From the aircraft thread "aircraft that did the most.......... tank guns.

[Shortround6]

A Brief (hopefully) history of the bow gun in British cruiser tanks in WW II

The A9, two sub turrets each with a a Vickers gun.
The A10, same chassis and drivetrain, single gun in the vertical front plate.
The A13, no hull gun
The A13 II, no hull gun
The A13 III, Covenantor, no hull gun (radiator in left hull front)
The A15 Crusader, machine gun turret next to driver. Dropped for at least two reasons, expense/speed of production and the poor ventilation had the gunner choking on the powder fumes from his own gun.
Brief pause here, The Crusader, with machine gun turret, goes into action June of 1941 for the first time, the decision to build the A24 was made about that time with few, if any, combat reports detailing any problems with the Crusader making it back to England at this time. First prototype is ready in Dec 1941 and has the hull gun in the vertical plate next to the driver.
A24 Cavalier hull gun as described.
A27 Centaur and Cromwell, hull gun as for the A24 as the A27 is pretty much an A24 modified to take the Merlin engine (and new transmission?) There was an A27L ( for Leyland engine) but the front of the tank was pretty much the same.
None of these go into action until June 1944 so effectiveness (or lack of it) of the hull machine gun is unknown or based on reports of the Churchill tank, the only British tank (not counting the American tanks used by the British) with a hull gun to see service at this time.
A34 Comet, a quicky redo of the Cromwell to take the 77mm gun First prototype is running in Feb 1944 so there is still no feed back from combat on cruisers with hull guns.
The A30 Challenger and A 30 Avenger with modified Cromwell hulls and 17pdr guns plate over the hull gun and use the space for storage, (mostly ammo for the 17pdr, but these are specialized tank destroyer vehicles.

Finally we have the A41 Centurion, design work started in July/Aug of 1943 and the hull gun (except for 2 out of the 20 pilot models) is deleted in favor of more ammunition storage for the 17pdr gun.

With several years between start of design first combat use many of these vehicles went into service not with the latest thinking of combat requirements but with the thinking/theories of several years before and in some cases, due to production tooling/jigs had to make do with hull shapes and setups that were inherited from previous tanks.

 

[wlewisiii]

When you actually watch the videos, you'll learn that they are not about WoT.

But then, leaning something is the problem isn't it? Too scary to deal with for you, I'm sure.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Last warning. Keep it civil. Knock it off with the snide comments and cheap shots. That goes for everyone.

Got it?

 

[Glider]

When you actually watch the videos, you'll learn that they are not about WoT.

But then, leaning something is the problem isn't it? Too scary to deal with for you, I'm sure.

I have watched the video's and they are not about the World of Tanks in fact he even thanks the organisers for inviting him when all he does is work for an unrealistic computer game, his words.

That said the talk is interesting but a little biased. When talking abut the reliability the Sherman was of course very reliable and that is a huge plus. He then compares the results of the test with a test comparing the Sherman against a Centaur and a Cromwell. This is fair and no doubt accurately reports the test however the Centaur was basically a Cromwell with a experimental upgraded Liberty engine which in itself had its roots in a 1918-20 engine. Hardly surprising that it didn't match the well tested Sherman and the Cromwell which also had a new engine hadn't had the bugs run out of it.
The test was also against the Cromwell I which was otherwise known as the Cavalier which had the un-upgraded version of the Liberty Engine so both lacked power and reliability
It's also true that the first units when they heard they were going to give up their Shermans really wanted to keep them. However once they had the Cromwell and had ironed the bugs out of it they much preferred the Cromwell. It was smaller, faster and just as reliable. The MkVII version had a considerable increase in the armour.

When talking about the 75mm it was often said in the video's that the 75 was 'killing everything in front of it'. Which technically is true but gives a very false impression as to how effective the 75mm was even at very close range against a Tiger. There are many examples of a 75mm having no effect against a Tiger, Panther or Ferdinand. The reequipment of the British and Canadian units with the 17pd was really needed and it's a version that the US forces would have given a lot for.

