Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 114

Thread: WWII Tank Gun Specifications

  1. #16
    Banned dunmunro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Thanks for that info. The data posted by Soren also shows a much steeper decline in penetration for the L/70 gun versus the 17 pdr, and this is to be expected if the 17 pdr performs better at higher target angles:



    7.5cm KwK42 L/70
    2,500m = 103mm
    3,000m = 91mm
    _________________________________________________

    7.62cm 17pdr
    2,500m = 116mm
    3,000m = 107mm

    This could represent better ballistic performance from the 17 pdr APCBC projectile, or more likely, it represents much better penetration at higher obliquity, and this would be a decided advantage in combat.

  2. #17
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincenzo View Post
    Soren have you data for 77 (Comet guns)? and for italian 90? (i know this is not a tank gun)
    On th British 77mm yes, the Italian 90mm, no I'm sorry. The 77's performance is listed below:

    77mm HV APCBC projectile against vertical 240 BHN RHA plates:
    500m = 137mm
    1,000m = 126mm
    1,500m = 116mm
    2,000m = 106mm
    2,500m = 98mm
    3,000m = 90mm

  3. #18
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    The reason for the slightly steeper decline in velocity for the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 projectile vs the 7.62cm Mk.8T is 1.) Mk.8T is heavier and 2.) The Mk.8T abit more aerodynamically efficient for a reason being described below. For the 7.5cm KwK42 a new version of the PzGr.39 was designed, designated the PzGr.39/42, it was abit heavier at 7.2kg than the older 6.8 kg PzGr.39 used in the KwK40 & Pak40, and abit less aerodynamically efficient as it was designed to perform better against highly sloped armour. In short the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 APCBC(HE) was designed on purpose to better defeat armour at very steep angles, performing better against sloped armour than the 7.62cm Mk.8T APCBC in US tests.

    So while the 17pdr was more effective against vertical plates, the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42 performed better against angled plates. 8.8cm PzGr.39 projectiles of all types were different in design and were amongst the most aerodynamically efficient AP projectiles made during WW2.

    Here's the 7.5cm PzGr.39/42, note the unusual design, this was to enable it to better defeat sloped armour:


    And the 8.8cm PzGr.39-1, a much more streamlined design, the most aerodynamically efficient projectile fired by any tank gun during the war:

  4. #19
    Senior Member parsifal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orange NSW
    Posts
    8,595
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Vincenzo View Post
    Soren have you data for 77 (Comet guns)? and for italian 90? (i know this is not a tank gun)

    Hi Vincenzo

    The 90 mm gun fired a 22.2 lb AP round at a muzzle velocity of 2,756'/sec.6 It's maximum range was 15,000 yards.6 It could penetrate 5.63"@0° at 500 yards.

    I t makes for an interesting comparison with the German 88mm series...according to Sorens list the 88 could penetrate 219 mm, at that range whilst the Model 53 could penetrate 143 mm. That seems an awfully big difference
    Last edited by parsifal; 01-09-2010 at 05:10 PM.
    Fr President Clemenceau’s speech to the AIF 7th July 1918: “ we expected a great deal of (Australians)… We knew that you would fight a real fight, but we did not know that from the beginning you would astonish the whole continent. I shall go back and say to my countrymen “I have seen the Australians, I have looked in their faces …I know that they will fight alongside of us again until the cause for which we are all fighting is safe for us and for our children”.



  5. #20
    Banned dunmunro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    A slightly better ballistic performance doesn't explain the fact that the Panther starts out at 168mm and ends up at 91mm, while the 17 pdr starts out at 163mm and ends up at 107mm, since if the L/70 has better high target angle performance this should offset the increase in target angle at long range which occurs as a natural result of the projectile trajectory.

  6. #21
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dunmunro1 View Post
    A slightly better ballistic performance doesn't explain the fact that the Panther starts out at 168mm and ends up at 91mm, while the 17 pdr starts out at 163mm and ends up at 107mm, since if the L/70 has better high target angle performance this should offset the increase in target angle at long range which occurs as a natural result of the projectile trajectory.
    It may surprise you to know how flat the trajectory of a 800+ m/s cannon actually is. We're not talking howizter trajectories here.

    Also take a look at the 8.8cm PzGr.39-1's performance, it goes from 151mm to 97mm, that's better than both.
    Last edited by Soren; 01-09-2010 at 05:30 PM.

  7. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Lazio
    Posts
    2,139
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by parsifal View Post
    Hi Vincenzo

    The 90 mm gun fired a 22.2 lb AP round at a muzzle velocity of 2,756'/sec.6 It's maximum range was 15,000 yards.6 It could penetrate 5.63"@0° at 500 yards.

    I t makes for an interesting comparison with the German 88mm series
    thank you. This is a british test? afaik italian standard AT round had HE fillers so were AP(HE) or APBC(HE)

    p.s. unlucky italian 90mm carriage was more large and high of that of 88 so the use as ATG of this AAG was not so easy. (almost this is the common explanation, i not checked but maybe also the italian gun it's longest (the misuration it's not same in italian army and in german army)
    Last edited by Vincenzo; 01-09-2010 at 05:22 PM.

  8. #23
    Senior Member parsifal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orange NSW
    Posts
    8,595
    Post Thanks / Like
    The source says that it was from data obtained at Aberdeen in 1968. I dont know any more than that
    Fr President Clemenceau’s speech to the AIF 7th July 1918: “ we expected a great deal of (Australians)… We knew that you would fight a real fight, but we did not know that from the beginning you would astonish the whole continent. I shall go back and say to my countrymen “I have seen the Australians, I have looked in their faces …I know that they will fight alongside of us again until the cause for which we are all fighting is safe for us and for our children”.



  9. #24
    Banned dunmunro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Here's data from the same source for the 17 pdr APDS:
    500m = 256mm
    1,000m = 233
    1,500m = 213
    2,000m = 194
    2,500m = 178
    3,000m = 162

    Perhaps Soren could post the data for the 6 pdr APDS?

  10. #25
    Senior Member Juha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Helsinki
    Posts
    3,536
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hello
    "Fire and Movement", RAC Tank Museum, Bovington, 1975, pages 22–25. "Penetration v. homogenous armour at 30º, at ranges in yards". The armour is machineable quality.

    6-pdr Mk 3 or 5 APDS 131mm@500, 117mm@1000, 103mm@ 1500, 90mm@ 2000

    Juha

  11. #26
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dunmunro1 View Post
    Here's data from the same source for the 17 pdr APDS:
    500m = 256mm
    1,000m = 233
    1,500m = 213
    2,000m = 194
    2,500m = 178
    3,000m = 162

    Perhaps Soren could post the data for the 6 pdr APDS?
    Sure can, but like I've said before APDS was a poor ammunition type during WW2, it was inaccurate and poor against sloped armour, had poor killing power once penetration was achieved and in short supply. So I really do not understand why you're so obsessed with this projectile type. APCBC rounds were the most lethal AP projectiles used during WW2, and were prefered for that very reason, Firefly gunners prefering the APCBC over the APDS round.

    5.7cm 6pdr L/52 gun with APDS:
    500m = 160mm
    1,000m = 140mm
    1,500m = 123mm
    2,000m = 108mm
    2,500m = 95mm
    3,000m = 83mm

  12. #27
    Banned dunmunro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    6 pdr APDS 4000fps
    0 targe angle MQ armour
    500yds=173mm
    1000yds = 153
    2000yds = 119

    http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.p...tank&Itemid=58
    Last edited by dunmunro1; 01-09-2010 at 08:27 PM. Reason: add data

  13. #28
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fits well with the US test results once adjusted into meter results.

  14. #29
    Banned dunmunro1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    107
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Soren View Post
    Sure can, but like I've said before APDS was a poor ammunition type during WW2, it was inaccurate and poor against sloped armour, had poor killing power once penetration was achieved and in short supply. So I really do not understand why you're so obsessed with this projectile type. APCBC rounds were the most lethal AP projectiles used during WW2, and were prefered for that very reason, Firefly gunners prefering the APCBC over the APDS round.
    You've certainly said this and been corrected for saying it, but 6 pdr APDS was not inaccurate and had none of the problems that 17 pdr ammo had. 6 pdr APDS was more accurate than APCBC, and it was available from day one of the Normandy Campaign.

  15. #30
    Banned Soren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    6,624
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by dunmunro1 View Post
    You've certainly said this and been corrected for saying it, but 6 pdr APDS was not inaccurate and had none of the problems that 17 pdr ammo had. 6 pdr APDS was more accurate than APCBC, and it was available from day one of the Normandy Campaign.
    You're making one untrue claim after the other. 6 pdr APDS ammunition was not at all more accurate than APCBC, the APDS rounds of the time all suffered from the same problems, and again they were in short supply. And where exactly have I ben corrected on this issue? So far I've only seen you being corrected after making claims again and again and again.
    Last edited by Soren; 01-09-2010 at 08:39 PM.

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •