Panzergranate 44 - German APFSDS

tomo pauk · Apr 8, 2010

schwarzpanzer said:
Hi tomo,

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?

With any properly stowaged ammo, you're odds are pretty long if you bet on ignition. Killed crew is always bigger loss for enemy.

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

A-19 was cannon, not gun-howitzer.
For that 'it was designed for something, therefore it's better than some all-rounder' you'd have to throw some really good arguments - designing a dedicated AT gun order to be a towed piece is/was pretty faulty decision IMO.

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).

When you say AT gun, it's a towed AT gun in my eyes, not a tank gun

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?

Don't mix steel-cored APFSDS with steel full-bore AP

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.

That 'less than desireable' point need some explanation IMO.

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

25 rounds is pretty low, more so if you have numerical disadvantage.

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

Panther's chassis was available, but anything similar would've do.

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

105 150 combo

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).

i'd venture to say that a handful of 10,5cm field guns were more likely to fire at tanks than 10,5cm Flak

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).

Necking-up is connected to frontal part of a cartridge, not the aft part. Brits have necked-up 57mm to 75mm, but size of breech remained the same; Russkies have necked-up 12,7mm to 20mm, and 14,5mm to 23mm (don't confuse that one with VYa-23 ammo). They all have doubled/tripled shell (projectile) weights, at cost of 1/4 of muzzle velocity.

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).

Nothing was wrong with that gun

hartmann · Apr 8, 2010

Hello to all

Hi hartmann,

That is truly EXCELLENT info, thank you!

I am happy being useful.

IIRC it had testing problems with sabot parts causing jams - perhaps that was it?

It was probably a very good reason. The sabots tend to jam the gun when it included a muzzle brake. But also may be from the ejection of the sabots from the gatling gun spinning. Truly I don't know the exact reason/s behind.

wonder if the PzGr44 did?...

I don't know, sincerely. All I could collect until now from manuals, other people and so on in German hardware, are rare serial and experimental shells and shots, ranging from APCR, APDS to APFSDS, and HEFSDS, but nothing very solid .

Sorry, yes I was referring to the 'bouncing' - which was a problem for SVDS

Ok, I understand now (You can also name it as "tumbling" )

Also, a spinning penetrator is more likely to be deflected IIRC?

Yes, Also, APCR/SVAP shot works in a slightly different way compared to APFSDS (hidrodynamical/fluid way compared to elasto-plastic deformation).

Another advantage would be increased resistance to shatter

It all depends on the manufacture quality and material used (the APDS manufactured by UK in the WWII were very brittle because inadequate sinterised technology, in contrast to Germany).

Uranium penetrators would not this problem ( be better than APHE?).

Well. That is a matter of the uranium family (called Actinides). All have pyrophoric effects when they are finely powdered and oxidized. Concerning If It was better than AP-HE, I don't know completely well (but in both cases, very nasty effects for the crew and ammo loaded ).

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.

You can check in Jentz books some data and drawings concerning this proposal.

I wonder if the 88mm L100 would perform OK with a Uranium penetrator?

Even the 88 L71 with uranium cored PzGr 40/43 would have been better than conventional tungsten carbide core (it is denser), so I don't imagine the final results with the 88 L100 gun .

Or with standard PzGr39/43 at longer distances?

Undoubtedly, It would have performed better at longer distances with a PzGr 39/43, but the barrel erosion would have been extreme If they increasde the propellant charge .

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).

As you say, It would probably behaved all the same problems (and It would have been too difficult to handle )

Even on the turret? (280mm, sloped very well).

Seen the drawings, I only found a maximum thickness of 220 mm of casted steel in the turret (which would probably equivalent to some 190 mm of good rolled homogeneous armour)

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 these new shells, do you know?

I have some scarce data for the 128 mm L66 gun at some 1080 m/s with the PzGr43 versus plates of 80-90 Kg/mm2 strength was punching trough something like 270-276 mm at 30º. With the standard 128 mm L55 gun, it consistently punched through 248 mm at 30º with 950 m/s.
Also I have some data with plates placed at 45º.
Note: All the trials carried by the Germans showed that the PzGr 39 for this gun behaved better at 0 to 30º, but that the PzGr 43 behaved better from 30º to 60º

Concerning the 17 cm L50 KwK44 gun with PzGr 43 shell, if I read the table correctly, had a MV of some 850 m/s with the PzGr 43 shell weighing 71 Kg and should punch trough 290 mm of hardened steel at 30º at 850 m/s.

Were they the same type as used in the KwK 43?

Not exactly the same. The head was a modified even blunter design (if It was possible ).

I thought the 128mm L55 used PzGr43 only?

The 128 mm L55 used two AP rounds. Firstly, in trials it used a round named simply as "PzGr", or PzGr 39, a conventional APCBC-HE shell. Sometime after, it was designed the "PzGr 43" round.

as standard?

I don't know for sure.

It should have been the standard, although I don't know If the initial AP round was dropped or If It was manufactured among the PzGr 43. (That is really dark info mate, probably completely lost for ever).

Is it OK if I ask where you got that drawing from?

There is no problem ,
I obtained It from a friend, and incidentally, it appeared sometime after in a forum. Also I have a photograph of a fired APFSDS shot (although I have no permission to post it unless this person will allow It ).

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

I don't know for sure, but I guess (as the people which owns a shot) that It would have been probably a test concept shot for larger calibres (may be 75, 88 or bigger). Although I don't discard the possibility of being a "fresh air" for the good old PaK36.

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

Well, that is true, but the sectional density and piercing ability would go up far more than it could be expected from a single 10 % loss of weight as it is far less surface to give the energy carried.

Hope this helps

schwarzpanzer · Apr 10, 2010

Hi tomo,

With any properly stowaged ammo, you're odds are pretty long if you bet on ignition.

I was thinking that crews often fire on a vehicle until it 'brews up'. If the gun relies on spalling, that wont happen(?). Also, if the enemy vehicle catches fire - then that will show it is oviously finished, so you can move onto the next one, and not bother with a following shot. As a counter to this, I think APHE is not a good thing - too far the other way.

Killed crew is always bigger loss for enemy.

Good point. I was thinking of the Ferdinands 'lost' at Kursk though - which were recrewed. This would still have hurt though. Ferdinands were rarities though, against ordinary vehicles though, yes thats right-on.

A-19 was cannon, not gun-howitzer.
For that 'it was designed for something, therefore it's better than some all-rounder' you'd have to throw some really good arguments - designing a dedicated AT gun order to be a towed piece is/was pretty faulty decision IMO.

Isn't 'cannon' a little ambiguous? A quick look on Wikipedia calls it a Field Gun. I'm afraid I don't know the difference between a Field Gun, and a Gun-Howitzer.

I think the 128mm was always intended to be self-propelled, and function mainly as an AT gun. Having learned from experience with the PaK 43. I haven't seen a PaK 44 as a towed gun, I don't think?

My main reasoning is, that as I see it, the A-19 was a 'jack-of-all-trades', with main function being HE - whwereas the 128mm was intended to fight tanks from the outset - giving it the edge (AP ammo, velocity, sighting etc).

When you say AT gun, it's a towed AT gun in my eyes, not a tank gun

Sorry. When I mention 'AT gun' I often mean anti-tank, tank or anti-tank, towed gun. Tank guns come in many flavours in my language: AT, DP (Dual-Purpose), Support and Howitzer - to name but a few. When I say AT - I could mean the PaK 40, KwK 40 or both. Sorry, I will try to be clearer in future, though I can be sloppy. I take it you are more into towed artillery then? We should be able to fill each others gaps in knowledge very well then.

Don't mix steel-cored APFSDS with steel full-bore AP

Sorry, I just used that as a tangeant example. My meaning with using steel for APDS not being a problem is: at longer distances, MV will be reduced (but still be better than full-bore AP rounds) - so shatter will not be such a problem, but penetration will be improved. At close ranges though, shatter will be very likely - so APCBC would probably be better instead.

That 'less than desireable' point need some explanation IMO.

Sorry, it was more to do with the vehicle it ws mounted in being too small for it (the T-62), than the gun itself. I suppose though, that the new smoothbore would have less HE performance than the old D-10T? It was actually eventually replaced with the old D-10T, firing APDS.

25 rounds is pretty low, more so if you have numerical disadvantage.

True, I was meaning that the Soviets had too few rounds (28), whereas the Germans had too much (about 90). I believe a compromise would be between the two would be about right. IMO, I think 50-60 rounds?

Panther's chassis was available, but anything similar would've do.

Later Jagdpanthers were OK - but a bit late in the game perhaps? I think the Panthers chassis was far too fragile, expensive and unreliable to be of much use. I think Germanys failure to produce a decent chassis in the 40-50 ton class is what lost them the war.

105 150 combo

You know, I'm actually coming back full-cirle again. - I wonder if the 128mm could replace both 105 150mm calibres? I think though, that for various reasons mentioned before (development, tooling etc) that a mix of 105 150mm would be preferable: 105mm firing APCBC APFSDS for harder targets, with still a decent HE charge, and a 150mm firing HE, HEAT and APCBC. Both proved to be decent weapons in WW2 - with the 128mm being < desireble, but not in the lengths firing the ammo types we're discussing.

i'd venture to say that a handful of 10,5cm field guns were more likely to fire at tanks than 10,5cm Flak

I was talking about the FH18, sorry. This was used (succesfully) to attack tanks and destroyed a T-34 on at least one occasion. The FH18 could only engage at close range though (unlesss using HEAT - but was that available for it?). Your point is true though - did a 105mm flak gun ever attack a tank in WW2? If you could marry the Flak FH designs though- that should give you a good headstart?

Necking-up is connected to frontal part of a cartridge, not the aft part. Brits have necked-up 57mm to 75mm, but size of breech remained the same; Russkies have necked-up 12,7mm to 20mm, and 14,5mm to 23mm (don't confuse that one with VYa-23 ammo). They all have doubled/tripled shell (projectile) weights, at cost of 1/4 of muzzle velocity.

Sorry, when you said necked-up, I thought you meant necked-down (bottle-necked, Maroschek). I've never heard of what you are talkig of before - love new info! So, an oversized projectile was put on a stndard cartridge? I've heard about this being done with HEAT warheads on PaK 36s 38s, but never anyting else -thanks!

Necking-up would increase HE/HEAT payload, but ruin MV - as is the case with the QF 75mm you mentioned. Good food for thought again, thanks! (but now my brain hurts!).

Nothing was wrong with that gun

Some might beg to differ...

schwarzpanzer · Apr 10, 2010

Sorry, another 2-parter. I'll have to ask, is there a problem with the length of my posts? I don't want people to get irritated with me.

Hi hartmann,

I am happy being useful.

You must be happy, like all the time then?

It was probably a very good reason. The sabots tend to jam the gun when it included a muzzle brake. But also may be from the ejection of the sabots from the gatling gun spinning. Truly I don't know the exact reason/s behind.

I've got the info in an A-10 book I have - which is buried in 'the pile'. I may ask in the Aviation weapons Forum though...

I don't know, sincerely. All I could collect until now from manuals, other people and so on in German hardware, are rare serial and experimental shells and shots, ranging from APCR, APDS to APFSDS, and HEFSDS, but nothing very solid

That's OK. Info on the PzGr44 is notoriously hard to come by - not helped by the fact that I've forgotten everything. The fact that it would have had a BC never even occured to me - untill recently I didn't know that all PzGr40 39s had BCs. You d have excellent info though - I never even heard of that PPS round before.8) I would consider it to be 'prototype PzGr44'? IIRC though, PzGr44 had 2 sets of fins? - never even thought to look for a BC though. Any ifo you still have on the PzGr44 would be much appreciated though.

