Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/21/2005 4:15:17 PM EDT
They could have gone with the more common 75mm or something big like the 120mm of today.

Seems like an odd caliber.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:19:06 PM EDT
My guess is so that it could share ammo with the Germans' excellent 88mm flak gun, which had dual use as a superb anti-tank gun.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:22:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
My guess is so that it could share ammo with the Germans' excellent 88mm flak gun, which had dual use as a superb anti-tank gun.



Thta's what I figured as well. The 88 was truly feared.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:27:18 PM EDT
The Germans realized early in the development of the 88 how much potential it had.
a very powerful round yet the gun chambered for it could still be comfortably fitted to the tank designs of the day.

We did the same thing with .50 BMG when it was coverted from an aircraft weapon to a gound weapon.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:29:48 PM EDT
Hmm. The Panzer V, ie Panther, had a 75mm. At least, according to everything I've read. I googled to make sure, and all I've seen is 75mm.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:30:39 PM EDT
88 = heil hitler? (j/k)
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:32:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
They could have gone with the more common 75mm or something big like the 120mm of today.

Seems like an odd caliber.



Not all Panzers had 88mm guns.

Tiger I and Tiger II had 88mm main guns.

Other Panzers had anywhere from 7.92mm MG's to 75mm guns as a main armament.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:33:47 PM EDT
Raven is correct. The 88 made a superb anti-tank gun, and it was already in production. I also think their choice was influenced by the supply of tungsten. I think there wasn't enough of it to ensure a reliable supply of smaller, tungsten core projectiles or something along those lines.

Galland
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:37:57 PM EDT
Because they could!

The 88mm had an excellent reputation for anti aircraft and anti tank roles.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:38:30 PM EDT


I think the Tiger (Panzer 6) was one of the few that had the 88 mm gun.

Most of the earlier versions had small 20mm, 37mm and then went to a 75mm HV.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:41:10 PM EDT
Tiger 1 and King Tiger both had the 88.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:42:49 PM EDT
Alot of countries use a diameter that they already have tooling set up for. I always assumed that 7.62x54 and 7.62x39 existed for that reason. Some machinery can be re-used for the newer caliber.

I might be wrong, but that's my theory.



Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:45:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
They could have gone with the more common 75mm or something big like the 120mm of today.

Seems like an odd caliber.



6" RHA penetration in excess of 2,000 MTRS was good ju-ju at the time. After the Germans met the T-34 the 37mm and 50mm proved a 'little' anemic.

Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:46:41 PM EDT
Why indeed? It was a good tank buster, that's why. Along with its optics, it was superior to almost anything else fielded by the Allied Armies. About the only gun deadlier was the 128 mm carried by the JagdTiger. Of course, I'm curious to see comparison tests between the German 128 mm and the Russian 122 mm that was mounted on the JS III.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:50:01 PM EDT
Good info here. I always thought it had to do with penis size.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:50:46 PM EDT
So they can use 11 bullets from the Muaser rifles to fire from the tank.


If you buy that I got a bridge to sell you.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 4:58:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 5:03:24 PM EDT by Duffy]
As I recall, the first time the 88 Flak vs. tank took place during the France campaign in a British armor local counter attack that prompted the Germans to press their 88s to use against the heavily armored Matildas, I'm not sure if the dual purpose (AA, AT) was in the design or realized until then.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:04:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raven:
My guess is so that it could share ammo with the Germans' excellent 88mm flak gun, which had dual use as a superb anti-tank gun.




I think it was the same gun.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:12:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BigBore45:
The Germans realized early in the development of the 88 how much potential it had.
a very powerful round yet the gun chambered for it could still be comfortably fitted to the tank designs of the day.

We did the same thing with .50 BMG when it was coverted from an aircraft weapon to a gound weapon.



The .50 started out as a ground weapon, in 1921. When aircraft still had 7.62mm guns.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:14:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:17:45 PM EDT
They wanted overmatch just like any other military.

Pz1 2 7.62mm
Pz2 1 20mm
Pz3 1 37mm later 50mm and late war 75mm Low Velocity
Pz4 1 75mm Low Velocity, later 75mm High Velocity
Pz5 Panther 75mm High Velocity
Pz 6 88mm dervived from flak gun

88mm was nearly a universal round so it made sense to stick with it for the heavy tanks.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:18:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By -brass-:
What size were their towed howitzers?



