WWII Tank Gun Specifications

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Kurfürst said:
It worth noting that British tank AP rounds were solid shots, ie. greater sectional density at the expense of lethality, whereas German AP rounds were shells with an small explosive filler.
Click to expand...

There were problems with the delay fuses not always working. I believe there was a high falure rate (10%+) and the problems getting a reliable base fuze was one of the reasons the British stopped making them.
 

In the test that I discussed here:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/wwii-tank-gun-specifications-22607-4.html#post618816

The UK measured the APCBC and APDS hits for lethality by placing wooden mannequins and dummy ammo in the captured German tanks used as targets. When penetration occurred the APDS rounds were just as lethal, if not more so.

Summary of 6pdr hits:

6 pdr APCBC:
note: 18 of 31 APCBC rounds were fired against the side of the target tanks and 13 against the frontal armour.This made the APCBC rounds inherently more lethal and more likely to hit stored ammo.

Round number and results of each hit:


22-1w - DA
23-2w-fire
25-1k
27-1k-2w
40-DA
41-CF
55-1w
56-nil
63-nil
75-3w
76-1k-1w-CF
80-Iw-CF
----------
11w-3k for 10 penetrating hits/31 rounds fired


6 pdr APDS:
Note: 11 of 24 rounds were fired against the side of the target tanks and 15 against the frontal armour. This made the APCBC rounds inherently more lethal and more likely to hit stored ammo.

18-1w-CF
21-2w
29- 2w
27 - 1k 3w
29-2w
34 - nil
37-1k-3w
39-3w-DA
72 - 3k
66-nil
67 - 3w
--------
19w-5k for 11 penetrating hits/24 rounds fired

It is quite obvious that the APDS is more lethal despite the disadvantage that more of the hits had to pass through thicker armour and an area of the tank that was less likely to have stored ammo.

K = killed
w = wounded
CF = cordite fire
 
Is there a standard multiplier to convert penetration at vertical to penetration of a 30 or 45 deg plate?

Could we also have a list of the AT guns? Pak 38, 39 40?

Was the performance of a 6pdr AT gun or 88mm FLAK gun the same as tank mounted versions?


 
m kenny said:
There were problems with the delay fuses not always working. I believe there was a high falure rate (10%+) and the problems getting a reliable base fuze was one of the reasons the British stopped making them.
Click to expand...

This was a problem the British faced, not the Germans, the Germans figured out how to make fuzes that worked.
 

The effect of target angle is a complex problem, but as a rule of thumb, you could multiply the values by about .8 for 30 degs, .6 for 45 degs and .4 for 60 degs, but one really needs to go on a case by case basis and use a penetration table and/or a computer to estimate the actual value for each type of round and each gun and use the actual armour type of the target. Here's a wikipedia article on this topic:
Sloped armour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AFAIK, the AT guns were identical to the same gun mounted in a tank.
 
There was also a KwK 40 L/43 correct?

--------------------------------
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
 
There sure was, the performance of that gun was nearly the same as that of the L/48, penetration performance differing on average by 2mm, so virtually the same performance as the L/48.
 
m kenny said:
There were problems with the delay fuses not always working. I believe there was a high falure rate (10%+) and the problems getting a reliable base fuze was one of the reasons the British stopped making them.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I was more referring to it as a possible cause to better external and penetration ballistics (all things equal).

IIRC there was a test done with British, US and German 75/76mm rounds, fired at the same velocity, showing these differences during penetration.
 
Hello Soren
Quote:"This was a problem the British faced, not the Germans, the Germans figured out how to make fuzes that worked."

