Panzergranate 44 - German APFSDS

[schwarzpanzer]

Just wondering what anyone thought on the usefulness of this round?

Leaving aside whether or not it actually did see service, or was used in combat.

My theory is that it wasn't that useful. The KwK 42 and 43 it was developed for were more than enough to deal with any opposing AFV at silly distances, with plain old APCBC/HE (a JS-2 @ 4,600m, apparently), so would be wasteful.

However, it would allow them to deal with the IS-3, albeit at very close range. By which time the IS-3 would probably have knocked them out. Having said that, perhaps plain old AP would have been enough to knock the IS-3 out by spalling? - which Soviet armour was prone to.

As a guide,in the Six-day War, the 90mms of the M48A2 Pattons had considerable difficulty penetrating the IS-3s frontal armour.

In the 128mm, I'm not so sure.

It was not developed for the 75mm KwK40 though - but I believe this is where it would be most useful: allowing for much increased battle effectiveness. Using plain steel shot too - no need for tungsten/wolfram IMO.

It could even have allowed the 50mm L60 to soldier on a bit longer? but creating it for an obsolete gun does seem wasteful - but the gun had weight advantages and was used on the Puma.

Also, in the PaK 36, it might make a useful Fallschirmjager weapon?...

Any thoughts?

 

[tomo pauk]

If that type of ammo required tungsten (think it did), it would've never gotten in production...

For 128mm, why bother with AP(FS)DS? Plan vanilla HE projectile is way cheaper more versatile. Plus even the hit in a mud guard means mission kill for targeted tank, since track would know.

 

[hartmann]

Also, in the PaK 36,

In fact, It was made an APFSDS shot for the 37 mm PaK36, but I don´t know If it took this designation (PzGr 44). It was known as PPS (Peenemünder Pfeil Geschoss). But this shot was only experimental.

If that type of ammo required tungsten (think it did

Not necesary. The first 115 mm APFSDS-T for the Soviet gun were of maraging steel, so It was the experimental PPS shot for the PaK 36 (from hardened steel, not from maraging steel).

But, as Germany was in fact manufacturing some very little quantities of PzGr40 in 1944 from Uranium for the PaK39, I don´t see problems to made this shot from Uranium.

This late part is only especulative by the way.
Best regards

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi tomo,

Thats a good point on the 128mm. I wonder if HE would be enough to stop an IS tank though? The 128mm had a sloow reload and weighed 10 tons - perhaps it was a pointless weapon, what with the 155mm being available? (I suspect there a new Thread in there somewhere...).

The Conqueror and M103 got a 120mm to deal with the IS-3 though, and modern MBTs use a 128mm L55 too - so it may have had merit?

Personally though, I suspect tat it may have been pintless - and that the 88mm L100 would have been a better prospect.


Hi hartmann,

In fact, It was made an APFSDS shot for the 37 mm PaK36, but I don´t know If it took this designation (PzGr 44). It was known as PPS (Peenemünder Pfeil Geschoss). But this shot was only experimental.

Great stuff, thanks! It wasn't that squeeze-bore thing was it? Do you have any more details on it please?

Not necesary. The first 115 mm APFSDS-T for the Soviet gun were of maraging steel, so It was the experimental PPS shot for the PaK 36 (from hardened steel, not from maraging steel).

Yes, quite true. Also, some PzGr40 APCR used steel cores. I think steel would have been OK for use in KwK40 and under for long-range usage, but not for the KwK 42 and upwards for close-range fights against heavy tanks.

But, as Germany was in fact manufacturing some very little quantities of PzGr40 in 1944 from Uranium for the PaK39, I don´t see problems to made this shot from Uranium.

This late part is only especulative by the way.
Best regards

Ah yes, I'd forgotten about that, thanks for reminding me! Apparently, this was the basis for the rounds in the GAU in the A-10 Warthog (which apparently used APCR, not APDS weirdly enough - is that right?).

This would have been a suitable material for the bigger guns IMO.


Another thing is that, IIRC, some (or all?) PzGr40 had a ballistic cap - so if the PzGr44 also had this feature, it wouldn't have suffered as much from the problems that the British SVDS on the Firefly had.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi tomo,

Thats a good point on the 128mm. I wonder if HE would be enough to stop an IS tank though? The 128mm had a sloow reload and weighed 10 tons - perhaps it was a pointless weapon, what with the 155mm being available? (I suspect there a new Thread in there somewhere...).

The Conqueror and M103 got a 120mm to deal with the IS-3 though, and modern MBTs use a 128mm L55 too - so it may have had merit?

Guns for Conqueror M-103 have had 5-15 years to mess with right kind of ammo, and Brits prefered HESH IIRC.
There is no much sense to compare modern tank armament with one from WW2; BTW its 120-125mm, not 128mm

Personally though, I suspect tat it may have been pintless - and that the 88mm L100 would have been a better prospect.

