Jump to content


What could have the US done for anti-tank guns?


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

Anlushac11 #21 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 16:19

    Major

  • Players
  • 33230 battles
  • 2,121
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

The Brits used a system based on the weight of the projectile.

 

So a 2lbr is a 40mm gun whose projectile theoretically weighed 2lbs.

 

6lbr is a 57mm whose projectile theoretically weighed 6lbs.

 

17lbr is a 76.2mm whose projectile theoretically weighed 17lbs.

 

In game we see 3lbrs (47mm), 18lbr which is 84mm, 25lbr which is 88mm,

 

You might notice a pattern forming.

 

To best of my knowledge the first gun to go away from this was the British 105mm L7. The 105mm L7 was a improved and enlarged version of the OQF 20lbr

 

OQF = Ordnance Quick Firing

GMC = Gun Motor Carriage

HMC = Howitzer Motor Carriage

 

Not always but typically if you see a US vehicle labelled GMC after its name its a tank destroyer, HMC typicality means self propelled gun as in artillery.

 

US licensed the Brit 6lbr and produced it in USA. It is on Ram II, and is available on T67 GMC, M8A1 GMC, and M7 medium tank to name a few. 

 

In game 6lbr/57mm has higher muzzle velocity so its easier to hit targets. The rate of fire is also good. And in game at ranges most combat takes place at the 6lbr/57mm usually penetrates better.

 

But the alpha damage is usually a lot lower. IIRC typical 6lbr/57mm pen might only do 75 damage while a US M3 75mm L/40 typically seen on M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman can do 110 alpha damage. Keep in mind that there is that +/- 25% variable so a penetration might do 25% less or 25% more damage.

 

Is your brain smoldering yet? Good...there's more.

 

You may see some Brit tanks like Excelsior equipped with a OQF 75mm. That was a Vickers project to bore out a 6lbr to 75mm, change breech to make it compatible with US 75mm ammunition. This allowed tanks like Churchill, Cromwell, and Valentine which were originally built with 6lbrs to use a 75mm gun without having to redesign vehicle. OQF 75mm fires same ammo as US m3 75mm and barrel length is roughly same so penetration and damage is similar.



Slayer_Jesse #22 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 17:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 26858 battles
  • 9,111
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013
ah, i was wondering what the brit 75 was.

AngryPitSnipe #23 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 17:49

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 12330 battles
  • 435
  • Member since:
    10-02-2012

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jan 02 2015 - 19:47, said:

 

And what suggestions by Patton are  you referring to?  Certainly, he did not advocate for heavier tanks.  In early 1945 when the press started to question the effectiveness of the M4 medium, Patton publicly defended the vehicle

 

The only thing remotely resembling a Sherman with a 90mm gun was the M36B1 tank destroyer and a single test vehicle consisting of an M26 Pershing turret on a Sherman hull. 

 

 

Check out the Israeli M51 in my post.

The_Chieftain #24 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 19:01

    Military Specialist

  • Administrator
  • 10262 battles
  • 9,633
  • [WGA-A] WGA-A
  • Member since:
    09-08-2011
That's a 105, not a 90.

_Spud #25 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 19:18

    Major

  • Players
  • 28194 battles
  • 3,422
  • [_D_] _D_
  • Member since:
    04-09-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 03 2015 - 18:01, said:

That's a 105, not a 90.

 

A sherman with a 105, non-derp...

I dunno if I hate it because the weak hull at higher tiers or love it because of the gun o.o



Blackhorse_Six_ #26 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 19:28

    Major

  • Players
  • 45494 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostGlaber, on Jan 03 2015 - 13:18, said:

A sherman with a 105, non-derp...

I dunno if I hate it because the weak hull at higher tiers or love it because of the gun o.o

 

From that perspective, it would be more realistic ...

 

You'd have to be a helluvalot more careful about what you were doing.



Slayer_Jesse #27 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 19:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 26858 battles
  • 9,111
  • [SAKU] SAKU
  • Member since:
    08-31-2013

View PostGlaber, on Jan 03 2015 - 13:18, said:

 

A sherman with a 105, non-derp...