Not having data on Heer's APHE fuzes I can only say that at least KM had at least time to time problems with its fuzes. For ex of the shells fired by Prinz Eugen against Hood and PoW which hit substantial parts of target ships one detonated properly, the one which hit the boatdeck of Hood, one was dud, the one which ended into a 5.25in shell handling room of PoW, and the two which hit the after hull of PoW both exploded with only a mild/partial detonation. German A/T APHEs were good shells and it is a plus to be able to transport some HE inside an armoured box but as I and others have wrote, the main thing is to get penetration. An armoured box has the bad quality that the hot splinters of armour which a shot bring in with it have no way out, so they'll bounce around in that confined place full of ammo, flesh and some delicate instruments until they hit something or until they are spent. So IMHO HE is good to have but penetration essential, if we leave out the big HE rounds.

Juha
 
Last edited:
Soren said:
This was a problem the British faced, not the Germans, the Germans figured out how to make fuzes that worked.
Click to expand...


how many splinters from an AP shell/shot - Tanknet.org

WO 194/886.

50mm AP-HE they found that the bursting charge functioned 12 of 14 times after plate perforation
the 50mm AP-HE resulted in ignitions or explosions in 10 of 11 of the test shots.
88mm AP-HE failed to function following armor plate perforation in 3 of 3 tests.


These tests were in essence conducted to determine behind armor effects of German 50mm AP-HE shell, German 88mm AP-HE shell, and British 6-pdr AP solid shot. Various combinations of ordnance were placed behind an armor plate secured to another plate.


There is an armor plate in front, and various types of ordnance were secured to the back frame and plate -- materials that might commonly be included in the turret of a British tank in the Western Desert. This included tests conducted against an ammo box full of flares; or a MG ammunition magazines; or grenades; or smoke bombs; or "inert" 17-pdr HE projectiles. Each target ammunition component was subjected to a series of separate trials i.e. they would fire 2 or 3 rounds against the ammo box with flares. Set up the target plate place the flare box fire the shot or shell; assess the damage than reset the target put a new box of flares out or new box of MG ammo or new grenades or whatever, than shoot the next test projectile and again assess effects.

Of interest and perhaps not much of a surprise to most folks that post to this particular forum (but in the interest of the unbathed masses that infest other non-tanknet forums ) is that the bursting charge in the German 50mm AP-HE were fairly effective at producing behind armor incendiary effects within the various target elements.

Excluding the "inert" 17-pdr projectile tests, the 50mm AP-HE resulted in ignitions or explosions in 10 of 11 of the test shots. Flares igniting, granades exploding, small arms ammunition igniting, or smoke bombs exploding. The one case in which no ignitions or explosions occured within the test ordnance was one of the cases where the 50mm AP-HE bursting charge or base fuze did not function following perforation of armor plate.

There were also three tests of 50mm AP-HE fired against "inert" 17-pdr HE shells placed behind the armor plate target. By "inert" it is indicated that the propellant was removed from the cartridge, but the TNT filler and nose fuze were left in the projectiles. In one of theses tests the 50mm bursting charge didn't function. The other two resulted in significant perforations of the projectile and cartridge case. One 17-pdr had a nose fuze explode. But the TNT filler didn't detonate in any of the three tests even when the projectile casing was perforated. I suppose there is some likelihood that if the cartridge propellant was present, two of these tests might have resulted in behind armor ignition or incendiary effect from the propellant igniting.

Fourteen 6-pdr solid shot AP tests were also conducted using the same sort of behind armor ordnance arrangements grenades, smoke bombs, MG clips, flares, inert 17-pdr HE shells. Two tests were conducted against inert 17-pdr HE Shells. Of the remaining 12 test shots, only one resulted in behind armor ignition or explosion of ammunition -- several rounds from a Bren gun clip activated as a result of fragment strikes. Of the two 17-pdr HE shell targets, neither produced incendiary effect or explosion. Unlike the 50mm AP-HE trials the 17-pdr projectile casing was not perforated in either case, however both cartridge cases were damaged -- so as with the 50mm AP-HE trials there is some probability the propellant -- if it had been present -- might have ignited.

Three 88mm AP-HE tests were conducted. Each of the three was conducted against a target element that consisted of an inert 17-pdr HE shell placed behind the target armor. No incendiary effect or explosion within any of the target ordnance occured. However two of the 17-pdr cartridge cases were damaged, so there was probably some potential for ignition had the cartridge propellant been present in the 17-pdr HE Shells.
.
 
M_kenny,

The 8.8cm APHE shots used in that test were of the early 9.2 kg PanzerGranate type which was known to have issues with this and which wasn't used by Tiger or Pak guns, something you should've known, furthermore only 3 shots were fired. The BdZ fuzes used in all later types of AP shots were competely different designs, and these functioned extremely well and reliably, as can be seen with the 5cm shots fired in those tests as they were all of the later type design; hence their 90+% ignition rate. Tiger tank crews also reported that T-34's brewed up emmidiately 9 times out of 10 after the first hit.

So next time check what it is you're quoting m_kenny, cause the 9.2 kg PanzerGranate wasn't used by Tigers or Pak guns, only initially by 88 FlaK pieces until the PzGr.39 appeared which used an entirely different fuze. The British on the other hand never overcame the problem with the fuzes and so trashed the idea entirely.
 
Last edited:

The KM did have issues with their fuzes from time to time, and the so did the Heer early in the war. The first PzGr designs used by all AT guns featured the BdZ-f type fuze and in the case of the 8.8cm guns a rather large HE cavity. Despite of the greater damage caused when the filler was ignited the fuze sadly wasn't very reliable, functioning a litte over half the time. This problem was investigated and solved with the next design using, the 8.8cm recieving the greatly improved BdZ. 5127 fuze which functioned over 90% of the time.
 
Last edited:
Hello dunmunro
thanks a lot for the test results info in your message #82!

Hello Soren
thanks for the fuze info!

Juha
 
You're welcome. There was also a later type of the early 8.8cm PzGr. with roughly the same large filler which featured an improved fuze, weighing in at 9.5 kg. (The new fuze design nessicating abit more steel) This round was used by FlaK pieces as-well.
 
freebird said:
When did they change over to the new ammo? 40 or 41?
Click to expand...

First really when the 8.8cm KwK36 came to the scene in 1942, and even then the old ammunition stocks were still used by the FlaK pieces.
 
Soren said:
as can be seen with the 5cm shots fired in those tests as they were all of the later type design; hence their 90+% ignition rate.........................................

So next time check what it is you're quoting m_kenny,
Click to expand...

Right. Let us compare my original statements with yours......



m kenny said:
. I believe there was a high falure rate (10%+)
Click to expand...

compared to:



and:

Soren said:
The British on the other hand never overcame the problem with the fuzes and so trashed the idea entirely.
Click to expand...

compared to:


m kenny said:
and the problems getting a reliable base fuze was one of the reasons the British stopped making them.
Click to expand...

Lets look deeper:

Soren said:
The 8.8cm APHE shots used in that test were of the early 9.2 kg PanzerGranate
Click to expand...

There is nothing in the linked post that suggest it was this round. Note this sentence
Two tests were conducted against inert 17-pdr HE Shells
17pdr HE shells were not made until 1943.

Soren said:
First really when the 8.8cm KwK36 came to the scene in 1942, and even then the old ammunition stocks were still used by the FlaK pieces.
Click to expand...

So the claim is there were two seperate supply chains and 'older' ammo was diverted to the A/T guns?
Was there some order where we can check where this was indeed the rule?
 
Its certainly possible but seems unlikley. The shells would need special markings and specific regulations would need to have existed esp if the earlier round was compatible to the vehicle mounted weapons
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

WWII Destroyers?
2 3
Replies
49
Views
1K
Admiral Beez
A
Z
Best tank engines of WWII
15 16 17
Replies
335
Views
20K
Reluctant Poster
R
A
Rolls Royce Tank Engines
Replies
2
Views
449
Reluctant Poster
R
WWII Reconnaissance Vehicles?
Replies
16
Views
758
Thumpalumpacus
P
Which tank is this ?
Replies
2
Views
669
programa
P
Menu
Log in
Register