The L100 would be needing tungsten even more to put it's muzzle velocity in a good use - why not 105L80?

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi tomo,

I think the Conqueror and M103s were rush-jobs? Basically just throwing a 120mm AA gun onto a Cheiftain/Patton chasis as best they could (which caused allsorts of problems). As for ammo I don't know - bt IIRC the Conquerors was hated, as it was split-loading (like the 128mm), dunno about the M103s - but I expect the same. I can check on that if you like?

What you say about HESH backs up your idea though - using non-penetration methods to defeat armour (as the Soviets did). Perhaps this was the best ( only) way to deal with the IS-3? (Before the 105mm L7, or similar).

There is no much sense to compare modern tank armament with one from WW2;

There are some parralels that can be drawn though. I have no other things to compare it to. I don't know what the velocity difference was (but that's easily found out) and if the 128mm was to use Uranium APFSDS, then that would form the basis of a good comparison? (Not a great one mind, but it's the best I've got to work with).

BTW its 120-125mm, not 128mm

Oh no! Its not one of those, is it? Like the Comets 77mm and Shermans 76mm guns actually being 76.2mm, you mean? Anyway, you'll have to forgive me if I just call it a 128mm?

The L100 would be needing tungsten even more to put it's muzzle velocity in a good use - why not 105L80?

Would tungsten be needed for longer ranges? - and would Uranium be adequate? - That creates 2 more types of round though, which might make loading a knightmare (as was the case with the Sherman 76mm, and the T-54/55).

Your idea of a 105mm is similar to the 105mm L7, which proved succesful, though that was only with APDS? (btw L7 is the designation, not the length in calibres, tee-hee!).

 

[hartmann]

Hello to alll ¡

Hi hartmann,


Quote:
In fact, It was made an APFSDS shot for the 37 mm PaK36, but I don´t know If it took this designation (PzGr 44). It was known as PPS (Peenemünder Pfeil Geschoss). But this shot was only experimental.

Great stuff, thanks! It wasn't that squeeze-bore thing was it?

No, It was a true APFSDS shot.
You can see it in the diagram:

Not necessary. The first 115 mm APFSDS-T for the Soviet gun were of maraging steel, so It was the experimental PPS shot for the PaK 36 (from hardened steel, not from maraging steel).
Yes, quite true. Also, some PzGr40 APCR used steel cores.

Completely true, Schwarzpanzer. The various types of PzGr40 were filled with Tungsten Carbide, with hardened steel, with SOFT IRON ¡¡¡ and also with uranium cores (ultra-limited quantities).

which apparently used APCR, not APDS weirdly enough - is that right?).

Completely correct my friend. The GAU gun uses 30mm APCR uranium cored shells. It doesn't use APDS shots.

Another thing is that, IIRC, some (or all?) PzGr40 had a ballistic cap

From all the German manuals and info available which I own, all the PzGr 40 shots had a ballistic cap.

so if the PzGr44 also had this feature, it wouldn't have suffered as much from the problems that the British SVDS on the Firefly had.

I don't understand well the question.
An APFSDS-T shot obtains the inherent in-flight stability because of the fins which has, so it doesn't need from any kind of ballistic cap (although some very late APDS and some early APFSDS-T had a piercing cap to help in highly oblique impacts).

Quote:
Personally though, I suspect tat it may have been pointless - and that the 88mm L100 would have been a better prospect.
The L100 would be needing tungsten even more to put its muzzle velocity in a good use - why not 105L80?

The next gun to upgrade the Tiger IB (aka Königstiger) was a 105mm L60 developed and tested in late 1944 by Krupp.
BTW, As you have said, lengthen the gun to 100 calibres was completely useless, unless will be used a new kind of steel alloy (as maraging steel), tungsten carbide, uranium or something similar. With hardened steel conventional shells, the Germans saw that simply increase the MV was useless if the shell impacted at the objective at more than 1250 m/s (as they proved with the PzGr 39/43 fired at a MV of 1500 m/s versus a 320 mm plate (the shells ever broke upon impact on the plate without obtain complete penetration).

Perhaps this was the best ( only) way to deal with the IS-3?

The IS3 was still vulnerable to the KwK43 except (theoretically) in the glacis plate. In the practical life, the curious glacis weld in the centre, was a very weak point (even the weld seam broke up several times when the engine tank run at maximum rpm because of harmonic vibration which led to catastrophic failure of the weld seam), so I suspect that a high velocity APCBC 88 mm impact near or on the weld seam would have produced a failure of the weld seam.

