German 75mm L/70

You learn something every day with WW2 Forums !

I'd never heard of this, Mussolini - so I just couldn't resist doing a little research.

Ready ? You hum the tune, I'll provide the words : -

'It was just before dawn one miserable morning in black '44
When the forward commander was told to sit tight when he asked that his men be withdrawn
And the Generals gave thanks as the other ranks
held the enemy tanks - for a while
And then the Anzio beachehad was held for the price
Of a few hundred ordinary lives

And kind old King George sent Mother a note
when he heard that Father was gone
It was, I recall, in the form of a scroll
With golden leaf and all
And I found it one day in a drawer of old photographs hidden away
And my eyes still grow damp to remember
His Majesty signed with his own rubber stamp

It was dark all around
There was frost in the ground
When the Tigers broke free
And no-one survived from the Royal Fusiliers Company C
They were all left behind
Most of them dead
The rest of them dying.....
And that's how the High Command took my Daddy from me'

Phew ! Copyright : Pink Floyd Music Publishers.
From the film : Pink Floyd - The Wall.
Lyrics : Roger Waters.

If you really want to hear it ( I haven't ! ) you'll have to buy 'Echoes - The Best of Pink Floyd'. WWII research can take you down some straaange avenues . . . . .

[ 07 July 2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Martin Bull ]

 

I was not sure about tanks at Cassino, but i assumed the old boy was parked next to a Pz IV. I think i will have to look nto this, got my curiosity up now.

 

NO, NO, NO! Bad boys! You all are forgetting what sir Isaac Newton said:

"Force = mass multiplied by acceleration"

OK. A larger caliber in a gun's ammunition obviously means more power, BUT in this case, the cannon of the Panther 75 mm L/70 was not a bit, but much faster than the Tiger I 88 mm L/56. Therefore, if we use mathemathics here we could see that at the time of the impact (at a medium distance) the L/70 has more force than the L/56. At a longer distance, there is no discussion about the power of the 88mm L/56. The Tiger I was an awesome tank in a deffensive role, because of its very thick armour, but it was a little bit slow and took a little time more to manouver. So, in a short-range fight with a super fast and super manouvrable T-34, this last had the advantage. So, the Panther was developed to be fast and manouvrable, more balanced than the Tiger, and it certainly were, because it had a very good gun, power, armour, speed and manouvrability. It is not my favourite anyway.

Then if we speak about the 88mm L/71 of the Tiger II we are talking about something very, very different, as Erich pointed out. The larger caliber gives it power and range, but now, this gun has much more velocity than L/70 and L/56, therefore it has the range of the 88mm L/56 and the piercing capability of the 75mm L/70, but can pierce anything at a longer distance. It's all about Physics... The 75mm gun in the Cromwells and Shermans had some 650 metres per second velocity, which obviusly cannot pierce not even my navel... There were a lot of Marks III and IV in Normandy and Western Europe, with thicker armour and a PAK 40 75mm guns waiting for the Shermans,certainly these old tanks were more balanced and reliable than the heavy Cat monsters... They were very good tanks.

 

I think I've finally got there.

Looking at various penetration tables ( eg George Forty's 'German Tanks of WWII taken from British Official trials ) the Tiger 1 with the 88mm L/56 did indeed have greater penetrative power than the 75mm L/70 ( varying between 2-4cms at differing combat ranges ), this despite the fact that the L/70 had considerably higher muzzle velocity. The greater 'knock-out' performance comes from the physical extra weight and diameter of the projectile ( diameter to overcome armour thickness ).

So, although the Panther's gun was, I am guessing, probably about the finest 75mm tank gun of the war, the Tiger 1's fearsome reputation was actually fully justified.

( I have left out discussion of the Tiger II altogether ). I am only discussing armament power here - the actual overall effectiveness of the tanks is another matter.

Thanks, guys - I've enjoyed researching this !

 

OK. What the hell do I know?! I want to be an engeneer, I like war but the only thing I really can do is to sing... or at least I could sing. Damned pneumonia!

 

No, I'm not a mathematician either,Friedrich !

I've learnt something from this discussion - it's not just about velocity. Otherwise, reductio ab absurdum , you could penetrate a Sherman with a rifle bullet....

It's a combination of accelerative force ( the propellant plus barrel length ) and mass ( the projectile ). And that's where the 88 'wins'. According to British tests, at 500 meters the 88 L/56 will penetrate 4 cms thicker armour than the L/70 under identical conditions.

But for the German war effort as a whole - the Panther was a superior weapon ( lighter, faster, more versatile, etc and still with truly excellent armament ).

 

Take a look at the tank gun ammo illustrated here (especially British WW2 and German WW2 tank gun ammo) and you will get some idea of the relative power of the ammunition from its size.

Incidentally, the 75mm PaK 40 anti-tank gun used its own unique ammunition and was not related to any of the tank guns - although it was hung under some aircraft!

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankammo.html

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk
Military gun and ammunition discussion forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/

[ 01 August 2002, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Tony Williams ]

 

Excellent stuff, Tony - really good !

That 88 L/56 projectile looks so much bigger than the 75.....