Jump to content


So the 1357's gun is odd


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

Blue_Light #1 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 05:56

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24715 battles
  • 331
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012
In that the cartridge must be quite small for it to empty its magazine in such a short time. Yet it is powerful enough to pen heavy tanks. Of course, this IS World of Tanks so I'm not surprised by this logic.

VooDooKobra #2 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 06:33

    Major

  • Players
  • 8013 battles
  • 3,363
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011

View PostBlue_Light, on Apr 15 2018 - 21:56, said:

In that the cartridge must be quite small for it to empty its magazine in such a short time. Yet it is powerful enough to pen heavy tanks. Of course, this IS World of Tanks so I'm not surprised by this logic.

 

magical needles of doom

TornadoADV #3 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 06:51

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23213 battles
  • 673
  • [ESC] ESC
  • Member since:
    01-05-2012
It's amazing what you can do with a long round and a long gun.

Swell_Sell #4 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 07:44

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 22866 battles
  • 290
  • [AJ] AJ
  • Member since:
    10-09-2013

View PostTornadoADV, on Apr 16 2018 - 05:51, said:

It's amazing what you can do with a long round and a long gun.

 

[Insert weiner joke here]

ColonelShakes #5 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 09:05

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 8842 battles
  • 784
  • [WOOOT] WOOOT
  • Member since:
    01-17-2016

All the French guns have elevated shell speeds. 

 

F= M x.A.  


Edited by ColonelShakes, Apr 16 2018 - 12:44.


Dirizon #6 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 09:38

    Major

  • Players
  • 27063 battles
  • 4,414
  • Member since:
    06-05-2011

https://en.wikipedia...un_M1943_(ZiS-2)

 

You are dearly mistaken.

 

The cartridge is smaller in diameter and weight, but features long length and alot of propellant. The gun above, was a standardized and very dangerous Soviet WW ll AT gun, and could definitely pose a threat to Panther, Tiger l, Jag Panther, JagPzlV vehicles - some of the heavier enemies around at the time. This gun is known in-game as T34 med and SU76 long barrel 5.7cm, the ZiS guns. The French 13-57 is even better in performance, offering 29% better AP performance and +5 more damage. Being a post-war design, it very likely has better specs too, historically.  



ket101 #7 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 11:43

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 8,949
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostDirizon, on Apr 16 2018 - 18:38, said:

https://en.wikipedia...un_M1943_(ZiS-2)

 

You are dearly mistaken.

 

The cartridge is smaller in diameter and weight, but features long length and alot of propellant. The gun above, was a standardized and very dangerous Soviet WW ll AT gun, and could definitely pose a threat to Panther, Tiger l, Jag Panther, JagPzlV vehicles - some of the heavier enemies around at the time. This gun is known in-game as T34 med and SU76 long barrel 5.7cm, the ZiS guns. The French 13-57 is even better in performance, offering 29% better AP performance and +5 more damage. Being a post-war design, it very likely has better specs too, historically.  

 

57mm or (or 6 pounder) guns have been very popular over the years.  The Hotchkiss 6 pounder was used by many navies as an anti-torpedo boat gun, and it was the basis for a lot of other designs.  The British used their 6 pounder quite a bit in WWII.  It was a better anti-tank gun than the US 75mm M3.  The_Chieftain put up on Facebook quite recently a picture of a JagdPanther that had been penned by a 6 pounder APDS round on the ... well, let's call it the mounting plate for the gun, where all the bolts are (and sort of one of the better protected parts of the tank).  So a lengthy 57mm, such as that on the AMX 13 57, is quite capable of generating a decent muzzle velocity, and with post-war improvements in materials and design, penetrating quite a bit of armour.

sleeper_agent #8 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 12:40

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 17669 battles
  • 1,151
  • Member since:
    06-19-2013

View PostSwell_Sell, on Apr 16 2018 - 01:44, said:

 

[Insert weiner joke here]

 

LOL

xxBigbacon #9 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 15:28

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7749 battles
  • 2,084
  • [-GNZ-] -GNZ-
  • Member since:
    02-03-2015

View PostBlue_Light, on Apr 16 2018 - 05:56, said:

In that the cartridge must be quite small for it to empty its magazine in such a short time. Yet it is powerful enough to pen heavy tanks. Of course, this IS World of Tanks so I'm not surprised by this logic.