BTW, I suspect that the brand new design ultra-blunted nose PzGr 43 APCBC-HE designed for both, the 128 mm and 170 mm would have beaten even at the IS7 (at least, the 170 mm shell)

Best regards. I hope this helps

 

[Shortround6]

Hello to alll ¡
No, It was a true APFSDS shot.
You can see it in the diagram:

Was this intended to be service ammunition or was it ammunition made to test a concept?

As in small scale experiment in support of a large size long range gun?

Considering that the projectile is just over 10% lighter than I wouldn't expect any large increase in MV.

While the weight/energy per sq cm of target area would certainly go up I am not certain if this would elevate the 37mm AT gun to a viable weapon in 1944.

Post war tanks that used APFSDS rounds did so in order to get even higher velocities than they could get with APDS in addition to the higher energy per sq cm of target area.

 

[davebender]

It could even have allowed the 50mm L60 to soldier on a bit longer? but creating it for an obsolete gun does seem wasteful

I think the opposite is true. By 1942 Germany has thousands of 5cm/42 and 5cm/60 weapons in service. By providing them with APFSDS rounds they remain effect vs most enemy armor for the remainder of the war. The catch is that you need enough tungsten to mass produce the new sabot rounds, which Germany didn't have.

If enough tungsten were available...
I would issue some APFSDS rounds to the 3.7cm Flak43 units. This superb AA gun (250 RPM) entered service in 1944. With sabot rounds I suspect it would be dangerous to medium tanks like the T-34 and Sherman.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi tomo,
I think the Conqueror and M103s were rush-jobs? Basically just throwing a 120mm AA gun onto a Cheiftain/Patton chasis as best they could (which caused allsorts of problems). As for ammo I don't know - bt IIRC the Conquerors was hated, as it was split-loading (like the 128mm), dunno about the M103s - but I expect the same. I can check on that if you like?

Yep, I've read that Conqueror had problems with loading the main ammo.

What you say about HESH backs up your idea though - using non-penetration methods to defeat armour (as the Soviets did). Perhaps this was the best ( only) way to deal with the IS-3? (Before the 105mm L7, or similar).

If you go for kill with any kind of AP ammo, you need to hit the tank just the right place (to ignite ammo/fuel, engine, or to kill crew member(s)). And non-uranium penetrators do not ignite easy.
If you hit with heavy enough HE/HESH, your not-so-good hits would've make enemy tank destroyed.

There are some parralels that can be drawn though. I have no other things to compare it to. I don't know what the velocity difference was (but that's easily found out) and if the 128mm was to use Uranium APFSDS, then that would form the basis of a good comparison? (Not a great one mind, but it's the best I've got to work with).

As for comparing the cannons, the comparison with russian 122 130mm, and US 120mm of WW2 does make sense. But comparison with smooth-bore modern cannons is not that valid IMO.

Oh no! Its not one of those, is it? Like the Comets 77mm and Shermans 76mm guns actually being 76.2mm, you mean? Anyway, you'll have to forgive me if I just call it a 128mm?

Okay, I'll call them 5in then

Would tungsten be needed for longer ranges? - and would Uranium be adequate? - That creates 2 more types of round though, which might make loading a knightmare (as was the case with the Sherman 76mm, and the T-54/55).

If you're developing new cannon, you better make the best ammo for it, or your tank end up like Russian T-62s T-72s - burning wrecks after Merkavas M1s got them.
The issue for Germans at the end of WW2 was lack of tungsten, that's why I 'propose' 105mm, firing HE/HEAT, and just a fraction of AP ammo.

Your idea of a 105mm is similar to the 105mm L7, which proved succesful, though that was only with APDS? (btw L7 is the designation, not the length in calibres, tee-hee!).

I know about L7; trivia for you: how the Brits call their 120mm tank gun. Starts with an 'L' too...
As for ammo, it also sports HESH HE.

 

[davebender]

issue for Germans at the end of WW2 was lack of tungsten, that's why I 'propose' 105mm, firing HE/HEAT, and just a fraction of AP ammo.

I agree. However I don't think a 10.5cm HEAT round is necessary to destroy WWII era armor.

Armour penetration table
Early model German 7.5cm HEAT rounds will penetrate 100mm of armor. The more advanced 8.8cm Panzerschreck HEAT warhead would penetrate 209mm of armor. That's plenty powerful. You could build a relatively light weight (i.e. moderate velocity) 8.8cm anti tank cannon that fires modern HEAT rounds. As a bonus the same rounds are also effective against soft targets like machinegun emplacements.

 

[tomo pauk]

When you add the shell that envelopes 8,8 cm HEAT projectile from Panzerschrek, necessary to reinforce it so it could withstand the stress of being fired from long gun, the 'new' projectile ends ticker than 10 cm - perhaps 10,5cm

The moderate velocity gun would've been nice, but then you cut on the efficient range the ability to easily hit a moving target.

