Best Tank of WW2.

[PanzerJaeger]

Which tank do you think is the "best" of ww2 and why? It doesnt have to be best stats, like which would do best in a 1v1, but it can. The reasons are completely up to you, ie: best gun, fastest production, ease of use, armor, ect.

[PanzerJaeger]

1. T-34/76 http://www.military.cz/panzer/tanks/soviet_union/t34_76/image/t34_76.jpg 2. t-34/85 http://www.lasecondaguerramondiale.it/images/imgmezzi/t-34_85_profilo.jpg 3. KV-1 http://fisherts.home.mindspring.com/aof/images/kv1.jpg 4. IS-2 http://armor.kiev.ua/Tanks/WWII/IS2/IS2-43-front.jpg 5. Churchill http://www.asam.co.uk/iml/ht134.jpg 6. Matilda http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/200000/204700/204720/Products/7004473.jpg 7. Crusader http://www.rghnews.vispa.com/crusader.jpg 8. Cromwell http://www.british-ho.freeserve.co.uk/images/roco_minitanks_0268_cromwell-tank.jpg 9. Stuart http://www.lonestar-mvpa.org/images/2001/01_ph08.jpg 10. Sherman http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Earth-Vehicles/M4_Sherman_Tank.jpg 11. Sherman Firefly http://www.british-ho.freeserve.co.uk/images/heiser_2359_sherman-firefly-m4a4.jpg 12. Pz II http://www.nkrmodels.com.au/alan-004.jpg 13. Pz 3 http://www.geocities.com/zubrowka1999/p/panzer3n.jpg 14. Pz 4 http://www.geocities.com/zubrowka1999/p/panzer4f2.jpg 15. Panther http://www.hobbies-plus.co.uk/acatalog/A01302.jpg 16. Tiger http://www.1-87vehicles.org/images/New%20Products/boley_2115.jpg 17. KingTiger http://altura.speedera.net/ccimg.catalogcity.com/200000/204700/204720/Products/7834548.jpg 18. French Tank Renault R-35 http://emamo.free.fr/images/i42b.gif 19. Japanese Tank Type 94 http://www.msu.edu/user/storto/shinhoto.jpg

Cheers ~D

[Gregoshi]

The German Panther: good gun, good armour and a beautiful tank to boot. From what I've read it suffered from mechanical problems, but I'll ignore that. ~;) The Tiger and King Tiger would be next on my list, but they are a little "over the top" as far as tank design goes.


Overall, in the eye of this beholder, the German tanks had much more style than their counterparts from other nations.

[Watchman]

Well, most of them were frankly rather boxy. The sloped armor of the T-34s looks much better IMHO.

Anyway, the Panther was probably the best overall as far as pure tactical abilities go (once the bugs were worked out), but then it was pretty much an upgraded copy of the T-34 series. Alas, the Germans overengineered it - the buggers had something like three times as many components as the T-34s, and German industry was stretched pretty thin to begin with (also thanks to the warm attentions of Allied long-range bombers). This seems to have been a rather common feature of their military R&D.

In overall strategic terms the T-34, being fast, tough, cheap, and easy to up-gun, was probably the single best design line around.

[Kraxis]

My vote fell on the Panther.

True enough, the Tigers and the IS-2 could fairly easily knock it out, but they were lumbering hulks compared, and the IS-2 even suffered from the fact that is was extremely cramped and had very few rounds (28 I think).
The Firefly could take the Panther out, but the Panther could take out the Firefly even better, and it was actually better cross country. It is a myth that Sherman had better mobility as their crews often complained that the Germans drove places they could not.
The Panther also had a faster revolving turret than the heavier tanks, making it superior at close ranges when you combine it with its faster speed/mobility and much faster reload times (though only compared to the IS-2).
Its weapon was quite likely the best manufatured weapon of the war, in quality and hittingpower to caliber comparisons. Smaller caliber means less strain on industry and supply units and faster reload as well as ability to carry ammo.
Lastly the Panther allowed for it to be upgraded. The Panther II was on the way with a bigger more powerful turret at the end and a more reliable/powerful engine.

Two problems remain for the Panther. Its reliability and it cost/time to manufacture. Had they been lower then this would hardly have been a contest.
But it is a contest as close behind the Panther we find the T-34/85. Much much cheaper, slightly better mobility (less groundpreassure) and speed. Great capacity for upgrades and its significant ruggedness. Almost as powerful gun and basically perfect design. Its downfall is it threw away its superiority in close quarters when it got the heavier turret and thus a slower turret revolve speed. Its significantly lower quality of components, such as optics and the gun. Also its ballistics were not great, meaning it was hard to hit something at long ranges, meaning again that the Panther would still rule engagements before they got close.
But it was close... Very close.

[HopAlongBunny]

Vote for the T34/85.

Very close as Kraxis pointed out, but given the slim margin I would have to back the one that's cheaper to build, maintain and is more reliable.

[el_slapper]

I'm biased, of course, but early in the war, the french B1B was an excellent war machine(though somewhat slow). The fact that the generals were misusing it does not change anything to the quality of the machine.

Of course, later in the war, I'd go with a Panther. 1 Panther for the cost of 12 Shermans, but 12 Sherman aren't sure to win versus 1 Panther.....

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Best all round tank has to go to, I think the Panzer IV. I think the German's would have done much better producing large numbers of these, rather than concentrating on fantastic, but bug ridden, expensive and maintenance intensive, designs like the Panther and Tiger.

[Mithrandir]

T34.
Love it.

though the R2D2 looks pretty impressive as well...

[ah_dut]

Gimme the early T34 with the light turret. Like an Ak47 it keeps on goin and you want that in a tank instead of an unreliable but brilliant design. Who cares if your M1a2 abrams is the weapon sent down from heaven if it spends 364 days a year in a repair shop. Not that an M1A2 does of course

[Krusader]

Would say Tiger or Kingtiger, although suffered from technical/mechanical issues.

Panther was a good tank too, but as I recall, its turret couldnt pivot.

T-34 and its versions. It was mass-produced, and casualties could easily be replaced (at least after the Russian industry was moved east of Ural)

[PanzerJaeger]

Erm.. the mechanical issues of the more complex German tanks can be exagerated, especially in concise histories.

Anyway, i think the tiger was the best tank of ww2. It was introduced in 1942 and was unstoppable. But what makes it the best, imo, is that it was still superior to everything the allies had in '45. This is a big accomplishment as the run-time for a usual tank in ww2 was about a year until it was totally outclassed.

[Hurin_Rules]

If I was a crewman, I'd prefer to be in a Kingtiger, but from a grand strategic viewpoint, I'd want my army to be building T 34s, so I went with that.

[sharrukin]

Bang for the buck; T-34 closely followed by sherman 76mm
If you had to pay for and equip your army with only one tank.

BTW the 'American Sherman Firefly' was created by the British. For some reason the Americans didn't use it.

[derF]

I think the T34 is the best.

It had the first instance of sloped armour, a big gun and was cheap to make.

The Germans had some fine tanks also like the Panzers, but they didnt have sloped armour are were NOT cheap to produce.

There are records of Panzer IV's, V's, and Tigers 75mm and 88mm shells bouncing off T-34's.

[Krusader]

And as I recall, German tanks had problems in russian terrain, where Soviet tanks with their wider tracks/belts (unsure what the English word is ) :help:
had an advantage in the marshes.

[Watchman]

Tracks. Plus to boot the Soviet tanks were, naturally enough, built to withstand the extreme weather (especially winter) prevalent in that part of the world, something the German ones weren't.

The Americans didn't use the Firefly variant for the fairly simple reason the defining trait of the design is the 17-pounder anti-tank gun - which was a British one. And the Brits had enough trouble supplying enough of those things plus ammo and spare parts to their own troops, nevermind the Americans...

Oh yeah, something to think about. One time you seriously don't want to be in a Königstiger, IS-2, Stürmtiger or similar big-arse powerful tank is when the enemy aircraft turn up. You're going to be Target #1, and odds are you're not going to be dodging very well...

[sharrukin]

The Americans didn't use the Firefly variant for the fairly simple reason the defining trait of the design is the 17-pounder anti-tank gun - which was a British one. And the Brits had enough trouble supplying enough of those things plus ammo and spare parts to their own troops, nevermind the Americans...

They did use other foreign equipment so I see it as a conscious choice, and a mistaken one. The British made the same mistake of course. The Brits had a tendency to underarm and under engine anything they had a hand in.
There is really no reason for the production of the 6 pdr as the 17pdr came out at almost the same time and as a tank gun was vastly superior. The 6 pdr might have had a use as an anti-tank gun, but it should never have been put on a tank with the 17 pdr available in its place. Even a Valentine with a 17 pdr would have been dangerous!

