Best tank gun of WW2???

Hi Icky,

When judging which tank gun is overall the best the things which need be taken into consideration are mainly AP capability, HE capability, gun weight, rate of fire & accuracy.

Now you could certainly make a case that a long barreled gun would be a disadvantage inside a dense jungle. But then I must ask you to remember that tanks don't operate very well in jungles to begin with, just like they don't operate very well inside densly populated urban areas. Without massive infantry support sending tanks into urban areas is a tactical mistake, they litterally become sitting ducks for enemy tank hunting teams. And the same applies inside a jungle. Tank hunting teams would have a field day against any tank inside a jungle, there being countless places to hide and wait in ambush. And imagine being a tank crew having to negotiate through a jungle, that must have been hell, with the limited visibility, heat & humidity and all.

A tank simply doesn't belong inside a jungle, long barreled or not, sending one into such a place against a well equipped enemy would be a mistake. Fortunately for the Allies however the Japanese weren't very well equipped to deal with tanks. Nonetheless I can think of no jungle engagement where tanks proved vital to Allied success. On the contrary Allied tank losses were a lot higher inside jungles.

 

Yes but tanks sure proved pretty useful at times in knocking out Japanese strongholds. furthermore even in Europe it seems,at least on the Western Front & for the Western Allies,, the better HE was needed more then the sheer AP performance .

 

A gun with good HE capability the Allies possessed almost from the beginning of the war, so this wasn't what they needed the most. The Allies however desperately needed guns with better AP capabilities to deal with contemporary enemy tanks, that was the biggest problem facing the Allied tanks throughout the war. Far too often did Allied tankers find themselves stuck in duels with German tanks which were far better suited for this sort of situation, and in the case of the cats directly meant for it. The British 17 pdr went some way to try and solve this problem, but by the time it was finally fitted on a tank the Germans were already fielding tanks against which the 17 pdr only had limited effectiveness. At the same time the Germans also fitted increasingly bigger and more powerful guns on their tanks, whilst Allied armour hardly got any thicker.

IMHO the Germans better understood what a tank's main role was, which is to take on other tanks, that is the first and most important requirement of any modern main battle tank design to this day. But they did this while also understanding the crucial extra roles it had to carry out, such as infantry support, most of the time making sure that the guns always had a good HE round. The Germans also went a lot further than anyone else when it came to protecting their tanks against tank hunting teams and infantry in general, mounting defensive fragmentation mortars, anti magnetic coatings, and armoured skirts to their tanks as-well as providing a high amount of outward visibility. The Allies also eventually began using some these things themselves, but never to the same extent, cause esp. the Western Allies never entended for their tanks to ever end up alone without infantry support. It wasn't until at the very end of the war that the Allies first really began to adopt the same views as the Germans, making sure that in all future main battletank designs the ability to stay and duke it out with enemy armour was the no.1 requirement.

In short a gun with good AP capabilities is just as important to most tanks as is the HE capability. Both need be considered.

 

Assuming you are talking about western allies (not soviets) it wasn't until the first Shermans arrived that they had a decent HE weapon in a tank turret (yes I know about the 3" howitzer of the CS variants but little good can be said about it).
The 2lb and French 47mm were slightly better than the German 37mm in penetration and the 6lb compares favourably with the German 50mm weapons in penetration.

The 17lb was good enough against anything but the Pz VIb and there were very few of those.

The role of a tank is to dominate the battlefield, for this it needs weapons capable of taking on all threats, by the end of WW2 AT guns were no longer viable because a gun big enough to reliably penetrate the 100mm front plates that were becomming common is too big to be manhandled, weapons like the Pak 43 or the British 32lb are not practical on a field carriage and even the relatively light Pak 40 was hard to extricate if it didn't force the enemy to retreat. And once you put your gun on a vehicle there is usually little reason not to make it a tank. The result is that the biggest threat to a tank today is another tank but this was not true for most of WW2.