Ok, I understand now (You can also name it as "tumbling"

Is that what hapens in deflected shots/shells? - the same thing as causes wounding to tissue in rifle rounds? - never new that! Sounds reasonable though...

Yes, Also, APCR/SVAP shot works in a slightly different way compared to APFSDS (hidrodynamical/fluid way compared to elasto-plastic deformation).

Never knew that either. Getting lots of good info here! When you say SVAP - do you mean Super Velocity Armour-Piercing - APDS? I think some APFSDS spin? I suppose a spinning projectile can 'drill' it's way through armour though - on the flipside? Otherwise though, it's just wasting it's KE, and scrubbing off speed?

It all depends on the manufacture quality and material used (the APDS manufactured by UK in the WWII were very brittle because inadequate sinterised technology, in contrast to Germany).

What?! The tungsten?? This almost too much to take in for one day!

All have pyrophoric effects when they are finely powdered and oxidized.

Would this automatically happen upon penetration? - or is it a manufacturing process?

You can check in Jentz books some data and drawings concerning this proposal.

Actually, you've jogged my memory. IIRC now, it was intended for the E-75? Which Jentz book please?

Even the 88 L71 with uranium cored PzGr 40/43 would have been better than conventional tungsten carbide core (it is denser), so I don't imagine the final results with the 88 L100 gun

I heard tungsten was much denser than steel? - unless I'm getting confused with 'harder'?

As for the 88mm L100 -yeah, that would've been nasty!8)

Undoubtedly, It would have performed better at longer distances with a PzGr 39/43, but the barrel erosion would have been extreme If they increasde the propellant charge

True, but as with the KT and MG42, it would likely have been a quick-change design. I wonder how the barrel was on the flak version? - how many pieces?...

The performance of the 75mm L100 over the L70 was hardly worthwhile though, with PzGr39/43 - I wondered if this'd be the same? I wonder if an L100 barrel causes roblems irrespectie of calibre? I think though, that it matters less as the calibre rises? - also being dependant on the thickness and quality of the armour plates it is fired at. For example, a 37mm L100 would be pretty pointless!

I wonder if performance would be improved with the standard propellant charge? Also, on that point, I wonder what length the barrel should be to burn the propellant entirely (which IIRC starts to cause new problems though).

As you say, It would probably behaved all the same problems (and It would have been too difficult to handle)

Would an L100 always have those problems then? It wouldn't have been that difficult to handle - the L71 round was heavy, but could still fire at 20+rpm. Better than a larger calibre, anyway? (which alays have slow RoFs). Still, time for an autoloader perhaps? If you mean for a vehicle - well I've seen proposas for it fitted in a tank TD - and the design looks sound (though definately not for urban combat lol).

Seen the drawings, I only found a maximum thickness of 220 mm of casted steel in the turret (which would probably equivalent to some 190 mm of good rolled homogeneous armour)

Yes, having checked again, it would seem thats the case. I'm sure 280mm for the turret front is a common figure given though? - so, if that is the case, a 230mm gun then!

I have some scarce data for the 128 mm L66 gun at some 1080 m/s with the PzGr43 versus plates of 80-90 Kg/mm2 strength was punching trough something like 270-276 mm at 30º. With the standard 128 mm L55 gun, it consistently punched through 248 mm at 30º with 950 m/s.
Also I have some data with plates placed at 45º.

Great info - that should do it! (assuming the IS-3 never had 280mm). Are those angles from vertical? - so vertical would be 0 degrees, not 90?

Note: All the trials carried by the Germans showed that the PzGr 39 for this gun behaved better at 0 to 30º, but that the PzGr 43 behaved better from 30º to 60º

That makes sense. I can try to explain why, if you like?

Concerning the 17 cm L50 KwK44 gun with PzGr 43 shell, if I read the table correctly, had a MV of some 850 m/s with the PzGr 43 shell weighing 71 Kg and should punch trough 290 mm of hardened steel at 30º at 850 m/s.

Even if the IS-3 did have 280mm - it's toast!

Not exactly the same. The head was a modified even blunter design (if It was possible ).

Ah, that explains a question I had to myself the other day. Yes, it is possible. I forgot the BC design changed from PzGr39 to 39/43. Also, IIRC the BC design on the PzGr40 changed in the 40/43. I'm pretty sure. So theres 3 different BC designs?: PzGr 39, PzGr 39/43 PzGr 39/43 (2nd design) - ?

The 128 mm L55 used two AP rounds. Firstly, in trials it used a round named simply as "PzGr", or PzGr 39, a conventional APCBC-HE shell. Sometime after, it was designed the "PzGr 43" round.

It would seem there are 2 PzGr 43 rounds. I think the 1st was called PzGr 39/43, the 2nd just PzGr 43. I can check. As to the earlier type, I just don't know - but it may have just been PzGr 39 from the earlier 128mms?

You can see why the loaders would have a knightmare! - poor sods!

Still, green = HE, black = AP - best leave it at that eh?

I don't know for sure.

It should have been the standard, although I don't know If the initial AP round was dropped or If It was manufactured among the PzGr 43. (That is really dark info mate, probably completely lost for ever).

I may actually be able to help there (pay you back for the wonderful APFSDS ammo eh?). It may have used some of the older projectiles though - the situation was pretty desperate, so I think they'll have just used what was available. Either way, even the old PzGr 39 was more than enough for anything in the 128mm L55, except maybe the odd, very rare IS-3.

There is no problem ,
I obtained It from a friend, and incidentally, it appeared sometime after in a forum. Also I have a photograph of a fired APFSDS shot (although I have no permission to post it unless this person will allow It ).

I was kinda hoping it was a scan from a book. I was wanting to show it to an associate (I wont unless you give me permission). Thanks anyway though. If that photo is a good one, it may show a Ballistic Cap? (or not). If it's the PPS in that drawing though, then it probably wont (?)

I don't know for sure, but I guess (as the people which owns a shot) that It would have been probably a test concept shot for larger calibres (may be 75, 88 or bigger). Although I don't discard the possibility of being a "fresh air" for the good old PaK36.

When was it developed? - That should explain it, one way or the other. I wonder how much use it would be in the Pak 36?

Well, that is true, but the sectional density and piercing ability would go up far more than it could be expected from a single 10 % loss of weight as it is far less surface to give the energy carried.

Thats true - it's not all about weight -aerodynamics factor in too. As well as what hartmann has said (a reduction in skin friction/parasitic drag), I suspect the Cd would also be greatly reduced (though I would need to see the projectiles to be sure).

Hope this helps

Awesome info, as always.8) - though now I have a headache!(in a good way though)

Shortround6 · Apr 11, 2010

schwarzpanzer said:
Good point. I was thinking of the Ferdinands 'lost' at Kursk though - which were recrewed. This would still have hurt though. Ferdinands were rarities though, against ordinary vehicles though, yes thats right-on.

Kind of depends on your goals, IF you win the battle and occupy the ground then the enemy can't re-crew the vehicles because you captured them.
If your ammo choice has less penetration but greater "flammable" effects if does penetrate you may not wind up driving the enemy from the field in the first place.

schwarzpanzer said:
Isn't 'cannon' a little ambiguous? A quick look on Wikipedia calls it a Field Gun. I'm afraid I don't know the difference between a Field Gun, and a Gun-Howitzer.

In General (and there are more than a few cross overs) Field Guns use fewer different powder charges (to adjust for range) and have higher velocity. Some feild guns (75mm) use fixed ammo with non-adjustable powder charges.

schwarzpanzer said:
I think the 128mm was always intended to be self-propelled, and function mainly as an AT gun. Having learned from experience with the PaK 43. I haven't seen a PaK 44 as a towed gun, I don't think?

...whwereas the 128mm was intended to fight tanks from the outset - giving it the edge (AP ammo, velocity, sighting etc).

128 was intended to be a general purpose gun, replacing the 10cm field gun (not howitzer) which was thought too heavy for the weight of shell it used and more range was wanted too.

schwarzpanzer said:
, MV will be reduced (but still be better than full-bore AP rounds) - so shatter will not be such a problem, but penetration will be improved. At close ranges though, shatter will be very likely - so APCBC would probably be better instead.

Shatter was a problem at somewhere between 2000-2600fps depending on projectile (and heat treatment) armor (and heat treatment) and which source you believe. Steel APDSFS might be in trouble at any practical range because the idea behind (or at least one of them) is that the APFSDS projectile slows down the least amount with range.

schwarzpanzer said:
I was talking about the FH18, sorry. This was used (succesfully) to attack tanks and destroyed a T-34 on at least one occasion. The FH18 could only engage at close range though (unlesss using HEAT - but was that available for it?). Your point is true though - did a 105mm flak gun ever attack a tank in WW2? If you could marry the Flak FH designs though- that should give you a good headstart?

Trying to marry the two doesn't work. the starting requirements for the two are too far apart. The Flak gun needs fixed ammo (shell crimped into cartridge case) to obtain a high rate of fire. The howitzer needs separate ammunition because it needs to be able to adjust the powder charge from low to high in order to cover the full range of targets, like lobbing a shells over a ridge and into the valley just beyond. A Flak gun would not only shoot over the ridge but the entire valley and maybe the the next ridge
Howitzer barrels also lasted much longer than flak barrels, mostly because they used much less powder per shot, low charge levels caused almost negligible wear but use of full or super charges had to be carefully noted in log books and sometimes came with restrictions on how many could be fired in a row.

also see the weight difference between the 10.5 cm leFH 18 and the 10 cm schwere Kanone 18, a little under 2000kg compared to over 5,500kg. for just about the same shell.

tomo pauk · Apr 11, 2010

schwarzpanzer said:
Hi tomo,
I was thinking that crews often fire on a vehicle until it 'brews up'. If the gun relies on spalling, that wont happen(?). Also, if the enemy vehicle catches fire - then that will show it is oviously finished, so you can move onto the next one, and not bother with a following shot. As a counter to this, I think APHE is not a good thing - too far the other way.

If you mange a hit with HESH, there is no need to hit it time and again - you know that it represents hardly any threat, so you can move on to the another target.

Good point. I was thinking of the Ferdinands 'lost' at Kursk though - which were recrewed. This would still have hurt though. Ferdinands were rarities though, against ordinary vehicles though, yes thats right-on.

There is many anecdotes that go this way: Allied tank gets knocked down, crew escapes, returns to the tank park and then returns to the front line with a brand new M4.

Isn't 'cannon' a little ambiguous? A quick look on Wikipedia calls it a Field Gun. I'm afraid I don't know the difference between a Field Gun, and a Gun-Howitzer.ops

:

The dividing line was pretty clear cut for field artillery back then: howitzers were able to fire up to 70-80 deg, while cannons could've managed perhaps 45 deg; howitzers did have multi-part propelling charges, while cannons had fixed charge in most cases; howitzers were much more 'price effective', since they were able to throw the heavier weighs then cannons (for same ordnance weight); the price for that is that howitzers have had much smaller muzzle velocity - so, smaller range penetration (for AP ammo); howitzer shell' steep trajectory offers more advantage vs. well entrenched targets.
Therefore I still consider A-19 as cannon
The 'gun-howitzers' are suppose to embrace the best from both worlds, and form the bulk of modern field artillery park. Russian ML-20 (152mm) offered almost twice the shell weight compared with A-19 (122mm), while being of same weight. The range reduction was some 20%, and, since it out-ranged the 99% of German field artillery pieces, they continued it producing in numbers.
The shortcoming was that it weighted twice as 152mm howitzer, for same shell weight; range was some 12km vs. 17km for ML-20.
The British 25pdr 5,5in could be also regarded as gun-howizers.