 

yet it gets trolled to death all the time by the sides of tier 6 tanks. 

BillT #10 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 16:00

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26253 battles
  • 3,162
  • [FADES] FADES
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostBlue_Light, on Apr 15 2018 - 23:56, said:

In that the cartridge must be quite small for it to empty its magazine in such a short time. Yet it is powerful enough to pen heavy tanks. Of course, this IS World of Tanks so I'm not surprised by this logic.

 

Summarizing what others have said  and expanding a bit:

 

The 57mm gun penetrates well because it has a longer barrel, and that's because it's a smaller diameter than a 75mm.  For the same weight, you can make the barrel longer, and weight is the big problem.  Longer barrel = higher muzzle velocity, and velocity is the biggest factor in armor penetration (and accuracy).

 

Same for the ammunition. The 57mm round is smaller than the 75mm round, so it's easy to  make the cartridge a little longer so you can put even more propellant in it and generate higher pressures in the barrel for even more velocity.  But the small diameter still lets you store more ammunition in your ammo racks or autoloader drums, and because the round is lighter it's quicker to move and load -- faster reload times (whether manual or autoloading).

 

The cost of this is that you can't put very much HE filler in a 57mm round, compared to a 75mm round.  So if you have to shoot at soft targets like infantry or antitank guns, the 57mm is nearly worthless.   That's why the Soviets  didn't put their excellent 57mm in the T34, and why the US waited so long to replace the Sherman's 75mm gun with a longer 76mm (which fired at high velocity, so the shell's sidewalls had to be thicker, so it carried less HE than the 75mm).  In WWII, a tank's main job was to fight infantry. 

 

Also, even the  armor piercing rounds in WWII usually had an explosive filler, a small bursting charge designed to explode inside the target (after penetration).  Rounds smaller than 75mm carried little to no bursting charge, so even if they penetrated they were less likely to destroy the tank.  WOT reflects this in the shell's alpha damage.



BigNaturals #11 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 16:36

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 47183 battles
  • 2,228
  • [MAHOU] MAHOU
  • Member since:
    10-03-2011
play kv-1 with 57mm and apcr and you will see some fun game play

Blue_Light #12 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 20:32

    Staff sergeant

  • Players
  • 24715 battles
  • 331
  • Member since:
    05-05-2012
So the cartridge being 'longer in length' provides the additional oomph to the impact. But it also makes the action of the gun longer in length, thus making the ejecting of the spent cartridge and the reload of a fresh round take a tad bit longer. But it seems that recycle time is not accurately reflected by the less than second between shots fired that gun has. I guess WOT can make it fire as fast as they want it to.

Worland #13 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 21:15

    Major

  • Players
  • 16764 battles
  • 4,772
  • Member since:
    08-09-2012
You are right, the 57mm ammo is fairly small compared to 75/76mm. Well, in the case of these long barreled 57mm guns, skinny and long ammo would be more accurate.

The main issue with using the 57mm as an antitank gun is that the light projectile loses velocity very quickly, limiting effective range. They were effective only at close range. The Russians still love 57mm guns, even though they reluctantly admit their 57s couldn't pen a WW2 German tank frontally, and their modern "wonder" 57mm AFV guns are useless against main battle tanks.

You can see how the 1357's autoloading gun basically works by checking out the modern Bofors 57mm guns on ships. Basically, a scaled up 40mm Bofors gun. They do fire fast.

Kenshin2kx #14 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 21:25

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17001 battles
  • 5,384
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostBlue_Light, on Apr 16 2018 - 09:32, said:

So the cartridge being 'longer in length' provides the additional oomph to the impact. But it also makes the action of the gun longer in length, thus making the ejecting of the spent cartridge and the reload of a fresh round take a tad bit longer. But it seems that recycle time is not accurately reflected by the less than second between shots fired that gun has. I guess WOT can make it fire as fast as they want it to.