He never quoted a single tanker from any nation who believed the Sherman 75 had even an outside chance against the German Tigers and Panthers one to one. I have read a lot of books on the subject over the years and can honestly say that none have even implied that.

 

[Schweik]

I think the whole Sherman with 75mm issue is pretty tricky and tends to get spun one way and then the next. I hope I'll be forgiven a somewhat long winded attempt to provide some general clarity:

The John Wayne Era
First of course there was the US legend of invincibility, with kind of an undertone of fear of the Tiger (especially) and the Panther that came down from the actual troops that had to face them. We know of course that the Tiger was very rare, and the Panther had it's problems, but the Panther actually did a great deal of the real damage. However so did the much more humble and less sexy Pz IVG, H or J and the various StuG III, especially on the defensive. and other Jagdpanzers like Jgpz IV, Hetzer etc.

The Panzer Leader Era
The wonderful Golden Age of Wargames of the 1960's and 1970s was somewhat influenced by post-war personal accounts and autobiographies of German fighter pilot, bomber, and tank aces, some of whom were still rather extreme nationalists to say the least (Rudel) while others who were much more reasonable still tended to exaggerate the Uber qualities of their kit and downplay the merits of their enemies, especially the Soviets. We have discussed this before in the context of books about WW2 fighters, and the legends about the experten ala Erich Hartmann, Joachim Marseille, Adolph Galland, Gunther Rall etc., but it also very much existed for tanks. Many Americans in particular developed a fetish for German tanks and a lot of the wargames from the Golden Age, ala squad leader etc. which were extremely influential to much later computer games in the 90's and oughts such as Close Combat, Steel Panthers, Combat Mission etc., tended to emphasize the heavy firepower and thick armor of late war German tanks over the merits of Allied armies such as air support, and Allied tanks like reliability, speed, fast turret traverse (for the Sherman), situational awarenes of the open turret US TD's, .50 cal machine guns, and even that wonky gyrostabilizer.

The Belton Cooper Era
Then we get the famous "Death Traps" book by Belton Cooper and Stephen Ambrose, emphasizing the counter-narrative that the Sherman was a piece of junk and literally a 'death trap'. Coopers job was more or less to hose out and fix blown up Sherman's and put them back in the line, which he noted sometimes meant putting completely untrained crews into the tanks who got blown up again with grim rapidity. To a large extent this was an attempt by Ambrose and some other historians to inject a little reality into the US perception of WW II (such as in the first ten minutes of Saving Private Ryan). Really commendable and it wasn't necessarily their fault that US pop culture and media kind of distorted the message.

None of that book is untrue but it does paint a somewhat slanted picture, due to his (Cooper's) perspective. The rather grim reality is that most tank crews, German, British, Canadian, Russian, Free French or American, except maybe some of the elite Tigers, faced a very dangerous job if and when they actually got into a big battle with enemy tanks. If they were in a big tank battle quite often casualty rates were very high regardless, often reaching 90% or more. At El Alamein the British won but lost half of their tanks. In major battles like Kursk, Kharkov, Goodwood, Arracourt, in the Ardennes, Market Garden etc., tank casualties were horrendous. Tank crew like most WW2 soldiers involved at the tip of a spear, was almost a death sentence.