I think the 128mm was always intended to be self-propelled, and function mainly as an AT gun. Having learned from experience with the PaK 43. I haven't seen a PaK 44 as a towed gun, I don't think?

It was trialed at captured French Russian carriages, so perhaps they were intending to use it as a towed piece?

My main reasoning is, that as I see it, the A-19 was a 'jack-of-all-trades', with main function being HE - whwereas the 128mm was intended to fight tanks from the outset - giving it the edge (AP ammo, velocity, sighting etc).

A-19, while indeed a jack-of-all-trades, was pretty good in all of them, but certainly the newer 128mm was offering come advantages in sheer power sights.

Sorry. When I mention 'AT gun' I often mean anti-tank, tank or anti-tank, towed gun. Tank guns come in many flavours in my language: AT, DP (Dual-Purpose), Support and Howitzer - to name but a few. When I say AT - I could mean the PaK 40, KwK 40 or both. Sorry, I will try to be clearer in future, though I can be sloppy. I take it you are more into towed artillery then? We should be able to fill each others gaps in knowledge very well then.

No probs - the constructive talk about weaponry is at my liking
I'm in artillery as in any piece of militayry hardware, but arty doesn't catch any limelight (=topics).

Sorry, I just used that as a tangeant example. My meaning with using steel for APDS not being a problem is: at longer distances, MV will be reduced (but still be better than full-bore AP rounds) - so shatter will not be such a problem, but penetration will be improved. At close ranges though, shatter will be very likely - so APCBC would probably be better instead.

Guess we'd need some really good info about steel AP ammo vs. modern armor

Sorry, it was more to do with the vehicle it ws mounted in being too small for it (the T-62), than the gun itself. I suppose though, that the new smoothbore would have less HE performance than the old D-10T? It was actually eventually replaced with the old D-10T, firing APDS.

Yep, too bad T-62 was just 'another T-54/55' IMO, but it's main shortcomings were sights other fancy (but useful) stuff Western tanks have had.

True, I was meaning that the Soviets had too few rounds (28), whereas the Germans had too much (about 90). I believe a compromise would be between the two would be about right. IMO, I think 50-60 rounds?

I guess you've heard many stories about Typhoons P-47s blasting German tanks. That was exaggeration, but, when they managed to blast their supply trucks (carrying ammo among other stuff), that was almost equal as if they were blasting the tanks themselves.
So, if your (German) tank unit has 90 round per tank, there was nothing wrong with that.

Later Jagdpanthers were OK - but a bit late in the game perhaps? I think the Panthers chassis was far too fragile, expensive and unreliable to be of much use. I think Germanys failure to produce a decent chassis in the 40-50 ton class is what lost them the war.

Too late
As for 40-50 ton vehicle, they've just needed to copy KV (but with 8,8 in turret) an be done with that.

You know, I'm actually coming back full-cirle again. - I wonder if the 128mm could replace both 105 150mm calibres? I think though, that for various reasons mentioned before (development, tooling etc) that a mix of 105 150mm would be preferable: 105mm firing APCBC APFSDS for harder targets, with still a decent HE charge, and a 150mm firing HE, HEAT and APCBC. Both proved to be decent weapons in WW2 - with the 128mm being < desireble, but not in the lengths firing the ammo types we're discussing.

With 105 150 you have ready pieces to take it on Russkies, while 128mm was pretty rare, and not really embraced by Army during WW2. But with orders being of right timing, there is no doubt that 128mm would've be available in numbers to supplant both calibres.

I was talking about the FH18, sorry. This was used (succesfully) to attack tanks and destroyed a T-34 on at least one occasion. The FH18 could only engage at close range though (unlesss using HEAT - but was that available for it?). Your point is true though - did a 105mm flak gun ever attack a tank in WW2? If you could marry the Flak FH designs though- that should give you a good headstart?

You mean 10,5cm leFH18? I guess any hit from that at T-34 would've been quite a nuisance
I guess mating leFH carriage with Tiger's cannon would've been easy, but that would have been just another towed AT gun.

Sorry, when you said necked-up, I thought you meant necked-down (bottle-necked, Maroschek). I've never heard of what you are talkig of before - love new info! So, an oversized projectile was put on a stndard cartridge? I've heard about this being done with HEAT warheads on PaK 36s 38s, but never anyting else -thanks!

The necking-up also includes the wider barrel to accommodate the wider projectile.
The 3,7cm Pak was using the usual barrel standard cartridge (minus the projectile) in order to fire a huge round that was attached to the muzzle - something like rifle grenades used even today. That was NOT necking-up though.

Necking-up would increase HE/HEAT payload, but ruin MV - as is the case with the QF 75mm you mentioned. Good food for thought again, thanks! (but now my brain hurts!).

The MV that got 'ruined' was still enough to enable white phosphorus shells to be fired from 75mm - guess you wouln't like to be on receiving end of that.
BTW, 'soft' targets were more likely to be encountered from Normandy on, than Panther al, so 75mm was pretty good choice.

Some might beg to differ...

With everybody in agreement, we'd have nothing to discuss

schwarzpanzer · Apr 12, 2010

Hi Shortround,

Kind of depends on your goals, IF you win the battle and occupy the ground then the enemy can't re-crew the vehicles because you captured them.

Agree 100% - and then you can repair them if necessary and use them yourself...

If your ammo choice has less penetration but greater "flammable" effects if does penetrate you may not wind up driving the enemy from the field in the first place.

Again, I agree totally. I think HE content was a complete waste in AP shells. I think the British approach of using shot was far better, and had many advantages. Still, many tank crews like to make sure their target is destroyed, and not playing possum, I hold the same view - if it's an inferno, this would be a lot easier. Still, with the low range and performance of Soviet guns, this would not be such a problem?

In General (and there are more than a few cross overs) Field Guns use fewer different powder charges (to adjust for range) and have higher velocity. Some feild guns (75mm) use fixed ammo with non-adjustable powder charges.

Whoah, complicated! There would be crossovers! lol: What would you classify the 75mm M3 as BTW? (I call it a D-P tank gun).

A lot of sources refer to the A-19 ( D-25 variant) as gun-howitzers, which confuses me. I found this:

Because of good elevation, in contemporary documents the gun was often referred to as gun-howitzer.

- on here: Reference for 122 mm gun M1931/37 (A-19) - Search.com)

128 was intended to be a general purpose gun, replacing the 10cm field gun (not howitzer) which was thought too heavy for the weight of shell it used and more range was wanted too.

What was the 10cm field gun? Do you have a link? Thanks, you've also jogged my memory - the Germans apparently came up against the Soviet 122mm, were impressed, and wanted an equivalent. Its HE peformance must've been felt to be unnecessary though? - as the Sturer Emil was cancelled.

Shatter was a problem at somewhere between 2000-2600fps depending on projectile (and heat treatment) armor (and heat treatment) and which source you believe. Steel APDSFS might be in trouble at any practical range because the idea behind (or at least one of them) is that the APFSDS projectile slows down the least amount with range.

I can't remember the max effective range of the 50mm L60 vs the T-34/KV, using normal PzGr 39, but I think that at this distance, the MV with APFSDS should have fallen below the 2,000-2,600fps (thanks!) shatter threshold? Below that, even the PzGr would have shatter problems - but the PzGr 40 shouldn't (which was the most used anyway). I wonder if this would reduce PzGr 40 usage at all? - I'd expect so, and allow kills at less scary ranges.

Trying to marry the two doesn't work. the starting requirements for the two are too far apart. The Flak gun needs fixed ammo (shell crimped into cartridge case) to obtain a high rate of fire. The howitzer needs separate ammunition because it needs to be able to adjust the powder charge from low to high in order to cover the full range of targets, like lobbing a shells over a ridge and into the valley just beyond. A Flak gun would not only shoot over the ridge but the entire valley and maybe the the next ridge
Howitzer barrels also lasted much longer than flak barrels, mostly because they used much less powder per shot, low charge levels caused almost negligible wear but use of full or super charges had to be carefully noted in log books and sometimes came with restrictions on how many could be fired in a row.

also see the weight difference between the 10.5 cm leFH 18 and the 10 cm schwere Kanone 18, a little under 2000kg compared to over 5,500kg. for just about the same shell.

I was thinking of a desperate hybrid - as so often happened with German AT arty. I would use the Flak ammo and barrel, the leFH18 carriage (or other - but not necessary on a vehcle). As for HE - I'd use it as a purely long-range weapon so keeping the flak ammo, with maybe a slightly different HE shell (a good idea?). I don't know if new sights would be needed, or if the others could be adapted? Weight would be an issue, but a lot of the complex flak parts could be discarded/replaced.

schwarzpanzer · Apr 12, 2010

Sorry, another 2-parter: (are these a problem?). My post counts gonna be through the roof!

Hi tomo,

If you mange a hit with HESH, there is no need to hit it time and again - you know that it represents hardly any threat, so you can move on to the another target.

How could you know for certain though? If you hit it though, I suppose you could assume it was finished? (still too risky though, IMO).

There is many anecdotes that go this way: Allied tank gets knocked down, crew escapes, returns to the tank park and then returns to the front line with a brand new M4.

That's true. With a resource-rich enemy.

Thanks for the infos. A lot to take in there! 8)

The 'gun-howitzers' are suppose to embrace the best from both worlds, and form the bulk of modern field artillery park. Russian ML-20 (152mm) offered almost twice the shell weight compared with A-19 (122mm), while being of same weight. The range reduction was some 20%, and, since it out-ranged the 99% of German field artillery pieces, they continued it producing in numbers.

Yes, the ML-20 was a beauty. It's whats got me into bigger guns. It's superiority is apparently why the Germans developed the Rochling shells.

The shortcoming was that it weighted twice as 152mm howitzer, for same shell weight; range was some 12km vs. 17km for ML-20.

There was a dedicated 152mm howitzer? Any more info please?

The British 25pdr 5,5in could be also regarded as gun-howizers.

I know the 25pdr - grew up with it, so thats OK!

It was trialed at captured French Russian carriages, so perhaps they were intending to use it as a towed piece?

Thats the 2nd time my memories been jogged - yes, I remember! What was it's intended role there? DP, HE or AT? What was it called? - PaK 44? - if so, that just screams ATG.

A-19, while indeed a jack-of-all-trades, was pretty good in all of them, but certainly the newer 128mm was offering come advantages in sheer power sights.

Yeah, I think it would be slightly unfair to compare the two - even though, and funnily enough especially, because the PaK 44 (?) was based on the A-19. To be honest, I think the A-19 and variants were pretty poor weapons (? - or just used badly?). Still, good in 1943 against Tigers/Panthers though.

No probs - the constructive talk about weaponry is at my liking
I'm in artillery as in any piece of militayry hardware, but arty doesn't catch any limelight (=topics).

Me too, though I wasnt that into heavy arty, till recently.

Guess we'd need some really good info about steel AP ammo vs. modern armor

If I see anything in future, I'll post it on here (unless its illegal). The basis is this though: LRPs (Long Rod Penetrators) are thin - which modern armour breaks up (snaps it like a pencil!). Full-calibre rounds (especially 120mm+ ones) arent so vulnerable to this happening.

Yep, too bad T-62 was just 'another T-54/55' IMO, but it's main shortcomings were sights other fancy (but useful) stuff Western tanks have had.