 

Add to this, a longer round tends to be more stable in flight due to efficiencies gained with a more favorable cross sectional ratio, the greater mass to cross section lends itself to better penetrative over pressure applied to point of impact.  The longer round, all else being equal also had better or rather flatter trajectory, thus making it easier to aim and shoot.

Brutalitarian #15 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 21:28

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 32173 battles
  • 48
  • [-CH-] -CH-
  • Member since:
    12-21-2012

View PostBigNaturals, on Apr 16 2018 - 10:36, said:

play kv-1 with 57mm and apcr and you will see some fun game play

 

T-34 even more so.  Wicked fun with the 57mm

xxBigbacon #16 Posted Apr 16 2018 - 21:30

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 7749 battles
  • 2,084
  • [-GNZ-] -GNZ-
  • Member since:
    02-03-2015

View PostBrutalitarian, on Apr 16 2018 - 21:28, said:

 

T-34 even more so.  Wicked fun with the 57mm

 

like the 59-16 in the old light MM. Loved that thing.

ket101 #17 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 00:27

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 18441 battles
  • 8,949
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    01-10-2011

View PostWorland, on Apr 17 2018 - 06:15, said:

You are right, the 57mm ammo is fairly small compared to 75/76mm. Well, in the case of these long barreled 57mm guns, skinny and long ammo would be more accurate.

The main issue with using the 57mm as an antitank gun is that the light projectile loses velocity very quickly, limiting effective range. They were effective only at close range. The Russians still love 57mm guns, even though they reluctantly admit their 57s couldn't pen a WW2 German tank frontally, and their modern "wonder" 57mm AFV guns are useless against main battle tanks.

You can see how the 1357's autoloading gun basically works by checking out the modern Bofors 57mm guns on ships. Basically, a scaled up 40mm Bofors gun. They do fire fast.

 

Umm, sort of depends.  A normal 57mm AP solid shot doesn't really lose velocity that much more than, say, a 76.2mm solid shot.  It's to do with mass to cross-sectional area, from what I understand.  Undoubtedly it's lighter, and would certainly lose velocity a bit more, but not hugely more.  And of course,  mass has advantages when it hits a target as well.  Losing velocity quickly, though, and in particular for earlier WWII Russian guns, has a bit more to do with the kind of ammunition.  While taper bore technology led to APCR rounds for other nations, the Russians basically took a full size round and carved part of it away in order to increase muzzle velocity, through less mass (that's the basic idea, of course it was more complicated than just that).  It resulted in "arrow head" rounds, and these really did lose velocity quite badly over range, but were highly effective at close range.  APDS rounds, though, don't lose velocity anywhere near as badly, since they reduce their cross-sectional area after leaving the barrel.

Kenshin2kx #18 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 02:47

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17001 battles
  • 5,384
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View Postket101, on Apr 16 2018 - 13:27, said:

 

Umm, sort of depends.  A normal 57mm AP solid shot doesn't really lose velocity that much more than, say, a 76.2mm solid shot.  It's to do with mass to cross-sectional area, from what I understand.  Undoubtedly it's lighter, and would certainly lose velocity a bit more, but not hugely more.  And of course,  mass has advantages when it hits a target as well.  Losing velocity quickly, though, and in particular for earlier WWII Russian guns, has a bit more to do with the kind of ammunition.  While taper bore technology led to APCR rounds for other nations, the Russians basically took a full size round and carved part of it away in order to increase muzzle velocity, through less mass (that's the basic idea, of course it was more complicated than just that).  It resulted in "arrow head" rounds, and these really did lose velocity quite badly over range, but were highly effective at close range.  APDS rounds, though, don't lose velocity anywhere near as badly, since they reduce their cross-sectional area after leaving the barrel.

 

So in essence, the Russian 57s ... were evolving a primitive conception of what eventually would become a hyper velocity sabot round launched from a larger barrel with a larger charge?  The downside here is that it looses in versatility ... good at short to moderate range armor penetration, but absolutely ineffective the important role of HE delivery.  ... now in terms of this particular weakness, I ask myself ... now how effective could a turreted tank be if it had two cannon?  Both representing the two idealized ends of the performance spectrum ...

