WWII Tank Gun Specifications

Discussion in 'WW2 General' started by Soren, Jan 8, 2010.

  1. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #1 Soren, Jan 8, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2010
    Here's a complete specifications list for most of the tank guns used during WW2. Hope you all enjoy it, it has been hard work assembling all the information, costng a good few months of research and even some money for some information only accessible through microfilm copies.

    I've looked through US, German British manuals, modern day data and so on to make sure everything is 100% accurate. I've got data on more guns which I can add on demand, but this will have to do for now, its time consuming work writing all this down.

    12.8cm PaK44 L/55

    Projectile weight: 28.3 kg PzGr.43 APCBC(HE)
    Sectional Density: 1.727
    Muzzle Velocity: 935 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 12370 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 96.13 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 253mm
    1,000m = 237mm
    1,500m = 222mm
    2,000m = 208mm
    2,500m = 195mm
    3,000m = 182mm

    _________________________________________________

    8.8cm KwK43 L/71

    Projectile weight: 10.4 kg PzGr.39/43 APCBC(HE)
    Sectional Density: 1.342
    Muzzle Velocity: 1000 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 85.49 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 219mm
    1,000m = 204mm
    1,500m = 190mm
    2,000m = 176mm
    2,500m = 164mm
    3,000m = 153mm

    _________________________________________________

    10cm D-10

    Projectile weight: 15.88 kg BR-412D APBC
    Sectional Denisty: 1.588
    Muzzle velocity: 887 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 6246 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 79.52 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 211mm
    1,000m = 185mm
    1,500m = 161mm
    2,000m = 141mm
    2,500m = 123mm
    3,000m = 108mm

    _________________________________________________

    7.5cm KwK42 L/70

    Projectile weight: 7.2 kg PzGr.39/42 APCBC(HE)
    Sectional Density: 1.280
    Muzzle Velocity: 925 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 3080 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 69.7 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 168mm
    1,000m = 149mm
    1,500m = 132mm
    2,000m = 116mm
    2,500m = 103mm
    3,000m = 91mm

    _________________________________________________

    7.62cm 17pdr

    Projectile weight: 7.7 kg Mk.8T APCBC
    Sectional Density: 1.326
    Muzzle Velocity: 883 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 3001 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65.8 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 163mm
    1,000m = 150mm
    1,500m = 137mm
    2,000m = 126mm
    2,500m = 116mm
    3,000m = 107mm

    _________________________________________________

    12.2cm D-25T L/43

    Projectile weight: 25 kg BR-471B APC
    Sectional Density: 1.679
    Muzzle Velocity: 780 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 7605 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 65 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 183mm
    1,000m = 162mm
    1,500m = 144mm
    2,000m = 129mm
    2,500m = 118mm
    3,000m = 108mm

    _________________________________________________

    9.0cm M3 L/53

    Projectile Weight: 10.94 kg M82 APCBC
    Sectional Density: 1.350
    Muzzle Velocity: 853 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 3980 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 62.56 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 164mm
    1,000m = 151mm
    1,500m = 138mm
    2,000m = 127mm
    2,500m = 115mm
    3,000m = 104mm

    _________________________________________________

    8.8cm KwK36 L/56

    Projectile weight: 10.2 kg PzGr.39-1 APCBC(HE)
    Sectional Density: 1.317
    Muzzle Velocity: 773 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 51.09 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 151mm
    1,000m = 138mm
    1,500m = 126mm
    2,000m = 116mm
    2,500m = 106mm
    3,000m = 97mm

    _________________________________________________

    8.5cm D-5T L/54

    Projectile weight: 9.2 kg BR-365 APBC
    Sectional Density: 1.273
    Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 2885 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 50.84 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 121mm
    1,000m = 102mm
    1,500m = 88mm
    2,000m = 77mm
    2,500m = 69mm
    3,000m = 63mm

    _________________________________________________

    7.6cm M1 L/55

    Projectile weight: 7.0 kg M62 APCBC(HE)
    Sectional Density: 1.211
    Muzzle Velocity: 792 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 2195 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.38 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 116mm
    1,000m = 106mm
    1,500m = 97mm
    2,000m = 89mm
    2,500m = 81mm
    3,000m = 74mm