The T-62 was actually very different (dimentionally, at the lowest level). However, it took the T-54 design philosophy too far - the opposite of the KV-1, infact. The main problem was with the reloading IMO, and the fact that it led (by accident) to the Type-69.

I guess you've heard many stories about Typhoons P-47s blasting German tanks. That was exaggeration, but, when they managed to blast their supply trucks (carrying ammo among other stuff), that was almost equal as if they were blasting the tanks themselves.
So, if your (German) tank unit has 90 round per tank, there was nothing wrong with that.

Sorry, what I wrote got screwed - shoulda checked. Typhoons vs tanks is a subject that interests me btw, and is a good point... (blast effect). Why was it exaggeration btw?

I suppose having 90 rounds is good for emergencies, but it makes the tank bigger and/or more likely to brew up, and late war, they would have no chance of fillin such massive stores (?). Then again, some sources put T-34 ammo stores @ 80, will have to check... That was for a DP gun though...

Too late
As for 40-50 ton vehicle, they've just needed to copy KV (but with 8,8 in turret) an be done with that.

They kinda tried that (the Tiger). The Germans couldn't get the alloys the Soviets could though, and though the initial engine in the Tiger was alu (the Maybach HL 210), this couldn't go on forever - and it had to be replaced with the iron HL 230 (which was probably better). Also, they couldn't use diesel (it was reserved for the Kriegsmarine) and I don't know if they could make an alu diesel (has anyone since??). The steel roawheels on the KV impressed the Germans though - and they copied them. However, they apparently didn't work so well when large diameter. If the Tiger had used KV suspension though ( sloping armour), then it would've been cool IMO - and about what you suggested. Still, not German enough eh? - Can't be seen to copy the Untermenche?

With 105 150 you have ready pieces to take it on Russkies, while 128mm was pretty rare, and not really embraced by Army during WW2. But with orders being of right timing, there is no doubt that 128mm would've be available in numbers to supplant both calibres.

So you think it could do it? It's hard though, isn't it. The Soviets kept all 3 calibre 'classes' (- only replaced the 122mm with the 130mm?). Would this be possible for Germany? - or desireable?

You mean 10,5cm leFH18? I guess any hit from that at T-34 would've been quite a nuisance
I guess mating leFH carriage with Tiger's cannon would've been easy, but that would have been just another towed AT gun.

Yes, sorry! I know the FH18 was 150mm btw, sorry (not 155mm! - so confusing!). I wonder if the leFH18 () could destroy a T-34 beyond AP range with HE? I've got a simulator that can test this, but I got wiped out last time I tried it. Dont remember using HE - but I'm no good with heavier Arty (btw I later changed to a flak 88 and had my revenge!).

I meant the leFH flak 105, but that would work too! (or the KwK 42...). Just another towed gun?? - THE towed gun!

Does anyone know if the Flak 105 ever fired at tanks? IIRC the 128mm did, at the Berlin Zoo?

The necking-up also includes the wider barrel to accommodate the wider projectile.
The 3,7cm Pak was using the usual barrel standard cartridge (minus the projectile) in order to fire a huge round that was attached to the muzzle - something like rifle grenades used even today. That was NOT necking-up though.

Now you brought it up, I can think of lots of necking-up examples. Obvious really, though it never occured to me - doh! I thought it was only important in infantry weapons really - like the 9mm PB (a necked-up 7.65mm).

The MV that got 'ruined' was still enough to enable white phosphorus shells to be fired from 75mm - guess you wouln't like to be on receiving end of that.
BTW, 'soft' targets were more likely to be encountered from Normandy on, than Panther al, so 75mm was pretty good choice.

Were WPs available for the QF 75mm? Were they good against tanks? Thats true on the second part - but by this point Cruisers needed splitting again, as before (battle support). The battle variant would need the 17pdr/77mm IMO, you cant just not have one?? Wouldn't the M3 gun ( possibly Sherman turret with it) have been much better? I suppose the QF was able to deal with the pre-Ausf G Panther, in theory, but still...

With everybody in agreement, we'd have nothing to discuss

Ah, if only more people thought like you, I think the world would be a much better place.

tomo pauk · Apr 12, 2010

schwarzpanzer said:
Hi tomo,

How could you know for certain though? If you hit it though, I suppose you could assume it was finished? (still too risky though, IMO).

Guess only experience would've tell - my money is on the HE/HEAT/HESH

Yes, the ML-20 was a beauty. It's whats got me into bigger guns. It's superiority is apparently why the Germans developed the Rochling shells.

ML-20 is still very much an useful weapon

There was a dedicated 152mm howitzer? Any more info please?

Two main types:
-M-10, produced from 1939-43, 4-4,5 tons,
-D-1, mating carriage of 122mm howitzer with 152mm barrel muzzle brake, from 1943, under 4 tons
Ranges cca 12 km.

Thats the 2nd time my memories been jogged - yes, I remember! What was it's intended role there? DP, HE or AT? What was it called? - PaK 44? - if so, that just screams ATG.

I'd have to agree with Shortround6 - it was more of an all-arounder, rather than a dedicated AT gun (nomenclature notwithstanding). Wiki entry mentions the captured carriages.

Yeah, I think it would be slightly unfair to compare the two - even though, and funnily enough especially, because the PaK 44 (?) was based on the A-19.

Don't think it was based on A-19

To be honest, I think the A-19 and variants were pretty poor weapons (? - or just used badly?). Still, good in 1943 against Tigers/Panthers though.

When talking about Russian artillery:
never never ever describe Russian artillery as 'pretty poor weapons' - their artillery park was far better than German IMO.

If I see anything in future, I'll post it on here (unless its illegal). The basis is this though: LRPs (Long Rod Penetrators) are thin - which modern armour breaks up (snaps it like a pencil!). Full-calibre rounds (especially 120mm+ ones) arent so vulnerable to this happening.

That's why I'm ringing the HE/HESH/HEAT bell...

The T-62 was actually very different (dimentionally, at the lowest level). However, it took the T-54 design philosophy too far - the opposite of the KV-1, infact.

The T-62 can track it's lineage back to T-43, but not with KV series

The main problem was with the reloading IMO, and the fact that it led (by accident) to the Type-69.

Not mixing T-62 with with T-64, don't you?

Sorry, what I wrote got screwed - shoulda checked. Typhoons vs tanks is a subject that interests me btw, and is a good point... (blast effect). Why was it exaggeration btw?

It was stated that Typhoons used their rockets to destroy AFVs, while the real accuracy of rockets was on order or two less than cannons, ie. hardly able to hit a tank in combat conditions (check "The best tank-busting plane" in the Aviation sub-forum for reference).

I suppose having 90 rounds is good for emergencies, but it makes the tank bigger and/or more likely to brew up, and late war, they would have no chance of fillin such massive stores (?). Then again, some sources put T-34 ammo stores @ 80, will have to check... That was for a DP gun though...

German past-1942 tanks were big vehicles with moderate sized guns, so such an ammo count was easy to achieve.

They kinda tried that (the Tiger).

No relation what so ever - KV series were very simple vehicles, with sloped armor, 'all-aft' power pack etc. Plus, Tiger was being designed before Germans encountered KVs, even before attack vs. France.

The Germans couldn't get the alloys the Soviets could though, and though the initial engine in the Tiger was alu (the Maybach HL 210), this couldn't go on forever - and it had to be replaced with the iron HL 230 (which was probably better). Also, they couldn't use diesel (it was reserved for the Kriegsmarine) and I don't know if they could make an alu diesel (has anyone since??).

IIRC, they've made the decision to go all-gasoline prior the war, even though diesel is easier to come by, and it's cheaper to produce.
Either alu or steel engine, they should have mounted the gearbox in aft part of tank. That way one saves volume (major issue in tank design) - therefore saving on weight of armor for same level of protection. Plus, tank presents smaller target.

The steel roawheels on the KV impressed the Germans though - and they copied them. However, they apparently didn't work so well when large diameter. If the Tiger had used KV suspension though ( sloping armour), then it would've been cool IMO - and about what you suggested. Still, not German enough eh? - Can't be seen to copy the Untermenche?

Not Tiger, but Panther would've been KV-like
The rasisticaly-based decisions of German leadership backfired in their face many times in past.

So you think it could do it? It's hard though, isn't it. The Soviets kept all 3 calibre 'classes' (- only replaced the 122mm with the 130mm?). Would this be possible for Germany? - or desireable?

Possible? Sure.
Desirable? Don't know

Yes, sorry! I know the FH18 was 150mm btw, sorry (not 155mm! - so confusing!). I wonder if the leFH18 () could destroy a T-34 beyond AP range with HE? I've got a simulator that can test this, but I got wiped out last time I tried it. Dont remember using HE - but I'm no good with heavier Arty (btw I later changed to a flak 88 and had my revenge!).

There is 15cm sFH18, and then there is 10,5cm leFH 18
We'd need to dig further for anti-tank performance of 10,5cm howitzer.

I meant the leFH flak 105, but that would work too! (or the KwK 42...). Just another towed gun?? - THE towed gun!

10,5 Flak would've overloaded the 10,5 howitzer carriage; the 8,8L71 was the biggest ordnance that carriage would've accepted without much trouble IMO. Surely, the 7,5L70 was very much feasible - but indeed just another towed gun

Does anyone know if the Flak 105 ever fired at tanks? IIRC the 128mm did, at the Berlin Zoo?

Anyone?

Were WPs available for the QF 75mm? Were they good against tanks?

IIRC, yes on bot accounts.

Thats true on the second part - but by this point Cruisers needed splitting again, as before (battle support). The battle variant would need the 17pdr/77mm IMO, you cant just not have one?? Wouldn't the M3 gun ( possibly Sherman turret with it) have been much better? I suppose the QF was able to deal with the pre-Ausf G Panther, in theory, but still...

You've thrown too much cannons for Cruisers to mount here British tanks their main armament deserve a thread on its' own...

Vincenzo · Apr 12, 2010

Tomo for AT use of field artillery i read italian report from soviet front where it's writed that italian field 75mm was good versus soviet light tank (not specified ) and field 100mm was good versus T-34 in both cases with both ammos (AP and HE)

tomo pauk · Apr 13, 2010

The Italian field 75mm gun(s) have had comparable muzzle energy as the 'French 75'/US 75mm, or Russian 76,2mm (from T-34 KV1), so I think it was pretty good in AT job; having 100mm hitting the T-34 was not pleasant for the tank either

schwarzpanzer · Apr 13, 2010

Hi Vincenzo,

Even 20 37mm's were good against Soviet light tanks! If it's Italian guns, then the Breda 20 47mm too.

I take it you were meaning with HE though? - I wonder if a 47mm would be enough for, say a T-26?...

Did the Italians have a 100mm? Any info please?

Hi tomo,

Guess only experience would've tell - my money is on the HE/HEAT/HESH

I would still not be happy. Was thinking though, with what someone on here suggested: HE HEAT only (forget HESH). Fire HE until the vehicle is disabled (unlike with HESH (?), indirect hits could still disable). Then, to be sure, follow up with a well-aimed HEAT. HEAT has both excellent penetration and incendiary qualities - perfic! Spaced armor might cause problems though... Though the HE rounds may have ripped that off. If that Hl/C was available, that would likely have done the trick. Also, I tried working out expected penetration for this round, and came out with a (conservative) estimate of 244mm.

I suppose if the turret came off like a jack-in-the-box, then you would know it was finished. - but could this happen with HE shells? (a 150mm on an IS-3).

The ML-20 is still in service? Then again, heavy arty tech hasn't changed much since WW1? (excepting Metal Storm maybe). Seems to go with my thinking of concentrating research on ATGs ammo, rather than heavy arty. Any info on heavy arty development would be appreciated.