Wartime realities
Most of the time Allied tanks did not face enemy tanks from 1944 onward. And if they didn't face enemy tanks, the survival rate for tank crews was actually much higher than infantry or other front line troops. Meanwhile in Sicily, Italy and North Africa, after the initial roughing up / panic at Kasserine Pass and subsequent reorganization, US forces found that if they had their act together they did not particularly need to fear German tanks. So they put their emphasis more on getting their act together with the kit they had rather than getting any new kit and having to make adjustments for that. The Pz IV's, StuG III etc. were vulnerable to the basic medium velocity 75mm M3 gun on the M4 Sherman, and the additional assets like still somewhat undersung Tank Destroyers, the (typically very good and efficient) US artillery support and Anglo-American air support, if used at peak efficiency, were sufficient to handle the bigger tanks like Tigers, Panthers and all the other big Jagdpanzers and so on. The 75mm in fact was considered so 'sufficient' that US field commanders very strenuously resisted upgunning to the higher velocity 76mm gun, because it's HE shell was slightly less effective than the 75mm one and their most typical threat was still from AT guns and increasingly, panzerfausts. They also had little enthusiasm for the formidable US 90mm M3 gun which could have been put into action on tanks and TD's sooner than it was.

It wasn't until after D-Day that they really began to have serious problems with the heavier German tanks and their very high velocity guns i.e. the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 on the Panther and the 8.8 cm KwK 36 L/56 on the Tiger, which was bad enough to cause a scandal in the US and lead to extreme pressure on US military leadership to upgun and up-armor US armored vehicles. The British already had their firefly with the 17 pounder, an excellent gun though it's fitting in the M4 was somewhat less than ideal. Pressure on the US led to the faster rollout of improved US tanks, the addition of applique armor to US tanks in Europe, the production M4A3E8 and M3A3E2 "Jumbo" Sherman, and the 90mm gun armed M-36, and at the very end of the war, a few 90mm armed M-26 Pershings.

This had something to do with the terrain. North Africa was 'good' tank country in the sense that the ranges were very long, which favored the (higher velocity) German guns, however it was also not a great place for tanks to hide and by the time the Americans arrived the Allies were at least temporarily capable of seizing air superiority, and had a large number of well seasoned pilots doing relentless strikes. Big tanks (they did have some Tigers there) and 88 guns were prime targets for fighter bombers.

In Italy, it was better ground for defense but tanks in general had a hard time moving around. It was really more of a bloody infantry and artillery battle most of the time. Where tanks were significant such as at Anzio, once again Allied artillery and air support won the day, albeit after substantial losses.

In Western Europe with rolling hills, and a mix of open areas with forests, villages and hedgerows etc., it was very good defensive tank country - with enough room to maneuver but also plenty of cover, and some of the heavier beast like tanks and tank killers brought over from the Russian Front took a deadly gruesome toll on Anglo-American forces, in spite of any design flaws they had.

World of Tanks Era
So now you have guys like Major Nicholas Moran, the Irish born, American Army tank commander and historian who now works for World of Tanks franchise and does all these amusing viral videos and lectures about tanks. I kind of like the guy, and he knows a lot, but he definitely does have his biases (to be honest I think he has an anti-British bias among other things). To me the best things he does are the videos where he climbs inside almost every major tank of WW2 and shows you all the controls, systems and also design flaws that affected the crew. I think he and some other authors somewhat overstate the effectiveness of the M4 and understate it's flaws. Of course World of Tanks has many gung-ho Panzer lovers too, but it kind of carries it's own slightly off / reddit style Aspy junior gamer revisionism which I think distorts the picture quite a bit. You have some people now saying that the M4 was the best tank of the war and the PzKw V was a crappy tank. To me that is taking it way too far. Unlike the previous generation of semi-serious wargames like Close Combat or Combat Mission, which made some attempts at realism, the Free to Play World of Tanks is an arcade game which caters to whatever fantasies or delusions the kids want, - whatever it takes to get them to play, same of course with their equally dismal World of Warplanes which does it's best to spread distortions about WWII air combat. Whatever you want to say about older games like Il2, they at least made an effort toward realism.