I dunno if I hate it because the weak hull at higher tiers or love it because of the gun o.o

 

tier 7 premium :trollface:

Blackhorse_Six_ #28 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 19:29

    Major

  • Players
  • 45494 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostThe_Chieftain, on Jan 03 2015 - 13:01, said:

That's a 105, not a 90.

 

I think AngryPitSnipe was just poppin' a flare, there ...

Legiondude #29 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 19:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 20134 battles
  • 23,041
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    08-22-2011

View PostRudedog1b, on Jan 02 2015 - 07:15, said:

If they were concerned they would have  listened to Patton and taken his suggestions seriously

You mean the ones where he kept demanding more machine guns on every single thing that moved?

 

View PostSlayer_Jesse, on Jan 03 2015 - 06:00, said:

huh, is the 6 pounder thing modeled ingame? if it is, the 75 might be better on the grant at long ranges.

View PostHartLord, on Jan 03 2015 - 07:58, said:

 I'm pretty sure it's not modeled.

From Tank Inspector:

75mm M3 - Pen at 100m: 92

--------------- Pen at 400m: 80

 

6 pdr Mk III - Pen at 100m: 105

---------------- Pen at 400m: 81

 

A table is compiled here.

 

View PostGlaber, on Jan 03 2015 - 12:18, said:

A sherman with a 105, non-derp...

I dunno if I hate it because the weak hull at higher tiers or love it because of the gun o.o

It's got a HEAT round that zips at 905m/s and tears through 360mm of steel



Walter_Sobchak #30 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 20:08

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostAnlushac11, on Jan 03 2015 - 10:19, said:

The Brits used a system based on the weight of the projectile.

 

So a 2lbr is a 40mm gun whose projectile theoretically weighed 2lbs.

 

6lbr is a 57mm whose projectile theoretically weighed 6lbs.

 

17lbr is a 76.2mm whose projectile theoretically weighed 17lbs.

 

In game we see 3lbrs (47mm), 18lbr which is 84mm, 25lbr which is 88mm,

 

You might notice a pattern forming.

 

To best of my knowledge the first gun to go away from this was the British 105mm L7. The 105mm L7 was a improved and enlarged version of the OQF 20lbr

 

OQF = Ordnance Quick Firing

GMC = Gun Motor Carriage

HMC = Howitzer Motor Carriage

 

Not always but typically if you see a US vehicle labelled GMC after its name its a tank destroyer, HMC typicality means self propelled gun as in artillery.

 

US licensed the Brit 6lbr and produced it in USA. It is on Ram II, and is available on T67 GMC, M8A1 GMC, and M7 medium tank to name a few. 

 

In game 6lbr/57mm has higher muzzle velocity so its easier to hit targets. The rate of fire is also good. And in game at ranges most combat takes place at the 6lbr/57mm usually penetrates better.

 

But the alpha damage is usually a lot lower. IIRC typical 6lbr/57mm pen might only do 75 damage while a US M3 75mm L/40 typically seen on M3 Lee/Grant and M4 Sherman can do 110 alpha damage. Keep in mind that there is that +/- 25% variable so a penetration might do 25% less or 25% more damage.

 

Is your brain smoldering yet? Good...there's more.

 

You may see some Brit tanks like Excelsior equipped with a OQF 75mm. That was a Vickers project to bore out a 6lbr to 75mm, change breech to make it compatible with US 75mm ammunition. This allowed tanks like Churchill, Cromwell, and Valentine which were originally built with 6lbrs to use a 75mm gun without having to redesign vehicle. OQF 75mm fires same ammo as US m3 75mm and barrel length is roughly same so penetration and damage is similar.

 

Does the 77mm HV gun on Comet count as a deviation from the  "pounder" gun designation system?  It's a bit of a funny one as it was basically a 17 pounder substantially redesigned (different shape shell casing) to fit inside a Comet turret. 