    _________________________________________________

    7.5cm KwK40 L/48

    Projectile weight: 6.8 kg PzGr.39 APCBC(HE)
    Sectional Density: 1.208
    Muzzle Velocity: 790 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 2122 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 48.03 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 123mm
    1,000m = 109mm
    1,500m = 97mm
    2,000m = 86mm
    2,500m = 76mm
    3,000m = 68mm

    _________________________________________________

    5.7cm 6 pdr L/52

    Projectile weight: 3.23 kg Mk.9T APCBC
    Secional Density: 1.005
    Muzzle Velocity: 831 m/s
    Total Kinetic Energy: 1115 KJ
    Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 43.69 KJ

    Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
    500m = 103mm
    1,000m = 90mm
    1,500m = 78mm
    2,000m = 68mm
    2,500m = 60mm
    3,000m = 52mm

    _________________________________________________

    Penetration data derived from WW2 Armor Gunnery by Robert D. Livingston Lorrin R. Bird, who's figures are based on US test firings conducted at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds USA.
     
  2. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Hello Soren
    thanks for posting.

    Juha
     
  3. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're welcome. I'll post some more later when I get the time.
     
  4. dunmunro1

    dunmunro1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Providing AP data at zero target angle is not very useful since this was almost impossible to achieve in actual combat. The data above appears to be calculated and not based upon real testing.

    17 pdr
    Mk 8T
    MV=884 m/s
    Armour=MQ
    TA=30°
    457m=140mm
    914m=130
    1371m=120
    1828m=111
    17pdr Handbook, AVIA 46 187, AVIA 22 511-514

    75mm L70
    39/42 (Pzgr. 39/42)
    MV=925 m/s
    Armour=MQ
    TA=30°
    500 m: 124 mm
    1000 m: 111 mm
    1500 m: 99 mm
    2000 m: 89 mm
    Germanys Panther Tank: The Quest for Combat Supremacy by Thomas L. Jentz, Schiffer Military History Hardcover, 1997
     
  5. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,679
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    Soren

    Great effort, but Im sure your figures are going to be debated. You should be ready to accept that
     
  6. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    #6 Juha, Jan 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2010
    Hello
    from "Fire and Movement", RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975, pages 22–25. "Penetration v. homogenous armour at 30º, at ranges in yards". The armour is machineable quality.

    6pdr Mk 5
    500____1000_____1500____2000y
    87_______80_______73______67mm

    Ammo must have been Mk X T APCBC 7.13lb (appr.3,23kg) 2780fps (appr. 847m/s). One explanation is the differences between US and GB ammo. In US test the shot loss its penetration power faster than in GB test. When we use simple LOS principle the first two figures are appr. equal but then the US test gives weaker performance than the GB test.
     
  7. dunmunro1

    dunmunro1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Got some more data from a friend.

    OK, so here's the actual UK trials data, showing calculated penetration of:
    162mm @ 1000yds (0deg target angle)
    139mm @ 2000yds (0deg target angle)
    and penetration at 30deg target angle = to the figures above, based upon actual firing tests against German tanks with homogeneous (non face hardened) armour.
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Juha

    Juha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2007
    Messages:
    3,734
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Helsinki
    Hello dunmunro
    thanks for the info

    Juha
     
  9. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On the paper Dunmunro provided I see 155mm mentioned at 1,000 yards and 132mm mentioned at 2,000 yards for the 17 pdr against vertical plates (The quality of British plates is unknown). The US tests (In which all results were down adjusted into meter results) with 17 pdr firing the Mk.8T APCBC projectile established a penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour of 150mm at 1,000m and 126mm at 2,000m, converting that back into yards and the figures correspond perfectly.
     
  10. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #10 Soren, Jan 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2010
    Is isn't calculated, it is based on REAL test results, just as your paper proves (Which btw is mentioned in Livingston Bird's book). That it doesn't conform to how you imagine things were is another matter.
     
  11. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #11 Soren, Jan 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2010
    And btw folks, the list is supposed to 100% accurate, so if you see something is wrong with it then speak up and make your case. But remember it must be based on actual fact on not feelings. I have been looking through many manuals, books, microfilms and test results sheets to confirm that all figures are correct. I am in particular very confident in the validity of the penetration figures, as Livingston Bird provide as many sources as they do, taking all tests conducted in all countries into consideration in their book, which includes many of the papers I have had to pay to obtain. Furthermore it proves as quite an insurance to see that the penetration performance of the guns corresponds closely to the KE their projectiles possess pr. cm^2, proving that physics backs up the results.
     
