Best tank gun of WW2???

Ok Martin; have your people call my people and they can do lunch and argue about it followed by giving both of us inflated billable hours for the whole thing.....

 

Not in performance terms - the 17 pdr would have been preferred but it just wouldn't fit in the Comet, so the smaller anmd less powerful 77mm had to be used instead.

The lower barrel life goes with the high velocity which you need to get good penetration. And the reduced 'bench-rest' accuracy would in real life have been compensated for by the shorter flight time and flatter trajectory, reducing the effect of aiming errors.

The 17 pdr was the best Allied tank gun IMO, although if you could afford a bigger tank then a bigger calibre would get you more effective HE shells as well as greater destructiveness after penetration.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

 

what about the 90mm gun on the perishing, i heard from a friend that it destroyed 2 panzer IVs and a tiger in one engagment. although i could be misinformed

 

The 90 also had a pretty good HE shell from what I recall. Especially for the western allies that was important.

 

For a legitimate "tank gun," I'd say the Kwk 88mm gun on the Tiger/Koenigstiger Series.

For the best vehicle mounted gun (for a tracked vehicle), I'd have to go with the Jagdtiger's gun. I know it was unreliable but it's just awesome in it's power.

 

Keep in mind you have to examine more than just penetrating power. Barrel life, recoil, vibration, accuracy, shell size, adaptability, weight and other things must also be looked at

 

While all of those other factors..like barrel vibration/life/recoil etc are very interesting to examine they are next to irrelevant for a very simple reason...a tank and its gun can only really be gauged on its effectiveness in combat.

What is the imporatance of a reliable long lasting barrel if youre tank isnt going to survive its first engagement?.

There's a "semi-famous" quote by a canadian tank commander "Ramsey Worthington" about adding extra treads/plate/trees to thier shermans for extra protection.

Basically an army engineer sees all the extra arm added to the front wieght of the tank and tells worthington that he should remove it as it will overwelhm the front suspension and the tank might not make another 100km..worthingtons response was something to the effect of "if i take this off the tank wont make it over the next hill."

So while I agree from a logistic point of view other factors are important...but ultiimately the most important factor is "can my gun kill you?, and from how fa? etc".

The best tank guns of WW2 werent the most reliable or the most accurate but those with the highest velocity and most kenetic energy. All other considerations are interesting but really arent all that important.

If i have to pick one...Ill take the 88 L 71 while its not the "best" it fires a very powerful HE as wel as AP round capable of making pulp of just about any Allied tank at normal combat ranges.

The 17 pounder is incredible from a AP perspective but rather lack luster from an HE perspective.

And I would agree that the Soviet 100mm and even 152mm of the Assault Guns cant be ignored..what they lack in velocity the make up for in wieght and thus hit with incredible kenetic energy. though their low velocity makes them poor at "hitting moving targets".

 

How accurate the gun is, how long a barrel is going to last, how heavy the shell is, how much space the recoil system takes up are all going to affect how good the gun is in combat. How good is a gun that can penetrate anything but has awful accuracy? How good is a a gun that can penetrate anything but will only last 100 shots? How good is a gun that can penetrate anything but its recoil system makes the inside of the tank hard to maneuver? How good is a gun that can penetrate anything but has a very low rate of fire because its shells are so heavy?

 

My vote goes to the Soviet long 122mm of the JS 2 and JS 3 series, it's main drawback is the large two piece round that resulted in a slow rate of fire and small ammo capacity but it can effectively engage any ground target in it's line of sight and that's my main requirement for a tank gun. The soviet 85mm is also nice and possibly the best "medium tank" gun fielded by any combattant. HE performace counts!

The German 88L71 and 75L70 were overspecialized against armour turning the vehicles that carried them into something more resembling a tank destroyer than a vehicle designed to control it's corner of the battlefield against any opposition, the shorter 75mm KwK40 was a more balanced design but not powerful enough against the latest allied vehicles.

As for western allied guns the 17lb is not a good tank gun in WW2 terms as it proved nearly impossible to mount in the turret of allied ww2 era tanks, the 6lb is a great AT weapon but it's HE performance is poor. The US guns are uninspiring, the 75 started as little better than the 1897 French design and didn't really improve much, the 76 and 90mm are little better than 1942 vintage German KwK 40 and 88/56.

 

Jagtiger,

Clearly if the tank gun cant hit a barn it wouldnt make it into a tank..same with barrel wear etc...there is a basic minimum that we assume or none of the weapons would ever make it into a tank..same with recoil or 17 pnd's side mount or even rear mount on Achilles...they are actually very minor issues compared to "kill factor"..

a great barrel that lasts a long time, has great recoil absorb, are nice..but if it cant kill its opponent its useless...

In your own words..."how good is a tank thats brewed up cause it cant kill another tank?"

A reliably, stable, accurate dead tank...is still pretty dead...

..though i completely understand what youre saying...its just minor...compared to other factors..

