WWII quality....the manufacturers.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Juha try to keep the posts unpersonal okay.

[plan_D]

"And as to the Soviet artillery pieces, well I can't find a single area where they were superior to those of the Germans. The German 150mm & 173mm K-18 are completely superior to any heavy Soviet artillery piece, and the LeFH 18 (M) is better than the Soviet howitzers of similar caliber"

I can, Soren, there was more of them. The idea of a Soviet artillery barrage was enough to put chills up any Axis spine. All German histories of the eastern front mention Soviet artillery as their greatest enemy, well the ones I've read do.

[Soren]

But ofcourse Plan_D, but I was talking individually.

The Soviets did have the advantage of having so many pieces that they could lay down a barrage so intense that the air would be sucked right out of anyones lunges unfortunate enough to be in the middle of it. (German vets often tell you about this)

[plan_D]

I know you were talking individually; but it does bring up the question of build. Which of these artillery pieces was the easiest to produce in large quantities, after all it is weight of fire that decides the fight where artillery is concerned.

I understand the argument for superior individual piece, but in equal industrial position which piece would be fielded in most numbers and ultimately lay down more fire? In reality the Americans and Soviets had more artillery at hand solely due to their massive industrial base, and this was discovered on the field of battle and recorded with dismay in German histories.

Interesting read, by the way, I'm learning a lot about artillery here - something I'm not up to date with.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

The German 17cm Kanone 18 featured a 360 degree field of fire and a range beyond that of any comparable Allied artillery piece (30km) plus a much heavier shell at 68 kg. So in the 17cm Kanone 18 the Germans had an excellent long range artillery piece of unequalled performance.

And lets not forget the 15cm Kanone 18 either, with its 43 kg heavy high explosive shell and a range of 25km it was an excellent artillery piece, much better than the Soviet 15.2cm artillery pieces. It featured a 360 degree field of fire as-well btw.

I am not trying to ignore these weapons which were as good as any in the world at the time. That is not in question, I am trying to deal with the questions and points raised iro the smaller weapons.

Some 10.5cm LeFH 18 pieces began featuring a 360 degree field of fire platform from 1943 and onwards as-well, so the 25 pdr didn't have anyhing over the LeFH 18.

I suspect the main difference is that nearly all the 25pds had this ability and only a handful of the LeFH 18. It is interesting that the German forces did decide to include this ability, they must have decided that it was beneficial although as I said earlier, it wasn't the most important feature of the weapon.

At any rate turning a light artillery piece like the LeFH 18 isn't in any way hard for experienced presonnel Glider, I know, so I don't see why the 360 degree platform provided for the 25 pdr was such a big advantage - esp. not considering that such big corrections to the direction of fire was hardly ever needed.

I would certainly agree that the 360 degree ability is not a huge advantage but it is an advantage. It should be remembered that the 25pd was always designed to be able to act as an AT gun and this ability in a fast moving close range battle must help. As for turning around a 'normal weapon' if its dug in, then you stand no chance of moving it in a hurry.

And as to the accuracy of fire, well the Germans were indeed more accurate here in terms of concentration of fire according the Ian V. Hogg and American intel reports. This was mostly because of the German method of establishing range & actual position to expected position. Hence the comment made by the American Officer. The actual accuracy of the guns wouldn't have been much different.

The British had to learn some lessons in France which was done and by 1942 a number of individually small changes were made that made a big difference when put together.
What the British were able to do was bring a much bigger concentration of fire down, much faster than any other army in the war. They were also far more flexible than most armies due to the trust given to the observers.
This would go some way to making up any difference in accuracy which by 1942 would have been marginal at best.

[Juha]

Soren
“Thank you very much for that personal attack Juha! Can't remember when I ever attacked you personally or tried to personify you to deserve that. Oh well..”

Yes, that’s true, and I apologize.

“The famous American 155mm Long Tom didn't feature a 360 degree field of fire either, it had the same 60 degree field of fire as the std. 10.5cm LeFH 18 M.”

Yes but the long range guns don’t have so much a need for that. IMHO the idea behind the 360 deg traverse of post-war Soviet 122mm light field howitzer was to allow easy all round defence in case of fluid situation. Light field pieces are situated rather near the front so they are in greater risk to be run over, also IIRC 122mm had secondary A/T function in those situations. Why 25pdr had that capacity, I don’t know. Maybe because of secondary A/T function or because of colonial experience, there were many times no fixed frontline but enemy could be anywhere. Or maybe because both of reasons.