Thanks for the D-1 info. I think I've seen that before - but just figured it to be a cheapo ML-20. Now I know the truth. Thanks again!

I'd have to agree with Shortround6 - it was more of an all-arounder, rather than a dedicated AT gun (nomenclature notwithstanding). Wiki entry mentions the captured carriages.

Yes. Infact, I think I've figured out it's quirks - it was meant to be the German A-19, so was to be a HE-firer, with AP a secondary function. This would explain the shorter barrel split-loading case. When it became a PaK though, I think these features should have been changed, but that would delay it, still it wasn't too popular as a field gun anyway, but would make a great PaK. I think it was originally called the K 44, or similar - showing it was dual-role. All of this is available in the Wiki entry! (IIRC my info came from Ian Hogg, but was forgotten - till you refreshed it, thanks!). It wasn't based on the A-19 as such - but you know what I mean!

When talking about Russian artillery:
never never ever describe Russian artillery as 'pretty poor weapons' - their artillery park was far better than German IMO.

Their HE stuff yes, but not their ATs, not by a long shot IMO. I also think the Germans had some decent stuff (but we are analysing them here - in minute detail!).

That's why I'm ringing the HE/HESH/HEAT bell...

HESH and HEAT will not work on modern armour - though Soviet research on triple-charge HEAT Warheads is apparently impressive. HE can disable a modern MBT, and disable or weaken the modern armour. HESH is now useless however - modern armour is composed of @ least 3 layers: outer (such as Chobham, ERA, or both), normal steel (which I think is malleable anyway - reducing spalling) and finally a spall liner - so HESH is no longer useful against MBTs, but maybe lighter vehicles and bunkers. HESH was good for it's time though, apart from the possible ignition problems I mentioned.

The T-62 can track it's lineage back to T-43, but not with KV series

I meant that the KV-1 was too much tank for the gun, the T-62 was the opposite. Other Soviet vehicles fit into these categories (IS-1 IS-2, for e.g.).

Not mixing T-62 with with T-64, don't you?

Funnily enough, I don't mix the two (because I think chassis-biased), though do with others all the time (especially light tanks). The Type-69 was a Chinese tank, based on the Type 59 (a legit T-54 copy), with upgrades filched from a T-62 captured in the Sino-Soviet War. It was the most common Iraqi tank in the Gulf Wars. What is confusing to me is that Type 69 can mean lots of things, like M4.

(check "The best tank-busting plane" in the Aviation sub-forum for reference).

I will do that, thank you.

German past-1942 tanks were big vehicles with moderate sized guns, so such an ammo count was easy to achieve.

True, but they had poor internal layout - both mechanically, and in regard to stored munitions - it's about quality ( yes, I admit, a little about quantity). The E-Series seemed to change this though...

No relation what so ever - KV series were very simple vehicles, with sloped armor, 'all-aft' power pack etc. Plus, Tiger was being designed before Germans encountered KVs, even before attack vs. France.

The KV was not that simple - it had an alu, DOHC, 4v/cyl diesel. It's armour wasn't exactly sloped - more like angled (but then, so was the Tigers). I know the Tiger was designed before experience with the T-34 KV - but they altered the design requirements slightly (armour up from 80mm to 100mm, to keep out that 76mm) and possibly also larger roadwheels. What I meant was if the suspension of the KV had been copied - the other mechanicals would not be practical, except maybe an all-aft powerpack (but I think the Transmission was finalised with the VK3006H?).

IIRC, they've made the decision to go all-gasoline prior the war, even though diesel is easier to come by, and it's cheaper to produce.

Is that true? Thanks, some more good info - keep it coming!

Either alu or steel engine, they should have mounted the gearbox in aft part of tank. That way one saves volume (major issue in tank design) - therefore saving on weight of armor for same level of protection. Plus, tank presents smaller target.

I also thought this, but an aft gearbox has its disadvantages: 1. Harder controls - fore trans can even use an open-gate shifter 2. Damage - it requires connector cables, which are often fragile 3. I don't agree with this one, but there is a school of thought that says it adds extra protection, after the armours been penetrated (this is totally countered by my last point on aft trans advantages, @ the end of this paragraph). Another advantage of aft transmissions (for me) is that it is the idler wheel, rather than the drive sprocket that is more likely to get damaged. Also, with more weight @ the back, more armour can go on the front.

Not Tiger, but Panther would've been KV-like

Are you talking purely weight? I was meaning mechanically. Inter-nation classification is funny - the Germans called the Panther a Medium, the Soviets a Heavy. The Soviets called the IS-2 a Heavy, the Germans a Superheavy.

The rasisticaly-based decisions of German leadership backfired in their face many times in past.

Yes, but it was not Hitlers fault - he apparently wanted the more Soviet Panther design, but was overuled (again!). He ranted about this at the end of the War (along with other things ). I think the worst ting they did was refuse to adopt American production methods - or was it?...

Possible? Sure.
Desirable? Don't know

Yes, its a toughie isnt it? - another one to ponder: 1 gun, 2 guns, or 3?... I'm sure we'll find the answer! (?)

There is 15cm sFH18, and then there is 10,5cm leFH 18

AARGH! Next you'll be telling me there was also an mFH18 FH18? - Can't I just go back to calling it an 155mm? I know theres an SIG and LeIG too, so confusing!

We'd need to dig further for anti-tank performance of 10,5cm howitzer.

IIRC the HE shells had a higher velocity - so should be better for long-range AT work? From what Vincenzo has said, the 105mm HE shells should wreck a T-34? (what about a KV?). IIRC the AP rounds were useless untill well below 500m - suicide distance, and with such heavy amoo, no hope for a reload. They also weren't PzGr 39 (APCBC/HE), or PzGr 40 (APCR), but either APC or plain AP (dunno about HE content). Can check, if you want? APC is OK for close-range work though (but APCBC would still be better).

10,5 Flak would've overloaded the 10,5 howitzer carriage; the 8,8L71 was the biggest ordnance that carriage would've accepted without much trouble IMO.

Thanking you, that was the info I was after! - though way to kill my idea!

Surely, the 7,5L70 was very much feasible - but indeed just another towed gun

THE towed gun! (untill the PaK 43).

Thanks for the QF 75mm WP info. Any more?

You've thrown too much cannons for Cruisers to mount here British tanks their main armament deserve a thread on its' own...

Nah, excluding Lend-Lease stuff, there was only (IIRC):

Battle:

2pdr, 6pdr 77mm

Support:

3 3.7in

Dual-Role:

75mm

- there was an experimental 75mm Battle, but I'll leave that out, as it never saw combat (?).

If I say 'Battle Gun', instead of 'ATG' thats better, isnt it?

The Italian field 75mm gun(s) have had comparable muzzle energy as the 'French 75'/US 75mm, or Russian 76,2mm (from T-34 KV1), so I think it was pretty good in AT job;

Good info - are we bringing Italians into the mix as well?? - this is gonna be a loong discussion!

having 100mm hitting the T-34 was not pleasant for the tank either

I bet it wasnt! - especiallly with that brittle armour.

Quote:
Does anyone know if the Flak 105 ever fired at tanks? IIRC the 128mm did, at the Berlin Zoo?

Anyone?

Anyone at all?? Someone else requested similar just recently, I think?

Shortround6 · Apr 13, 2010

T-26 and any other of the older light tanks were pretty much gone by the winter of 1941, although with thousands of tanks a few lingered on. The T-60 and T-70 could be knocked out with light guns but hoping the Russians are kind enough to attack with tanks that match your light weapons is asking a bit much

244mm of armor is practically battleship stuff.

There is a reason people issued AT rounds to field guns. HE doesn't work that well against tanks. Unless it is very large.
See AP rounds for the German 10.5cm howitzer or solid shot for the British 25pdr. IF HE worked why bother?

British doctrine for the 5.5in (140mm) was to fire the standard 100lb HE shell with a full charge WITH THE FUSE REMOVED AND THE TRANSPORT PLUG IN PLACE.

I don't know if they ever had to use it in combat but they figured the impact could lift a turret right out of the hull even if it didn't penetrate.

Artillery did most of the killing in WW II. Opinions differ on the exact percentage but most attacks and defenses depended on artillery and lots of it. AT work was a side line.

Once again, separate ammunition is easier to load when power assistance isn't available. And it wasn't available on WW II towed non-AA guns, and those sometimes needed a separate generator cart/truck.

Separate ammunition also makes ammo storage/inventory easier. For AT work you just need the projectiles. Load projectile and shove standard cartridge case with appropriate powder charge in behind it. with fixed ammo you have to lug around/store the projectiles with that wacking big cartridge case crimped to it at all times.

Modern armor has little (or nothing) to do with WW II armor or the projectiles needed to defeat WW II armor. HE could be somewhat effective in getting mobility kills against WW II tanks (blowing off/breaking tracks and road wheels) but again, unless it was very large it chances of getting a total kill were small.

If enemy tanks are engaging your heavy artillery (over 105mm)with direct fire one of two things has happened.
1. things have really gone to SH_T and headquarters better think about bugging out. heavy artillery normally being a number of kilometers behind the front line.
2. Your side has such an abundance of heavy artillery it can afford to put it in/near the front line were it can be counter battery fired by anything bigger than a popgun. Getting 122-152mm artillery pieces knocked out by 81-120mm mortars means a really bad disposition of equipment.

German 10.5mm howitzer AP rounds might just cope with a T-34, with a lot of luck. at 1000yds they just about matched the penetration of the Pak 50mm. at shorter ranges the Pak 50 did better and at longer ranges the Howitzer penetrated more than the Pak 50 (which isn't saying much really). Problem is that the Howitzer had such a low velocity that getting hits at such long range wasn't going to be easy.

schwarzpanzer · Apr 14, 2010

Hi Shortround,

T-26 and any other of the older light tanks were pretty much gone by the winter of 1941, although with thousands of tanks a few lingered on. The T-60 and T-70 could be knocked out with light guns but hoping the Russians are kind enough to attack with tanks that match your light weapons is asking a bit much

Apparently, it was the most common tank - along with the equally feeble BT-series. True 1940s Medium and Heavies caused havok though - and I would also argue that the BT T-26 were stll dangerous opponents. Both had faced each other before though, in the Spanish Civil War, and had acheived parity there too (with the Soviet tanks having a slight upper hand). In Barbarossa though, the PzIIs front armour was upgraded to 35mm, and the Pzs III IV were also appearing. The Germans were only really inferior from Autumn (fall) 1941 to late 1942 - only about a year. I think though that '44-'45 is debatable though...

244mm of armor is practically battleship stuff.

Dont think HEAT would work well against a Battleship? The IS-3 only weighed only 45 tons (the same as a German Medium - though that is debatable) and, depending on the source, had 220-280mm.

There is a reason people issued AT rounds to field guns. HE doesn't work that well against tanks. Unless it is very large.

British Cold War doctrine held that Chemical, rather than Kinetic Energy was the best way to deal with tanks. In WW2, I would say it wasn't, but I think tomo thinks it was (we're right in the middle of discussing it). It depends on the armour qualiy of the opponents - tin armour (as on the T-26) or that prone to spalling (like the ISs) would be very vulnerable to CE attack. However, as I mentioned reently, HE doesn't cause fires (but apparently can against light armour, such as that found on the T-26).

See AP rounds for the German 10.5cm howitzer or solid shot for the British 25pdr. IF HE worked why bother?

