it is possible to close to short range with the enemy tanks without being seriously damaged by the hits. Still, the Tiger should attempt to start engaging enemy tanks at ranges over 1,000 meters"

The 13. Tiger Kompanie, of Panzer Regiment Großdeutschland reporting on the effectiveness of the 8.8cm KwK36 gun:
"First round hits were usually achieved at ranges between 800 to 1,000 meters. At these ranges, the Panzer Granate 39 absolutely penetrated through the frontal armor, and usually still destroyed the engine at the rear of the T-34 tank. In 80 percent of the cases, shots from the same range hitting the side of the hull toward the rear of the tank resulted in the fuel tanks exploding. Even at ranges of 1,500 meters and longer, during favorable weather, it is possible to succeed in penetrating the T-34 with minimal expenditure of ammunition"

Oh and as for the 3.5 million 8.8cm AP rounds produced, well a lot of them were left at wars end. But that having been said ofcourse there would be many misses, there was for all rounds produced during WW2, and for many reasons: Moving target, unclear target, misjudged range, nervous gunner, blind fire, alternative use etc etc....

But as can be seen from the actual tests conducted, the actual accuracy of the KwK36 gun sight combination was so great that if the range was judged correctly (by use of range finder) then first round hits at 2,000m on 2x2.5m target (small AFV size) were quite easily made, just as reported from troops leaders at the front.

 

[m kenny]

Can you confirm that it clearly states these are controlled test firings and not as you claimed earlier combat examples and that Jentz himself says
"these accuracy tables do not reflect actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. The probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in theses tables

 

[Soren]

Yes I can confirm that, they demonstrate the accuracy of the gun sight combination against a 2x2.5m target if the range to the target is known. The figures in paranthesis represents what could be expected in combat against stationary targets of the same size, taking differences between guns, gunners ammunition into account.

 

[Soren]

Sorry but no tank in existence or ever likely to be built can guarantee a 100% hit ratio not even a guided missile can guarantee a 100% hit ratio. There are simply far too many variables to hitting a target, the only way to come even close to a 100% ratio first shot would be to shoot on a range were you have personally measured the exact distance, with the engine switched off and just running on batteries to stop any vibration, with down range spotters giving you met data and a barrel that had fired just the right number of rounds. Pretty much what a competition marksman does to win a medal.

This is just not possible in any real life situation but it is sometimes done by arms manufacturers trying to sell some pork to a politician.

I knew several Bundeswehr tankies and they were very good very well trained and possibly the best tankies in the best tanks in the world. We were always jealous of the sheer quantity of shot they banged down range probably twice as much as the British taxpayer could afford but I never in 10 years saw a crew that could guarantee a 100% hit ratio and even with all the latest equipment it will still be an impossibility.

Any one with any military experience knows that what is printed in the manual is usually only good for one thing.

Emergency toilet paper.

The Leopards, 6 to 8 of them, were stationary, engines running and firing at 2x2m targets 2.5km away. I reckon around 30 round were fired, there wasn't a single miss, they litterally hit with every round. It is when you and the target start moving that the situation becomes more difficult, but against stationary targets I can guarantee you that atleast the Leopard can achieve close to 100% hit rate at 2.5km range against a 2x2m target. If the target is clearly made out, then even WW2 tank guns are very accurate at extreme ranges, as the German tests demonstrate. Furthermore the British actually tested the gun on the Tiger themselves, and found the accuracy to be oustanding.

 

[dunmunro1]

6 Pdr APCBC ammo was quite capable of dealing with Pzk IV at almost any range, and the V and VI through its sides. APDS ammo gave the 6pdr the ability of killing tigers and Panthers through their frontal armour, and for the Tiger, theoretically, at 2000 yds.

6 pdr APDS ammo was tested extensively on captured German tanks including Tigers and Panthers and was proven to be able to penetrate the frontal armour of the Tiger at 600 yds and 30 degs obliquity:

"Front at 30 degs to normal.

From 600 yds, 6-pdr DS shot will completely defeat the visor plate and nose plate."

These results were from a committee formed to investigate AP performance and the results are dated 24 Nov 1944. The same committee estimated that a projectile with a 4000fps MV with typical ranging and laying errors would have about a 10% chance of a 1st round hit against a tank turret sized target (7.5 ft x 3.5ft) at 2000 yds.

Of course we have not considered the mobility of the Cromwell and it's low profile which would enable it to move quickly from cover to cover to gain a flanking position against a slower moving opponent.

 

[m kenny]

The figures in paranthesis represents what could be expected in combat against stationary targets of the same size, taking differences between guns, gunners ammunition into account.

Not so. The actual description of the figure in brackets is:

"The average calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the second column"

Thus it is a second round capability, not first round.

Anyway in order to get around this problem here is a direct OCR word-for-word version of the text from Jentz's book:

"Both the 8.8 cm Kw.K.36 L/56 and the 8.8 cm Kw.K.43 L/71
were very accurate guns capable of first round hits at ranges ex-
ceeding 1000 meters. The estimated accuracy is given as the
probability (in percentage) of hitting a target 2 meters high and
2.5 meters wide, representing the target presented by the front of
an opposing tank. These accuracy tables are based on the as-
sumptions that the actual range to the target has been correctly
determined and that the distribution of hits is centered on the
aiming point. The first column shows the accuracy obtained dur-
ing controlled test firing of the gun to determine the pattern of
dispersion. The figures in the second column in parentheses in-
cludes the variation expected during practice firing due to differ-
ences between guns, ammunition, and gunners. Both columns
were reported in the accuracy tables from original fire tables as
shown in Table 7.1.2. These accuracy tables do not reflect the
actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions.
Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the
probability of a first-round hit was much lower than shown in these
tables. However, the average, calm gunner, after sensing the tracer
from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the
second column."

 

[Soren]

Again dunmunro1, the Panzer IV featured better armament, optics internal ergonomics than the Cromwell.

As for the committee you talk about, which committee exactly are we talking about here? And where did you get the information? Also the 10% hit rate can only have been established in controlled tests as those done by the Germans.

 

[m kenny]

Oh and as for the 3.5 million 8.8cm AP rounds produced, well a lot of them were left at wars end. But that having been said ofcourse there would be many misses, there was for all rounds produced during WW2, and for many reasons: Moving target, unclear target, misjudged range, nervous gunner, blind fire, alternative use etc etc....

As proved by the average 11 -20 shots per claimed tank kill from the 8.8cm A/T gun data.
There were also 16 million 7.5cm A/P rounds manufactured. It would appear quite a few misses in total.

But as can be seen from the actual tests conducted, the actual accuracy of the KwK36 gun sight combination was so great that if the range was judged correctly (by use of range finder) then first round hits at 2,000m on 2x2.5m target (small AFV size) were quite easily made, just as reported from troops leaders at the front.

I see a table that calculates a second round hit on a stationary target was given as 30-50%.
I see nothing that gives a first round hit probability as these ranges.

 

[Soren]

Not so. The actual description of the figure in brackets is:

"The average calm gunner, after sensing the tracer from the first round, could achieve the accuracy shown in the second column"

Thus it is a second round capability, not first round.

lol m_kenny are you know claiming that the hit percentages mentioned couldn't be expected in combat if the range was known? The tests clearly demonstrate that if the range had been judged correctly, then the hit rate percentage shown in brackets could be expected in combat. And the optical sight on the Tiger allowed the gunner to very accurately determine the range to the target if it was clearly visible, which ofcourse it wasn't always, but when it was you atleast expect the accuracy shown in the brackets.

But if you remain defiant to accept this then I invite you to read the actual German after action reports once more, at 1,000 meters it usually took just one round to obtain a hit. And with the even higher velocity 7.5cm KwK42 8.8cm KwK43 range estimation became easier, resulting in better accuracy in combat. There is ofcourse also the British results obtained with a captured Tiger I tank, where the British gunner obtained 5 successive hits on a 0.4x0.4m target at 1,200 yards.

 

[Soren]

I see a table that calculates a second round hit on a stationary target was given as 30-50%.
I see nothing that gives a first round hit probability as these ranges.

It seems you don't know what the word probability means. If a gun hits its mark 30% of the time at 3,000m, then there's also a probability of a first round hit at that range.