Cold Rational Analysis / Threading the Needle
Wartime records like that wonderful document Fubar57 uploaded upthread paint a more nuanced picture. There certainly were severe massacres of Allied tank units at the hands of Tigers, Panthers, StuG III's and good old 88 flak / AT guns. But on the other hand you have major incidents like the Battle of Arracourt where in somewhat foggy conditions, an American Armor division consisting almost entirely of 75mm gunned M4 Shermans, plus a few Tank Destroyers and some M7 'Priest' self propelled guns*, basically wiped out 114 Panthers for the loss of 25 tanks and 7 TD's. Part of the credit for this goes to the TD's, which as I said already I think are underrated. the super fast M-18 had a very good record, the M-36 Jackson could knock out most of the German heavy tanks at long range if they had the right ammunition, but even the more flawed / humble M-10 often did really well against German armor, particularly on the defense.

But a lot of the credit goes to the basic M4 / 75mm Sherman which when well led, could do real damage even in tank to tank warfare. Very similar things incidentally happened in Normandy. We all know the trouble Allied troops had in bocage country, but the Germans had the same trouble when they counter attacked in this era and as most are probably aware, with flank shots - that tend to be easier to achieve on the defensive - M4 /75mm Shermans could kill panthers with hits to their side armor, and Pz IV and StuG III etc. were basically dead meat.

When the M4 Sherman first came out, for all it's initial flaws, it was one of the best tanks in the world. It was a big help to the British and Commonwealth forces in 1942. Due to what you might call institutional complacency by the US military the basic design was only incrementally improved in 1943 and the first half of 1944. From the second half of 1944, there were bad massacres of US tanks, both in American and British hands, like at Goodwood and Market Garden etc., but there were also at least as many substantial victories like Arracourt which tended to be downplayed in the last 20-30 years. WW2 was a tough fight, the Germans were tough opponents, and their tanks were good. Meanwhile in Russia, they actually liked the M4, which contrary to myth was a major improvement over the T-34/76 in almost every respect (including main gun and armor), and in fact it's only major flaw for them was the relatively narrow tracks and poor flotation, which meant due to their soggy ground it couldn't really be deployed except during the dry months. But when it was deployed by the Russians it was in elite guards units. This issue with the tracks was largely remedied in West Europe by the simple expedient of adding track extenders.

But the other part of it is more prosaic, from a variety of British and American studies both of WWII and Korea (where US M4 /76mm armed Sherman's faced off against Soviet made T-34 /85's) the deciding factor in tank warfare was surprise and situational awareness - i.e. the tanks that shot first usually won the engagement I think about 80% of the time. This in turn is partly why the oft criticized open top design feature of US Tank Destroyers may have actually been a stroke of genius, as for all it's many downsides it did contribute to enhanced Situational Awareness.

The very nature of tanks is at the center of the debate. Two contradictory things are both true, on the one hand the ideal job of the tank is to exploit disorganized enemy forces after a breakthrough, to support infantry attacks and to drive around machine gunning and blasting demoralized enemy troops (but always with infantry support). But it's job was also in practice to break through strong defenses (again with infantry and artillery - without infantry support tanks were and are very vulnerable) and to fight other tanks. The M4 was good at the first job and pretty good at the second, even with the 75mm gun. The ultimate WW2 version, the M4A3E8, usually with some enhanced armor (Patton had an extra 2" or 3" of armor cut off of knocked out American and even sometimes German tanks and welded to the fronts of his Shermans) and a relatively potent 76mm gun, was better in the latter job. But the reality is the Germans weren't able to field enough tanks after D-Day to require a better tank killer, and before D-Day the Americans' hadn't perceived a need for one (rightly or wrongly).


* there are some bizarre incidents in the battle such as a guy named 'Bazooka Charlie" Carpenter who took up an L-4 Cub aircraft with bazookas strapped to the wings and attacked columns of Panther tanks with it, supposedly killing two in a series of attacks.