 

So basically the turret would look similar to the convention design ... the 'normal' front would be the high velocity moderate caliber (say maximal velocity apcr 57-85 mm cannon) ... but out of the 'back' would be a large bore stubby artillery piece that is relatively low pressure, but capacious in HE delivery ... the tank so equipped would or could have a devastating one two punch ... on top of the discretional versatility for both anti tank as well as small mobile artillery.  Not to mention that it would be much harder to sneak up behind ... and potentially have twice the firepower with two active gunners manning a revolving turret ...


Edited by Kenshin2kx, Apr 17 2018 - 02:49.


BillT #19 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 03:52

    Major

  • Beta Testers
  • 26253 battles
  • 3,162
  • [FADES] FADES
  • Member since:
    08-13-2010

View PostKenshin2kx, on Apr 16 2018 - 20:47, said:

 

So in essence, the Russian 57s ... were evolving a primitive conception of what eventually would become a hyper velocity sabot round launched from a larger barrel with a larger charge?  The downside here is that it looses in versatility ... good at short to moderate range armor penetration, but absolutely ineffective the important role of HE delivery.  ... now in terms of this particular weakness, I ask myself ... now how effective could a turreted tank be if it had two cannon?  Both representing the two idealized ends of the performance spectrum ...

 

So basically the turret would look similar to the convention design ... the 'normal' front would be the high velocity moderate caliber (say maximal velocity apcr 57-85 mm cannon) ... but out of the 'back' would be a large bore stubby artillery piece that is relatively low pressure, but capacious in HE delivery ... the tank so equipped would or could have a devastating one two punch ... on top of the discretional versatility for both anti tank as well as small mobile artillery.  Not to mention that it would be much harder to sneak up behind ... and potentially have twice the firepower with two active gunners manning a revolving turret ...

 

I  wouldn't say the 57mm was "evolving" that concept.  It was already well established.  Navies had been seeking high-velocity guns for decades, to  increase armor penetration, range, and accuracy (the faster the shell travels, the less time the target has to move, so it's easier to predict where to aim.)  German's fondness for 11 inch guns (in the pocket battleships and Gneisenau/Scharnhorst) was for this reason.  Land artillery trailed behind this trend for velocity because it just wasn't important until WWI, when long-distance fire became useful -- e.g., the Paris Gun.   But this was limited because long barrels and high shell velocity mean shorter barrel life, and on big guns replacing the barrel is an expensive chore.   Land artillery began to evolve when aircraft came along, and the ability to loft a shell to high altitude quickly (before the plane could maneuver) became important.  

 

Concurrent with that, the appearance of tanks required high-velocity guns for better armor penetration.  At  first these were small caliber - 8mm rifles with big,  bottlenecked cartridges, and the Russian 14.5mm antitank rifles with those god-awful long barrels, to achieve high velocities.  Cannons in the 20mm to 50mm range were quickly developed for the anttank role.  At the beginning of WWII these were the standard tank killers, with heavy tanks carrying short-barreled 75mm guns to lob HE.  Tank armor got thicker and everyone wanted 75mm and larger high-velocity guns, so they turned to naval guns and anti-aircraft guns.  The German 8.8cm, the Russian 85mm, the US 90mm, and the 3 inch gun in the M10 were all anti-aircraft guns (and the 3 inch AA gun evolved from a naval gun for coastal batteries).

 

As for a two-gun turret... it's been tried and always failed.  Too cramped, and requires a bigger turret which means more weight -- weight you'd have rather used for armor, or a single, larger gun.   The front-and-aft idea is novel but there's some obvious problems.  The two gun breeches will be fighting for space inside the turret, so you'd need a turret twice as long just to have enough room for recoil -- and you still need ammo stowage.  You'd need two complete gunner's stations, one pointing each way, and then they'd fight over who gets to control the turret.   And since you're usually going to point the front of your tank at the target, the rear gun would be useless unless you rotate the turret around -- exposing your turret sides.  You'd also have to put equally strong armor on the front and rear of the turret, since either could be facing the enemy.

 

You can solve the turret length problem by offsetting the two guns so they aren't in line with each other.  That makes the turret wider, though.  And if you're going to do that, you may as well put both guns in the front, let one gunner control them both, concentrate your armor there, make the turret less hectic, and allow both guns to engage the same target at once.