The actual tests conducted by the Germans against a 2x2.5m target clearly demonstrate the accuracy of the KwK36 gun and sight combination to be as shown in the first collumn:

PanzerGranate 39
500m = 100%
1,000m = 100%
1,500m = 98%
2,000m = 87%
2,500m = 71%
3,000m = 53%

PanzerGranate 40
500m = 100%
1,000m = 99%
1,500m = 89%
2,000m = 71%
2,500m = 55%

So the above are the exact the chances of a first round hit at the listed ranges providing the gunner gets his range estimation right the first time. And that's a fact.

Now ofcourse in combat the gunner doesn't always get his range estimation right the first time, and this again because of many reasons such as for example the target being only partially visible, which would make range estimation a lot more difficult. But if the target is a T-34, clearly visible and stationary, then the gunner of a Tiger will have an easy time getting the range right by simply utilizing the built in range finder in the optics, and after doing that then hitting the T-34 with the first round at a range even as great as 3km will have a 53% chance of succeeding.

 

[m kenny]

I simply repeat what Jentz says directly after giving the test results:

"these accuracy tables do not reflect actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. The probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in theses tables"

 

[dunmunro1]

Again dunmunro1, the Panzer IV featured better armament, optics internal ergonomics than the Cromwell.

As for the committee you talk about, which committee exactly are we talking about here? And where did you get the information? Also the 10% hit rate can only have been established in controlled tests as those done by the Germans.

It certainly had a bigger gun, but that doesn't make it better, and it's AP performance could not match the 6 pdr. It was also much less mobile than the Cromwell and ergonomic and optics issues are hard to quantify and might not have have conferred any real advantage at typical battle ranges.

I believe this was the APP committee, which I think stands for the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee. Some of the output of that committee can be found here:
Naval Armor and Ballistics program

As I said a friend sent it to me, and he obtained it from a 3rd party who got it from the UK archives. In any event the data on 6 pdr APDS penetration that I presented earlier certainly confirms the theoretical ability of the APDS round to defeat the Mk VI frontal armour, but here's some output from the actual results:

 

[Soren]

I simply repeat what Jentz says directly after giving the test results:

"these accuracy tables do not reflect actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. The probability of a first round hit was much lower than shown in theses tables"

Which goes against nothing I have written. What he is saying is that the figures in the table can't be used as absolutes for all situations, which is true, they only apply if the range to the target is known. That's why he mentions "battlefield conditions", cause under battlefield conditions range isn't always known, and the target might only be partially visible or/and moving, and the gunner might be nervous etc etc...

 

[Soren]

It certainly had a bigger gun, but that doesn't make it better, and it's AP performance could not match the 6 pdr.

You've got that all wrong. The 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 48 was a more powerful gun with better AP performance than the 6 pdr by far. It was only when the 6 pdr fired APDS rounds that it could match the AP performance of the KwK40. But as mentioned the APDS rounds were inaccurate and in small supply, plus they did far less damage once they penetrated armour than the APCBC shells used by the Germans which by comparison contained an explosive charge which was triggered once the projectile entered the inside of the tank.

It was also much less mobile than the Cromwell

And this is based on what exactly?

and ergonomic and optics issues are hard to quantify and might not have have conferred any real advantage at typical battle ranges.

Optics ergonomics means a lot to the fighting effectiveness of a tank.

I believe this was the APP committee, which I think stands for the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee. Some of the output of that committee can be found here:
Naval Armor and Ballistics program

As I said a friend sent it to me, and he obtained it from a 3rd party who got it from the UK archives. In any event the data on 6 pdr APDS penetration that I presented earlier certainly confirms the theoretical ability of the APDS round to defeat the Mk VI frontal armour.

Well only problem is that it remained theoritical, just as the high hopes made of the US 76mm gun introduced in 1944. That gun was believed to be able to penetrate the Tiger's armour at up to 1100 yards, but once it entered service US tankers were horrified to discover that it didn't work at point blank range. The reason again being that the projectiles simply shattered once they hit the Tiger's armour.

 

[dunmunro1]

The above results are those obtained against an actual Tiger tank, as the data above indicates.

The Pzr IV weighs about 25 tons and has a 300hp engine and a top speed of 25mph while the Cromwell weighs about 28 tons and has a 600hp engine and a top speed of 40 mph. I wonder which one is more mobile. Can you name any medium tank with a higher power to weight ratio than the Cromwell?

Please provide some comparative data AP data for the 75mm L48 versus the 6pdr.