 

[Shortround6]

I might add that some of the problems the Americans encountered (not all of them) with the tank destroyers was when they tried to use them like tanks. Like using them for infantry support in built up areas Towns/cities were not only did the open top become a liability but the location of the .50 cal machine gun was problem, if operated by a man standing (kneeling?) in the turret the .50 cal gun pointed the opposite way the cannon did, Standing on the engine deck to fire the .50 over the top of the turret was a pretty dangerous position.
Some crews welded one or more mounts on the turret to take extra .30 machine guns to help increase the non cannon firepower while being at least partially protected by armor.
There was no coax machine gun and no hull gun.

The armor was also much thinner than on a Sherman leaving the tank destroyers, in close in fighting, more vulnerable to lighter weapons. But this was not what they were designed for.

 

[Schweik]

I might add that some of the problems the Americans encountered (not all of them) with the tank destroyers was when they tried to use them like tanks. Like using them for infantry support in built up areas Towns/cities were not only did the open top become a liability but the location of the .50 cal machine gun was problem, if operated by a man standing (kneeling?) in the turret the .50 cal gun pointed the opposite way the cannon did, Standing on the engine deck to fire the .50 over the top of the turret was a pretty dangerous position.
Some crews welded one or more mounts on the turret to take extra .30 machine guns to help increase the non cannon firepower while being at least partially protected by armor.
There was no coax machine gun and no hull gun.

The armor was also much thinner than on a Sherman leaving the tank destroyers, in close in fighting, more vulnerable to lighter weapons. But this was not what they were designed for.

yes, agreed - this was in part remedied with field modifications, including welding armor to the tops sometimes in awkward configurations, or piling on sand bags

Another big problem was weather- it rains a lot in Western Europe! And often that is cold rain. They had some kind of canvas thing to put over the top but it didn't look that efficient to me. The bottom line is that really there was no perfect solution to the tank problem. The Germans and Russians used turretless tank destroyers which were good in some ways (StuGG III and Su-100 stand out) but also had a lot of flaws. In certain kind of hull down defensive position a StuGG III could be devastating but if you got close or flanked it, it was not long for the world.

 

[Schweik]

Another ... holy cow with hedgerow cutter

 

[Milosh]

basically wiped out 114 Panthers for the loss of 25 tanks and 7 TD's.

Every German tank was either a Panther or a Tiger.

113th Panzer Brigade at Arracourt
- 2113th Pz Bn ( Pz Replacement Bn 35 )(45 Mk IV)
- Bn Hq/recon section
- 3 Pz Mk IV
- 3 MkIV kompanies 14 Pz IV each

- I Bn/130 Pz Lehr (44 Mk V)
- Bn Hq/recon section
- 2 Pz Mk V
- 3 Pz V kompanies 14 Mk V each

 

[GrauGeist]

...The Germans and Russians used turretless tank destroyers which were good in some ways (StuGG III and Su-100 stand out) but also had a lot of flaws. In certain kind of hull down defensive position a StuGG III could be devastating but if you got close or flanked it, it was not long for the world.

The StuG was not designed to be a Tank Destroyer. It's mission profile was mobile close fire support for infantry. The fact that it was capable as anti-armor was a plus. The Hetzer (JagdPz38) on the otherhand, was.

The common thread with all JadgPanzers (38, IV, Panther, Tiger and Ferdinand), is that they all had a fully enclosed casemate.

However, the Germans did have open hull self-propelled artillery used in the anti-tank role too, like the converted Panzer I, Wespe/Marder, Nashorn, etc.

 

[Schweik]

Yes true though I would argue that the StuG III was more effective as a TD than as an "assault gun" - due to vulnerability partly because of lack of a turret.

Similarly Marder, JgPz II etc. were a bit less effective by the mid 44 time frame IMO. Nashorn could be dangerous ... Wasn't the Wespe really a SP howitzer?

Unlike with the Cruiser tanks the Germans did not neglect dual purpose uses so they could be used against tanks too, I hink the LeFH_18 had a HEAT warhead didn't it?

 

[Schweik]

Every German tank was either a Panther or a Tiger.