On modern or more exactly on the SP guns of 60s and 70s. For some reasons some SP guns got turrets with 360deg traverse.

“LeFH 18 (M) is better than the Soviet howitzers of similar calibre”

I cannot recall Soviet 105mm howitzer, their standard light howitzer was 122mm.

BTW, what is your source of the info that 17cm K 18 had 360 deg traverse, the one of my sources, Encyclopaedia of the German Army in the 20th Century by Bruce Quarrie) that gives the traverse of the gun says that it had only 17 deg traverse. In it there are a picture and 4 sided drawing. According to the text: “In action it rested upon a turntable, the wheels being lifted off the ground. The rear of the trail was mounted on a platform which permitted a limited traverse…” Now that sounds perfectly OK if we remember that the gun weights 17.520kg. But on the other hand I have a handwritten note from 70s, God knows from what source, that the gun had 360 deg traverse.

On 15cm Kanone 18, according to Quarrie it had only 10 deg traverse. Anyway, it was a rare gun, as I wrote only 101 built and production ended in 1943, after losses in east in 41-44 probably not many were around in 1944.

On 17cm K 18, one additional piece of info, it seems that one battalion (probably 12 guns if German heavy artillery battalion had same number of guns than medium arty battalion) fought in Normandy. Commonwealth 21st AG had 5 heavy artillery regiments in Normandy ie 40 7.2in howitzer and 40 155mm gun/cannon.

Juha
and again sorry for my outburst

[Soren]

Juha no problem about your outburst, it's that you almost called me a Nazi which I'm bothered about, otherwise why mention Ideals ?? Cause if thats what you truly think about me then I cannot stress enough how completely wrong about me you are!

Anyway getting back on topic:

Both the 150mm & 173mm K-18 featured a 360 degree platform:

17cm K-18



15cm K-18


My source is Ian V. Hogg, a weapons historian and an expert on guns of all calibers.

The 21cm Mörser 18 also features a 360 degree platform, and n this picture you can see it retracted on the carriage:



There was also the 24cm K-3 with a range of ~35km and also with a 360 degree platform:



So as you can see Juha the Germans were also very well established in the field of artillery, producing the best guns for any purpose of any country of WW2. (And they continue to do so today)

And no I'm not being biased here, I'm just telling it the way it is.

[Juha]

Soren
still not sure on 360 deg on 17 cm K 18, the uppermost photo showed it as Quarrie claimed, the rear of the trail was mounted on a platform. There is a drawing in the book which showed the gun or in fact 21cm Mörser 18, which used the same carriage/lafette, from above and the platform seemed to be something like 2,8m x 1,2 m. I still have difficulty to see how the guncrew lift the rear end of trail with of without the platform and turn the gun around, maybe the long barrel balanced the system when in horizontal position.

I’m not sure on excellence of German heavy guns, many of them were technically brilliant IMHO not all of them were very practical and their habit to built small number of many different guns must be logistically a mistake. And probably many of those very heavy guns were lost during retreats. 24cm K-3 was a good example, only 10 made, it weighted almost 55 tons, had to be transported in six separate loads, that doesn’t sound a very practical concept to me. 17 cm K 18 was very good but heavier pieces maybe were uneconomical.

And I'm still thinking that British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and they had more significance than clearly rarer heavy pieces. And as matter of fact British standard A/T guns were better than similar sized German guns as pure hole punchers, 2 pdr has significantly better penetrative power than 3.7cm PaK 36, same 6 pdr vs 5cm PaK 38 and 17pdr vs 7.5cm PaK 40. Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.

IMHO Soviet system of building massive numbers of few good gun types, massing them to one sector to pulverize enemy’s defensive lines to ensure breakthrough was simple and effective way to use artillery. Germans warned Finns in early 44 that Soviet system was extreme effective and that there was no way to prevent Soviet breakthroughs. The question was how to stabilize the front again as soon as possible. The Finns didn’t believe Germans but thought that they had managed to hold their main defensive lines during 1942 Soviet attacks while inflicting very heavy casualties to Soviets but in June 1944 we found that the German warning had been sound.

Thanks for the source info I read one of Hogg’s book in 70s so probably the handwritten notes are from it.

Juha

[plan_D]

"The question was how to stabilize the front again as soon as possible. The Finns didn’t believe Germans but thought that they had managed to hold their main defensive lines during 1942 Soviet attacks while inflicting very heavy casualties to Soviets but in June 1944 we found that the German warning had been sound."