[Watchman]

I've read the main issue in upgunning tanks is the diameter of the turret ring - bigger guns need quite simply more space, and the resulting turret needs to fit into the mount. It may be the Sherman was the first chassis to come along that could take the big 17-pounder. Incidentally, late-war British tanks were specifically built with larger turret-rings than necessary just for the sake of future upgrades...

As for the Americans, remember that to start producing a whole new type of gun and ammunition you need to retool several assembly lines and go through several other logistically nightmarish processes, and the Americans apparently figured a ****load of mediocre Shermans with mediocre guns was better than denting the production runs with fancy retooling and other complications.

Or they may have been traditionalist or nationalist asses, who knows. The degree of incompetence militaries may be run with can be quite astounding.

[sharrukin]

I've read the main issue in upgunning tanks is the diameter of the turret ring - bigger guns need quite simply more space, and the resulting turret needs to fit into the mount. It may be the Sherman was the first chassis to come along that could take the big 17-pounder. Incidentally, late-war British tanks were specifically built with larger turret-rings than necessary just for the sake of future upgrades...

As for the Americans, remember that to start producing a whole new type of gun and ammunition you need to retool several assembly lines and go through several other logistically nightmarish processes, and the Americans apparently figured a ****load of mediocre Shermans with mediocre guns was better than denting the production runs with fancy retooling and other complications.

Or they may have been traditionalist or nationalist asses, who knows. The degree of incompetence militaries may be run with can be quite astounding.

All true!
The turret ring diameter is often used as an excuse for why a tank cannot be upgunned until it is! Then they go on to the next tank and guess why they can't upgun it? The problem with the retooling excuse is that it's not that big of a thing to do. They produced a 75mm and a 76mm and a 105mm howitzer version of the sherman as well as other modifications so there is really no reason they couldn't have done so for the 17 pdr with far greater gain in the long run.

[Watchman]

You sure ? I've read anti-tank guns get awfully massive real fast as the power increases - chamber pressure and all that. Rather faster than for example howitzers, which are comparatively low velocity and primarily meant for purposes other than punching through tanks. And by all accounts the 17-pdr is one powerful (and fairly large-bore) gun. And, of course, the frame and chassis and turret need to be able to withstand the nasty recoil too...

The big ones at the end of the war - the German 128mm and its Allied equivalent - were huge multi-ton colosses only the biggest turrets could take and required crews approaching twenty as stand-alone guns. Pretty absurd stuff, really - no wonder the Germans were so big on developing shaped-charge rockets.

[sharrukin]

You sure ? I've read anti-tank guns get awfully massive real fast as the power increases - chamber pressure and all that. Rather faster than for example howitzers, which are comparatively low velocity and primarily meant for purposes other than punching through tanks. And by all accounts the 17-pdr is one powerful (and fairly large-bore) gun. And, of course, the frame and chassis and turret need to be able to withstand the nasty recoil too...

The big ones at the end of the war - the German 128mm and its Allied equivalent - were huge multi-ton colosses only the biggest turrets could take and required crews approaching twenty as stand-alone guns. Pretty absurd stuff, really - no wonder the Germans were so big on developing shaped-charge rockets.

The 17 pdr destructive ability largely came from it's new type of shell, APDS.
Armor Piercing Discarding Sabot; this was a sub-calibre projectile inside the larger shell with the outer falling off as it's fired. The point being that a smaller diameter projectile is imparted with higher velocity increasing penetration. The muzzle velocity of the 17 pdr 950 meters per second and the M5 76mm American anti-tank gun was 800 meters per second using AP ammunition and 855 meters per second using APC. The recoil force would be greater but not by a large margin.

[Watchman]

AFAIK that wasn't an overly new idea, or at least overly revolutionary. Pretty much everyone involved tinkered with upgrades to their main kinetic-penetrator cannon rounds, and I could swear I've read sub-caliber munitions weren't anything particularly new.

Anyway, the German hypervelocity 88mm seems to have been a pretty huge thing all things considered; I've gotten the impression the 17-pdr was roughly comparable (althought it didn't begin its life as an AA gun...).

...
...you know, how big is the 17-pdr actually ? I don't know, but I've gotten the impression it's a tad larger than, say, the 75/76mm that was pretty common in "line" tanks late in the war (something up to 90mm or thereabouts). Propelling a shell of that size with eough force to have a muzzle velocity higher than, say, the 76mm's, is going to take a pretty big propellant charge which in turn requires a more massive chamber to take the pressure.