I'm not sure the 75/24 traces it's ancestry to the IG, it's AT performance was actually better than the 37mm and it could fire HEAT though it wasn't initially available, the recorded tank kills of the "short" 75 Stugs are nothing to sneer at.

 

I disagree, take for example the Jagdpanther, the 17 pdr would have to close to atleast 600m to be somewhat effective against it frontally, and that is assuming there is no side angle, which there usually was. The Panther's glacis plate was also immune past 600m. The Tiger Ausf.B was pretty much immune frontally from all ranges, except if APDS was used against the front turret, but the 17 pdr was highly inaccurate with this round so it was of little use and the Mk8T was by far preferred.

As for the Tiger Ausf.E, well its armour was actually so tough that it often defeated shots which theoritically should've penetrated it, causing an effect called the "shatter gap". The 17 pdr was however sufficiently powerful to threaten the Tiger Ausf.E frontally even from long range if there was little side angle. So against this tank the 17 pdr was effective.

Against tanks such as the Pz.IV the 17 pdr had no issues at all, easily being capable of defeating them at ranges beyond 2000m.

The Pak43 was actually surprisingly easy to transport around, infact easier than the old Flak 18/36 pieces the Germans had been using to great effect since the start of the war. The Pak40 was even lighter, and by all accounts relatively easy to haul around.

Furthermore 100mm thick plates were usually easily defeated by most AT during the war, including the Pak40 which could defeat plates of this thickness past 1000 meters. So increases in plate thickness had nothing to do with why AT guns largely fell out of favour in the post war years, that was pretty much solely because of handheld RPGs.

Again I must disagree, the biggest threat to tanks these days are hand held RPGs and AT missiles. And this was the case pretty much immidiately after the war, and also to a great extend during the war with the advent of the Panzerfaust.

The short barrelled stugs achieved close to nothing compared to the upgraded StuGIIIs of early 1942. It was the 7.5cm L/43 & L/48 equipped StuG IIIs & IVs which became notorious tank killers, not the short barrelled ones.

 

I'd say it is the Soviet 100/60. It matches the German 88/71 in armor penetration performance and has a far better HE shell. Also, it has a longer barrel life and is less prone to accuracy loss.
It also is very long lived still seeing service around the world on many T 55 tanks even today.

 

I would say the 122mm gun on the is-2 has very good HE power not sure about accuracy and it's a 122mm so I am geussing good peneration power.

 

Not quite, they stack up as follows:

8.8cm KwK/PaK43 L/71:
Projectile: 10.4 kg PzGr.39/43 APCBC
Muzzle Veocity: 1000 + m/s
Penetration against 30 degree inclined Rolled Homogenous Armour
100m = 202mm
500m = 185mm
1000m = 165mm
1500m = 148mm
2000m = 132mm

10cm D-10 L/59
Projectile: 15.8 kg BR-412D APBC
Muzzle Veocity: 887 + m/s
Penetration against 30 degree inclined Rolled Homogenous Armour
100m = 150mm
500m = 140mm
1000m = 130mm
1500m = 120mm
2000m = 100mm

Sources are Thomas L. Jentz & Steven Zaloga.

The only advantage the 10cm D-10 gun has is a bigger HE shell, in every other department it is outmatched by the 8.8cm KwK/PaK43 gun.

The Allied gun which came the closest to the 8.8cm KwK/PaK43 in terms of penetration power was the British 17 pdr.

That's highly unlikely, what makes you think this?

The was improved upon a lot after WW2, yet it quickly became outdated, western tanks sporting higher velocity 105mm guns, prompting the Soviets to introduce their 125mm gun. The western powers responded by fielding even more powerful 120mm smoothbore guns.