I've only just mentioned this - it was the lack of being able to start fires. Penetration is apparently the best way to defeat armour though (depending on the source). As a side not, Tigers often fired at M10 Wolverine TDs with HE, rather than AP (which would pass straight through, causing little damage). The same is probably true of any open-topped/backed vehicle. I suppose what I'm tring to say is, it basically depends on the target - some AFVs respond better to treatment usually reserved for 'soft' targets ( visa-versa).

British doctrine for the 5.5in (140mm) was to fire the standard 100lb HE shell with a full charge WITH THE FUSE REMOVED AND THE TRANSPORT PLUG IN PLACE.

I don't know if they ever had to use it in combat but they figured the impact could lift a turret right out of the hull even if it didn't penetrate.

Thats interesting. At what time period was this? Again though, I suppose it really depends on the target.

Artillery did most of the killing in WW II. Opinions differ on the exact percentage but most attacks and defenses depended on artillery and lots of it. AT work was a side line.

Is that true? Be interesting if it is. Guderian did criticise the Tiger over the Panther for this though. I've only just started lumping the 2 together! - Now I have to change back?! This is a debate in itself (Battle Support, or DP alone?) which I think we've touched on here a short while ago?

Once again, separate ammunition is easier to load when power assistance isn't available. And it wasn't available on WW II towed non-AA guns, and those sometimes needed a separate generator cart/truck.

I don't think a 128mm would be loadable by a single loader? Then again the single-piece one on the Sturer Emil apparently was. By this point though, 2-loaders for the 128mm were the norm. This might affect personnel, but could be worked around... I suppose you cant crew a 6-crew tank, if you cant crew a 5-man one (as happened to some KTs). Why the seperate generator? The pre-Ausf J PzIV had a seperate generator ( IIRC so did the others). These vehicles would be rare though, as they were intended to fight tanks that were also relatively rare clumsy (the IS-3-10).

Separate ammunition also makes ammo storage/inventory easier. For AT work you just need the projectiles. Load projectile and shove standard cartridge case with appropriate powder charge in behind it. with fixed ammo you have to lug around/store the projectiles with that wacking big cartridge case crimped to it at all times.

Thats a good point, but I don't think it would be that much of a difference? - you would have even more confusion IMO having different charges. With single-piece ammo, yellow/green = HE, black = AP, simple? I'm having difficulty explaining myself on this one, but I have thought it through before! Also, to move, say 40 rounds, you would need to make 40 repetitions with single-piece ammo, but 80 with split-load - enough to get RSI?! How much extra does a 128mm projectile weigh though, 60pounds? - OK, I admit thats heavy!

Modern armor has little (or nothing) to do with WW II armor or the projectiles needed to defeat WW II armor.

True, sorry, but I threw that in the mix to illustrate how older AP projectiles can work against modern armour, where LRPs (Long-Rod Penetrators) will not. Like in the way, apparently, WW2 Radar will also pick up Stealth aircraft.

HE could be somewhat effective in getting mobility kills against WW II tanks (blowing off/breaking tracks and road wheels) but again, unless it was very large it chances of getting a total kill were small.

It depends (as it does to a degree with KE) on the relationship of the size of the gun, and/or efficiency of the CE shell to the thickness, /or quality of the targets armour. Whether 150mm HE shells would cause spalling on an IS-3 though?... (pleease dont tell me this has already been answered?). American armour was very malleable (the best in WW2 apparently), so not so vulnerable to spalling. But, at times the thin armour on the Shermans sponsons was hit by HE shells -which cased the poorly stored ammo to blow. Another point is that Soviet ammo was less stable, and easy to set off with a glancing blow, or HE shell.

If enemy tanks are engaging your heavy artillery (over 105mm)with direct fire one of two things has happened.
1. things have really gone to SH_T and headquarters better think about bugging out. heavy artillery normally being a number of kilometers behind the front line.

True, but some arty was for frontline use - such as that on the PzIV, Stug StuH. The 150mm I suggested as a desperate measure - as what happened with the LFH18 Flak 88 - both not intended for AT work, but both pressed into service in that role (though by WW2 both of them were expected to fight armour, hence the AP rounds). Soviet arty was also expected right from the start to engage tanks: the 85mm Flak ML-20, for example.

2. Your side has such an abundance of heavy artillery it can afford to put it in/near the front line were it can be counter battery fired by anything bigger than a popgun. Getting 122-152mm artillery pieces knocked out by 81-120mm mortars means a really bad disposition of equipment.

True, counter-battery fire is bad. The Flak was also vulnerable to the Soviet 76mm US 75mm of their tanks, as it wasnt low-slung like the purose-built PaKs. Also, it is vulnerable to infantry/snipers/grenades etc on the front line. The flak 88 eventually morphed into the PaK 43 though, as would 128 150mms, eventually (though it seems vehicle mounting is the only option for these 2 monsters). These were desperate measures though, I also appreciate that bringing up non-purpose-built, heavy towed arty is difficult.

German 10.5mm howitzer AP rounds might just cope with a T-34, with a lot of luck.

Not ideal, but better than the 37 and short 75mm (though the latter could use HEAT effectively, and the former could maybe use PPS APFSDS?).

at shorter ranges the Pak 50 did better

That seems wrong to me - are you talking pure penetration performance? Then again, the PaK 38 could fire PzGr 40 APCR (which had serious repurcussions later). Also, it had a higher RoF, could track targets better and had a lower silhouette - as it was designed purposely for this role (but was actually worse all-round IMO).

and at longer ranges the Howitzer penetrated more than the Pak 50 (which isn't saying much really).

Every little helps. The PaK 38 could deal with a T-34 at 1km, but that is too close for comfort (about parity). The LFH18 could destroy, or at least disable a T-34, whilst being immune itself. Also, a hit at <1km would be less likely to be deflected or shattered on the T-34s armour. Unlike the PaK 38 though, it would not be likely to get a 2nd chance if the T-34 missed its shot.

Problem is that the Howitzer had such a low velocity that getting hits at such long range wasn't going to be easy.

Thats true. Indirect hits could disable though - allowing for a well-aimed follow-up finishing shot. Also, indirect disabling could, in theory at least, disable several T-34s in a single hit...

A similar case is with the short 75mms.

Shortround6 · Apr 14, 2010

schwarzpanzer said:
Apparently, it was the most common tank - along with the equally feeble BT-series. True 1940s Medium and Heavies caused havok though - and I would also argue that the BT T-26 were stll dangerous opponents. Both had faced each other before though, in the Spanish Civil War, and had acheived parity there too (with the Soviet tanks having a slight upper hand). In Barbarossa though, the PzIIs front armour was upgraded to 35mm, and the Pzs III IV were also appearing. The Germans were only really inferior from Autumn (fall) 1941 to late 1942 - only about a year. I think though that '44-'45 is debatable though....

The T-26 and the BT series were pretty much out of it by the winter of 1941. Killed captured or abandoned. And they could be handled by anything bigger than a 20mm. No need for super tanks or super ammunition.

schwarzpanzer said:
Dont think HEAT would work well against a Battleship? The IS-3 only weighed only 45 tons (the same as a German Medium - though that is debatable) and, depending on the source, had 220-280mm.

It works like crap against a battleship. Vital parts are too far from the side armor for the penetrating jet to do any real damage and interior volume is to big to get any over pressure from the penetrating jet. also think of compartment walls as spall liners.

IS the 220-228mm if armor the real thickness or effective thickness. or just a few square feet right around the gun mount?

schwarzpanzer said:
British Cold War doctrine held that Chemical, rather than Kinetic Energy was the best way to deal with tanks. In WW2, I would say it wasn't, but I think tomo thinks it was (we're right in the middle of discussing it). It depends on the armour qualiy of the opponents - tin armour (as on the T-26) or that prone to spalling (like the ISs) would be very vulnerable to CE attack. However, as I mentioned reently, HE doesn't cause fires (but apparently can against light armour, such as that found on the T-26).

Once again, comparing WW II HEAT performance to cold war HEAT performance is like comparing a Spitfire to a Hawker Hunter jet. A WW II 100-105mm gun was lucky if it's HEAT ammo could get 100mm of penetration (it took the Germans 4 different designs to get that far) by 1960 105 Heat rounds could achieve well over 200mm and the French 105 shell from the AMX 30 was supposed to penetrate 360mm. Smooth bore 90mm mounted on French armored cars could penetrate more than 300mm. Trying to mix and match performance of shells from 10-20 years apart only brings confusion.

schwarzpanzer said:
I've only just mentioned this - it was the lack of being able to start fires. Penetration is apparently the best way to defeat armour though (depending on the source). As a side not, Tigers often fired at M10 Wolverine TDs with HE, rather than AP (which would pass straight through, causing little damage). The same is probably true of any open-topped/backed vehicle. I suppose what I'm tring to say is, it basically depends on the target - some AFVs respond better to treatment usually reserved for 'soft' targets ( visa-versa).

you seem to have an obsession with setting tanks on fire. At the time this might have been considered a side benefit and not a requirement. Killing the crew and chewing up the equipment was usually considered good enough and if a quantity of very hot metal happened to land in an ammo rack and cause a few rounds to cook off so much the better but few people were going to sacrifice penetration (or much of it) for incendiary effects. Very thinly armored vehicles always presented a problem for for high powered guns. The fuses won't function on the APHE ammo.

schwarzpanzer said:
Thats interesting. At what time period was this? Again though, I suppose it really depends on the target.

WW II.

schwarzpanzer said:
Is that true?[/QUOTE

It's true, try any work on Artillery.

more later.

Vincenzo · Apr 14, 2010

the 100/17 was the italian standard "heavy" (there were also 75mm howitzer) divisional howitzer, was a WWI pride from austrian ungarian empire. they are lightest but also with shorter range of modern 105mm howitzer (like U.S, german).
here some data in italian Regio Esercito - Materiale bellico - Obice da 100/17 Mod. 1914

tomo pauk · Apr 14, 2010

schwarzpanzer said:
Did the Italians have a 100mm? Any info please?

(While not asked)
Czech/Austro-Hungarian 100mm M.1914; Poles have that one too. Both possesed also the 105mm (originally French) cannons - very usable even at end of 1945.

Hi tomo,

I would still not be happy. Was thinking though, with what someone on here suggested: HE HEAT only (forget HESH). Fire HE until the vehicle is disabled (unlike with HESH (?), indirect hits could still disable). Then, to be sure, follow up with a well-aimed HEAT. HEAT has both excellent penetration and incendiary qualities - perfic! Spaced armor might cause problems though... Though the HE rounds may have ripped that off. If that Hl/C was available, that would likely have done the trick. Also, I tried working out expected penetration for this round, and came out with a (conservative) estimate of 244mm.

I suppose if the turret came off like a jack-in-the-box, then you would know it was finished. - but could this happen with HE shells? (a 150mm on an IS-3).

If you aim to destroy an AFV with 250mm armor, why would you want to go symmetrical against that? Attack it from air, or aim for tracks/wheels, or make sure to deploy mines if you're on defense, don't hold the line in open field, but in intersected terrain (forest, bocage, towns, by rivers/streams/channels)...

You can't attack from air, since your enemy has advantage there? Then you have other stuff to worry, rather if super-duper tank is about to appear.

The ML-20 is still in service? Then again, heavy arty tech hasn't changed much since WW1? (excepting Metal Storm maybe). Seems to go with my thinking of concentrating research on ATGs ammo, rather than heavy arty. Any info on heavy arty development would be appreciated.

While ML-20 is really useful, there is a lot of pieces that dwarf it, some being half as heavy able to move on their own at the battlefield, while firing guided projectiles 30km away...
There is lot to learn about the non-AT arty really

Their HE stuff yes, but not their ATs, not by a long shot IMO. I also think the Germans had some decent stuff (but we are analysing them here - in minute detail!).