They had 105's, 150 and 210mm howitzers.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:19:09 PM EDT
The 88 had a great advantage on the battlefield. The shell was supersonic. You can not hear them coming. The trajectory was flat and easily aimed becasue of it. It does not lob shells like a howitzer. It was the best multipurpose rifled cannon of WWII. Even today it is a force to be reckoned with. One German tank caught in the open shot down a P47 tryng to come in low to destory it. The gunner sighted down the bore of the barrel at it and let it rip. Blew the plane out of the sky. It was the only choice the tank had and it worked so good, the other planes left it alone. Can't remember what book I read about this incident in.

As to the tanks superiority over the Sherman, the Sherman was never designed to engage other tanks. It's role was to support infantry in dealing with enemy strongpoints. It did have several advantages. It was easy to produce in large numbers. It was extremely reliable and easy to return to service after sustaining damage. The largest tanks the Germans made were maintenance intensive and fuel hogs. The turret on a Sharman could be trained much faster than the turret on a German tank. Several Shermans could successfully engage a Tiger or Panther tank using this advantage. If the German tanks did get a Sherman in it's sights, the Sherman never stood a chance.

Also, the U.S. did have a tracked vehicle specifically for engaging enemy tanks. It was a tank destroyer and sported , I believe a 120mm gun. We had whole tank destroyer battalions to engage German tanks. The Germans hated these vehicles. The guns were deadly and also worked well against prepared fortifications. The concussion from one of thes shells could strike a pillbox and kill, or render senseless the inhabitants without even penetrating the structure.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:33:58 PM EDT
Most countries back then used different calibers for their armored vehicles like:

USA- 37mm,75mm,76mm,90mm
USSR- 45mm,57mm,76mm,85mm,100mm,122mm
Germany- 20mm,50mm,75mm,(short and long) 88mm, 128mm
also captured weapons in every caliber from 12.7-obscure czech and italian rounds.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:41:41 PM EDT
WWII was a period of rapid development in armored vehicles. In the mid-30's up until the start of the war most tanks were fairly lightly armored and had either a low-velocity cannon for infantry support or a small, high-velocity cannon (around 37mm) for anti-armor. Armored vehicle protection improved rapidly and the 37mm guns were outmoded pretty fast. Even in 1940 some German tanks had serious problems trying to stop some of the heavily armored British tank variants, and ran into even more problems with the new Soviet tanks. The Germans moved first to a 50mm gun, and then later upgraded again to a high velocity 75mm gun on the Panzer IV's. The Panthers had an excellent high velocity 75mm L70 gun that could knock out almost anything.

The 88 had long been used as a towed anti-tank weapon, so it made sense to use it on an armored vehicle. That's exactly what happened with the Tiger and the Jagdpanther. The later was the Panther tank chasis upgraded to the 88mm gun, minus the rotating turret. These were often used from defensive ambush at long range, where the 88 had great penetration against any armored vehicle.

A similar process occured on the allied side, as 37mm anti-tank guns and low-velocity 75mm support cannons gave way to 76mm high velocity guns and, later, 90mm high velocity guns on the Pershing.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:42:05 PM EDT
What has been said earlier about the 88mm being pressed into service as an anti-tank gun is true. When the Germans ran into the British 'Infatry' tanks such as the matilda, the germans found that their standard at-gun, the 37mm, Would not penatrate at long distances. This was very evident in North Africa.

Rommel, the man of doing more with less, ordered the 88 to be used as an anti-tank gun. Thus the germans could engage british tanks at longer range. Well out of range of the British 2 pounder gun.

The 88mm was pressed into tank usage when the germans came up against the very good Russian T34 tank and the heavy KV1 tank. The largest panzer gun at the time was the short barreled 75 of thepanzer IV tank. It would not penatrate the armour of a KV1(documented engagements where a kv1took 122 rounds before being destroyed are on record) and it would only penatrate the side armour of the t34 if the conditions were right.

The 88mm could be mounted on a usable sized tank body of the Tiger 1 tank. At the time turrent ring size dictated the size of the gun you could use.

The panther tank used a high velocity 75mm gun and was build off technology gleaned from captured t34 tanks. It was built to take on the t34 head to head.

The 88mm was "The Gun" of it's day.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:50:57 PM EDT
I think the first time the Germans used the flak 88s for armour piercing duty was against the Maginot line turrets. You can find pictures of the little ball turrets with big holes in them. Then later they met the russian T-34 and it was the only gun that could effectively kill one from a decent range.

The Tiger and the King Tiger had different guns. the Tiger was a 88mm in I think 58 calibres and the King Tiger was 71.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:31:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Silesius:
They could have gone with the more common 75mm or something big like the 120mm of today.