The Germans used forward trenches with skeleton crews to fool the Soviet spotters into believing this was the front-line, it was an effective counter to the Red Army's massive artillery barrages. Once the barrage was over the German army would move back into place, and the Soviets would be ... well, surprised to say the least.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Juha

Kurfürst
“For some reason they had not bothered to put it into production.”

To my understanding you can blame Soviets for that they happened to appear in Berlin and put all German projects to end.

Ah, I see. You run out of silly arguements, so you scrape the barrel for idiotic arguements.

Originally Posted by Juha

Now Soviet Union liked to keep thinks simple for sake of production and maintenance happened to select the system for their standard light field howitzer. That should make you think twice the merits of the system.

Oh, the merits of the system is perfectly understood, you put a metal turntable plate under the gun to make it traverse faster. On pieces without this turntable, you simply grab the gun an rotate the gun itself. On small guns (below 2 tons) such as these, it can be easily done without a turntable. Clearly putting turntables on even small guns was some kind of British fixation with turntables, hell they`ve even put it on very light 2 pdr AT guns. On heavy guns, it makes sense, that`s why everyone, except the British, used it only on large guns.

I`ve personally seen with what ease a 1.5 ton 75mm gun (a PaK 40) was man-handled. While in an analouge, you`d keep arguing how much of a disadvantage it is for the PaK 40 that it`s barrel traverse is just something like 60 degrees, and there are those jolly 25 pdrs with '360 degree traverse', IRL it looked like the crew grabbing the whole gun on it`s friendlier end, rotating the whole thing 90 degrees in 3 seconds, and was ready to fire in the 5th second.

That`s an ATG gun where it may come in handy very often, at this size and weight, a turntable offers no practical advantage, perhaps it`s somewhat easier for the crew to do. I wonder how often division artilerry, 6-8-10 km behind the frontline, needs to fire 180 back on it`s own HQ, or the supply train of the friendly units on it`s left and right flanks, instead of the 60 degrees or so arc in front of it, ie. where the enemy is. I am sure in your world they keep spinning arty pieces all day. 1 barrage for the enemy, 1-1 for the cooks on both sides, and the leftover ammo is spent on the red-striped trousers behind. Is that how it works in Juha`s World? Well m8, Juha`s World is not in Real World then.

However your ridiculus argument was, that, despite the fact that the 25 pdr is firing a small sized shell containing of only 0.81 kg of explosives (ie. barely larger charger than the Sherman`s HE shell), to appx the same distance, for some reason the 25 pdr is superior because it has a metal disc turntable under it, which means it can fire 360 degree, while the other gun is limited to 60 degrees.

At least in your world, that is.

Originally Posted by Juha

“No, the pity is that you have a sort of stupid agenda, born out of ignoranc and bias.”

I would say that You and Soren are too full of Übermensch ideology to see that even if many of German weapons were good or even world beaters, they also made some average or even below average weapons.

Correction. Stupid agenda, born out of ignorance and bias, attempted to be supported by worsening personal attacks.

Now as for your ridiculus claim, as we do the reality check, you could only push your agenda forward by comparing German divisional howitzers to British corps-level artylerry.

Sure. My Big Mac truck is bigger than your Ford Focus. Keep comparing apples and oranges.

Originally Posted by Juha

”army-level heavy arty”

Heh, what army-level heavy artillery I have mentioned, except Soviet 152mm gun-howitzer and and that because of Soviet had most centralist artillery organisation of 3 nations mentioned, Germans had most decentralized.

That again speaks volumes of your ignorance, as the organisation had rather had to do with the nature of operations (offense/defense), rather than nations.

5.5in gun-howitzer and 4.5in gun/cannon were equipment of RA MEDIUM regiments, RA HEAVY regiments had 7.2in howitzers and 155mm gun/cannon as their equipment.

Now, I understand why you`re trying to sell RA medium regiments as if they were some kind of standard divisional arty (obviously, if your agenda is to show , but still they weren`t.

The RA Medium/heavy regiments were bascially the same as corps/army level artilerry attached to the division. Ie. the standard German division, apart from it`s native 10.5cm and 15cm howitzers gets some nice fat 17cm guns and 21cm Mörsers from high command, or even bigger pieces.

And how does the 17cm K18 compare to the 25 pdr howitzers..? Oh I think British artilerry was pretty below-avarage then, because look, my corps level, 18-ton heavy arty piece beats that tiny little howitzer.