 

[davebender]

moderate velocity gun would've been nice, but then you cut on the efficient range the ability to easily hit a moving target

The 75mm M3 cannon on the Sherman tank had a velocity of 2,031 ft/sec (619 m/s). Everythng I've read suggests it could hit enemy tanks at normal WWII combat ranges. It just didn't penetrate armor very well. A hypothetical 8.8cm or 10.5cm tank cannon with a similiar muzzle velocity should work as long as they have HEAT shells.

 

[tomo pauk]

At what combat ranges 75mm was able to hit a tank sized, moving target?

On a more affirmative note, perhaps Germans might have went British Russian way - necking up the cannon ammo (7,5cm to 8,8 for German gun)? Guess the muzzle weight would've been above 600 m/s for the 50% increase in shell weight? Good enough when dealing with Russians W. Allies, for no reduction of ammo count on Pz-IV?

 

[Shortround6]

You can estimate the point blank range of a tank or anti-tank gun by taking the MV and adding 10%.
as in MV 619M/s + 61.9meters for 681 meters.

ALL projectiles will fall 16ft in their first second of flight. Aiming the gun up slightly from dead level means the shell (if sights are pointed at the middle of a 10ft tall tank) will rise slightly until at about 350-400meters it is hitting the top of the turret and at 650-675 meters the shell would hit the bottom edge of the hull (or there abouts). In WWII when range was obtained using the MK I eyeball mistakes in range were very common.

as the range lengthens things get a lot worse real quick. In the second second of flight the projectile will fall 48 ft more. Assuming the gross simplification of no air resistance so the shell keeps a constant speed our Sherman gunner will have to point the barrel at a point in space 64 ft (19.4 meters) above the target at a range of 1240 meters. guessing the range wrong by even 100 meters may mean a miss. Using a gun with a MV of 930M/S means a flight time of 1.5 seconds and much less drop and a flatter angle as the shell comes down for a larger danger area.

HEAT shells evolved a tremendous amount during WW II and after. Cone shape, cone material and fusing all played parts. The higher the spin rate on the shell the worse it worked in practice. A reason for post war smooth bore guns and/or slipping driving bands. It was also found that a certain stand of distance was needed for the jet to form properly. High velocity impacts crushed the nose of the shell and shortened the stand of distance (reason for some of those long nose probes on post war shells).

Penetration of armor is no guarantee of a kill. Penetration by a high velocity projectile means a lot of metal (the stuff that used to be where the hole is) flying around the tank at high speed. Many heat shells are rated by the thickness that the jet will just penetrate, in order to do significant damage to what is behind the armor either the exact right spot must be hit or the shell must have a good margin of over penetration. This is one reason the British went with HESH shells, They thought that the existing HEAT shells didn't do enough damage behind the armor.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

This post is so long, I had to do it in 2 parts! Sorry if this anoys anyone - if it does, just let me know OK? Thanks.

Hi hartmann,

That is truly EXCELLENT info, thankyou!

Completely correct my friend. The GAU gun uses 30mm APCR uranium cored shells. It doesn't use APDS shots.

I wonder why not?? IIRC it had testing problems with sabot parts causing jams - perhaps that was it?

From all the German manuals and info available which I own, all the PzGr 40 shots had a ballistic cap.

Ah right, thankyou. That APFSDS doesnt seem to have a BC though, wonder if the PzGr44 did?...

I don't understand well the question.
An APFSDS-T shot obtains the inherent in-flight stability because of the fins which has, so it doesn't need from any kind of ballistic cap (although some very late APDS and some early APFSDS-T had a piercing cap to help in highly oblique impacts).

Sorry, yes I was referring to the 'bouncing' - which was a problem for SVDS. Also, a spinning penetrator is more likely to be deflected IIRC? Another advantage would be increased resistance to shatter. One more thing, SVDS had poor after-penetration damage, Uranium penetrators would not this problem ( be better than APHE?).

The next gun to upgrade the Tiger IB (aka Königstiger) was a 105mm L60 developed and tested in late 1944 by Krupp.

Great stuff, thanks! Sounds sensible.

BTW, As you have said, lengthen the gun to 100 calibres was completely useless, unless will be used a new kind of steel alloy (as maraging steel), tungsten carbide, uranium or something similar.

I wonder if the 88mm L100 would perform OK with a Uranium penetrator? - Or with standard PzGr39/43 at longer distances? Removing the HE filler would have been a wise move IMO. Still, such a long barrel would make a vehicle hard to maneuver! I wonder if the 88mm L100 suffered from the same negative effects as the 75mm L100 did? (barrel whip etc).

