WWII quality....the manufacturers.

[Udet]

Juha said, quote:

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

Whenever i see someone resorting to this sort of arguments -if we can call this an argument-, we are before someone definitely running out of any actual argument.

[Juha]

PlanD
“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.”

Yes, but IIRC that worked seldom because usually main Soviet attacks surprised Germans. And I’m aware, whatever Germans told to Finnish staff officers, that not all Soviet big offensives succeeded, for example that over Mius in August 43 and those west of Orel against was that Panther Stellung in Autumn 43. But usually Soviet “strategic strikes” achieved a breakthrough.

Soren
“British medium artillery wasn't any better than German medium artillery”

As medium I meant German 15cm sFH and 10cm sK 18 vs British 5.5in gun-howitzer and 4.5in gun (cannon). They were clearly most numerous artillery pieces after leFHs and 25pdrs in their respective armies and all weighted around 5,5 tonnes.

Kurfürst
“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.”

Now that is to certain extent true but if we look Wittmann in Normandy. In Villers-Bocage as long as there wasn’t any penetrative hits his Tiger could ran rampage but the first shot which penetrate put end of that even if the crew could bail out unwounded. And if there had been British infantry around the situation might have been very bad for Wittmann and his crew. Lesson: the most important thing to A/T gun is to ability to pierce armour of enemy tanks.
And combat at Gaumesnil showed that a shot could be very lethal when Wittmann and his whole crew perished after hits from a Firefly.

The effects after hit(s) varied, in the history of 6th Guards Tank Brigade there is a story when a Churchill got 3 KwK 42 hits through turret but the crew bailed out unhurt, only thing which really was hurt was the crew’s opinion on the AP qualities of their 75mm gun, they had hit twice into Panther’s glacis plate without effect.
And I have read rather sad stories on Panther crews when their tank was hit by Shermans but I don’t know if they were British or US so shot or APHE I don’t know but from British stories one can see that shot hits brew up panzers time to time.

And at the next armoured conflict on which I knew something from both sides is Oct 1973 Middle East War during which IIRC the most effective tank cannon ammo were 105mm SABOT and 115mm penetrating rod or arrow, both solid.

Kurfürst and Udet
If you have difficulties to accept that what happened in spring 45 had a decisively effect on 3rd Reich arms development programs maybe a look a history book helps.

Juha

[plan_D]

"Yes, but IIRC that worked seldom because usually main Soviet attacks surprised Germans. And I’m aware, whatever Germans told to Finnish staff officers, that not all Soviet big offensives succeeded, for example that over Mius in August 43 and those west of Orel against was that Panther Stellung in Autumn 43. But usually Soviet “strategic strikes” achieved a breakthrough."

I don't think they surprised the German defenders, but more often than not they did over-whelm them by late in the war. Nevertheless the Germans did adapt strategy, and it would have proven an excellent method if the numbers had been somewhere near equal.

[Juha]

Hello Plan D
IIRC Soviets usually achieved surprise but I don't have time to check all their attacks but surely the attack that smashed AG Centre, Germans excepted attack against Model's AG, which was next to south, and the attack straight after the last German big offensive in East in Hungary in 45, surprised Germans. I think German generals would have adapted to Soviet strategy better without Hitler's interference, but the "hold the line at all cost" mentality tended to turn military setbacks to catastrophes.

Juha

[Soren]

Juha,

You're simply not right in your assumption that British guns were better hole punchers for any given caliber, and you're not helping your own argument with your attempts to compare larger caliber British guns with smaller caliber German ones.

As already stated the Germans fielded high velocity 7.5cm & 8.8cm AT guns already in 1942, by which time the Allies still relied on the 6 pdr and the low velocity 7.5cm M3.

The 8.8cm FlaK 18 & 36 was succesfully converted into an effective AT gun already in 1938 during the Spanish civil war, so by 1941 the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 was already a dedicated AT gun. In 1942 the Germans started fielding the 7.5cm PaK42 L/70, a gun which features an even better penetrative power than the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36. Both of these guns were highly effective AT guns capable of penetrating the frontal armour of the Matilda & Churchill tanks past 3km with their std. AP projectile.