That`s the kind of silly logic you follow.

[Soren]

Now whats the Problem Juha ??

All the pictures I presented in my previous post feature the 360 degree platform, one even shows a 17cm K-18 in action with it deployed! Ian V. Hogg as-well as any other reliable source mentions the 360 degree platform as-well, they all featured it. Why is it you insist upon denying these facts Juha ??

And I'm still thinking that British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and they had more significance than clearly rarer heavy pieces.

British medium artillery wasn't any better than German medium artillery, we've already been through this once. The German 10.5cm LeFH 18(M) both out-gunned & out-ranged the British 25 pdr.

And as matter of fact British standard A/T guns were better than similar sized German guns as pure hole punchers, 2 pdr has significantly better penetrative power than 3.7cm PaK 36, same 6 pdr vs 5cm PaK 38 and 17pdr vs 7.5cm PaK 40. Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.

You can't be serious Juha! What you just wrote is without any basis in reality what so ever!

The Allied AT & tank guns were pee-shooters compared to the AT & tank guns being produced by the Germans!

Throughout WW2 German AT & tank guns were THE best in the world. And thats a fact!

Also why in the world would you ever compare the 17 pdr to the PaK 40 ?? Why not compare it to the more powerful 7.5cm PaK42 & KwK42 L/70 ? This gun was as powerful as the 17 pdr, more accurate and weighed less. This gun was also mounted on the German Pzkpfw. V Panther as the 7.5cm KwK42 L/70 and it out-performed all the Allied tank guns in the comparative tests at Aberdeen.

But as if it couldn't be worse Juha you then proceed to compare the 5.7cm 6 pdr to the German 3.7cm AT gun, a gun comparable to British 3.7cm 2 pounder ! The German equalant to the British 6 pdr, the 5.0cm L/60, was just as good a hole puncher as the 6 pdr.

Already in 1942 the Germans were deploying high velocity 7.5cm & 8.8cm AT guns while the Allies still relied on the 6 pdr and low velocity 7.5cm guns. The German 8.8cm FlaK 36 & KwK36 L/56, the gun mounted on the Pzkpfw. VI Tiger, was vastly superior to any Allied AT gun when deployed in 1942 and continued to be so until mid 1944.

And in 1943 the Germans introduced the best AT gun of the war, the 8.8cm PaK 43 L/71. This gun was completely unrivalled by any Allied AT gun. The gun was later modified to fit the inside of a tank turret and became the 8.8cm KwK43 L/71, the main armament of the Tiger Ausf.B and JagdPanther, and with MV of over 1,000 m/s and a penetration performance of over 153mm of 240 BHN RHA armour at a distance of 3,000m it was the most powerful tank gun to be mounted on any tank with a turret during WW2.

The only AT & tank gun more deadly & powerful than the 8.8cm PaK 43 & KwK43 was the German 12.8cm Pak 44 & KwK44, the most powerful AT gun of WW2, but even this gun was only marginally better than the 8.8cm KwK43.

When it comes to the lethality of AT guns, velocity is what counts the most!

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Juha

I’m not sure on excellence of German heavy guns, many of them were technically brilliant IMHO not all of them were very practical and their habit to built small number of many different guns must be logistically a mistake.

I am wondering what the heck you`re talking about. Basically, the Germans used the same two divisional arty pieces through the war, just two, the 10.5cm leFH 18 and the 15cm FH 18, plus their deriviates (which did not differ in else but having muzzle brakes).

That is, as much as I can count, just two type of standard pieces that came into the logistical picture (ie. every division has them).

The British...? Well they used the old WW1 OQF 18 pdr and the 4.5" OQF howitzer, later the OQF 25 pdr, the US 155mm M1918.

For heavier standard pieces on corps level, they for some odd reason used 4.5" gun-hos that were not fit for their purpose, and later the 5.5" OBL gun-hos, but before that happen, they the OBL 6" howitzer at corps level. Then there was the poorly executed OBL 7.2" howitzer Mk I, which soon needed a 2nd type of US carriage to cure it`s inherent flaws... anything else? Oh, they also used the OBL 8" WW1 leftover howitzer.

Even the Soviets were not quite standardized. Lots of gun types of the same caliber, and lots of calibers, too. In fact, the Soviet arty array in 1941 was rather confusing. Arty pieces from the Tsarist times etc. The US arty park had many types too, but it become more streamlined as the war progressed.

