Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Best tank gun of WW2???

Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by Ernst_Barkmann401, Aug 3, 2004.

  1. Ernst_Barkmann401

    Ernst_Barkmann401 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am going to try this poll thing one more time.

    What do you think is the best gun in WW2, as far as armour penetration, velocity, reliable, accuracy, etc. goes?
     
  2. drache

    drache Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    284
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 88mm L/71 - this might spark some debate.
     
  3. TheRedBaron

    TheRedBaron Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    29
    Why no German 128mm on the list? If you want penetrating power its gotta be the JagdTiger!

    Failing that the old 88mm does it for me! But only cos I have an 88mm L56 shell casing from Normandy next to me as I type...

    [ 03. August 2004, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: TheRedBaron ]
     
  4. Ernst_Barkmann401

    Ernst_Barkmann401 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    The 128mm was never used in a tank (Maus doesn't count), I am strictly talking tanks, I didn't take any Jagdpanzers, StuGs, etc. into consideration. If I did considered such weapons, it would take me a little be longer, considering all the Pak guns I would have to take into consideration.

    I was just intending to make this a discussion about tanks.
     
  5. TheRedBaron

    TheRedBaron Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gee sorry! Calm down! [​IMG]


    But seeing as German SPGs accounted for more and more kills as the war continued aint it worth considering them? Think how many kills StuG IIIs had and Hetzers. Specially as most used the same weapon as fitted to a tank.

    The 128mm was the only weapon fitted to a SPG and not too a tank. Unless you want to count the StugIII 105mmm...

    But if its ONLY tanks, then my statement still stands,

    The 88mm L56...

    And why cant we count the MAus? Its still a tank... ;)
     
  6. FramerT

    FramerT Ace

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,570
    Likes Received:
    35
    What, no Stug III's?? [​IMG]
     
  7. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    755
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    The 128/55 is a poor choice. Seperate ammunition slows the firing rate. It also had problems in terms of weight of round and was nothing special in accuracy and reliability.
    The German 70 caliber guns (both the 75 and 88) suffer from poor (relatively speaking)accuracy due to barrel vibration and short barrel life. Both also suffer from poor recoil systems that take up alot of space. Sure, both had good penetration but at a fairly high cost in other desirable properties.
    Personally, I would choose the Soviet 100/60. This is a gun with excellent penetration, good reliability and, reasonable weight. It was successful enough that it is still in service today. In this sense it out lived the US 90mm which was only an average performer as far as penetration goes.
    The Soviet 85 and 76 have mediocre penetration performance for their size and neither is a particularly outstanding gun while the 122 suffers from the same problems as the German 128; it's just too big to be useful.
    The British 17pdr also suffers from excessive barrel wear and has poor accuracy compared to the US 76mm for example. It's short post war life demonstrates this quite clearly.
    So, my vote goes to the Soviet 100/60.
     
  8. TheRedBaron

    TheRedBaron Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    29
    TA GArdner

    But aint that gun only in the SU-100 TA? I got told off for choosing a gun not in a tank... ;) Good point on the 128 though. TA you may know the answer to this... What was the 42mm taper like as an A/T gun? My sources are not very conclusive and I am having trouble finding data for its combat use in Africa and Italy. I now it was also issued to some Fj units.

    Framart,

    Still not over your Stug Fetish I see... :D
     
  9. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    755
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    I don't see where in the original question or poll the word "tank" was mentioned. I did assume that only AFV / anti-tank guns were being considered from those listed in the poll as opposed to various types of artillery pieces.....

    On the 2.8cm sPzB 41:

    It is one of three designs that used a taper bore system. The other two are the 4.2cm le. PaK 41 using the same Gerlich system (this gun looks like a longer barrelled 3.7cm PaK 36) and the 7.5cm PaK 41 by Krupp (also on the Gerlich principle).
    The last mentioned was a truly impressive gun. It penetrated 171mm at 30 degrees obliquity at 500 yards. This puts it on par with the 88/71 in penetration.
    But, back to the 2.8cm: Two versions were produced: The aforementioned sPzB 41 and the le Feldlafette 41 version for parachute use.
    Performance-wise this gun penetrated about 68mm at 400 yards giving it about double the performance of a 20/55 as fitted on the Pz II or about 1/3 better performance than a 3.7cm AT gun.
    As for the 4.2cm, a handful saw service in Africa and Italy. I have seen at least one photo of one in use with Panzer Division Hermann Göring in Central Italy.
    This gun penetrated about 88mm at 500 yards. The gun was manufactured from early 1941 until very early in 1942 but, I don't have an exact production figure. It is likely that many ended up in units forming about that time or shortly thereafter. It is also hard to spot in photographs as the only noticable difference in it and the 3.7cm is the length of the barrel.
    The round fired went from 4.2cm to 2.94cm at the muzzle, weighed .336kg (11.75 oz) and had a muzzle velocity of 1265 m/s (4149 fps).
     
  10. TheRedBaron

    TheRedBaron Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    29
    Thanks TA.

    I have a pic of the 42mm in use with a DAK unit.
     
  11. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,328
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Location:
    London, England.
    I hate to be pedantic but the word 'tank' is mentioned in the thread heading.....
     
  12. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    138
    No not really, its an excellent tank gun, its only drawback is that its large and heavy.
    My vote however would go to the British :eek: ( me biased, never ;) ) 17 pdr which for its size(76.2) is a deadly tank gun, better than any other gun of similar caliber.
    Penetration of each at 1,000 yards, striking at 30 degrees from the optimum, was as follows:

    76mm(US): 89mm (134mm with HVAP ammo)
    17 pdr: 118mm (170mm with APDS ammo)
    85mm: 84mm
    88mm L/56: 101mm
    88mm L/71: 167mm

    Thanks to Tony Williams for the data

    [ 04. August 2004, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: redcoat ]
     
  13. redcoat

    redcoat Ace

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    138
    The 17 pdr was only less accurate than the US 76mm when firing the early APDS ammo. The early APDS ammo SABOT casings caused problems with accuracy, which the British later cured. The short post war life is more to do with the British up gunning their tanks with the heavier 20pdr and 105mm guns in order to deal with the heavy Soviet tanks then coming into service, than any fault with the 17pdr.
    The British had made the mistake of not up-gunning their tanks quickly enough in WW2, they weren't going to make the same mistake again
     
  14. Ernst_Barkmann401

    Ernst_Barkmann401 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't see where in the original question or poll the word "tank" was mentioned. </font>[/QUOTE]The word was in the original title
     
  15. TheRedBaron

    TheRedBaron Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    29
    I never said that... ;)
     
  16. Ernst_Barkmann401

    Ernst_Barkmann401 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sorry, it was TA Gardner's post, I tried to erase the majority of the quote he made, I ended up screwing with the quote function, and screwed it up.
     
  17. TheRedBaron

    TheRedBaron Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    29
    No worries, only kidding around! :D

    Does anyone have any date on the US 90mm in the Pershing?
     
  18. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    755
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
     
  19. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    755
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    To be a bit lawyerly, I only stated it wasn't mentioned in the original question or poll . The title wasn't mentioned.... :D
    In any case how is a "tank" to be defined? Turretted? What about US tank destroyers? Only vehicles deemed by the various nations "tanks?" I think the term AFV is a better choice. This includes any armored combat vehicle, wheeled or tracked.
     
  20. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,328
    Likes Received:
    1,254
    Location:
    London, England.
    T.A. - your people will be hearing from my people..... ;)
     

Share This Page