113th Panzer Brigade at Arracourt
- 2113th Pz Bn ( Pz Replacement Bn 35 )(45 Mk IV)
- Bn Hq/recon section
- 3 Pz Mk IV
- 3 MkIV kompanies 14 Pz IV each

- I Bn/130 Pz Lehr (44 Mk V)
- Bn Hq/recon section
- 2 Pz Mk V
- 3 Pz V kompanies 14 Mk V each

True fair point, some of those losses were probably Pz IV's, but it still seems that a lot of them were Mk V's. Photos from before, during and after the battle show a lot of PZ V including quite a few K/O near Arracourt or nearby towns like Burres and Rechicourt.

My understanding was that 11th Panzer Division and 111th Panzer Brigade also participated, both on paper had about 50/50 Panther and Mark IV tanks. 11th Panzer seems to have included at least 90 Panther / Mk V tanks in it's TO&E, 91 Panzer IV, and 42 Hetzers. According to this it was 'shattered' by the US 9th Army in Southern France.

According to this on paper the main force of the 111th Pz Bde was Pz V's heavily degraded before Arracourt but had 19 Mk V and 10 Mk IV operational on the eve of the battle.

I guess the question there is which tank would they lead with in an assault, Pz IV or Pz V - I would assume Pz V since they had much better armor but I don't know.

 

[Schweik]

I should also add, the British version of the M-10, the 'Achilles' with the 17 pounder gun, was arguably* the single most deadly tank vs. tank Allied AFV of the war. Once again the combination of Anglo-American engineering for the win...


*I'm sure very arguably, but that's my opinion...

 

[Schweik]

Here is an interesting arrangement vis a vis top protection and HMG

 

[GrauGeist]

Yes true though I would argue that the StuGG III was more effective as a TD than as an "assault gun" - due to vulnerability partly because of lack of a turret.

Similarly Marder, JgPz II etc. were a bit less effective by the mid 44 time frame IMO. Nashorn could be dangerous ... Wasn't the Wespe really a SP howitzer?

Unlike with the Cruiser tanks the Germans did not neglect dual purpose uses so they could be used against tanks too, I hink the LeFH_18 had a HEAT warhead didn't it?

Actually, it would be the other way around for the StuG...having no traverse puts it at a disadvantage in an AT role because it can be flanked unless constantly repositioning. In an infantry support role, it's targets (bunkers, artillery parks, entrenced defensive points) are static.

The Wespe was designed as SP arty and the Marder II was a spin-off of the Wespe.

The LeFH 18, was primarily field artillery and as such, had no AT rounds developed for it. I belive it was put to use in an AT role on a few occasions through nessecity, but not with much success.

 

[Schweik]

As a TD though the StuG III could behave just like a marder or JgPz IV or Hetzer etc., i.e. shoot a few shots, back away when / if detected and reposition, keeping distance. Seemed to work pretty well that way. The key is to maintain distance.

Regarding the .50 cal, I remember a scenario described in a book I have from the fall of 1944, where one of the CCA of I forget which US armor divisions had developed a kind of hybrid unit for the 'tip of the spear' recon battallion. In addition to some M4A3E2 'Jumbo' Shermans with extra armor, some M4A3/ 105mm and regular M4s they had collected a large number of M2 .50 cal MG's, and put them (often with repositioned pintle points) on all their tanks and trucks, M-20 and M-8 armored cars, M3A1 half-tracks. They also had collected several M-16 and M-15 GMC / AAA halftrack vehicles from the divisional flak units, with multi-HMG mounts. They had .50's on their Deuce 1/2 trucks, and even the Jeeps had .50 cals on them. They were well supplied with ammunition at the time in the ideal / exaggerated American way, and took advantage of this in the following manner. IIRC they had over 100 HMG gun barrels on 70 vehicles and AFV's.