With hardened steel conventional shells, the Germans saw that simply increase the MV was useless if the shell impacted at the objective at more than 1250 m/s (as they proved with the PzGr 39/43 fired at a MV of 1500 m/s versus a 320 mm plate (the shells ever broke upon impact on the plate without obtain complete penetration).

I think the most the Germans had to worry about was 280mm (max on the IS-3), though I suppose the slope of the armour will have increased that.

The IS3 was still vulnerable to the KwK43 except (theoretically) in the glacis plate.

Even on the turret? (280mm, sloped very well). It did have a slight shot-trap though.

In the practical life, the curious glacis weld in the centre, was a very weak point (even the weld seam broke up several times when the engine tank run at maximum rpm because of harmonic vibration which led to catastrophic failure of the weld seam), so I suspect that a high velocity APCBC 88 mm impact near or on the weld seam would have produced a failure of the weld seam.

Excellent info. Like the Char SOMUA in a way then.

BTW, I suspect that the brand new design ultra-blunted nose PzGr 43 APCBC-HE designed for both, the 128 mm and 170 mm would have beaten even at the IS7 (at least, the 170 mm shell)

What were the penetration figures for thse new shells, do you know? Were they the same type as used in the KwK 43? I thought the 128mm L55 used PzGr43 only? as standard?

Best regards. I hope this helps

You too mate, thankyou! - it is truly astonishing info. Is it OK if I ask where you got that drawing from?


Hi Shortround,

As in small scale experiment in support of a large size long range gun?

I suspect it was just intended to eek out more performance from the 'Army doorknocker' - when Germany still had tungsten coming out of her ears. This round may have been able to take out a Matilda II easily? Funny that they rejected this, and stayed with APCR - though this design seems to use a lot of tugsten.

Considering that the projectile is just over 10% lighter than I wouldn't expect any large increase in MV.

But the drag would be much decreased - meaning much higher terminal velocity. Also carrying weight.

While the weight/energy per sq cm of target area would certainly go up I am not certain if this would elevate the 37mm AT gun to a viable weapon in 1944.

I think this was scrapped well before that, it just illustrates the plans that led to the PzGr44 in the 75mm up. As to it's usefullness in 1944 - well, we shall see on this thread... What vehicles still used a 37mm in 1944 anyway?

Post war tanks that used APFSDS rounds did so in order to get even higher velocities than they could get with APDS in addition to the higher energy per sq cm of target area.

They used sliding collars, or smoothbore guns? - If so, they are pretty different. These fins amy have acted like a Tallboys? (though not seemingly so, form those drawings). I don't have info on cold war rifled AP(FS?)DS to hand right now, sorry. Which guns were you meaning?

More info will be needed on these PPS rounds (fins? sliding collars?), great info again hartmann!

Some nice info at the bottom there Shortround - explained it much better than I could. One thing though:

This is one reason the British went with HESH shells, They thought that the existing HEAT shells didn't do enough damage behind the armor.

As I mentioned above, spalling doesn't cause fires (?), whereas HEAT does all too readily – so why would they think that? Still, it could allow the vehicle to be recovered?..


Hi davebender,

I think the opposite is true. By 1942 Germany has thousands of 5cm/42 and 5cm/60 weapons in service. By providing them with APFSDS rounds they remain effect vs most enemy armor for the remainder of the war. The catch is that you need enough tungsten to mass produce the new sabot rounds, which Germany didn't have.

Thats an interesting viewpoint. Normal steel would have done the job, as it did in some APCR rounds, which hartmann has mentioned above. Also, Uranium was used too. Soft Iron might be a bit 'unsuitable' though!

If enough tungsten were available...
I would issue some APFSDS rounds to the 3.7cm Flak43 units. This superb AA gun (250 RPM) entered service in 1944. With sabot rounds I suspect it would be dangerous to medium tanks like the T-34 and Sherman.

Could be, maybe even the odd IS-2? It would make them better able to defend themselves agaist roaming tanks - but was this necessary?
This is seemingly very similar to the thinking behind the GAU 30mm in many ways?

I agree. However I don't think a 10.5cm HEAT round is necessary to destroy WWII era armor.

Armour penetration table
Early model German 7.5cm HEAT rounds will penetrate 100mm of armor. The more advanced 8.8cm Panzerschreck HEAT warhead would penetrate 209mm of armor. That's plenty powerful. You could build a relatively light weight (i.e. moderate velocity) 8.8cm anti tank cannon that fires modern HEAT rounds. As a bonus the same rounds are also effective against soft targets like machinegun emplacements.