Blackhorse_Six_ #31 Posted Jan 03 2015 - 20:30

    Major

  • Players
  • 45494 battles
  • 10,030
  • [HHT] HHT
  • Member since:
    03-19-2011

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jan 03 2015 - 14:08, said:

Does the 77mm HV gun on Comet count as a deviation from the  "pounder" gun designation system?  It's a bit of a funny one as it was basically a 17 pounder substantially redesigned (different shape shell casing) to fit inside a Comet turret. 

 

The very first description of the Comet's gun I ever saw in print described it as a "de-tuned 17 pdr".

 

That description has stayed in mind since boyhood, a helluva long time ago ... in a galaxy, far, far away ...



Dominatus #32 Posted Jan 04 2015 - 18:03

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 10311 battles
  • 13,793
  • [CMFRT] CMFRT
  • Member since:
    12-21-2010
I think it would have probably been a good idea to get a lighter 3in/76mm towed gun.

Anlushac11 #33 Posted Jan 04 2015 - 18:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 33230 battles
  • 2,121
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jan 03 2015 - 14:08, said:

 

Does the 77mm HV gun on Comet count as a deviation from the  "pounder" gun designation system?  It's a bit of a funny one as it was basically a 17 pounder substantially redesigned (different shape shell casing) to fit inside a Comet turret. 

 

Thats a good question...

 

The Vickers 75mm L/50 was intended to use 3" 20Cwt AA gun casing necked down to 75mm to fire US 75mm M61 APCBC and M48 HE projectiles (I guess US offered infinite supply of 75mm projectile's). That was supposed to be the Vickers 75mm HV Brits have in game.

 

Then the Cromwell turret fiasco so development continued intending to use in Comet

 

Along the line it was decided the 17lbr ammo was better so the 3" 20cwt casing was left at 76.2mm, fitted with 17lbr projectiles and voila we have the 77mm

 

IIRC the reason to rename it 77mm was to avoid confusion with current 17lbr ammo. They both technically fire 17lbr projectiles but the ammo is not interchangeable due to different casing.

 

Nice conversation about the Vickers 75mm HV and 77mm here

http://www.tank-net.com/forums/?showtopic=35631


Edited by Anlushac11, Jan 04 2015 - 18:26.


Xlucine #34 Posted Jan 04 2015 - 19:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 7633 battles
  • 7,603
  • [C-BOO] C-BOO
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostDominatus, on Jan 04 2015 - 17:03, said:

I think it would have probably been a good idea to get a lighter 3in/76mm towed gun.

 

There are many things that would have been a better idea than the towed 3" gun they ended up with

Anlushac11 #35 Posted Jan 04 2015 - 19:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 33230 battles
  • 2,121
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

I like the idea of Portee's better than I do the idea of a towed gun. At least a Portee is still mobile while you have to pack up and load and hook up to tow a towed at gun.

 

Largest I have seen US and Brits use is 6lbr mounted on trucks, IIRC 2lbr Portee's were quite nasty in North Africa due to their small size and mobility. Down side is no armor but then again if your a AT gun parked in the desert you cant even run.

 

Germans used 88's on trucks and Italians had 90mm L/53's mounted on trucks, IIRC both were technically AA guns but both were used in AT role.

 

EDIT: Yes US used M3 halftracks mounted with 75mm but those had meh mobility and had very poor traverse.


Edited by Anlushac11, Jan 04 2015 - 19:57.


Walter_Sobchak #36 Posted Jan 04 2015 - 20:09

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 236 battles
  • 5,140
  • Member since:
    11-22-2010

View PostDominatus, on Jan 04 2015 - 12:03, said:

I think it would have probably been a good idea to get a lighter 3in/76mm towed gun.

 

Too bad this was introduced too late to see service. 