8.8cm FlaK 18/36 & KwK36 L/56

Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39-1 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr-39-1 APCBC): 773 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 3107 KJ

7.5cm PaK42 & KwK42 L/70

Projectile Weight (Pzgr. 39 APCBC): 6.8 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr.39 APCBC): 936 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 2978 KJ

Not until mid 1943 did the Allies (British) field a comparable AT gun, the 17pdr, but by then the German were already starting to field the super high velocity 8.8cm PaK43 which would completely outclass any Allied AT & tank gun in terms of armour penetrating capability throughout the war.

8.8cm PaK43 & KwK43 L/71

Projectile Weight (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 10.4 kg
Muzzle Velocity (Pzgr.39/43 APCBC): 1,000 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 5200 KJ

77mm 17 dpr

Projectile Weight (APBC No HE content): 7.7 kg
Muzzle Velocity (APBC no HE content): 883 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 3001 KJ


Now surprisingly enough, eventhough the large difference in power, the weight between the PaK43 & 17pdr wasn't much at just 300 kg, and this is despite the PaK43 being both a larger caliber and much more powerful gun. The reason for this was the more advanced German gun industry which continually produced more simply designed & powerful guns than the Allies, for which there are countless of examples.

Moving on to 1944 the Germans were starting to field the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 AT gun and were already finished with the KwK44 design, thus again allowing the Germans to be one step ahead of the Allies which by then hadn't yet been able to produce a gun able to come close to the performance of the 8.8cm PaK43 & KwK43.

12.8cm PaK44 & KwK44 L/55

Projectile Weight (Pzgr.43 APCBC): 28 kg
Muzzle Velocity: 860 m/s
Kinetic Energy: 10354 KJ


Now as to our debate about artillery, I still can't follow your reasoning for why you would ever consider 25 pdr a better artillery piece than the LeFH 18, esp. considering that the LeFH 18 both out-gunned & out-ranged the 25 pdr. Moving on to heavier artillery the Germans fielded the unrivalled 15cm & 17.3cm K-18, so again here the Germans were ahead.

The Allies benefitted from always having more artillery available, true, but that doesn't make their individual pieces better.

[Juha]

Hello Soren
now 2pdr (40mm) and 3.7cm PaK 36 can well be compared because a) both were the main A/T guns of respective armies in May-June 40 campaign and b) had calibre more or less same. The difference was in design philosophy. As Kurfürst made clear in his message PaK 36 had some desirable features but it clearly lacked punch as was made terrible clear in France in 40 and in Soviet Union in 41. Most of French tanks, excluding WWI vintage FT-17s and the light tanks which IIRC French called something like tracked armoured cars, with 40mm cast armour were very difficult targets to PaK 36, not to speak French heavy tanks with 60mm armour or GB’s I-tanks, only few around, with 60 or 78mm armour. And that led to much unnecessary losses among German infantry and A/T troops.

Now because of failings of PaK 36 IMHO one cannot claim that all German A/T guns were excellent. In fact IMHO only with 7.5cm PaK 40 German A/T units got adequate gun ie in early 1942. 5cm PaK 38 was adequate against British except maybe against I-tanks but by better tactics and flexible use of field artillery and 88mm DAK could handle situation. IMHO was an A/T gun good or bad depends the enemy tanks, so PaK 38 was clearly more acceptable in desert than in Soviet Union.

“The 8.8cm FlaK 18 & 36 was succesfully converted into an effective AT gun already in 1938 during the Spanish civil war, so by 1941 the 8.8cm FlaK 18/36 was already a dedicated AT gun.”

It was still a Flak gun not A/T gun and a 88 at frontline in A/T mission was away say from Benghazi and meant less protection to very important supply harbour. And when we remember that the failures in supply was one of main reasons for the downfall of DAK that wasn’t a good situation.

“In 1942 the Germans started fielding the 7.5cm PaK42 L/70”

Checked the production, only 253 made, when compared to some 9.000 PaK 40s made, it clearly wasn’t a major weapon in Germany’s armoury. Same to ingenious 7.5/5.5cm PaK 41.

As I wrote earlier the first combat use of 17pdr was in March 43

“the weight between the PaK43 & 17pdr wasn't much at just 300 kg,”

I have the weight of 17pdr as 2920-3000kg depending on source and 3650kg for Pak 43

“Moving on to 1944 the Germans were starting to field the 12.8cm PaK44 L/55 AT gun”

Now IMHO a 10 ton PaK wasn’t a very bright idea, why not use 10cm sK 18 or design 12.8cm sK 44 instead. Same goes to JagdTiger, IMHO with some 73 tons weight it was too heavy and unwieldy, I think Soviet were wiser with 46 ton ISU-122 and -152. And on German side IMHO JagdPanther was a much better weapon than JagdTiger.

British had A/T crisis in desert up to the arrival of 6pdr, cannot recall exact date but at least in Oct 42 it was in use at 8th Army. First Tigers were in action in Tunis early of Dec 42, but because of there was at max 20 of them (The sPzAbt had the early 20 PzVIs and 25 PzIIIs TOE) before March 43 that wasn’t a major crisis and in March 17pdr arrived which was more or less adequate against PzVI and V. In NW Europe I cannot remember but a few cases when British had problems with German tank attacks, all after British deep penetrations when their vanguard tank units got in trouble, in Villiers-Bogage, during Goodwood and 11th ArmDiv at W/NW of Vire. But that was more on question of tank armament maybe also on tactical handling of 17pdr units ie they were too far rear. The 21st PzD’s attack on 6 June 44 was rather easily handled by British A/T screen same to II SSPzCorps attack against was that Scottish Corridor. If you know more cases of British problems I would like hear on them.

IMHO the best A/T gun was smallest/lightest adequate, bigger than that made them easier to locate and more difficult to handle, less than adequate was a crime against front line soldiers.

“LeFH 18 both out-gunned & out-ranged the 25 pdr”
It fired heavier shell but according to my sources had only 72meter longer range, which IMHO was irrelevant.

“Moving on to heavier artillery the Germans fielded the unrivalled 15cm & 17.3cm K-18, so again here the Germans were ahead.”

I have never argued that British had better or even equal heavy artillery but my point was that contrary your claim that German guns were superior across the board British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and medium artillery was much more numerous and important than heavy artillery. I’m not claiming that all British guns were better than Germans but that in one important class they were better. And that except say 1½ years in desert British A/T guns were adequate. And as I have wrote earlier even if PaK 40 was less powerful than 17pdr it was adequate in most situations in West and so was a good choice to Germans and 17pdr was a good choice to British, even if it was heavier of than PaK 40 because Germans had better armoured tanks so British needed more powerful weapon as their standard heavy A/T gun.

Juha

[Glider]

I have to support everything that Juha has posted. I have some information on the British AT guns that may be of interest

17pd
Projectile weight
17pd APC MV 950 f/s
7.63pd APDS MV 3950 f/s (note: penetration was roughly double the APC shell at 1000yd)
Weight
Travel 6,700lb
In firing position 6,445lb.

So in summary the 17pd seems to be more powerful than listed in the posting above and with APDS penetration more than capable of taking on the panther and early Tiger tanks despite the lighter projectile.

The reason why the 6pd was later than expected was to do with the losses in France. The gun was ready for production in 1940 but it was decided not to distrupt production of the 2pd as numbers were needed to face an invasion and to replace losses. Production had to wait for a new production line to be set up, hence the delay.

Re establishments -
By September 1943 the official position for European Theatres was:
AT Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 6-pdr and 4 × 17-pdr in 3 troops.
In early 1944 this changed to:
AT Regiments in infantry divisions - 4 batteries each 8 × 17-pdr and 4 × 6-pdr in 3 troops.
Its worth noting that the infantry units had their own AT guns initially 2pd changing to 6pd during 1943 as numbers built up.
From 1943 onwards its fair to say that an Infantry Divison was capable of putting up significant resistance to an enemy tank attack.

[Soren]

For crying out loud Juha!

Why is it you insist upon dodging the main issue here ?

Fact is the FlaK 18/36 was both an AA & AT gun as of 1938, a protective shield even being added to the gun in 41 as a means of better protecting the crew when engaging ground units. This didn't hinder its use as a AA gun in any way though, which you can see below. Besides its success as both a AT & AA gun the FlaK 18/36 also operated with great success as an artillery piece, laying down very effective barrages and surpressive fire at long ranges. So the FlaK 18/36 was a multipurpose gun in every sense of the word, being very useful as both an AT, AA & Artillery piece. And this gun had been available to the German AT crews since 1938!