 

I've never understood why they mounted that gun on that tank. Problem is that is featured two piece ammunition, just like the 12.8cm PaK44, resulting in a slow rate of fire. To further complicate matters the 12.2cm D-25T's breech design wasn't particular modern, and the IS-2 did like most Soviet tanks feature an extremely cramped interior slowing down rate of fire even further. Infact the rate of fire was lower by over 1 round pr. min compared to the larger 12.8cm PaK44, which shouldn't have been the case. On top of this penetration power wasn't particularly impressive because of the (by 1944 standards) moderate muzzle velocity of 780 m/s.

By comparison the 12.8cm PaK44 fired an even heavier shell at a muzzle velocity of 935 m/s with the heavy AT charge; The PaK44 could be fired with 3 different charges, 1. Light Charge = 845 m/s 2. Medium Charge = 880 m/s 3. Heavy Charge (AT) = 935 m/s. The heavy charge was recommended only to be used against the toughest targets at long range in order to save the barrel from unnecessary wear.

Source is Ian V. Hogg.

 

One thing that is being missed on this best tank gun issue along with comparing what the 17pdr or other Allied guns could do to German Panzers or not do is the fact of differences in tank size. Of course the Allies could have fielded say their 3.7" AA guns, 120mm AA guns ,105 mm guns and on and on if the Western Allies were willing to build tanks as large as the Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II or mount limited traverse guns on existing chasis. The Germans mounted the fierce some 8.8cm/71 on the MK. III/IV chasis & Panther chasis ,the 12.8 cm on the Tiger chasis as far as SP's go. The M3 & M4 chasis proved capable of mounting 155mm guns so I imagine they could mount heavy anti-tank guns in limited traverse mountings but that wasn't according to US doctrine .The US actually had a tank,the M-6 that could accept a 105mm gun but the Allies weren't going to field a 50-60 ton tank due to logistical issues.

If the Allies had been willing to go the route of the Germans in fitting old tank chasis with limited traverse mountings AND were the ones on the defensive we may very well be talking about how fierce some the US 105 mm & 120mm were along with the British 3.7" AA gun even against Panthers & Tiger's. The 8th Army in North Africa had far more 3.7" then Rommel had 8.8cm/56 but the British refused to learn from German tatics & even when the RAF completely controlled the skies the 3.7" were kept in the rear areas providing AA protection.

i read one account where either a M12 or M40 SP mounting a 155mm and having a few AP rounds for attacking fortifications accidently came upon a Tiger II . The US SP fired one of those special rounds at the Tiger II now it didn't penetrate the turret but it completely ripped the turret right off the Tiger II thusly killing the crew.

 

Unfortunately, I would have to disagree having talked to western tankers and other old warhorses. The primary role of the tank remains to be the destruction of enemy HQs, reserves and trucks. Anti-tank capability helps you to get into the position to ravage the rear echelons but that remains a mean to an end. This is obscured in western MBT designs because they expected to be heavily out-numbered by WarPack tanks and would fight at most an active-defense battle.

Contrast that with Soviet tanks throughout the 50s-90s. They carried more HE than AP, had dedicated HE-Frag rounds and engineered to have long operational radius. The Red Army's primary anti-tank weapons were their artillery and ATGMs.

 

We are dangerously close to reliving an unpleasant episode won't you agree? I can answer your question, however. The Soviets knew 100mm was their best but its production went off-line before 1941 while 122mm guns were being pumped out at full speed and they had a plentiful stock of ammunition. The 122mm was a more versatile weapon that could be used for SP assault guns and heavy indirect artillery. Basically, the Russians went with the good 'nuff to simplify production.

Two-piece ammo or no two-piece, it could kill heavy German armor and was useful for infantry suppression. They had no alternative designs readily available.

 

Post-war Ruskie ammunition? Their APCBC got alot better and HEAT threw a monkey wrench into tank warfare.

Quickly is a bit of a strong word to use there. The 90mm gun armed tanks were the only thing NATO had for 20 years until the mid 60s. The Soviets retained their T-55s well over the 80s. In fact it was their most numerous tank (70% of total tank park).

 

Is this a book you keep citing? Title? Or a website? Just curious, not trying to slander your facts

 

Wrong. The D-10 100mm gun has better armor penetration than the 88mm KWK 36 L/56 on the tiger and the 75mm KWK 42 L/70 on the panther, but has inferior AP performance compared to the 88mm KWK 43 L/71 on the king tiger. It also has inferior accuracy and range, but fires a more powerful HE charge. Overall, its AP performance is similar (slightly better) to that of the 75mm KWK 42, but is HE performance is better than all 3 german guns mentioned above.

 

Hi JagdtigerI,

It's the authors of the books where I get my information. Thomas L. Jentz is the leading expert on German armour and Steven Zaloga on Soviet armour. They have both written many books on the subject. Jentz's books on German tanks are none other than excellent and a must buy (Osprey series), and Steven Zaloga's books on Soviet armour are great as-well.

 

Not sure what old unpleasant episode you're talking about, have we had one of those? And I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, just honestly can't remember any unpleasant episode.

But yes I already know the reasoning behind mounting the 12.2cm gun on the IS-2, but I quite frankly still don't understand it. It would've been a lot smarter in my opinion to wait until the 10cm D10 became available in larger numbers. The 12.2cm gun was a poor choice and I gotta say the IS-2 did nothing to speed up the Soviet advance, the Germans not finding it particularly hard to deal with, esp. because of the very low rate of fire, poor accuracy (optics) and relative easy with which it was knocked out even by guns which couldn't penetrate the armour (spalling). Definitely not the best tank the Soviets made during the war IMO.

Knowing quite a few tankers myself (actually being in family with one) as-well as having many conversations with engineers actually working in that line of business, I am going to have to disagree Triple C.

Tanks are meant to spearhead, support and defend, and as such they are always going to clash with other tanks in a war against a well equipped opponent. Thus tank designers always make sure that the anti tank performance of the main armament is top notch as-well as making sure the protection is the best it can be against the armament of opposing tanks. It quite simply is the no.1 requirement still to this day.

Now this doesn't mean that any of the other requirements a tank has to meet suddenly become unimportant or redundant in any way at all. They are still crucial if you want a good tank, they're just not the no.1 priority, they are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and so on. So they are still hugely important and tanks today are made to specifically be able to cope with more than one type of threat. But to make sure you end up with something good you always have to start with the most important parts first.

And exactly how well did these tanks do once confronted with western armour? In took some hard earned years for Soviets to finally fully understand how important it was to make sure that your main tanks first and foremost can stand and duke it out with other tanks effectively. The US & British took the German line of thinking to themselves immediately after the war, and ended up with tanks which when'ever they clashed with Soviet armour almost always came out far on top.

In the famous words of Tom Clancy (Just before having expressed his solidarity for Soviet tankers having lost their arms to automatic loaders):
"Intelligence officers are scared for a living. Intelligence officers of the 1960 through to the 80's looked at Soviet hardware like the T-72 and went *Oh my god, the Russians have finally figured it out, that thing is the deadliest thing on the battlefield, we're screwed if we have to go against it*. Then we finally get our hands on one and we find out its a total deathtrap for its own crew, just like every other tank the Russians have ever built"

Now Tom Clancy might be stretching it abit if we take into consideration the latest Soviet tanks, but up until the T-72 he is completely right, western armour has shown itself superior in every clash made between the two since the end of WW2.

 

I realize they are the authors, what are the names of the books? For example you posted this

What book did it come from

 

Hi JagdtigerI,

8.8cm KwK/PaK43 L/71 data is from: Kingtiger Heavy Tank 1942-1945 by Thomas L. Jentz (Same figures are given in several other books however, such as Ian V. Hogg's German Artillery of World War Two)

10cm D10 L/59 data is from: The Red Army Handbook 1939-45 by Steven J. Zaloga. (Again same figures are given in other books as-well)

 

A good debate on German armor quality.

German Armor Myths - Tanknet.org