As they drove down the road, every time they spotted an even marginally suspicious looking clump of trees or farmhouses, they blasted away with 20 or so HMG barrels (or as many as had LOS) for a couple of seconds. If they got any kind of reaction or saw movement, they did it more with 100+ barrels and cut loose with the tank guns. If they encountered enemy tanks they quickly backed up and spread out, and called their artillery (the Division had a bunch of M7 'Priest' AFV's, 81mm mortars on halftracks, and some other mobile artillery assets) and brought up the TD's.

Allegedly they took out a lot of hidden AT guns and panzerfaust ambushes this way, and took out quite a few tanks and assault guns too. No report as to how many innocent civilians, farm animals etc. were killed of course.

Footage of M-16 MGMC firing. The ammunition cans were called 'tombstones'

 

[Shortround6]

The LeFH 18, was primarily field artillery and as such, had no AT rounds developed for it. I belive it was put to use in an AT role on a few occasions through nessecity, but not with much success.

According to Ian Hogg, the Germans had 6 different AP rounds for the LeFH (obviously not all at the same time) but essentially these were for self defence. Another source says many German artillery pieces had about 5 AT rounds issued as general procedure to guard against overruns or unexpected encounters, hardly enough ammo to plan a true anti tank defense around.

Now I have seen a rough and ready formula for figuring out point plank ranges for tank guns. MV + 10% = point Blank range, that is the range at which the shell, aimed at the middle of the target (forget that aim at the drivers visor crap) will either rise above or fall below the target (average sized tank).

The 10.5 AP rounds were the 10cm Pzgr weight 14.25kg which had a rather large explosive charge (for an AP shell) was uncapped and had a MV of 395m/s and was not supposed to be used at ranges exceeding 1500meters.Chances of getting at first round hit at 1500m are exceedingly small, projectile is in it's 4th second of flight and dropping at at around 120-130fps if I have done the math right. But I didn't figure loss of velocity.
2nd AP shell was the 10cm Pzgr rot. weight 15.71kg This had both a penetrating cap and a ballistic cap a somewhat smaller explosive charge and was supposed to go through 67mm at 500 meters at 0 degrees and 56mm at 500 meters at 30 degrees. MV 390m/s
These were replaced by a succession of hollow charge shells starting with the 10.5cm Gr 39H1, weight 11.75 kg fired with charge 5, soon replaced with the 10.5cm Gr rot H1/A of 12.30 kg and fired with charge 6 at 496m/s. It was supposed to penetrate 100mm at 0 degrees and 70mm at 30 degrees. It used 2.12 KG of cyclonite/TNT/wax to do it. the next two shells were refinements to get the same performance using a bit less explosive.

Official scale of issue of ammunition was not always available in the field

 

[Shortround6]

Just a note on ammo supply, This is a pre-war list for infantry weapons for the US so the truck capacities may not match war time trucks.
A 1/2 ton weapons carrier (early Dodge 3/4 ton)
could carry
11,500 rounds of .30cal for rifle and auto rifle
12,500 rounds of .30 cal in belts.
3000 rounds of .50 cal in belts.
270 rounds of 60mm mortar
100 rounds of 81mm mortar
200 rounds of 37mm antitank

The 1 1/2 ton truck carried 3 times those amounts. The ammo is crated for transport.

 

[GrauGeist]

I should have specified no offensive AT round developed for the 10.5cm like the Gr. 39/3 HL, but I was on the phone, so I had to generalize.

 

[Shortround6]

Well, I don't believe many field guns/howitzers had offensive AT shells in anybody's army, so no worries.

some armies more than others, supplied a few shells just in case enemy tanks showed up while the Friendly tanks (and AT guns) were taking a tea break.

This what gets some of the "timmy the power gamer" types all excited, Gun XX has got an AP round that will go through a battleship at 10,000yds. game rules, to keep things simple, allow any gun to be emplaced/dug in one or two turns (instead of the hours (20-30 game turns) in real life so artillery guns get misused in many games.

Using 10cm field howitzers or 25pdrs as AT weapons is a sure sign of desperation.