As to wether I know of any other incidents where the Allies got in trouble because of German AT guns, YES I do and PLENTY! For one I remember an incident in Bocage where a single 88 carefully placed at a cross road took out tenfolds of Allied tanks before running out of ammunition, and that was without moving an inch from its starting position.

The PaK43 weighed in at approx. 3,300 kg to 3,600 kg depending on the carriage, and so it wasn't much heavier than the 17pdr, despite being massively more powerful than the 17pdr.

Glider,

The APDS ammunition wasn't effective past 500m because of its very bad accuracy, and eventhough its penetration performance looks impressive it fell drastically with armour slope. And then there's the fact that it had a very unfortunate habbit of shattering against the armour of the Tiger Ausf.E, even at point blank range! Imagine the look on a 17pdr gunner's face when he sees his supposedly highly effective APDS round fails penetrating the near vertical frontal armour of the Tiger Ausf.E! Must have been quite a sobering experience!

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Glider,

The APDS ammunition wasn't effective past 500m because of its very bad accuracy, and eventhough its penetration performance looks impressive it fell drastically with armour slope. And then there's the fact that it had a very unfortunate habbit of shattering against the armour of the Tiger Ausf.E, even at point blank range! Imagine the look on a 17pdr gunner's face when he sees his supposedly highly effective APDS round fails penetrating the near vertical frontal armour of the Tiger Ausf.E! Must have been quite a sobering experience!

The chances of a 17pd hitting a 6ft x 6ft target at 1000 yds was 98%, at 2000yds 80% so I don't know where you get the accuracy problem from.
Re shattering again I don't know where you got your info from, I have never heard of that probem either.

[AL Schlageter]

I have heard that the quality of German armour went downhill as the war progressed.

[Soren]

I'd very much like to see the source that claims the 17pdr to have a 98% chance of hitting a 6x6 ft target at 1000y with the APDS round, let alone the APBC round! IT DOESN'T EXIST!

And a 80% hit rate against a 6x6 ft target at 2000y sounds like a load of BS in my ears, even with the std. APBC round.

Regarding the shattering of the projectile: Read Thomas L. Jentz books on the Tiger where numerous incidents of this happening are cited, and read Robert D. Livingston & Lorrin R. Bird's book "WW2 armor & Gunnery" where the so called "shatter-gap" is explained in detail.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by AL Schlageter

I have heard that the quality of German armour went downhill as the war progressed.

Not until the later stages of 1944 where esp. the quality of some Panther's armour started declining.

[Soren]

Here's a test refered to by Robert D. Livingston & Lorrin R. Bird in two parts, and read this carefully Glider!:

U.S. Army Firing Test No.3
U.S. Army Firing Tests conducted August 1944 by 12th U.S. Army Group at Isigny, France.
Board of Officers
APO 655

30 August 1944

SUBJECT: Final report of board of officers appointed to determine comparative effectiveness of ammunition of 76mm gun and 17pdr gun.

TO: Commanding General, Twelfth Army Group.

1. The board convened pursuant to the attached order at the firing range established by First U.S. Army near Isigny, France at 1030 hours, 19 August 1944 and conducted firing tests against the front plate of German Panther Tanks. The firing was continued, as the weather and the availability of target tanks permitted, on 20 and 21 August 1944. Because of the urgency of the test, a preliminary report, dated 21 August 1944, was submitted on 22 August 1944.

2. Ammunition
a. The characteristics of the standard ammunitions tested are shown below:

Ammunition M/V Complete
Rd. Wt. Projectile
Weight Description
76mm APC M62
(Lot# ODCM-104) 2600 24.80 15.44 Armor piercing cap, windshield, base fuze, and tracer.
76mm HVAP T4
(Lot# PA 9-1) 3400 18.90 9.50 Light weight projectile with 3.9 lb tungsten carbide core 1½" in diamter in steel sheath. Aluminium body, steel base, windshield, and tracer.
17pdr APCBC
(Lot# JIB 3/44-2301) 2900 35.50 17.00 Armor piercing cap, windshield, and tracer.
17pdr SABOT
(Lot# KBY 7/44-Lot 2) 3950 26.30 08.15 Discarding SABOT with 3.9 lb tungsten carbide core 1½" in diameter, steel base, and tracer.

b. In addition to the above ammunitions, the board fired 76mm HVAP projectile from a 17pdr anti-tank gun, with 17pdr APCBC and 17pdr SABOT propelling charges in a 17pdr APCBC cartridge case.