Then you've should check out their 57mm At gun - the best towed AT gun of WW2, and the best AP performing tank gun 'till Kwk 36 arrived...

HESH and HEAT will not work on modern armour - though Soviet research on triple-charge HEAT Warheads is apparently impressive.

Wrong there ("will not work" part) - check out the M1 Abrams cassualties in Iraq in this milenium, Merkava 4 adventures vs. Hezbollah militia.

HE can disable a modern MBT, and disable or weaken the modern armour. HESH is now useless however - modern armour is composed of @ least 3 layers: outer (such as Chobham, ERA, or both), normal steel (which I think is malleable anyway - reducing spalling) and finally a spall liner - so HESH is no longer useful against MBTs, but maybe lighter vehicles and bunkers. HESH was good for it's time though, apart from the possible ignition problems I mentioned.

Chobham IS composed of steel, so methinks you'd need to delete the steel part from that. (I do bang my head for not buying the tank bible last year in Stuttgart, it was both tick cheap)
If the spall liner is able to withstand the hit of 20-40kg shell is still not well known for public IMO; I doubt it's THAT effective.

I meant that the KV-1 was too much tank for the gun, the T-62 was the opposite. Other Soviet vehicles fit into these categories (IS-1 IS-2, for e.g.).

KV-1 would've indeed put the 85mm/107mm in good use; too bad for Russkies they did that (85mm) in late 1943, in meagre numbers. IS-2 was tested with 100mm (of Naval origin; my favorite Russian gun), but 122 was far easier available.

True, but they had poor internal layout - both mechanically, and in regard to stored munitions - it's about quality ( yes, I admit, a little about quantity). The E-Series seemed to change this though...

E-series? That's "panzer-46" stuff

The KV was not that simple - it had an alu, DOHC, 4v/cyl diesel.

But it's suspension layout of transmission were - Germans might have sticked with their Maybachs (if Russian engine was SO complicated ) and be done with that. Those two advantages would've allowe for a more compact vehicle, with better protection for same weight, or less weight for same armor protection.

It's armour wasn't exactly sloped - more like angled (but then, so was the Tigers). I know the Tiger was designed before experience with the T-34 KV - but they altered the design requirements slightly (armour up from 80mm to 100mm, to keep out that 76mm) and possibly also larger roadwheels. What I meant was if the suspension of the KV had been copied - the other mechanicals would not be practical, except maybe an all-aft powerpack (but I think the Transmission was finalised with the VK3006H?).

Again, we build this instead of Panther, not instead of Tiger.

Is that true? Thanks, some more good info - keep it coming!

About the German decision or about advantages of diesel fuel?

I

also thought this, but an aft gearbox has its disadvantages: 1. Harder controls - fore trans can even use an open-gate shifter 2. Damage - it requires connector cables, which are often fragile 3. I don't agree with this one, but there is a school of thought that says it adds extra protection, after the armours been penetrated (this is totally countered by my last point on aft trans advantages, @ the end of this paragraph). Another advantage of aft transmissions (for me) is that it is the idler wheel, rather than the drive sprocket that is more likely to get damaged. Also, with more weight @ the back, more armour can go on the front.

The advantages do overweight disadvantages - from late 30's till now.
If you want so badly the frontal gearbox, than you might take in consideration the engine position too, and move the engine in front, Merkava-style.

Are you talking purely weight? I was meaning mechanically.

Both mechanically and by the weight.

Yes, but it was not Hitlers fault - he apparently wanted the more Soviet Panther design, but was overuled (again!). He ranted about this at the end of the War (along with other things ). I think the worst ting they did was refuse to adopt American production methods - or was it?...

The folks from Daimler Benz were influenced by a wrong Russian tank - they've should copied the KV...

IIRC the HE shells had a higher velocity - so should be better for long-range AT work? From what Vincenzo has said, the 105mm HE shells should wreck a T-34? (what about a KV?). IIRC the AP rounds were useless untill well below 500m - suicide distance, and with such heavy amoo, no hope for a reload. They also weren't PzGr 39 (APCBC/HE), or PzGr 40 (APCR), but either APC or plain AP (dunno about HE content). Can check, if you want? APC is OK for close-range work though (but APCBC would still be better).

One thing is needed to convert the field gun into AT gun - the will (or order, if you prefer) to do that.

Thanks for the QF 75mm WP info. Any more?

You'd need to go to the tank-net.org to find out more - like I did

Nah, excluding Lend-Lease stuff, there was only (IIRC):

Battle:

2pdr, 6pdr 77mm

Support:

3 3.7in
75mm

- there was an experimental 75mm Battle, but I'll leave that out, as it never saw combat (?).

If I say 'Battle Gun', instead of 'ATG' thats better, isnt it?

You're forgetting the 17pdr, plus 25pdr for SP arty...
I was not reffering to the plethora of guns, but to (your) requirement that Cruisers should have carried almost all of those.

Good info - are we bringing Italians into the mix as well?? - this is gonna be a loong discussion!

New thread perhaps?

schwarzpanzer · Apr 14, 2010

Hi Vincenzo,

Thanks for the link - but I don't understand Italian, or support arty for that matter! Your brief description was brilliant though, thankyou. 8)

Hi Shortround,

The T-26 and the BT series were pretty much out of it by the winter of 1941. Killed captured or abandoned. And they could be handled by anything bigger than a 20mm. No need for super tanks or super ammunition.

I was meaning the intitial stages of Barbarossa - Autumn (fall) if they were out of the picture by Winter, then yes. Not just above 20mm, but 20mm itself - also the 13mm 'Elefant' Anti-tank rifles! I know big guns weren't needed, I was just saying that fairly large HE shells would destroy these easily - however a KV would be apparently immune. According to some sources, it was safe from, IIRC 500lb bombs. It seems though, from what has been said on ere recently, that HE fire from a LFH18 105mm would destroy a T-34, internally (?). That I wouldn't have expected before.

It works like crap against a battleship. Vital parts are too far from the side armor for the penetrating jet to do any real damage and interior volume is to big to get any over pressure from the penetrating jet. also think of compartment walls as spall liners.

Great info again. I was thinking that having a pencil-diameter hole wouldnt let enough water in t sink it, and that a fire wuldnt likely start. I know pretty much nothing about Naval gunnery - apart from that the Soviet obsesio with APHE came from there (esp. in the D-10). BTW, I wonder if you might know: were APCBC rounds 1st intended for anti-ship useage?

IS the 220-228mm if armor the real thickness or effective thickness. or just a few square feet right around the gun mount?

Actual thickness. Effective thickness would likely be much higher, because it was sloped even more than that on the T-34 IIRC. I wondered if effective thickness is where the 280mm figure came from - but I expect it would actually bemuch higher than that! As someone said though, the Schuka made the structure either weaker or stronger, depending on the source shell used (CE or KE respectively - which would allow both sources to be pretty much correct). I dont know if overmatching relates to Actual Thickness, or Effective Thickness (?).

This is actually trickier than it seems, if you see the drawing on the previous page that hartmann posted, then you will see that both actual effective thickness is 220mm @ the bottom rear of the turret, but 'only' 110mm (or 140? - the writings hard to make out) of actual thickness just about everywhere else. I'm tempted to think these might be incorrect though, as I'm pretty sure the glacis was 120-160mm (as it was on the preceding IS-2), and the turret front had to be more than 110mm also?...

Also, hartmann said this:

Seen the drawings, I only found a maximum thickness of 220 mm of casted steel in the turret (which would probably equivalent to some 190 mm of good rolled homogeneous armour)

So the production method would reduce the effectiveness too - or increase it, Soviet armour was not solidly interlocked, like on later, heavier German designs.

Also, Soviet armour was weird - usually hard, but brittle. It's a confusing subject - which probably explains why we're already @ 3 pages! Perhaps the IS-3 need a Thread of its own? - as it is central to these discussions.

Once again, comparing WW II HEAT performance to cold war HEAT performance is like comparing a Spitfire to a Hawker Hunter jet. A WW II 100-105mm gun was lucky if it's HEAT ammo could get 100mm of penetration (it took the Germans 4 different designs to get that far) by 1960 105 Heat rounds could achieve well over 200mm and the French 105 shell from the AMX 30 was supposed to penetrate 360mm. Smooth bore 90mm mounted on French armored cars could penetrate more than 300mm. Trying to mix and match performance of shells from 10-20 years apart only brings confusion.

That's true, but I wasn't comparing WW2 HEAT to Cold War HEAT. I was just saying that CE (Chemical Energy) Attack is a viable way to destroy tanks - as it was British Doctrine in the Cold War ( is only being fased out now, reluctantly). It was also widely used by the Soviets in WW2, and to a lesser extent by the Germans and Americans. Annoyingly, Soviet projectiles often used KE shells to achieve CE-type destruction.lol:

you seem to have an obsession with setting tanks on fire. At the time this might have been considered a side benefit and not a requirement. Killing the crew and chewing up the equipment was usually considered good enough and if a quantity of very hot metal happened to land in an ammo rack and cause a few rounds to cook off so much the better but few people were going to sacrifice penetration (or much of it) for incendiary effects.

I've just thought of a silly phrase that can go under my handle (so I dont feel left out), how about 'Tank Arsonist' or 'Panzer Pyromaniac'? Can I use that in my siggy please Shortround? Anyway, back to business: I was talked to by a tank veteran, and watched one on a DVD - both said that they both, in their words "hit it 'till it stops moving" and "made sure you got it", respectively. Admittedly, this doesnt necessarily mean a fire - its just something I'm coming round to. Of course, blowing the gun barrell off would be enough for me. In that Pershing vs Panther G vid though, the first hit sets it on fire, but the Pershing still lets off one or 2 rounds more off for good measure (or just because the crew was tightly-wound?).

In WW2, everyone, excluding the British, sacrificed penetration for incendiary (or rather, blast?) effects. The methods I suggest though, have the best of both worlds.

Very thinly armored vehicles always presented a problem for for high powered guns. The fuses won't function on the APHE ammo

Thats a good, interesting point. The problem can also be that the projectile just passes right on through - only* creating a few holes, rather than ping-ponging around the interior, as is desirable (saved a Sherman and M10 on at least one occasion). Fuses can also stop penetration against thicker armour. Here is where I might suggest HE.

* = say 'only' because that can still cause damage, just not as much as is desirable, or even usual.

Thanks for the 5.5in info, think I've seen that gun before, but I find heavy arty very hard to tell apart at present.

Wikipedia article on the 5.5in:

BL 5.5 inch Medium Gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

- which is the one you meant? Mentions nothing of what you said though 8) - perhaps you should update it?

Ah, I do like having arty experts on here!

It's true, try any work on Artillery.

Probably a bit muh for me - too outside my knowledge base (for now). Hopefully though, you guys wil rub off on me.

I would still think though, that most AFVs lost in WW2 were KO'd bt ATGs?

more later.

Look forward to it, Cheers!

Shortround6 · Apr 14, 2010

schwarzpanzer said:
Why the seperate generator?

It depends on the power rammers, some were spring driven with spring "cocked" by the recoil of the gun. some used pneumatic rammers and need an air supply from somewhere. others like the American 90mm AA gun and German 105mm AA used powered rollers that move together to grip the round and then spread apart to allow ejection. It is one reason for their high rates of fire.

schwarzpanzer said:
Thats a good point, but I don't think it would be that much of a difference? - you would have even more confusion IMO having different charges. With single-piece ammo, yellow/green = HE, black = AP, simple? I'm having difficulty explaining myself on this one, but I have thought it through before! Also, to move, say 40 rounds, you would need to make 40 repetitions with single-piece ammo, but 80 with split-load - enough to get RSI?! How much extra does a 128mm projectile weigh though, 60pounds? - OK, I admit thats heavy!