 



Zinegata #37 Posted Jan 06 2015 - 09:43

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 9569 battles
  • 5,380
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

View PostWalter_Sobchak, on Jan 02 2015 - 13:18, said:

The issue is that almost no US armor was used to engage Tiger 1 tanks.  This is because so few were actually encountered.  After the US landings in Normandy, US armored forces encountered Tiger 1 tanks very rarely (British forces more so. )   Encounters with King Tiger tanks were actually more common than Tiger 1.  The 76mm gun was adequate for dealing with the Tiger 1 at most combat ranges.  It was somewhat less so against the sloped frontal armor of the Panther, which was encountered more frequently (although less than one would think judging from the popular literature.)  Against the Tiger II, US forces had to get a bit creative and engage it from the sides or rear.  Best bet was to just let the thing defeat itself by running out of gas or breaking down.  A 70 ton tank with a 1940s era powertrain is not a good idea.

 

It's confirmed that the US Army had zero engagements against Tigers of any type during the entire Normandy campaign, and a handful of engagements during the Sigfried Line Campaign, the Bulge, and the final push into Germany.

 

And of the Tiger encounters, only two involved tank vs tank engagements that can really be rated as "significant" although to be blunt in the context of the scale of the conflict they are better rated as skirmishes. The first engagement occurred at Puffendorf, where approximately a dozen vehicles were lost on both sides and the King Tiger proved to be vulnerable to both artillery and American tank destroyers. The second, occuring at Padeborn, had 75mm Shermans "knocking out" a platoon Tiger IIs by firing white phosphor rounds at them, which panicked the crews and caused them to abandon their tanks.

 

Which really goes to show how inordinately pointless most of the gun vs armor debates are when one realizes that half of the confirmed US Army engagements against Tigers in WW2 were resolved by Kelly's Heroes -type solutions.

 

======

 

The Brits had quite a few encounters with Tigers, with perhaps half a dozen or so confirmed engagements during Normandy alone. That said, it has to be worth noting that most of these engagements with the exception of Villers-Bocage are not exactly well-recorded, and seem to fall in between the "cracks" of history as they were almost exclusively inconclusive skirmishes that occured between major battles - the big battles being almost universally decided by German anti-tank guns facing British armor and infantry rather than tank vs tank battles.

 

Indeed, this is why it took so long to figure out that it was a Sherman Firefly and its troop that killed Wittman and the rest of his platoon in a very one-sided massacre that was just a tiny (in fact virtually irrelevant) part of a very large Allied push. Hence, what armor enthusiasts see as significant and important, was in the context of the battlefield often mere throwaway engagements and mere incidents of war. It's this disconnect that causes the discussion of WW2 armor to be such a myth-ridden topic.


Edited by Zinegata, Jan 06 2015 - 09:47.


EroSun #38 Posted Dec 05 2015 - 17:19

    Corporal

  • -Players-
  • 10942 battles
  • 57
  • [RELSH] RELSH
  • Member since:
    04-19-2014
If I remember right the T26/M26 Pershing managed to kill a couple tiger I's as well as a few panthers, cant remember if they killed any King Tigers.  Although I also remember reading about an M26 being killed by a Tiger I (which got stuck and abandoned after killing said M26) with the M26 being repaired and put back into combat like the M4s would be when able to be repaired.  Hope you guys or Chieftain can confirm that my memory isn't playing tricks on me, was 2 years ago in one of my military history classes I did in college.  

Anlushac11 #39 Posted Dec 05 2015 - 22:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 33230 battles
  • 2,121
  • Member since:
    05-25-2013

Without stopping to look it up I seem remember three engagements where T26E3's engaged Tiger I's. T26's won two engagements and IIRC one T26 was knocked out. 

 

I want to say there was another engagement where multiple PzIV's engaged a T26 and the T26 took something like over 30 hits and no penetrations and the T26 killed the PzIV's and several PAK40 AT guns.

 

I think there were at least two engagements where Panthers engaged T26E3's and T26's won both engagements, most famous is the Cologne firefight.



Shanzival #40 Posted Jun 15 2016 - 15:58

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 9301 battles
  • 557
  • [PANSY] PANSY
  • Member since:
    06-19-2011
The Perishing that lost to the Tiger took a shot through the gunner's optics, killing two of the crew and causing the rest to abandon the tank. The tiger then got stuck reversing into a building and was abandoned as well, I believe.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users