Compared to that, the Germans had the advantage of standardizing early, building from scratch, and had two rather solid howitzer designs to work with on divisional level - and here`s the important part : THROUGH THE ENTIRE WAR. The 10.5cm and 15cm were available to them all the time, and in numbers - true, they had some leftovers too, but far and few between, never in any big quanitities to make it an army-level problem.

I think as far as standardization of arty goes, they did pretty solid.

Originally Posted by Juha

And probably many of those very heavy guns were lost during retreats. 24cm K-3 was a good example, only 10 made, it weighted almost 55 tons, had to be transported in six separate loads, that doesn’t sound a very practical concept to me. 17 cm K 18 was very good but heavier pieces maybe were uneconomical.

Yet again you`re trying to disprove the rule with the exception. The very heavy arty pieces are rarer kinds, and usually one-of-a-kind. They are special tools for special task.
Yet you want to make them the rule and judge the variety of whole German arty park based on their heavy guns only. Silly isn`t it?

You can`t blame the German army for having access to real siege artilerry, something they definietely found very very handy in numberless occasions during city sieges.

Originally Posted by Juha

And I'm still thinking that British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and they had more significance than clearly rarer heavy pieces. And as matter of fact British standard A/T guns were better than similar sized German guns as pure hole punchers, 2 pdr has significantly better penetrative power than 3.7cm PaK 36, same 6 pdr vs 5cm PaK 38 and 17pdr vs 7.5cm PaK 40.

Similiar sized...?

The 2 pdr ATG weighted some 757 kg in action. The 3.7cm PaK 35/36 : 435 kg. Clearly these guns were meant for a different philosophy, the Pak 35/36 emphasized much on compactness, and it could easily follow advancing infantry on it`s own on any terrain, and it had HE shells for soft targets, making it a support weapon as well, a bit of a small sized infantry gun. The 2pdr was more of a static piece, and also a contemporary of the 5cm PaK 38 (and far closer to it in weight).

The 6 pdr ATG weighted some 1140 kg in action. The 5cm PaK 38 : 986 kg. Now of course the 6 pdr was introduced service in May 1942, ie. contemporary of the PaK 40, but less capable, having inferior penetration characteristics, and no HE ammunition again.

The 17 pdr ATG weighted some 2920 kg in action. The 7.5cm PaK 40 : 1425 kg. For God`s sake`s Juha, you`re comparing a gun TWICE the size and bulk.. However the 17 pdr not until 1943, and it`s more of a weight/class counterpart of the splendid 8.8cm PaK 43, also from `43 which itself weighted 3700 kg, but were far more capable (and on the 360 degree turntable Juha loves so much and attributes only to the British. It`s not present on the 17 pdr, apparantly the Brits were thinking reverse as usual, the turntable would be rather useful for such a big gun, so they don`t use, but they use it on very small ATGs and light arty, where there`s less of a need).


17 pdr ATG



8.8cm PaK 43

Of course these problems with the comparison Juha himselfs sees and knows very well, the question that strikes my mind is, that how come then the conclusion for the British, who basically got the same stuff, just usually 1.5 years later than the Germans in most cases..?

And of course the comparison of the 2pdr/3.7cm Pak, 6pdr/5cm, 17 pdr/7.5cm PaK is both anachornistic and disregards completely the big difference in the size of these guns. Generally it compares again bigger and later British ATGs to German ATG pieces, not to mention the comparison on penetration figures alone is somewhat misleading, given the British preference (hmm, again followed by nobody else..) for solid AP rounds, which boosted penetration figures slightly, but lacking HE burster inside the shell, the post-armor effects were not the catastrophic as the ones descibed by British experience with German APHE rounds in the desert.

In short Juha`s conclusions are again not supported by the facts. As far as I can see, it`s a case of wishful thinking, that occasionally becomes aggressive and very personalizing (ie. nazi labels etc.).

Originally Posted by Juha

Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Glider

I would certainly agree that the 360 degree ability is not a huge advantage but it is an advantage. It should be remembered that the 25pd was always designed to be able to act as an AT gun and this ability in a fast moving close range battle must help.

Well here it should be mentioned the 25 pdr itself was much less flexible in this regard. It had only 4 degrees of traverse to the left/right; anything more required the gun itself to be turned on it`s turntable platform.