Seems like an odd caliber.



It was taken from the AA role, to the Anti-Tank role so they wouldnt have to make an entirely different gun.

Once it was found out that it destroyed tanks so well, it stuck.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:47:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 6:48:20 PM EDT by AyeGuy]

Originally Posted By Jerret:
The Tiger and the King Tiger had different guns. the Tiger was a 88mm in I think 58 calibres and the King Tiger was 71.



56 and 71, yes, but that was barrel length.

The two Tigers used different ammo- case size.

Sorta like the ComBloc and NATO rounds both being .30 cal, yeah, but the cases are 39 vs. 51 mm in length.

The KwK 36 L/56 on the Tiger I could penetrate 110mm of 30 degree sloped armor @ 2000m

The KWK 43 L/71 on the Tiger II could penetrate 153mm of 30 degree sloped armor @ 2000m, enogh to destroy any allied tank at maximum range.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:59:39 PM EDT
The Germans were even using the 88's against armour in the Spanish Civil War that started in 1936.

The British had a similar 3.7 inch AA gun but continued to use obsolete 2 pounders and 6 pounders instead against German Panzers.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:03:03 PM EDT
the Maginot line turrets holes were probably produced by shaped charges.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:08:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 7:08:59 PM EDT by MauserMark]
I'm a member of this club: www.theblitz.org

go to the Campaign Series discussion board and you'll get a 5 page answer

not because they like answering these questions, but because they would be the ones to ask.

From my knowledge, the Panters 75mm actually penetrated armor better than the 88.

But again these guys can give you a specific answer.

-mm
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:11:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 7:29:21 PM EDT by 4v50]
U. S. Tank Destroyer forces were initially equipped with anti-tank guns. The miserable 57 mm AT which could penetrate the armor of a Tiger I - at close range. It was gradually replaced (though not entirely) by the 76 mm anti-tank gun.

We also gave our Tank Destroyers self propelled vehicles. For a while the 57 mm was mounted on the M-3 half track to give them greater mobility. Still, this was an interim measure and they were replaced by the most famous American tank destroyer, the M-10 Wolverine. Built on a Sherman chasis but with lighter, sloping armor, it featured a 76 mm gun in an open topped turret. The M36 Jackson was an up gunned version with the superior 90 mm gun (same as on the M-26 Pershing). However, it too featured an open top turret. As an anti-thesis to the JagdTiger, the chasis of the late war M-24 Chaffee light tank was also used as a Tank Destroyer. Fast and nimble, it sported a 76 mm anti-tank gun in, yes, an open turret. It was called the M-18 Hellcat.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:19:28 PM EDT
The M24 Chaffee had the same 75mm as the early Shermans
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:21:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gaweidert:
The 88 had a great advantage on the battlefield. The shell was supersonic. You can not hear them coming. The trajectory was flat and easily aimed becasue of it. It does not lob shells like a howitzer. It was the best multipurpose rifled cannon of WWII. Even today it is a force to be reckoned with. One German tank caught in the open shot down a P47 tryng to come in low to destory it. The gunner sighted down the bore of the barrel at it and let it rip. Blew the plane out of the sky. It was the only choice the tank had and it worked so good, the other planes left it alone. Can't remember what book I read about this incident in.

As to the tanks superiority over the Sherman, the Sherman was never designed to engage other tanks. It's role was to support infantry in dealing with enemy strongpoints. It did have several advantages. It was easy to produce in large numbers. It was extremely reliable and easy to return to service after sustaining damage. The largest tanks the Germans made were maintenance intensive and fuel hogs. The turret on a Sharman could be trained much faster than the turret on a German tank. Several Shermans could successfully engage a Tiger or Panther tank using this advantage. If the German tanks did get a Sherman in it's sights, the Sherman never stood a chance.

Also, the U.S. did have a tracked vehicle specifically for engaging enemy tanks. It was a tank destroyer and sported , I believe a 120mm gun. We had whole tank destroyer battalions to engage German tanks. The Germans hated these vehicles. The guns were deadly and also worked well against prepared fortifications. The concussion from one of thes shells could strike a pillbox and kill, or render senseless the inhabitants without even penetrating the structure.