Thanks for the link. HEAT are seemingly less effective than KE penetrators for a given penetration figure, so you want as much peformance as possible. I think you're idea is a sound one - but increasing the calibre will greatly increase the performance, but not weight or recoil. I'm not so surre on HEAT being good against infantry - not till dual-purpose HEAT rounds came on the scene (long after WW2?).

The 75mm M3 cannon on the Sherman tank had a velocity of 2,031 ft/sec (619 m/s). Everythng I've read suggests it could hit enemy tanks at normal WWII combat ranges. It just didn't penetrate armor very well. A hypothetical 8.8cm or 10.5cm tank cannon with a similiar muzzle velocity should work as long as they have HEAT shells.

True, good point. A crack-shot could even get a Stug III E 75mm L24 to work!

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi tomo,

You get a post all to yourself!

If you go for kill with any kind of AP ammo, you need to hit the tank just the right place (to ignite ammo/fuel, engine, or to kill crew member(s)). And non-uranium penetrators do not ignite easy.

The round bounces around like a pool ball, so it does often it something (unless the crew's REALLY lucky). Also, in forcing it's way through the armour, it becomes incandecent (but doesnt explode like APHE or Uranium). Tungsten penetrators are the worst performes here - despite giving the best penetration qualities.

If you hit with heavy enough HE/HESH, your not-so-good hits would've make enemy tank destroyed.

I don't think spalling can ignite a tank (?). But it can injure or destroy the workings /or crew.

As for comparing the cannons, the comparison with russian 122 130mm, and US 120mm of WW2 does make sense. But comparison with smooth-bore modern cannons is not that valid IMO.

Why not? It just seems to me that the 128mm was closer in concept to a modern AT gun, than the Russian 122/130mm? - If it used Uranium APFSD, I was just trying to figure it out as best I could sorry. Funnily enough, old-style AP shells apparently work well against modern armour!

Okay, I'll call them 5in then

NOOOOO!!

If you're developing new cannon, you better make the best ammo for it, or your tank end up like Russian T-62s T-72s - burning wrecks after Merkavas M1s got them.

Too right. You know some of thse Iraqi tanks fired cheap Chinese steel penetrators?

The issue for Germans at the end of WW2 was lack of tungsten, that's why I 'propose' 105mm, firing HE/HEAT, and just a fraction of AP ammo.

HEAT - great idea! Why didn't I think of that? What is wrog with me lately?? Anyway, yes, great idea. Tungsten may not have been a problem - steel or Uranium could be used, depending on the situation. This causes problems though - different ammos for different situations, but the same ammo in different guns for different situations. A similar problem was in the T-54 T-55 - it used HEAT for long-range, AP for close-range, which was much more confusing than simply using a single round (APDS) in Western tanks for all anti-tank situations.

Going on from your HEAT point, perhaps tht would be the best ammo type for the 128mm? - or would make the 150mm seem more sensible again?

I know about L7; trivia for you: how the Brits call their 120mm tank gun. Starts with an 'L' too...
As for ammo, it also sports HESH HE.

L30? Also APFSDS too - all these ammo types! HESH is losing out now though - due to spall liners.

When you add the shell that envelopes 8,8 cm HEAT projectile from Panzerschrek, necessary to reinforce it so it could withstand the stress of being fired from long gun, the 'new' projectile ends ticker than 10 cm - perhaps 10,5cm

Sorry, I don't understand.

The moderate velocity gun would've been nice, but then you cut on the efficient range the ability to easily hit a moving target

.

Thats true, as these guns get bigger and shorter, ability to hit ever faster targets diminishes.

Even then though, even a miss with a large HE shell might disable the target vehicle - allowing a lethal 2nd shot...

At what combat ranges 75mm was able to hit a tank sized, moving target?

1,000 yards+, if memory serves(?). I will check.

Edit: Here we go:

The Sherman M4s cannon, M3 75mm, could destroy the F/2 at around 1000 metres. I know for a fact that the Shermans optical sights were able to provide the vision required for armoured battles at those ranges. Normal combat range being 400 - 600 metres, the Sherman was in a good solid position against the IV F/2. As the F/2 was not in full position to destroy the Sherman until at 1000 metres, the same distance for the Sherman.

Both tanks optics gave them good sighting at 1000m.

So 1,000 metres then. It depends how fast the target is moving, and size. If it was a battle tank, it would be likely to be stopped and shooting? A light tank would be a harder taget (small, fast not engaging). The M3 was the interim gun though - there was an earlier M2 75mm - with lower MV, and a later 76mm M1A1 - with higher MV.

If you're trying to hit a target far away, then max gun elevation plays a big part.

 

[Shortround6]

They used sliding collars, or smoothbore guns? - If so, they are pretty different. These fins amy have acted like a Tallboys? (though not seemingly so, form those drawings). I don't have info on cold war rifled AP(FS?)DS to hand right now, sorry. Which guns were you meaning?

