WW2 Tank Gun Comparison

[Soren]

Looking at these numbers I am tempted to believe that the ground pressure is at least as important. The T34 was no slouch in its performance but if you just went on these figures you would think that it had a terrible performance.

Glider remember it's the US T34 heavy prototype tank we're talking about, not the Soviet T-34

 

[Glider]

Whoops

 

[lesofprimus]

Very interesting stuff guys and like Adler, Im no tank guy....

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Adler,

The problem with the T-29, 30 34 is that it is the first true heavy tank that the US designed, and the reliability was worse than that of any German heavy tank, the transmission esp. being completely unsuited for the task and exhibiting extremely bad reliability.

How can you say that, when compared to the E-100? You can not. That is nothing but speculation on your part. The E-100 was never completely built. So to say that the E-100 would have been better than teh T-29, T-30 or T-34 is a very false statement on your part.

Think about it. You are doing nothing but speculation here...

 

[m kenny]

By the end of the war the first full prototype of the E-100 was nearly ready, a month or two away from entering trials. The Allies found the complete hull chassis, tracks etc etc of the prototype:

The SINGLE E-100 prototype was far from being complete. To claim it would be in service anytime in 1945 is a complete stretch. Production plans for the Maus had been shelved by October 1943 and apart from 2 protypes and partialy assembled/cut hulls the whole of the armour plate set aside for it was turned over to Stug production. The 5 hulls that had been partialy assembled/started are what we keep seeing in photos.
The E-100 was the Krupp design for the Maus contract. When their model was rejected in favour of the Porsche Maus the design was resubmitted for the E series development.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

ADLER!!!!

If I remember correctly, and I am very sure of myself of this one, the T-34 had a 500 hp diesel engine and the early versions weighed 29 tons, while the later versions with the 85 mm gun weighed 35 tons or less. That comes to between 17 h.p. to 14 h.p. per ton, WAY above the 9.8 figure you quoted...

I was a Tank fan even before I was interested in birds, and I know that 10 hp per ton is the lowest practical limit for a battlefield use tank - at that low power you either limit them to 5 mph tops or you will get them breaking down left and right.

The t-34 gained its near legendary reputation on the battlefield as much for its reliability (especially models built after 1942) as for its sloping armour and its gunpower. And that reliability came largely from its high (for a tank) power to weight ratio.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

OOOOPS sorry Adler....I just now noticed that you were talking about the UNITED STATES T-34....

Why did the dingdongs call it the T-34 when they knew perfectly well that the russkies had a tank with the same designation!!!!

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Why has no one included the technological marvel of german tank guns of WWII, the 75/55. which the germans were forced to shelve only because they did not have access to the kind of Tungsten in the quantities needed to build this truly wonder weapon? Light enough to be put into even a Panzer III hull, it could punch through armour at a level comparable to the L/70 75 mm gun of the Panther that weighed twice as much!

 

[lesofprimus]

Because it wasnt used in a combat situation??? Theoretical and "it coulda been" really dont amount to much here...

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Yep, but it could have been - BY THE ALLIES - they had access to a kazillion tons of tungsten in WW II...if they had the brains to think of it as well!!!

 

[TempestMKV]

Yep, but it could have been - BY THE ALLIES - they had access to a kazillion tons of tungsten in WW II...if they had the brains to think of it as well!!!

US 76mm tungsten APCR was not many, mainly supplied for tank destroyers, but some M4A3 crew bought some APCR shells privately.

From 1944, Every T34-85 had 4 tungsten APCR shells, and every Su85/m/100 had 8 shells.

Allied have brain.

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Sorry Tempest...perhaps I wasn't quite clear. I meant tungsten shells COMBINED with the 'squeezebore' technology that required them.

Modern tank guns don't use the squeezebore because APDS and later APFSDS technology developed, but that technology was not mature enough yet in WW II, although many attempts in that direction were made.

Squeezebore was, by contrast, a workable and mature technology. The only problem was that it needed lots of tungsten...and that was what the germans didn't have.

 

[Juha]

Hello BB
British used 'squeezebore' technology during WWII. Its armour cars could be and were equipped with LittleJohn adapters, which when fitted made 2pdr a 'squeezebore' gun. In NW Europe usually half of a/cs had the adapter fitted half didn't, the latter had so HE capacity.

And British used APDS, there were some "collar" separation problems which caused sometimes accuracy problems but the ammo was in use.

Juha

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Are you quite sure that we are talking about the same thing, friend Juha? By squeezebore I meant the technology that has a barrel that is wide at the base and narrows down near the barrel tip (eg the German 75/55) and which absolutely must have a FLANGED tungsten shell to work.

As for APDS, it was precisely those seperation problems that made this technology immature for ALL SIDES (it was a belgian invention, the Germans experimented with it too) during WW II.

 

[Juha]

Yes
I cannot remember to how small 40mm 2pdr shot was squeezed, say to 30mm.

And for APDS, British solved the promlems to the extend that it was videly distributed to the troops, first for 6 pdr, say in July 44 and then to 17 pdr in Aug 44. But IIRC the separation problems very completely solved by Canadians in 50s.

Juha

 

[Burmese Bandit]

Thanks for that post, Juha. I will go check on those facts now...

Rgds, BB

 

[Glider]

Yes
I cannot remember to how small 40mm 2pdr shot was squeezed, say to 30mm.

And for APDS, British solved the promlems to the extend that it was videly distributed to the troops, first for 6 pdr, say in July 44 and then to 17 pdr in Aug 44. But IIRC the separation problems very completely solved by Canadians in 50s.

Juha

I can support this statement. The Littlejohn adapter squeezed the 40mm shell down to approx 30mm increasing the MV by about 50% giving a penetration of 88mm at 450 yards. Thats enough to be a major threat to the side armour of most of the German tanks in service.

Clearly an A/C would run if faced with a MBT thats what they were designed to do, but there is no doubt that the technology of a sqeezebore was in use.

 

[Soren]

The problem with the APDS rounds was the high inaccuracy and the very brittle penetrator. The 17 pdr APDS projectiles were known to fail to penetrate the glacis plate of the Tiger Ausf.E at close ranges, the projectile shattering on impact. Not so good.

 

[Glider]

I know that there were some problems with some quality control issues of the manufacturing of the ammunition. That said they were known to work and destroy a number of the larger German tanks.
This sort of thing wasn't uncommon and if I remember correctly there was a fair difference in the quality of German armour plate. In mass production in a war situation these things do sometimes happen.

Am I right in saying that one of the first Tiger I tanks was knocked out by a 6pd?

 

[Soren]

Well the thing is it had nothing to do with quality issues, the design of the APDS round just wasn't very good and the accuracy suffered badly. Finally the penetrator was way too brittle, and this caused a lot of trouble against tanks such as the Tiger.

As for a Tiger being knocked out by 6 pdrs, well I've heard about that, from flanking shots at point blank range. I believe one was taken out this way in Tunisia.