[quote=Glider;293950]As for turning around a 'normal weapon' if its dug in, then you stand no chance of moving it in a hurry./[quote]

Well, if space limitation is what you refer to, you can`t turn a dug-in 25 pdr either, since you have to turn the whole gun, and if there`s not enough space, the gun`s split forks will simply not allow it. And given the 25 pdr could only manage 4 degrees to the sides without turning... as opposed to ~60 degrees on guns with the usual carriage... it`s soon in big trouble vs. moving targets.

It seems to me the 25 pdr was incomparable less well suited for engaging tanks than perhaps any other divisional light howitzer of the war, that had a full 60 degree traverse wihout having to move the carriege itself.

[Juha]

Kurfürst
“I`ve personally seen with what ease a 1.5 ton 75mm gun (a PaK 40) was man-handled.”

Now I have heard from men who had to try man-handle PaK 40 during battle that it was “bloody too heavy” for that. Finns thought that it was too heavy to easily man-handle that was a main reason to number of gun losses in 44, other was that the Komsomolsk tractors which Finns used as its tower easily throw tracks, which of course wasn’t Germans fault.

“as the organisation had rather had to do with the nature of operations (offense/defense), rather than nations.”

Now both German and British artillery organization stayed rather same throughout the war, even if 1939-42 Germany was on offensive and 1943-45 British, how that goes with you argument.

And I was talking on H E A V Y artillery and doubt were they worth of effort even if many of them was technically excellent, bomber was simply more flexible way to deliver heavy loads far away.

“The 3.7cm PaK 35/36 : 435 kg. Clearly these guns were meant for a different philosophy, the Pak 35/36 emphasized much on compactness, and it could easily follow advancing infantry on it`s own on any terrain, and it had HE shells for soft targets, making it a support weapon as well, a bit of a small sized infantry gun.”

I compared them because 2pdr was 40mm weapon and yes PaK 36 had many nice features but it was found wanting on its reason etre namely in capacity to penetrate armour, even in 1940 in west that cost lot of German blood.

“2pdr was more of a static piece, and also a contemporary of the 5cm PaK 38”

So name a German unit which used PaK 38 in France in May-June 40, if you can. 2 pdr was there and PaK 36 but PaK 38 wasn’t.

“Of course these problems with the comparison Juha himselfs sees and knows very well, the question that strikes my mind is, that how come then the conclusion for the British, who basically got the same stuff, just usually 1.5 years later than the Germans in most cases..?”

Heh, You even quoted my sentence “Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late…”

So I was aware of that.

Soren
“Also why in the world would you ever compare the 17 pdr to the PaK 40 ?? Why not compare it to the more powerful 7.5cm PaK42 & KwK42 L/70 ? This gun was as powerful as the 17 pdr, more accurate and weighed less.”

Because how many PaK 42 were made, IIRC 150. PaK 40 was Germany’s standard A/T gun That’s my reason. I don’t wrote on KwKs because I also think that Germans were right in the thinking that tank gun needed acceptable HE shell and British were wrong in thinking that AP performance is everything and shot will do and mgs could keep down enemy infantry and A/T gunners. Even if every sqn had 2 3” close support tanks. In a way British thinking was in a line with German thinking with Pz IIIs and PzIVs but Pz IIIs always had also HE shell capacity and that was a fundamental advantage to Germans. I think we can agree at least on that.

“compare the 5.7cm 6 pdr to the German 3.7cm AT gun, a gun comparable to British 3.7cm 2 pounder ! The German equalant to the British 6 pdr, the 5.0cm L/60, was just as good a hole puncher as the 6 pdr.”

If you read carefully I was comparing 2 pdr with 3.7cm PaK 36 and 6 pdr with 5cm PaK 38, and if you will check the numbers 6 pdr had clearly better penetrative power.

“Already in 1942 the Germans were deploying high velocity 7.5cm & 8.8cm AT guns while the Allies still relied on the 6 pdr and low velocity 7.5cm guns. The German 8.8cm FlaK 36”

IIRC there were no 8.8cm AT guns around in 1942 and the fact that Rommel had to use his meagre 88mm AA gun resources as A/T guns and lower the AA defence of his supply lines IMHO proves besides German tactical flexibility also the lack of penetrative power of his A/T guns.

“And in 1943 the Germans introduced the best AT gun of the war, the 8.8cm PaK 43 L/71. “

IMHO PaK 43 was too heavy, of course maybe a must on Eastern Front but on Western Front PaK 40 was IMHO better being significantly smaller and lighter and adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crodiles. And on JagdPanther I’m sure we agree.

Juha