Things like the Russian 115mm on the T-62. Went to smooth bore in order to fire APFSDS at quel or higher velocities than the Western 105 fired APDS. When the west goes to APFSDS they have to figure a way to fire the projectile out of an existing rifled gun while imparting the least amount of rotation possible.

French 90mm smooth bore guns fired fin stabilized HEAT rounds. American 90mm tank guns which were rifled also fired a fin stabilized round but needed driving bands that would slip/slide on the shell body to reduce the amount of spin. French later went to the extent of having an outer shell body that rotated separated from the inner body that held the shaped charge by ball or roller bearings. as can be imagined, while these projectiles were effective they also took time to perfect.

This is one reason the British went with HESH shells, They thought that the existing HEAT shells didn't do enough damage behind the armor.

As I mentioned above, spalling doesn't cause fires (?), whereas HEAT does all too readily – so why would they think that? Still, it could allow the vehicle to be recovered?..

Again it depends on the amount of over penetration. If a heat round that will "JUST" penetrate 180mm of armor hits a plate 170mm thick you may only get a hole a few millimeters in diameter (smaller than your finger) and the jet of flame and molten material may not be all that big.

If the Hesh round hits (and hesh can be over matched, thick enough armor will stand up to a small HESH warhead) it was supposed to (and often did) cause a spall larger than a dinner plate weigh a number of pounds to flying around the tank at hundreds of miles an hour. The tank may not burn but the inside of the tank is going to look pretty beat up. Crew is going to look a little less than parade ground also.

Of course a number of countries disagreed with the British so maybe they are wrong.
Just don't think that a WW II Heat shell that penetrates 105mm of armor is guaranteed to destroy a tank with 100mm armor.

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi tomo,

You get a post all to yourself!

You're da man

The round bounces around like a pool ball, so it does often it something (unless the crew's REALLY lucky). Also, in forcing it's way through the armour, it becomes incandecent (but doesnt explode like APHE or Uranium). Tungsten penetrators are the worst performes here - despite giving the best penetration qualities.

There is difference between a single piece of metal weighting 0,5-1 kg (due to penetrating AP shot) and plenty of such pieces of same weight - the later would do untold damage to crew, fuel, ammo...

I don't think spalling can ignite a tank (?). But it can injure or destroy the workings /or crew.

Yep - crew would've suffered collectively.

Why not? It just seems to me that the 128mm was closer in concept to a modern AT gun, than the Russian 122/130mm? - If it used Uranium APFSD, I was just trying to figure it out as best I could sorry. Funnily enough, old-style AP shells apparently work well against modern armour!

Why would you consider the 128mm more modern (= better?) than Russian pieces?
"Modern AT gun" is oxymoron though

NOOOOO!!

Too right. You know some of thse Iraqi tanks fired cheap Chinese steel penetrators?

Either cheap or expensive, you don't want steel penetrators for your MBTs anyway.

HEAT - great idea! Why didn't I think of that? What is wrog with me lately?? Anyway, yes, great idea. Tungsten may not have been a problem - steel or Uranium could be used, depending on the situation. This causes problems though - different ammos for different situations, but the same ammo in different guns for different situations. A similar problem was in the T-54 T-55 - it used HEAT for long-range, AP for close-range, which was much more confusing than simply using a single round (APDS) in Western tanks for all anti-tank situations.

Question is whether Russkies knew about APDS, or have had working APDS?

Going on from your HEAT point, perhaps tht would be the best ammo type for the 128mm? - or would make the 150mm seem more sensible again?

If you're outnumbered, you want healthy ammo count. Though having different versions of heavy AFV - one with 105-128, other with 150mm would've been feasible, even on Panther's chassis.

L30? Also APFSDS too - all these ammo types! HESH is losing out now though - due to spall liners.

Indeed, L30
Guess more companies are developing APFSDS than HESH now.

Sorry, I don't understand.

Simple math: Panzerschreck shell is 8,8cm in diameter. It's enveloped by thin tin, perhaps 1 mm tick (included in those 8,8cm). If we want to use the same 8,8cm shell in our tank gun, it would be fired at much greater acceleration from there. So we'd reinforce it by enveloping it into a much ticker shell, say, 8mm tick (16mm all together for both sides). So we have 8,8cm + 1,6cm = 10,4cm. That's just 1mm under our 105mm gun.
.

Thats true, as these guns get bigger and shorter, ability to hit ever faster targets diminishes.

Even then though, even a miss with a large HE shell might disable the target vehicle - allowing a lethal 2nd shot...

Agree with that.

1,000 yards+, if memory serves(?). I will check.

