Discussion in 'Armor and Armored Fighting Vehicles' started by GunSlinger86, Aug 28, 2016.
Fair statement and true. It was a much more capable weapon than many give it credit for today.
Do you mean the General Board Reports? Those were post VE Day.
Which "Green Book"? There are 78 of them. Oh, Doc Cole's. Most of those 18 references (and 8 are to TD) are to actions around Stavelot and the actions of the 110th, 115th, and 143rd AAA Gun battalions. It was the 30th ID. The encounter with the 116. Panzer was 2d AD and the 84th ID.
The main reason so many 90mm were encountered in the Bulge is the Germans were advancing into the Buzz-Bomb Belt around Antwerp.
Otherwise, the 90mm was commonly used early on in Italy as a field gun before the arrival of the 155mm gun.
You are probably right. Since I moved out of the US my access to US dot mil sites are curtailed. I faintly recall passing references in secondary literature about 90's that were used in an anti-tank role in Normandy.
I'd have to disagree here. In general the penetration of a HEAT round is a function of it's diameter so larger bore will generally mean a greater penetration. On the other hand especially when talking about WWII HEAT rounds lower velocity actually results in slightly better penetration as it allows more time for the slug/jet to form. Modern HEAT rounds often have a "probe" that detonates the round some distance from the armor surface to allow for the slug/jet to properly form.
I'm not certain why you are arguing with what I said, looking at the entirety of your response.
I stated that size did not necessarily mean higher or lower penetration in that warhead diameter in itself is not the sole determining factor in a weapon's capability, which you alluded to in your rebuttal. A cursory look at two Soviet-made RPGs bears paid to what I said. The RPG-22 and the RPG-26 both had the same size war-head, 72.5mm, yet the RPG-26 had a higher penetration by a factor of 10%.
Most likely, or as you stated "generally" a larger warhead will result in greater penetration, but it is not necessarily a given.
If you look at the penetration of HEAT warheads developed at or near the same time (and particularly by the same country) the penetration strongly correlates with the diameter of the round. Note for instance that on the following page:
that the rule of thumb for HEAT performance is based on the diameter of the round. A host of other factors will affect it but a bigger bore is a pretty strong indicator of better AT performance. The velocity affect is significantly less at reasonable velocities.
Okay, I'm not disagreeing with you, never have. Just stated that diameter is not necessarily the only criteria that determines a weapon's strength and am perplexed as to why you post a diagreement, but then add statements to support what I said.
I could dig around and probably find some other weapons where the smaller projectile is stronger, or, then again, maybe not. Don't know, but I do know that the diameter of projectile isnt an ironclad determinant of a weapon's effectiveness which that is what I said to begin with and you supported in your first response.
I'm moving on, still perplexed though.
If for instance you are talking US HEAT rounds in WWII then it pretty much is. I.e. a 155mm HEAT round will outperform a 105mm one which will out perform a 90mm which again will outperform a 75mm round. Now a modern 75mm round say might outperform a WWII 105 but even that is somewhat questionable so in regards to the topic at hand which was WWII artillery a larger diameter (excepting marginal differences) does imply a more effective round. My initial reaction was because your wording seamed to down play the effect of size in regards to the effectiveness of HEAT rounds.
I think if you knew who Sherman was it might be very intimidating indeed.
Sherman is one of my heroes. He truly didn't give a damn what other people thought.