[sharrukin]

AFAIK that wasn't an overly new idea, or at least overly revolutionary. Pretty much everyone involved tinkered with upgrades to their main kinetic-penetrator cannon rounds, and I could swear I've read sub-caliber munitions weren't anything particularly new.

Anyway, the German hypervelocity 88mm seems to have been a pretty huge thing all things considered; I've gotten the impression the 17-pdr was roughly comparable (althought it didn't begin its life as an AA gun...).

...
...you know, how big is the 17-pdr actually ? I don't know, but I've gotten the impression it's a tad larger than, say, the 75/76mm that was pretty common in "line" tanks late in the war (something up to 90mm or thereabouts). Propelling a shell of that size with eough force to have a muzzle velocity higher than, say, the 76mm's, is going to take a pretty big propellant charge which in turn requires a more massive chamber to take the pressure.

M5 76mm anti-tank gun = 5850 lbs
Q.F. 17 pdr anti-tank gun = 6444 lbs

Not too much bigger. IIRC the 6 pdr and the 17 pdr were the first general issue gun to use the APDS rounds. The Americans used APC rounds, which were capped with a metal to assist penetration. The 17 pdr performance was superior to other 3' guns only approached by the Panthers 75L70. The 75L43 and 75L48 on earlier German tanks were inferior to the Panthers gun as well as the 17 pdr.

The 88L56 (Tiger) and the American 90L53 (M26 Pershing) were similar. The Russian 85L56 was I THINK? smaller but I am not sure of this.

[Watchman]

Similar weight doesn't yet prove much - in AT guns much of it is going to be the frame, anyway.


The 88L56 (Tiger) and the American 90L53 (M26 Pershing) were similar. The Russian 85L56 was I THINK? smaller but I am not sure of this.Assuming the designations are the same, the first number is bore diameter in millimeters and the second number after the letter is barrel lenght (beats me in which measurements). So the Soviet gun would be of marginally smaller calibre but equal barrel lenght as the German 88mm, while the American gun would have the marginally biggest calibre accompanied by a marginally shorter barrel. (Barrel lenght is important as it affects how much of the propellant charge burns out in the barrel and thus accomplishes its primary job of propelling the shell.)

You know, I think I'll try to see if the local bookstore still has that one treatise on anti-tank weaponry I saw a while back. I'm sure it could shed light on the matter. Failing that, there's bound to be a book on tanks and the whys and hows of their payload.

[sharrukin]

Similar weight doesn't yet prove much - in AT guns much of it is going to be the frame, anyway.

Assuming the designations are the same, the first number is bore diameter in millimeters and the second number after the letter is barrel lenght (beats me in which measurements). So the Soviet gun would be of marginally smaller calibre but equal barrel lenght as the German 88mm, while the American gun would have the marginally biggest calibre accompanied by a marginally shorter barrel. (Barrel lenght is important as it affects how much of the propellant charge burns out in the barrel and thus accomplishes its primary job of propelling the shell.)

You know, I think I'll try to see if the local bookstore still has that one treatise on anti-tank weaponry I saw a while back. I'm sure it could shed light on the matter. Failing that, there's bound to be a book on tanks and the whys and hows of their payload.

88L56 means; 88mm diameter bore and the L56 is X56 of the diameter
ie: 88X56 = barrel length

[khelvan]

Ahh, a topic near and dear to my heart.

First, I chose the T-34/76. When this tank was first introduced, the Germans were completely unprepared. At the time their only weapon that could reliably penetrate the T-34's sloped armor was their 88mm AA/AT gun. This tank was fast, reliable, cheap and quick to produce, and had great firepower for the time it was introduced. The T-34 series was one of the great soviet success stories.

No, on to weapon data. I love this stuff.

The 17-pdr's rough dimensions were 76 (mm diameter)/L55 (mm length). Firing APCBC (armor piercing capped, ballistic capped) rounds its muzzle velocity was approximately 884 m/s and could penetrate about 205mm of armor at 0 degrees (armor slope from vertical - i.e. off perpendicular) and 100m, about 190mm at 0 degrees and 500m, about 170mm at 0 degrees and 1000m, and about 135mm at 0 degrees and 2000m.

By contrast, the German 88/L56, standard armament of the Tiger I (and the Flak 36, the 88mm Flak gun), had the following stats firing APCBC rounds:
muzzle velocity: 773 ms/
penetration: 170mm at 100m/0 degrees, 157mm at 500m/0, 142mm at 1000m/0, 116mm at 2000m/0

The King Tiger's 88/L71, APCBC, 1018m/s:
251mm at 100m/0, 232mm at 500m/0, 210mm at 1000m/0, 171mm at 2000m/0

Even the 17pdr had difficulty penetrating some of the heavier German AFV armor. It was head and tails above the American 90mm M3, which was roughly equivalent to the German 88/L56. The true power of the allied weapons was the advances in ammunition with a tungsten core - this would up the penetration power by a very large margin. However, this ammunition arrived relatively late in the war ('43/'44) and remained rare throughout the conflict.

[sharrukin]

In April, 1942 two competing designs were submitted to a an army committee.

Hitler was most impressed with the Daimler-Benz T-34 type proposal, though he suggested that the gun be upgraded from 74L48 to the longer and more powerful 75L70. His intervention led to an order for 200 VK 3002(DB) and the prototype actually went into production!
The army committee preferred the VK 3002(MAN) design as it conformed more to existing German engineering ideas. MAN's proposal was also accepted by the army in may, 1942 and later in the year the Daimler-Benz order was quietly rescinded. The result was the Panther.

What might have been produced in it's place?

http://img144.exs.cx/img144/5696/vk3002db6tn.jpg

The Daimler-Benz proposal was an almost unashamed copy of the T-34 in layout, with the addition of a few refinements. It had a hull shape similar to the T-34's with turret mounted well forward, so far forward in fact that the driver sat within the turret cage, with remote control hydraulic steering. A MB507 diesel engine was fitted with transmission to the rear sprockets again exactly duplicating the T-34 layout. Paired steel bogies (without rubber tyres) were suspended by leaf springs, and other features included escape hatches in the hull sides and jettison able fuel tanks on the hull rear in the T-34 fashion.
The VK.3002 (DB) was in fact a remarkably "clean" design with much potential. Leaf springs, for example, were cheaper and easier to produce than torsion bars, and the use of all-steel wheels recognized the problem of rubber shortage from the start. The compact engine and transmission at the rear left the fighting compartment unencumbered for future up-gunning or structural change, while the diesel engine itself would have been an advantage in later years when petrol supply became acutely restricted.

The Panther was probably a better arena tank but for war as it is fought on battlefields and campaign I think this vehicle would have been superior!

[Redleg]

During WW2 the best tank in the world for overall defeating the enemy was the T34 - it was the most manuveable and able to traverse across more terrian then any other tank in the world. There were tanks with better armament and more protection - but they could not go into the terrian the T-34 and its variants could go. The Russians in the T-34 made one of the best tanks in the world and it was copied in different ways throughout the last 50 years.

Now as a use of a combined arms weapon - I like the Panther, The germans often used their tanks effectively because they massed them and used them as a combined arms effort against the enemy. Their weakness was overcome by the way in which the Germans used them in both the defense and the attack.

[sharrukin]

Ahh, a topic near and dear to my heart.

First, I chose the T-34/76. When this tank was first introduced, the Germans were completely unprepared. At the time their only weapon that could reliably penetrate the T-34's sloped armor was their 88mm AA/AT gun. This tank was fast, reliable, cheap and quick to produce, and had great firepower for the time it was introduced. The T-34 series was one of the great soviet success stories.

No, on to weapon data. I love this stuff.

The 17-pdr's rough dimensions were 76 (mm diameter)/L55 (mm length). Firing APCBC (armor piercing capped, ballistic capped) rounds its muzzle velocity was approximately 884 m/s and could penetrate about 205mm of armor at 0 degrees (armor slope from vertical - i.e. off perpendicular) and 100m, about 190mm at 0 degrees and 500m, about 170mm at 0 degrees and 1000m, and about 135mm at 0 degrees and 2000m.

By contrast, the German 88/L56, standard armament of the Tiger I (and the Flak 36, the 88mm Flak gun), had the following stats firing APCBC rounds:
muzzle velocity: 773 ms/
penetration: 170mm at 100m/0 degrees, 157mm at 500m/0, 142mm at 1000m/0, 116mm at 2000m/0

The King Tiger's 88/L71, APCBC, 1018m/s:
251mm at 100m/0, 232mm at 500m/0, 210mm at 1000m/0, 171mm at 2000m/0

Even the 17pdr had difficulty penetrating some of the heavier German AFV armor. It was head and tails above the American 90mm M3, which was roughly equivalent to the German 88/L56. The true power of the allied weapons was the advances in ammunition with a tungsten core - this would up the penetration power by a very large margin. However, this ammunition arrived relatively late in the war ('43/'44) and remained rare throughout the conflict.


The Russian 85mm ammunition was said to be inferior to German and Western shells. Was this due to poor workmanship in the factories or to poor shell design?
APHE. What exactly is this? Does it work on a reduced HEAT principle or something else?

[Redleg]

The Russian 85mm ammunition was said to be inferior to German and Western shells. Was this due to poor workmanship in the factories or to poor shell design?
APHE. What exactly is this? Does it work on a reduced HEAT principle or something else?

APHE - in today's terms mean Anti-Personal, High Explosive - it is basically a modified artillery shell fired from a Tank. ITs more then that - but its the simplist way that I could think to explain it.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Panther, but all the german tanks were great.
The japanese tanks, on the other hand sucked/

[khelvan]

The Russian 85mm ammunition was said to be inferior to German and Western shells. Was this due to poor workmanship in the factories or to poor shell design?For specifics I would have to consult my sources at home. However I can tell you that Russian ammunition production was notably bad. Tank ammunition was often found to have performance well below design specifications due to flaws in the manufacturing process, such as the rounds being re-heated during production.

As a nice segue to your next question, Russian APHE production was notoriously bad.


APHE. What exactly is this? Does it work on a reduced HEAT principle or something else?APHE - Armor Piercing High Explosive

Many AP rounds were solid shot in various shapes and materials, designed for pure penetration. APHE had a small high explosive charge in addition to this solid core - the round would detonate upon penetration to cause as much damage to the interior of the AFV as possible. This type of ammunition, like shaped charge ammunition, can be defeated by the use of spaced armor (and the Germans took full advantage). Again, specifics on this, if you want more technical detail, will have to wait until I have sources in front of me :)

As an aside, the glorious image of the tank brewing up after being hit is...just that, a glorious image. Most AFV kills were much more anti-climatic, with the only indication of a "dead" vehicle being the crew abandoning the AFV, and the vehicle becoming completely still. In fact determining if a shell struck and penetrated the target was very difficult, and usually the only indication might be a small puff of smoke and/or a bit of debris flying away. If the engine compartment or fuel tank was hit, the tank may begin a slow burn (though the crew would not see it this way), but the massive explosion causing the turret to fly 30m away was the result of unexpended ammunition detonating - a relatively rare occurance. It was not unusual for multiple rounds to be fired into an immobile target due to the crew not being sure if the target was dead, or under the principle "better safe than sorry."

In general, ammunition designed to penetrate AFVs was most effective in penetrating the armor as a solid core of dense material travelling at extremely high velocity. The round would penetrate the armor and rely on doing damage through kinetic energy. Bits of armor or material flying about and hitting the crew, the round hitting some vital piece of equipment or machinery, and similar types of damage. A penetration did not guarantee a kill at all, and in fact a general rule might be that the smaller the caliber of the round, the more penetrations would be necessary to cause critical damage (small round = less chance of hitting something vital, and less chance of kinetic energy causing debris or shrapnel to do the same). Rounds such as APHE were designed to cause damage once inside the vulnerable interior of the AFV. However, APHE suffered because its characteristics made it much less likely to penetrate in the first place. Also, spaced armor could cause a premature detonation of the HE charge.

Sorry, I'm rambling. I'll get you more details when I am home, if you are interested.

[sharrukin]

Actually yes! I know how HESH, HEAT, AP, APDS, APCR, etc work but have never run across the mechanism used by APHE. Why did the Russians use it as much as they did?

[khelvan]

Re-reading what I have written, I am afraid I may have been a bit misleading. APHE was not in and of itself very bad - the Russians just didn't produce high-quality ammunition. The Germans lacked, for the most part, a pure solid AP round - most had some small charge; for countries that produced both pure solid shot and AP rounds with an explosive charge they would be described as AP and APHE, respectively. The standard for describing German ammo is simply calling it AP, even though almost all German rounds had at least a bit of an explosive charge.

If I recall correctly, the mechanism is basically a fuse that detonates the explosive charge upon impact after a fixed delay. Since the rounds were much less effective vs. spaced armor I have to assume that the delay was set very short.

As to the use of APHE rounds, one dilemna facing anti-tank ammunition designers is ability to penetrate heavy armor vs. killing power. Up until the late '30s, if I recall correctly, almost all anti-tank ammunition across the globe was APHE. It has been speculated that this was based on naval principles, as naval ammo is designed to pierce armor and then detonate - so the theory carried over.

I am speculating here, but I believe that the reason the Russians relied on APHE ammo is because they were slow to adopt better ammunition. German ammo development basically followed this pattern:

AP (APHE) - armor piercing with a (relatively) small explosive charge

APC - armor piercing, capped - this was an AP (APHE) round with a fitted hard steel cap to assist penetration of face-hardened armor (a thin surface layer is much harder than the steel projectile nose, damaging the nose penetrator of AP rounds). This cap did not directly assist in penetration, but was designed to crush over the penetrator, spreading the impact over a bigger area, and protecting the sensitive nose of the penetrator. Unfortunately at calibers of 75mm and greater, this cap was of blunt shape, leading to...

APCBC - armor piercing, capped, ballistic capped - the introduction of large-calibre APC rounds required the development of a cap to improve aerodynamic performance. This long, pointed cap of very thin material was fitted merely to improve ballistics, and in and of itself provided no penetration benefit, and may have in some cases impeded penetration. However, it increased penetration at medium and long distances because of the reduced drag, and consequently higher striking velocity. In addition, the blunt nose of the APCBC round tends to dig into homogeneous armor when it is sloped, providing significant advantage vs. sloped plates.

For the Germans, all of the above contained a small explosive charge designed to improve killing power. German APCBC rounds performed significantly better than the standard AP projectiles. I believe the Russians simply didn't introduce improved ammo as quickly as the Germans, and relied both on inferior rounds and inferior quality in their production processes.

As an aside, the Germans did develop a solid-core AP round, the AP40 (Pzgr 40). This consisted of a mild steel body, a light alloy or plastic ballistic cap, and a cemented tungsten-carbide core. This was a very light round, with very high muzzle velocity. The velocity dropped significantly quicker than other types of Panzergranate, so it was most effective at short ranges. Like the allied (primarily American and British) tungsten round, these were relatively rare.

Oops, I'm rambling again...:)

[spmetla]

Erasing the past...

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

I'll go with with a Tiger I - I just like how it looks, and it isn't such a beast like a Tiger II or IS-2. Pershings are cool, too. I also arbitrarily like the M24 Chafee. Goog light tank. Very nice look to it, in my opinion. ~:cool: Pz IV are also nice.

*consults Tanks of the World book* :book:

*Sighs* How I love armor!

~D :charge:

[DemonArchangel]

spmetla, there are anti-spall liners designed to prevent the inside of the armor from blowing inwards.

[spmetla]

Erasing the past...

[Mus]

I agree with the people saying the T34/76 was the most decisive and well rounded tank.

[khelvan]

I thought that anti-spalling didn't become common place until after the korean war.As far as I know, anti-spall liners were introduced only after WWII ended. I could be wrong, but I don't remember a single WWII vehicle with anti-spalling.

[DemonArchangel]

Hmm... damn, wrong war.
Must have been a painful death then.

[Watchman]

Soldiers often die messy deaths. You know the "dog tags" ? After a close artillery impact or other powerful explosion, there's not going to be much else to recognize the casualties by...

That anti-spalling liners were a late feature doesn't really prove much - it's perfectly possible (and even likely) nobody simply thought of them before, or could figure out how to do it. Tank technology took great leap forward during WW2, after all (the first crude gyroscope stabilizers appeared in some Sherman variants towards the end; modern ones are both ubiquitous and infinitely more refined). Heck, WW One tank crews wore mail veils over their faces just to stop the metal chips enemy fire knocked loose from the walls...

Given that the technology of the armor plates themselves improved considerably during the war internal spalling must have been little short of endemic; one reason the bolted-together construction was abandoned was the bolts' annoying tendency to loosen and zing around, for example.

[Kraxis]

Ahhh good to see all this info, I love it... *slurp slurp* Excuse me, I'm just feeding my brain here. ~D

Anyway, I'm surprised that there is all this talk about how good the various tankguns were at penetrating armour, but no comments on accuracy.
Yes, the 88 was a powerful weapon, but as we see it was far from the only highpower gun and most certainly there were some that were better in pure penetrating power. But what made the 88 so deadly was its outstanding accuracy. If the tank-/guncommander got the range right and had the wind figured in he was sure to get a hit at ranges out to at least 2000 meters. So an experienced crew would get vastly more out of its weapon than others would. The same can't be said for most other weapons (the 75/L70 was one of them though).
In general the German guns were simply better made for accuracy, the western guns a bit below it and the Russian guns simply crude. Add this to the very high standard of German optics (and the Russian opposite) you get a deadly cocktail. Suddenly the Russian tanks aren't as appealing, and that was also figured in in my vote on page 1 (but I don't think I mentioned it).

[Watchman]

Accuracy isn't so much a factor of the gun as it is of the accompanying targeting systems. The "88" was originally a long-range AA gun, so it naturally had very good sights; I don't know what the German tanks used early on, but it didn't take too long for their engineers to figure out one of their few advantages over Soviet tanks was their access to far more sophisticated aiming equipement.

Sophistication notoriously wasn't a hallmark of Soviet wartime industry, so they just settled to trying to get close enough to negate the advantage. The Western Allied more or less had to do the same.

There's one catch, though. Producing such "high-tech" gear naturally stretched the ever-worse overtaxed German war industry again a bit further, slowed the production and increased the costs... That's just about the main problem the Germans had. Their technology (and need for it) got far ahead of their ability to supply it...

[Kraxis]

I beg to differ... About the accuracy issue that is.

If I have a superior rifle but have only the iron sights that might not be very good, I can still learn to use the rifle through experience, and I can become very good with it.
A bad rifle with a superior scope will on the other hand be much harder to use effectively as the shots go wide, high or low depending on the situation. Meaning I can know perfectly where to aim for the bullet to hit, but the bullet might not end up there due to the rifle itself being a lousy weapon. The M-16 and AK-47 are perfect examples of good and bad accuracy rifles. Add a scope to the M-16 and it becomes quite good at sniping (if only it had power beyond 400 meters), do the same with the AK and you will miss more than you will hit.
The same is true for guns.

[Watchman]

Tank guns are, as a rule of thumb, smoothbores. And unlike with personal firearms the recoil gets absorbed by the chassis of the vehicle.

No, so far as I know the cannon itself is among the least important factors in the accuracy of gunnery - the quality of its accompanying sighting systems alone are of rather more concern. If they're bad, the best cannon in the world is going to get a lot of stark misses because the sights quite simply give false or woefully inadequate information.

The comparision between German and Soviet guns isn't one between an accurate rifle and an inaccurate one; it's a comparision between firing a decent rifle through a first-class, zeroed-in magnifying scope, and firing it over crude iron sights.

[Kraxis]

Tank guns are, as a rule of thumb, smoothbores. And unlike with personal firearms the recoil gets absorbed by the chassis of the vehicle.
Now they are... Back then they were rifled, like some still are (such as the brtish tanks). Further, the highpower high velocity gun development was in its early years, especially in Russia, where even the process of making the weapon was rather crude in some factories. Tankograd was not the best place for quality creations.
Also, while the tank itself could absorb a good deal of the recoil it has no effect on the firing as in both rifles and guns the projectile has lef the barrel 'long' before the weapon recoils. Even if that was a factor you seem to underestimate the effectiveness of lying down where the entire length of your body absorbs the recoil. And the body being rather soft is a better shockabsorber than a hard tank with bad suspension (which was indeed a factor).


No, so far as I know the cannon itself is among the least important factors in the accuracy of gunnery - the quality of its accompanying sighting systems alone are of rather more concern. If they're bad, the best cannon in the world is going to get a lot of stark misses because the sights quite simply give false or woefully inadequate information.
Yes, bad sight leads to bad shots, but that can be overcome by experience. A bad sight will if it is fastened correctly always give the same info in the same instances, even if it is wrong. So if it is 40 meters short and 15 meters to the left at 1500 meters it is always that, and an experienced crew can overcome it by learning to compensate, damn this was what I had to do in the Navy (both with rifle and cannon). But you can't compensate for a faulty gun which sends projectiles right and left in an alternating fashion.


The comparision between German and Soviet guns isn't one between an accurate rifle and an inaccurate one; it's a comparision between firing a decent rifle through a first-class, zeroed-in magnifying scope, and firing it over crude iron sights.
It is as much one of bad guns as it is one of bad sights. As I already mentioned a bad gun with great sights is not better than a great gun with bad sights as you can learn the problems with the bad sight. Too bad for the russians was that the crews didn't get much training in that and battlefield experience was limited as well (didn't meet many tanks and when they did their survival was limited).