Edit: Here we go:



So 1,000 metres then. It depends how fast the target is moving, and size. If it was a battle tank, it would be likely to be stopped and shooting? A light tank would be a harder taget (small, fast not engaging). The M3 was the interim gun though - there was an earlier M2 75mm - with lower MV, and a later 76mm M1A1 - with higher MV.

Perhaps Pz-IV would've been more useful if it fired projectiles 50% heavier, while retaining both ammo count, and AT abilities? Of course, US 3in necked-up to, say, 90mm, or Russian 85mm necked-up to 100mm...

If you're trying to hit a target far away, then max gun elevation plays a big part.

Indeed, but I'd rate sights crew experience even more

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi Shortround,

Ah yes, when I said 'collars', I meant 'driving bands'. .

Thanks for the info though. I knew about the AFSDS on the 120mm L30, but not previous Cold War stuff.

Ah yes, I know about HEAT rounds - but a lot of people dont (thanks to Hollywood?). I posted a link a while ago on tests done by the Americans with a Bazooka on a captured Panther - want me to post it?

It's like the Bazooka theoretically could penetrate 100mm - but in practise wasn't much use against a Tigers hull front.

(and hesh can be over matched, thick enough armor will stand up to a small HESH warhead)

Very interesting. I don't suppose you have the rough rules for that? Soething to do with plate thickness vs calibre diameter I'll guess?

The problem with HESH is that the tank can be recovered (which can be a good thing though, depending on who owns the battlefield after the action is over) - also spall liners can render it useless - just a thin layer of Kevlar, or similar. I think maybe ductile armour (like that on the Sherman) may also be immune from it?


Hi tomo,

You're da man

Damn right!

There is difference between a single piece of metal weighting 0,5-1 kg (due to penetrating AP shot) and plenty of such pieces of same weight - the later would do untold damage to crew, fuel, ammo...

True, but I'd much rather have an ignition, if possible (unless I was low on tanks myself, or they were all obsolete). Still, if the only things that will penetrate are tungsten rods or HESH - then there's no choice, right? So HESH would be the best option beteen those 2 choices then?

Why would you consider the 128mm more modern (= better?) than Russian pieces?

Because it was designed mainly as an anti-tank gun (?) - not a gun-howitzer (?).

"Modern AT gun" is oxymoron though

Why is that? The Rheinmetal on the Abrams is one? (supposedly dual-purpose, but it's HE abilities were apparently neglected - leaving the 105mm on the M60 to do that).

You like being cruel to me, don't you?

Either cheap or expensive, you don't want steel penetrators for your MBTs anyway.

True on modern MBTs (but not so much in WW2, @ long distances), but apparently old fashioned AP is good for breaking up modern composite armour - so it's coming full-circle?

Question is whether Russkies knew about APDS, or have had working APDS?

They had similar, but couldn't get it to work in the D-10T 100mm - hence the adoption of the less-than desireable 115mm in the T-62, and the variety of ammo types in the D-10T. There was an attempt to make a 100mm firing this round though. It did stellar work in the 76mm gun on the PT-76 apparently though in Vietnam.

If you're outnumbered, you want healthy ammo count. Though having different versions of heavy AFV - one with 105-128, other with 150mm would've been feasible, even on Panther's chassis.

True, but I think the Germans went too far - does a tank really need to hold around 90 rounds?

The Panther chassis was too flawed IMO, but one of a similar weight maybe?

I was just wondering if it would be better to do away with the 128mm and just make 150mm's?

The 105mm always had advantages though - and was also used as a deperation heavy ATG early in the war when the 37mm couldn't cope, like the 88mm Flak was (though at shorter ranges).

Indeed, L30
Guess more companies are developing APFSDS than HESH now.

Sorry, I have a confession to make: I looked it up.
I have explained some of the the disadvantages of HESH at the end of my reply to Shortround, directly above.

Simple math:

Translation:

English: Simple math = Schwarzpanzerese: Incredibly complicated Mathematical equation - RUN!!

Thanks for explaining though - even I understood that!

Perhaps Pz-IV would've been more useful if it fired projectiles 50% heavier, while retaining both ammo count, and AT abilities? Of course, US 3in necked-up to, say, 90mm, or Russian 85mm necked-up to 100mm...

What was the difference between the 'Stub' 'Special's projectile weights? Necking up is good, but the PzIV's KwK 40 was necked up anyway (the PaK 39 on the Hetzer wasn't). Necking up might have done the Soviets and Americans some good though - maybe the 3in gun married up to the 105mm M2 breech? (Which happened anyway IIRC? - but wasn't that popular, for some silly reason - forgets the guns designation, sorry).

Indeed, but I'd rate sights crew experience even more

True, and it also doesn't matter so much on HV guns, but the 75mm M3 was a reasonably low-velocity gun (though that's debatable).