 

Hanz,

Of course penetrating power is a very important factor. However, I feel like you are seriously undervaluing the other factors, especially accuracy.

It can come to the point when comparing tank guns that each gun's penetrating power is nearly equal. For example the 76-mm M1A1 on the Sherman was nearly equal in penetration to the KwK 40 L/48 on the Pz. Kpfw. IV, with the KwK 40 only edging the 76-mm slightly. Which is better? Is the KwK 40 automatically better because it has a few more mm of penetrating power?

Or take the KwK 42 L/70 on the Pz Kpfw V and the 17 pounder on Sherman Firefly. The KwK 42 can penetrate about 168-mm of vertical armor at 500m while the 17 pounder could penetrate 162-mm of vertical armor at 500m. Which was better?

You also have to consider that once you get past a certain penetrating power it almost becomes negligible. What's the difference between being able to penetrate 170-mm at 500m and being able to penetrate 190-mm at 500m when the most heavily armored Allied tank in the West isn't going to have much more than 100-mm of armor? Especially if you are sacrificing accuracy or barrel life to gain such penetrating power.

 

8.8 cm KwK 36 used in the Tiger I.

In a tank, you want good all around versatility---not just antitank.

 

Hmmm. Not much love for the 90mm using the later AP rounds.

 

I've seen stuff that puts the 17 pounder as the more powerful gun of the two. Not sure we will ever know to be honest which was better.

 

Jag,

Again I agree with what you're saying in principal...though again..I think you're over-rating factors that really are quite insignificant..AP in terms of mm's is rather a silly thing to compare..for as you say: once you can safely penetrate 20+mm over the heaviest armed tank in existence its rather silly to say hey the L71 can penetrate 20 mm more . On that we are in complete agreement.

But things like accuracy are rather immaterial for the same reasons. As long as I can, with a high degree of probability(say 90%), hit your turret at 800-1000m whether or not i can knock your hat off at the same range is irrelevant.

Though im sorry if I gave the impression that "penetration" is the factor that im emphasizing...i really meant "killing power" or kinetic energy...of which penetration if one of the final results of having tremendous kinetic energy.

Even though weapons like the 50mm might "penetrate" a sherman we'd both agree (or at least I hope we would )..that the Pak 40 is a better tank killer as the kinetic energy it transfers can almost guarantee a kill where as the 50mm may have to penetrate the Sherman many times before a true kill is achieved.

Im really not trying to say all of the factors you mention aren't important...they are but only as secondary factors...or as "academic" tie breakers..

By the way i think you mean the L48 on the mark 4 not the L70..which was the panther...but i digress and im sure it was a typo anyway.

If you have any information on the relative accuracy or wear life on any of the weapons that have been mentioned I would love to see it (like most here I love that type of tech info)...I have some great tables for the 88mm L56 firing all its diff ammo at various ranges (both practice and combat).

Ill add it later if anyone is interested.

 

Check

Alright, I can somewhat agree with what your saying

Understood

Your posts make your point clearer and clearer each time. Although I still value those "other" stats a little higher than you, I can understand your point. Your first post came off as if you were just saying "screw everything just go by penetrating power"

Yep, sorry about that, thanks for catching it

Love to see it

 

There are more targets to kill than the premium tank. Other targets to kill to include medium tanks, assault guns, anti-tank guns which were the most dangerous anti-armor weapon out there on the field, infantry AT teams, houses, trucks...

In many of those situations, a gun with higher accuracy, durability and better HE capability would be more desirable than one that has sheer penetrative power over other factors, and those softer targets were as dangerous or valuable as premium tanks.

 

My vote??? God am I going to hear it but as far as which gun was best for say the Sherman? Well shear armor penetration isn't all that it seems . The 75mm M3 was far better for infantry support and dealing with anti-tank guns then either the 76Mm M1A1 or 17 pdr. IMHO in using the weaker gun per AP but which is superior in HE you probably save more lives of infantrymen and just maybe even tank crews since far more tanks were taken out by PanzerFaust's,Bazooka's and anti-tank guns then by their contemporaries . So maybe capability against your opposite number(as per tank versus tank) isn't as important as capability in regards to the combined/all arms concept.

 

Damn you beat me by 4 minutes in saying basically the same thing!!!!!

 

The most dangerous thing in NW Europe to allied tanks was the SP assault gun, followed by AT gun and mines. Almost as many tanks were lost to panzerfaust-type weaponry as panzers. For the majority of those targets, a decent gun with good dependability was better than a superb gun with low dependability. I wouldn't argue that the Allied 75mm was very good, though--it was an excellent weapon in '43, but should have been replaced by something better in '44.

I think Terry's pick is a good choice. The 100mm gun was a superb weapon, and the only reason the Soviets didn't put it on their IS-2s was because there was insufficient quantities of shells for the gun and production line was closed. Once the war was over, they put a 100mm on practically everything and that was a tremendously powerful gun with good accuracy.