Somebody watched the History Channel show about the Panzer/Sherman tank.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:25:00 PM EDT
Why not, that's why.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:32:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tyman:

Originally Posted By gaweidert:
The 88 had a great advantage on the battlefield. The shell was supersonic. You can not hear them coming. The trajectory was flat and easily aimed becasue of it. It does not lob shells like a howitzer. It was the best multipurpose rifled cannon of WWII. Even today it is a force to be reckoned with. One German tank caught in the open shot down a P47 tryng to come in low to destory it. The gunner sighted down the bore of the barrel at it and let it rip. Blew the plane out of the sky. It was the only choice the tank had and it worked so good, the other planes left it alone. Can't remember what book I read about this incident in.

As to the tanks superiority over the Sherman, the Sherman was never designed to engage other tanks. It's role was to support infantry in dealing with enemy strongpoints. It did have several advantages. It was easy to produce in large numbers. It was extremely reliable and easy to return to service after sustaining damage. The largest tanks the Germans made were maintenance intensive and fuel hogs. The turret on a Sharman could be trained much faster than the turret on a German tank. Several Shermans could successfully engage a Tiger or Panther tank using this advantage. If the German tanks did get a Sherman in it's sights, the Sherman never stood a chance.

Also, the U.S. did have a tracked vehicle specifically for engaging enemy tanks. It was a tank destroyer and sported , I believe a 120mm gun. We had whole tank destroyer battalions to engage German tanks. The Germans hated these vehicles. The guns were deadly and also worked well against prepared fortifications. The concussion from one of thes shells could strike a pillbox and kill, or render senseless the inhabitants without even penetrating the structure.



Somebody watched the History Channel show about the Panzer/Sherman tank.



Now if he could just get it right.

The gun he is talking about is a self-propelled artillery piece in 155mm. The Priest, because of the .50 turret/spotting tower to the left of the gun tube.

There was a version of the Sherman with a 105mm, but I have only ever heard of it being used . . . in Close Combat. Nothing I ever read mentioned the use of this tank in combat . . . but the effects of the larger cailber piece on pill boxes is accurate, sort of. Direct fire by 155mm would penetrate the front of most bunkers. The Germans may have been knocked senseless for a few minutes, but this was rarely a deciding factor. Once incident stands out in my mind of a bunker that was under fire, had been for some time, without surrendering. The officer inside blathered on about how they would die for the Fatherland . . . of course he stopped when one of the Polacks inside the bunker shot him in the back of the head and they all came out.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 7:46:13 PM EDT
The Priest had a 105 mm howitzer. The M-12 had the 155 mm howitzer and lacked the superstructure of the Priest. The Brits developed their own SPG, the Sexton, which had the 25 pdr.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 11:41:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:
I'm a member of this club: www.theblitz.org

go to the Campaign Series discussion board and you'll get a 5 page answer

not because they like answering these questions, but because they would be the ones to ask.

From my knowledge, the Panters 75mm actually penetrated armor better than the 88.

But again these guys can give you a specific answer.

-mm

The 75mm gun in the Panther would out-penetrate the 88mm L/56 gun in the Tiger I, but the L/71 88mm in the Tiger II surpassed it.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 11:43:06 PM EDT
My grandfather was blown almost in half by an 88 shell. i think they work pretty well. Never did understand as a kid why he hated fireworks.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:26:56 AM EDT
The Sherman 105mm was used relatively frequently in the indirect fire role as well as in direct support.

The information a little earlier on the tank destroyer corps is a little inaccurate. Harry Yeide's book "The Tank Killers" gives an extremely comprehensive view of the corps' history and development over the few years of its existance.

It started out with M3GMCs (the 75mm gun on a half-track), followed quickly by the M10. After North Africa, and the pastings that the Allies received on the end of towed PaKs, the Army decided that half the units would be re-equipped as towed AT guns. This turned out to be rather disastrous given the offensive nature of allied operations after that point. By the time the war ended in Europe, they were re-converting the towed 3" gun (76mm) units to SP TDs as quickly as they could.

The TDs almost always killed more than they lost, but the numbers weren't that skewed.

NTM
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:37:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 4v50:
Why indeed? It was a good tank buster, that's why. Along with its optics, it was superior to almost anything else fielded by the Allied Armies. About the only gun deadlier was the 128 mm carried by the JagdTiger. Of course, I'm curious to see comparison tests between the German 128 mm and the Russian 122 mm that was mounted on the JS III.



No comparison....the 122mm on the JS III was a howitzer, a relatively low powered gun, while the German 12,8cm gun was a gun, a high velocity flat trajectory design. It was based on the 12,8cm AA gun which had to have very high velocity to get its heavy shell to altitude. The 12,8cm was much deadlier overall than the Soviet 122mm....