  12. Vincenzo

    Vincenzo Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    none
    Location:
    Lazio
    Soren have you data for 77 (Comet guns)? and for italian 90? (i know this is not a tank gun)
     
  13. dunmunro1

    dunmunro1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As I stated homogeneous plate = non hardened and C = face hardened, so the UK figures show [email protected] and 139@ 2000yds, both at zero target angle.
     
  14. dunmunro1

    dunmunro1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    LOL, and when you find data, and there's lots of it, regarding UK guns, showing much better results against actual targets you simply dismiss it!

    KE results ignore the design of the AP projectile which has a decisive effect on the final result.
     
  15. delcyros

    delcyros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,037
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Berlin (Kreuzberg)
    I just plotted the figures for these two (powerful) guns on one graph for better readability and comparability. More tests are necessary to be conclusive but guessing from just these two datasets, they may indicate a 5 to 8% advantage for the 17pdr. gun at obliquity impact condition.

    [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  16. dunmunro1

    dunmunro1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Thanks for that info. The data posted by Soren also shows a much steeper decline in penetration for the L/70 gun versus the 17 pdr, and this is to be expected if the 17 pdr performs better at higher target angles:

    7.5cm KwK42 L/70
    2,500m = 103mm
    3,000m = 91mm
    _________________________________________________

    7.62cm 17pdr
    2,500m = 116mm
    3,000m = 107mm

    This could represent better ballistic performance from the 17 pdr APCBC projectile, or more likely, it represents much better penetration at higher obliquity, and this would be a decided advantage in combat.
     
  17. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    On th British 77mm yes, the Italian 90mm, no I'm sorry. The 77's performance is listed below:

    77mm HV APCBC projectile against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates:
    500m = 137mm
    1,000m = 126mm
    1,500m = 116mm
    2,000m = 106mm
    2,500m = 98mm
    3,000m = 90mm
     
  18. Soren

    Soren Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,624
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The reason for the slightly steeper decline in velocity for the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 projectile vs the 7.62cm Mk.8T is 1.) Mk.8T is heavier and 2.) The Mk.8T abit more aerodynamically efficient for a reason being described below. For the 7.5cm KwK42 a new version of the PzGr.39 was designed, designated the PzGr.39/42, it was abit heavier at 7.2kg than the older 6.8 kg PzGr.39 used in the KwK40 Pak40, and abit less aerodynamically efficient as it was designed to perform better against highly sloped armour. In short the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 APCBC(HE) was designed on purpose to better defeat armour at very steep angles, performing better against sloped armour than the 7.62cm Mk.8T APCBC in US tests.

    So while the 17pdr was more effective against vertical plates, the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 performed better against angled plates. 8.8cm PzGr.39 projectiles of all types were different in design and were amongst the most aerodynamically efficient AP projectiles made during WW2.

    Here's the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42, note the unusual design, this was to enable it to better defeat sloped armour:
    [​IMG]

    And the 8.8cm PzGr.39-1, a much more streamlined design, the most aerodynamically efficient projectile fired by any tank gun during the war:
    [​IMG]
     
  19. parsifal

    parsifal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2008
    Messages:
    10,679
    Likes Received:
    676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Urban Design/Strategic Studies Tutor
    Location:
    Orange NSW
    #19 parsifal, Jan 9, 2010
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2010

    Hi Vincenzo

    The 90 mm gun fired a 22.2 lb AP round at a muzzle velocity of 2,756'/sec.6 It's maximum range was 15,000 yards.6 It could penetrate 5.63"@0° at 500 yards.

    I t makes for an interesting comparison with the German 88mm series...according to Sorens list the 88 could penetrate 219 mm, at that range whilst the Model 53 could penetrate 143 mm. That seems an awfully big difference
     
  20. dunmunro1

    dunmunro1 Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2009
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    A slightly better ballistic performance doesn't explain the fact that the Panther starts out at 168mm and ends up at 91mm, while the 17 pdr starts out at 163mm and ends up at 107mm, since if the L/70 has better high target angle performance this should offset the increase in target angle at long range which occurs as a natural result of the projectile trajectory.
     
Loading...

Share This Page