I was thinking more for the towed artillery.

schwarzpanzer said:
It depends (as it does to a degree with KE) on the relationship of the size of the gun, and/or efficiency of the CE shell to the thickness, /or quality of the targets armour. Whether 150mm HE shells would cause spalling on an IS-3 though?... (pleease dont tell me this has already been answered?). American armour was very malleable (the best in WW2 apparently), so not so vulnerable to spalling. But, at times the thin armour on the Shermans sponsons was hit by HE shells -which cased the poorly stored ammo to blow. Another point is that Soviet ammo was less stable, and easy to set off with a glancing blow, or HE shell.

Problems with HE shells against armor include fusing, too quick and shell explodes with only the point in contact with the armor and much of the force is dissipated into the air. Too late and the fuse can be crushed and fail to operate properly, or shell body can rupture or shell can ricochet from armor. In the last case even if the shell burst properly if it is even a few feet (or perhaps even inches) away from the tank there will be no spalling from even medium armor. Light armor may be penetrated by shell fragments. For some types of HE to detonate properly the fuse/detonator assembly much set up a shockwave in the explosive in addition to providing a flame or high temperature. A shell that has ruptured or broken on impact may not allow the fuse to set up this shock wave even though it may set the explosive on fire. Given the varying impact velocities depending on range and the normal variations in in mass produced fuses getting optimum results from an HE shell seems to take a bit of luck.
IIRC the idea of the KV tank was to produce a "shell proof" tank, one that was relativity immune to normal field guns which means 75-76mm HE shells.

schwarzpanzer said:
True, but some arty was for frontline use - such as that on the PzIV, Stug StuH. The 150mm I suggested as a desperate measure - as what happened with the LFH18 Flak 88 - both not intended for AT work, but both pressed into service in that role (though by WW2 both of them were expected to fight armour, hence the AP rounds). Soviet arty was also expected right from the start to engage tanks: the 85mm Flak ML-20, for example.

Not really for towed artillery. The idea of providing AP ammo was that these gun batteries would have some means of self defense should things go wrong and enemy tanks turn up where they were not expected. It was much cheaper in men and material to provide 5-10 AP rounds per big gun than to issue, man and provide towing for an anti-tank gun or two to protect each heavy artillery or AA battery. While the PzIV, Stug StuH did provide front line HE support they usually performed a slightly different role than regular artillery. They were equipped with artillery type sights and could fire in the indirect role or map shoot on occasion but even the German army did not have the communications net early in the war that the US and British would later. Having some direct fire weapons available cut down the reaction time to get artillery support from guns located in the rear.

schwarzpanzer said:
True, counter-battery fire is bad. The Flak was also vulnerable to the Soviet 76mm US 75mm of their tanks, as it wasnt low-slung like the purose-built PaKs. Also, it is vulnerable to infantry/snipers/grenades etc on the front line. The flak 88 eventually morphed into the PaK 43 though, as would 128 150mms, eventually (though it seems vehicle mounting is the only option for these 2 monsters). These were desperate measures though, I also appreciate that bringing up non-purpose-built, heavy towed arty is difficult.

Not to mention trying to dig the weapons pits to hold them with hand tools, good thing those AA guns had large crews

schwarzpanzer said:
Not ideal, but better than the 37 and short 75mm (though the latter could use HEAT effectively, and the former could maybe use PPS APFSDS?).

At what point in the war? there was a lot of development in the 4-6 years of WW II. Some of the early Heat shells weren't that good. And trick ammo of the APFSDS isn't going to show up until 1944 at best and then it is doubtful.

schwarzpanzer said:
That seems wrong to me - are you talking pure penetration performance? Then again, the PaK 38 could fire PzGr 40 APCR (which had serious repurcussions later). Also, it had a higher RoF, could track targets better and had a lower silhouette - as it was designed purposely for this role (but was actually worse all-round IMO).

You are talking about cherries and pumpkins

Penetration at 500meters using standard AP shot for both guns, 90 and 30 degrees, 50mm first. 78mm and 61mm. for the Lf 18 62mm and 56mm.
Same at 1000meters--50mm--61mm and 50mm----Lf 18----62mm and 52mm
pentration of Lf 18 at 1500meters 59mm and 49mm.
MV for Lf 18 using AP shell. 390M/sec. or about 4 seconds time of flight to 1500meters even disregarding wind resistance. Practical range is going to be close to 450meters.
With a MV of 823M/se the practical range of the 50mm (for getting hits) is going to be around 900meters. THe 50mm does have a much higher rate of fire, double if not a bit more and it weighs about 1/2 what the LF 18 does.
Niether one can really do the others job.

schwarzpanzer said:
Every little helps. The PaK 38 could deal with a T-34 at 1km, but that is too close for comfort (about parity). The LFH18 could destroy, or at least disable a T-34, whilst being immune itself. Also, a hit at <1km would be less likely to be deflected or shattered on the T-34s armour. Unlike the PaK 38 though, it would not be likely to get a 2nd chance if the T-34 missed its shot.

The Pak 38 is going to have trouble at even 1km given the slope on a T-34. The Lfh 18 is going to be in real trouble. The AP shell is about the same as the Pak 38's, a possible kill but no guarantee, it takes until the 3rd or 4th try at a HEAT shell to get 100mm of penetration so heat shells aren't much good in 1941-42. given the low velocity of the 10.5cm round the high arching trajectory may require one or more sighting rounds to get the range. As the range closes the performance of the Pak 38 improves a marked amount. The performance of the 10.5cm does not.

schwarzpanzer said:
Thats true. Indirect hits could disable though - allowing for a well-aimed follow-up finishing shot. Also, indirect disabling could, in theory at least, disable several T-34s in a single hit...

Not sure what you mean by an indirect hit? a hit on a tool box or fender? and no, an indirect hit or near miss could not disable several T-34s, not unless they were unlucky enough to have shell fragments hit them directly in gunsight or periscope lenses. Shell fragments from an exploding shell are not going to make it through the armor from several meters away. The shock of the explosion will not cause spalling at that distance nor will it knock out running gear. Bend fenders and break headlights, yes and if you are really lucky it might give the crews a head ache or bloody nose or something.

schwarzpanzer · Apr 14, 2010

Hi tomo,

Now you've gone and added the Czechs, Austro-Hungarians, Poles and French into the mix! They are not offtopic though, as all nations support seem to be similar? (though to me, ALL support weapons are similar!). This in contrast to ATGs - which are very different beasts.

If you aim to destroy an AFV with 250mm armor, why would you want to go symmetrical against that? Attack it from air, or aim for tracks/wheels, or make sure to deploy mines if you're on defense, don't hold the line in open field, but in intersected terrain (forest, bocage, towns, by rivers/streams/channels)...

You can't attack from air, since your enemy has advantage there? Then you have other stuff to worry, rather if super-duper tank is about to appear.

Because you hae no other choice? The IS-3 was not a lumbering beast like the German heavies, remember. Aiming for a mobility kill 1st is a good idea, however, but it may stil need finishing (or just blow the gun barrell off). You can't always rely on ambush? - sometimes head-to-head is the only option?... The IS-3 was apparently also good vs mines, as was also the KV (apart from mobility kills - which could be easily repaired - even then though, it might still be able to limp on?). As you said, air attack was not really an option for Germany in '44/'45 - and you make a good point about air attack also then being a threat, moreso than an IS-3? If you have heavy armour though, both might not kill you? - but will make life unliveable (the thing we've been discussing regarding CE, except from the opposite side).

While ML-20 is really useful, there is a lot of pieces that dwarf it, some being half as heavy able to move on their own at the battlefield, while firing guided projectiles 30km away...

Ah, yes. I was deliberately stayig away from rockets/missiles though (that would be too much!). I suppose the PzH 2000 is very similar to the vehicles we are proposing? Also, I've seen wheeled 155mm SPGs.

There is lot to learn about the non-AT arty really

OH NO!! Still, I'm sure you guys can help?

Then you've should check out their 57mm At gun - the best towed AT gun of WW2, and the best AP performing tank gun 'till Kwk 36 arrived...

The ZiS-2? It was actually unpopular in 1941 early '42 though - not until the Tiger and Stug came on the scene did it gain much poularity - but even then, it had its detractors. The KwK could be considered Dual-Role though, the ZiS-2 not so much. Still, why the 85, 100 even 122mm's AP performance wasnt made to be more like the 57mms totally escapes me.

Wrong there ("will not work" part) - check out the M1 Abrams cassualties in Iraq in this milenium, Merkava 4 adventures vs. Hezbollah militia.

I suppose HE can disable an Abrams - but has CE directly destroyed one?? The Merkava was blown up by something like a 650kg IED IIRC - impossible to be fired from a field cannon? A Merkava has apparently been destroyed, frontally, by an RPG-29 - which counts, but I mentioned that type of weapon. Any info on those Abrams would be appreciated! 8)

Chobham IS composed of steel, so methinks you'd need to delete the steel part from that. (I do bang my head for not buying the tank bible last year in Stuttgart, it was both tick cheap)

Yes, but thats only the 'container' (like it is in a HE shell). If you stripped the Chobham off a Challenger, you'd end up with something that resembled a Cheiftain - which is the 2nd, 'steel' layer I mentioned. Deletig the stell on the outer part may allow for more 'shock' on an incoming projectile though?...

If the spall liner is able to withstand the hit of 20-40kg shell is still not well known for public IMO; I doubt it's THAT effective.

I'm not sure, I just believed that to be the case. If I happen across any info, I'll have to remember to post it here.

KV-1 would've indeed put the 85mm/107mm in good use; too bad for Russkies they did that (85mm) in late 1943, in meagre numbers. IS-2 was tested with 100mm (of Naval origin; my favorite Russian gun), but 122 was far easier available.

There was apparantly a KV with IIRC, a 107mm gun - 'The Beast of Leningrad'. Whether it was an actual KV-13 (?) (which was cancelled), or a lash-up, I don't know (or if it was a myth/propaganda). Apparently though, it did see action - so info will be somewhere? However, like the KV-2, it would've had too many limitations. A 107mm on an SU-152 chassis though... The IS-2 also hadan 85mm gun. I like the 100mm much better than the 122mm, though it may be true that the 122mm was more available. I think the 122mm was the main reason that stopped the IS-2 being an effective Heavy or Breakthrough tank.

E-series? That's "panzer-46" stuff

Well yes, but all the tech, and lessons was available in '43 (even in '42?). Bleedin obvious really, IMO. It did still have those bloody overlapping wheels though!lol: One E-100 was almost completed, and captured by the British (but unfortunately then scrapped). I think that if an E-Seres had to be made, that the Mediums should've got priority - not another Maus clone. even then thoug, the Mediums were stupidly overweight, and apparently not as good as the T-54 IS-3 (though I'm getting to thinking that they were better...).

But it's suspension layout of transmission were

The 1s part (suspension) is what I said! The transmission was simple, yes, but a bad design apparently (dificult changes poor steering). The early T-34s trans was also poor.

Panzergranate 44 - German APFSDS

Creator of Interesting Threads

Airman

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Major General

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Airman

Senior Airman

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Airman

Major General

Senior Airman

Major General

Senior Master Sergeant

Creator of Interesting Threads

Senior Airman

Major General

Senior Airman

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads