Anti-tank solution

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 07-10-2008, 19:08

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bollox .

Germany had many models of 75mm only two are similar in penetration performance to the 17 pdr(though with lower velocity) and neither can get anywhere near the performance of the 17pdr when it used the d/s rounds

Reading the reports, it would seem that the 17lb AT weapon out-performed all but the German 75mmL70 in penatrating armor. The L70 was very slightly (<4%) better at ranges of 1km or less, though it performed substantially better (10+%) at ranges beyond that. This assumes AP ammo for both.

With APDS ammo -- a novel concept indeed at the time -- the 76.2 British weapon easily outperformed the Panther's main gun in pentration. Despite the limited destructive power of the smaller sabot rounds, penetration was vital in securing kills. The biggest drawbacks to the APDS rounds were their rarity (<6% of all 17lb AT ammo made) and the comparative instability of the sabot rounds which lead to a notable decrease in accuracy.

RE: Shermans and burnability. The use of very high octane Avgas by the Sherman's engines did make them much more fire-prone than an equivalent deisel design. OTOH, despite this tendency to burn, unless the ammo cooked off and blew the tank apart, it was still possible for recovery teams to repair these "lighters" and put them back into action -- not that this would be much of a consolation to the previous crew.

**Tribesman** · 07-10-2008, 19:29

Seamus the limited destructive power is irrelevant , the material from the hole that is made and that which makes up the round will rattle around in the confines of the armoured space and keep doing so till it hits enough soft things to slow it down . A tank without a crew is just a pile of metal .

**PanzerJaeger** · 07-10-2008, 22:33

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

RE: Shermans and burnability. The use of very high octane Avgas by the Sherman's engines did make them much more fire-prone than an equivalent deisel design. OTOH, despite this tendency to burn, unless the ammo cooked off and blew the tank apart, it was still possible for recovery teams to repair these "lighters" and put them back into action -- not that this would be much of a consolation to the previous crew.

Later versions in Normandy also had wet storage for the ammunition. This helped quite a bit compared to what was seen in the desert, but they still seemed to burn more readily than others.

**KrooK** · 07-11-2008, 13:43

Hovewer to the end of the war Pzkpfw V had better position fighting against Sherman than vice versa.
As I mentioned we can't compare tanks only by its cannons. Panther (version D and G) was just better tank.

**Veho Nex** · 07-12-2008, 01:25

Hows this for some AT, though it isn't real.

In Company of Heroes, I captured a german 88 and turned it around on one of their tigers but it got a round off first, so I thought... damn tiger... fine then I'll play tough. I had what was left of the squad throw a sticky grenade on it then used 5 howitzers on its position. It was a clean sweep after that.

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 07-13-2008, 01:52

Originally Posted by KrooK

Hovewer to the end of the war Pzkpfw V had better position fighting against Sherman than vice versa.
As I mentioned we can't compare tanks only by its cannons. Panther (version D and G) was just better tank.

@Tribes:
Agreed. Penetration was vital to knocking out a tank and the APDS did that well. The relative instability of the round was its only real limitation. Even with that, crew demands for more of them made it obvious what they thought of it.

Krook:
The pzkpfw-Va through d had horrid mobility problems at first and suffered from lots of breakdowns. The Vg -- with that problem ironed out -- was among the best tanks in the world at the time and could have fought on any battlefield into the early 1960s without being too much of an anachronism.

However, the tank's gun is its primary fighting tool -- no it is not the ONLY thing that should be assessed, but it probably deserves the most attention of any single component of such an AFV.

**Mangudai** · 09-08-2008, 03:53

Molotov cocktail is such a simple and perfect solution. Any tank including an M1 Abrams is disabled by a fireball at its air intake. The engine quits due to lack of oxygen.

The electric thing doesn't make sense. The current would flow through the outermost metal parts and leave the crew completely unaffected. Passengers in a car are safe from lightning because the current flows through the body of the car. Tires are insulators, but this is irrelevant because lightning can spark across the 1ft of air between the bottom of the car and the ground.

**Kadagar_AV** · 09-13-2008, 15:04

Sergeant in the swedish army (infantry) reporting!

There are a number of ways to destroy a tank, but it takes devotion...

1. In city warfare, or defense of a set perimeter, building "bumps" is agreat defensive tool..

The tank, when going over the bump, will expose its vulnerable underside... So even a RPG could take it out.

Of course, mines would be easier and wouldnt risk any soldiers... But you wanetd innovative ideas.

2. Further, tanks has VERY bad view, even with modern optical technology. Sneaking up to one and tossing a grenade down the pipe of the gun will disable the tank... Only applicable in city warfare or dense woods.

3. In training with Austrian forces I learn another neat trick... Avalanches!

A colon of tanks on the road? Snow up on the mountan? Just a small explosion, if the settings is right, will wreak down some hundred tons of snow and ice on the tanks, washing the whole road away.

All in all, tanks are BAD at close quarters, and in wooded/mountain terrain.... A farmer with a bomb could basicly tear a tank apart, without training (balls of steel are required though).

However, out on the field they are the king, if they have air support, of course (both jets and helicopters are great tankbusters).