Technically speaking....

Howitzers are relatively low velocity guns mainly used for indirect fire...lobbing its shells. Sure it can shoot a flat trajectory, but without much velocity, and velocity is key for penetrating power (F=M*A)....

A Gun is a high velocity weapon used mainly for direct fire.

In WWII the US had guns, and it had howitzers. The German had the same, although they had an additional class, the gun-howitzer, a kind of hybrid that could fill both roles, but neither as well as the dedicated platforms....
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:52:13 AM EDT
The L/56 gun of the Tiger I used the same cartridge as the original Flak 18/36 series AA/AT guns. It was basicly "on hand".

The Germans had both a 10.5cm AA gun and a 10.5cm field gun (K.18). But they skipped over them because they used semi-fixed rounds and were slower to load.

The 8.8cm L/71 gun was built to combine the best of what they had learned from both the 8.8cm guns and the Panthers L/71 75mm. It was used first in the Porsche Ferdinand (Elephant) TD and then in the King Tiger and JagdPanther. They also went in reverse and made a AA gun (Flak 41) and AT gun (Pak 43) out of it.

Then once the Stalin appeared, Hitler overruled the engineers who didn't like the idea of handling a semi-fixed round in a tank turret and insisted that they go and install the 12.8cm/54 cal naval and AA gun (basicly a Destroyers main armament) for JagdTiger and Maus.

The French put the Panthers 75mm gun back into production after the war, and then improved on it by building a APDS round for it. This was the first gun in the little AMX-13 light tank and even more ironically was refitted to SHERMANS and sold to, of all people, the IDF!

IDF M50 "Super Shermans" were everything that the Sherman SHOULD have been- they had the HV gun with Saboted ammo, Diesel engines, and enough appliquet armor to make them nearly the weight of the E7 "Jumbos", and unlike the orginal Jumbos all had HVSS suspension and the 21inch track.

They slaughtered not only T-34/85's, but as late as 1967 succeded in knocking out T-55s and Jordanian M48A1's with that gun.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:52:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/22/2005 10:56:38 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By gaweidert:
The 88 had a great advantage on the battlefield. The shell was supersonic. You can not hear them coming. The trajectory was flat and easily aimed becasue of it. It does not lob shells like a howitzer. It was the best multipurpose rifled cannon of WWII. Even today it is a force to be reckoned with. One German tank caught in the open shot down a P47 tryng to come in low to destory it. The gunner sighted down the bore of the barrel at it and let it rip. Blew the plane out of the sky. It was the only choice the tank had and it worked so good, the other planes left it alone. Can't remember what book I read about this incident in.

As to the tanks superiority over the Sherman, the Sherman was never designed to engage other tanks. It's role was to support infantry in dealing with enemy strongpoints. It did have several advantages. It was easy to produce in large numbers. It was extremely reliable and easy to return to service after sustaining damage. The largest tanks the Germans made were maintenance intensive and fuel hogs. The turret on a Sharman could be trained much faster than the turret on a German tank. Several Shermans could successfully engage a Tiger or Panther tank using this advantage. If the German tanks did get a Sherman in it's sights, the Sherman never stood a chance.

Also, the U.S. did have a tracked vehicle specifically for engaging enemy tanks. It was a tank destroyer and sported , I believe a 120mm gun. We had whole tank destroyer battalions to engage German tanks. The Germans hated these vehicles. The guns were deadly and also worked well against prepared fortifications. The concussion from one of thes shells could strike a pillbox and kill, or render senseless the inhabitants without even penetrating the structure.



Almost all tank guns projectile velocities were supersonic. The 88s advantage was it was originally designed as an anti-aircraft gun to shoot at aircraft at high altitudes and had a very high muzzle velocity and therefore shot very flat. The 88 was a very expensive gun that required a massive platform.

I would argue the high-velocity 75mm on the Panther was nearly as effective as the 88 and usable on more mobile tanks and was therefore in actually use the superior weapon on the grounds it was more flexible that the 88.

The Sherman main drawbacks were a gasoline engine which caught fire to easily and lack of an effective gun. If the Sherman had had an effective gun that could kill at ranges the German guns could have Sherman losses would have been much much lower. The Sherman was very easy to maintain and repair. If the Sherman had been armed with the German Panther’s 75 the Sherman would have been a superior tank due to the ability to put 10 in the field (and keep them running) for every Panther or Tiger produced. The British did this with the Sherman Firefly armed with the British 17 pounder gun, the Fireflys were very effective there was just never enough of them. Up gunned Shermans served with the Israeli military for decades.

US Tank destroyers were armed with a marginally effective 76mm gun on the M10 to an outstanding 90mm gun on the M36.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:04:43 AM EDT
The one really big failure, the one thing that would have been the easiest for the US to do that would have greatly reduced tank casualties in 1944- was the failure to adopt the British APDS rounds.

The 6pdr and its twin the US 57mm gun would kill everything except the King Tiger at 1000 yards with APDS. At that range it would penetrate more than 5 inches of steel. At the same range with APCBC, the only AP round the US crews were issued with, only penetrated 3 inches of armor.

If the US 76mm and 3" guns had APDS, they could of matched Panthers performance.

And after the war the M41 Bulldog did just that, It used the same 76mm as on the M18, but with a "+P" rating for higher pressures and had a APDS. ARVN Cavalry M41's knocked out T-54s with that gun in the 1972 Easter Offensive.

We did finally come out in 1944 with a "HVAP" round using the older "composite rigid" design, like the German "Arrowhead" AP40 design, this had a non-discarding, aerodynamic sabot. This greatly increased penetration- but only at short range due to the rounds high drag and bad sectional density.

And even then, it was rationed. For most of 1944 they were limited to 10-12 rounds of HVAP per tank per month.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 4:51:37 PM EDT

<-----------------------------------------
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 10:52:58 PM EDT
Why an 88? Probably because of a Hitler directive to make the flak 36 gun mobile after its performance at Arras and it was a proven t-34 and KV antidote.

Why not bigger? Less ammo storage, less raw materials needed. A very good case can be made that the tiger 2 program was a waste of resources that could have been better used in building more panthers. Even in 1941 the Germans were trying to stretch out critical materials like tungsten and copper.

*IIRC*, the ammo was not interchangeable as the tank ammo was electrically primed and the towed gun was percussion primed.

Again, IIRC, the Jadgtiger 128 mm gun was strangely lacking in AT performance due mostly to the poor projectiles available for it. The gun was ballistically capable of better, but it barely matched or exceeded the L71 88.
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 11:31:46 PM EDT

*IIRC*, the ammo was not interchangeable as the tank ammo was electrically primed and the towed gun was percussion primed.



All the 71cal guns were electric primed. One of the reasons Flak41 was so huge (11,000 pounds)
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:40:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 12:48:43 AM EDT by NH_AR_Shooter]

Originally Posted By 4v50:
U. S. Tank Destroyer forces were initially equipped with anti-tank guns. The miserable 57 mm AT which could penetrate the armor of a Tiger I - at close range. It was gradually replaced (though not entirely) by the 76 mm anti-tank gun.

We also gave our Tank Destroyers self propelled vehicles. For a while the 57 mm was mounted on the M-3 half track to give them greater mobility. Still, this was an interim measure and they were replaced by the most famous American tank destroyer, the M-10 Wolverine. Built on a Sherman chasis but with lighter, sloping armor, it featured a 76 mm gun in an open topped turret. The M36 Jackson was an up gunned version with the superior 90 mm gun (same as on the M-26 Pershing). However, it too featured an open top turret. As an anti-thesis to the JagdTiger, the chasis of the late war M-24 Chaffee light tank was also used as a Tank Destroyer. Fast and nimble, it sported a 76 mm anti-tank gun in, yes, an open turret. It was called the M-18 Hellcat.



The M18 Hellcat and M-24 Chaffee used entirely different chassis.

The M-18 was powered by an Continental Radial 973ci 350-400hp engine.
Performance 55mph.
Range 105 miles.

The M-24 was powered by two Cadillac 44T24 V-8s 110 hp Gasoline Engines.
Max Speed: 35 mph
Max Range: 100 miles

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:29:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

*IIRC*, the ammo was not interchangeable as the tank ammo was electrically primed and the towed gun was percussion primed.



All the 71cal guns were electric primed. One of the reasons Flak41 was so huge (11,000 pounds)



Actually the ammo for the FlaK 36 and the Tiger gun were for all intents and purposes interchangeable. The German primers were screwed in....swap out the C/12 percussion primer with a C/22 electric primer, and voila..no problem. I collect German ordnance and have both a Tiger HE round (w/ electric primer) and a FlaK 41 HE round (Percussion primer) (amongst many others)....The FlaK 41 cases were similiar but not quite the same as the King Tiger gun ammo, so they were not at all interchangeable, unlike the Flak 36 and Tiger I.
Top Top