3. Nature of Test
a. The above ammunitions were fired at the front plate of three Panther tanks. The general characteristics of the frontal armour are: Glacis Plate 85mm (3.35") at 55º and Nose Plate 65mm (2.56") at 55º. using U.S. armor basis curve, the verticle equivalent of the glacis plate is 187mm (7.36") and of the nose plate 139mm (5.47"). Due to the inclination of the ground, the angle with the verticle of the glacis plates on the tanks used in this test were: 57º 34', 57º 05', and 56º 53'. The nose plate on one of the tanks tested measured 66.67mm (25/8").

b. Wide variation was found in the quality of glacis plate on the three tanks. Tank No.2 (hereafter referred to as the "best plate") sustained 30 hits as ranges from 600 to 200 yards without cracking. Tanks Nos.1 and 3 (hereafter referred to as "average plate") cracked after relatively few hits. All conclusions are, therefore, based solely on the relative performance of rounds fired at a single plate. Comparisons are not made between rounds fired at different plates. Also, the performance of any ammunition in this test cannot be considered a criterion as to the range at which it will penetrate the front plate of a Panther tank... [last few words of sentence are illegible].

c. Effectiveness was determined by balancing penetrations against the number of rounds fired and the number of hits obtained on the specific plate.

d. A penetration was defined as occuring only when the projectile passed completely through the plate. Only fair hits were considered in determining penetrations. Rounds striking edges of the plate, welds and junctions of the plate, and cracks in the plate were not fair hits.

e. The line of fire was approximately perpendicular to the lateral axis of the target tanks.

f. The 17pdr guns were fired by two superior British enlisted gunners. The 76mm gun was fired by two officers with considerable test firing experience.

4. Results of Test
a. A tabulation of the detailed results, with photographs, is attached as Appendix A1.

b. Accuracy

(1) A tabulation does not present a true picture of the comparative accuracy of the various ammunitions. With all the standard rounds, except 17pdr SABOT, the accuracy was such as to warrant attempting to hit specific parts of the front plates. In general this was successful, but some rounds fired at the lower glacis struck the upper nose, and vice versa. In addition, it was not possible to position all the tanks so that the nose was not, at least partially, hidden by the ground line. Therefore, it is felt that a better measure of accuracy can be obtained by considering the nose and glacis as one target.

(2) On this basis all twenty-two (22) rounds of 76mm HVAP, T4, and all twenty-three (23) rounds of 17pdr APCBC hit the target. Only one (1) of eight (8 ) rounds of 76mm APC, M62, which fell short attempting to hit the nose, failed to hit the target. Forty-two (42) rounds of 17pdr SABOT were fired and only 57% [24 rounds] were hits. More rounds of 76mm APC, M62 were not fired since its accuracy had been well established in previous firing in the U.S. by two members of the board.

(3) Insufficient firing was conducted with 76mm HVAP projectile with 17pdr APCBC and 17pdr SABOT propellant to determine definite sight settings for a conclusive accuracy test. The results of the limited firing indicated that these rounds are of an accuracy comparable with 76mm HVAP and 17pdr APCBC.

[Soren]

c. Penetration

(1) At 600 yards, 17pdr APCBC penetrated the lower nose of tank No.1 (average plate), while 76mm HVAP failed to penetrate.

(2) At 400 yards, one round out of four fair hits of 17pdr SABOT penetrated the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). This was the only penetration of this plate by a fair hit with any of the ammunitions (including 76mm HVAP w/17pdr APBC propellant, 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant) at ranges 200 yards and over.

(3) At 400 yards, one round out of one fair hit with 17pdr APCBC and one round out of one hit with 17pdr SABOT penetrated the lower nose of tank No.2 (best plate). Both rounds of 76mm APC, M62 failed to penetrate, and one round of 76mm HVAP penetrated while the second round failed to penetrate. Two rounds out of two hits of 76mm HVAP w/17pdr SABOT propellant also penetrated.

(4) At 200 yards one fair hit with each of the standard ammunitions failed to penetrate the glacis of tank No.2 (best plate). The relative depths of the partial penetrations at this range were as follows:
(a) 17pdr APCBC - 2"
(b) 17pdr SABOT - 1 7/8"
(c) 76mm HVAP - 1 5/16"
(d) 76mm APC, M62 - 1"

(5) At 200 yards firing at the glacis of tank No.3 (average plate) one round out of four fair hits with 76mm HVAP penetrated, this round, after partially penetrating, ...[illegible word]... and penetrated the plate ...[illegible word]... . One round of 17pdr SABOT penetrated and one round failed to penetrate at this range. One fair hit with 17pdr APCBC failed to penetrate, but cracked the plate. The second round striking within 6" of the first round penetrated.

(6) In contrast to the results obtained in this teast with 17pdr SABOT, in firing conducted by First U.S. Army at Balleroy on 10 July 44, 5 rounds were fired at the front plate of a Panther tank at 700 yards. Examination of pictures of this firing indicates that the first round struck the mantlet, the second between the track and the nose plate, the third at the junction of the nose and glacis and penetrated. The fourth and fifth were fair hits on the glacis and both penetrated. The conflict between these results and those obtained by the board is expalined by Col. A. G. Cole, Deputy Director of Artillery, Ministry of Supply. Col. Cole witnessed part of the test and states that the ammunition lot furnished the board had not been proof fired. He further states that, in his opinion, the lot is of sub-standard manufacture and if proof fired would not have been accepted.

(7) 76mm APC, M62 fair hits which failed to penetrate caused no cracking of the plate of average quality. 76mm HVAP, 17pdr SABOT, and 17pdr APCBC caused cracking in varying degrees. In general, 17pdr APCBC caused greater damage to the plate than 17pdr SABOT or 76mm HVAP.

5. Findings
a. The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4. It is, however, definitely inferior to these ammunitions because of its inaccuracy. The board invites attention to the fact that its findings and conclusions apply only to the ammunition furnished it and may not apply to good quality 17pdr SABOT.

b. The accuracy of 76mm APC, M62 is satisfactory. However this ammunition is definitely inferior to either the 17pdr APCBC or the 76mm HVAP, T4, because of its poor penetrating power.

c. The 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4, are both highly accurate ammunitions. In the opinion of the members of the board, two of whom have had considerable experience test firing British and American tank and antitank weapons, the 76mm HVAP, T4 is the most accurate tank or antitank ammunition encountered to date.

d. The 17pdr APCBC is more effective against the front of a Panther tank than is the 76mm HVAP, T4. Its margin of superiority is not great. Neither one can be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate in one fair hit on average quality plate.

e. Combining 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr APCBC propellant offers no advantages over a standard ammunition.

f. Because of its accuracy and since the core is essentially the same as that in 17pdr SABOT, 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr SABOT propellant may provide an ammunition superior to 17pdr SABOT as regards accuracy and to 17pdr APCBC and 76mm HVAP as regards penetration.

6. Conclusions
a. That the 17pdr SABOT of the lot tested is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition because of its inaccuracy.

b. That the 76mm APC, M62 is considered an unsatisfactory ammunition for use against heavy armor because of its inferior penetration.

c. That the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4 are considered the best antitank ammunitions available in these calibers for use against heavy armor. The 17pdr APCBC is somewhat superior to the 76mm HVAP, T4, against the Panther Tank. Neither one can be be depended upon to penetrate the glacis plate of the Panther in one fair hit on average quality plate.

d. That the possibilities should be investigated of using 76mm HVAP, T4 projectile with 17pdr SABOT propellant, if 17pdr guns are made available to U.S. units.

Andrew P. O'Meara, Colonel, F.A., President.
Francis B. Shearer, Colonel, Ord, Member.
John B. Routh, Lt Col, F.A., Recorder.

[Juha]

Soren
I know the shield, my point was that the 88 was either at front line or giving AA protection to a supply harbour, it could not be in two places at same time. Rommel had only limited amount of 88s and at least time to time Allied activitely bombed his supply ports with good results so those 88s at front line would have needed also at Beghazi etc

And I asked on British troubles with German tank attacks, both sides found out that bogage was terrible country for tank attack. And the British troubles with German A/T guns in bogage are well known.

If I have not thanked earlier I thank now for the photos of 15cm K-18 and 24cm K-3, haven’t see them earlier.

Juha