Kenshin2kx #20 Posted Apr 17 2018 - 05:29

    Major

  • -Players-
  • 17001 battles
  • 5,384
  • Member since:
    07-20-2014

View PostBillT, on Apr 16 2018 - 16:52, said:

 

I  wouldn't say the 57mm was "evolving" that concept.  It was already well established.  Navies had been seeking high-velocity guns for decades, to  increase armor penetration, range, and accuracy (the faster the shell travels, the less time the target has to move, so it's easier to predict where to aim.)  German's fondness for 11 inch guns (in the pocket battleships and Gneisenau/Scharnhorst) was for this reason.  Land artillery trailed behind this trend for velocity because it just wasn't important until WWI, when long-distance fire became useful -- e.g., the Paris Gun.   But this was limited because long barrels and high shell velocity mean shorter barrel life, and on big guns replacing the barrel is an expensive chore.   Land artillery began to evolve when aircraft came along, and the ability to loft a shell to high altitude quickly (before the plane could maneuver) became important.  

 

<Kenshin2kx>  Good context ... and it explains a lot in terms of the localized development.

 

Concurrent with that, the appearance of tanks required high-velocity guns for better armor penetration.  At  first these were small caliber - 8mm rifles with big,  bottlenecked cartridges, and the Russian 14.5mm antitank rifles with those god-awful long barrels, to achieve high velocities.  Cannons in the 20mm to 50mm range were quickly developed for the anttank role.  At the beginning of WWII these were the standard tank killers, with heavy tanks carrying short-barreled 75mm guns to lob HE.  Tank armor got thicker and everyone wanted 75mm and larger high-velocity guns, so they turned to naval guns and anti-aircraft guns.  The German 8.8cm, the Russian 85mm, the US 90mm, and the 3 inch gun in the M10 were all anti-aircraft guns (and the 3 inch AA gun evolved from a naval gun for coastal batteries).

 

As for a two-gun turret... it's been tried and always failed.  Too cramped, and requires a bigger turret which means more weight -- weight you'd have rather used for armor, or a single, larger gun.   The front-and-aft idea is novel but there's some obvious problems.  The two gun breeches will be fighting for space inside the turret, so you'd need a turret twice as long just to have enough room for recoil -- and you still need ammo stowage.  You'd need two complete gunner's stations, one pointing each way, and then they'd fight over who gets to control the turret.   And since you're usually going to point the front of your tank at the target, the rear gun would be useless unless you rotate the turret around -- exposing your turret sides.  You'd also have to put equally strong armor on the front and rear of the turret, since either could be facing the enemy.

 

<Kenshin2kx>  Fair enough ... the arrangment for two space hungry cannons would be problematic ... now my idea would diverge a bit from convention to address the very real need for space and the 'either or' arrangement ... first off, the high velocity breech/loading mechanism would take the lions share of the turret space ... now as for the low velocity artillery, perhaps that is a stretch in terms of description ... think more along the lines of a mortar on steroids.  So basically, the back or rear of the turret would house a breech loading low velocity mortor that can actually angle forward at something like 60 degrees and backwards at say a modurate minus degree depression ... so this arrangement shouldn't take up too much internal turret room, and due to the low pressure design should also be fairly light and compact. 

 

So, picture a turret with a low hanging blister on the back with a mortar like tube that can face forward enough for assisted high trajectory, high explosive rounds that can be used in front, pivot to the side and straight back in a pinch to lob ... what amounts to a large explosive grenade at a target.  In terms of range? ... think very large mortar that happens to have a very stable vehicle mount (that is also modified for breech loading from within the protection of the turret blister).  Now, granted there would still need for good crew coordination, but that would be where training comes in ... as the cost for expanded vehicle versatility. 

 

You can solve the turret length problem by offsetting the two guns so they aren't in line with each other.  That makes the turret wider, though.  And if you're going to do that, you may as well put both guns in the front, let one gunner control them both, concentrate your armor there, make the turret less hectic, and allow both guns to engage the same target at once.

 

<Kenshin2kx>  As stated above in greater detail ... thus the breech loaded mortar/low velocity cannon should take up considerably less space due to mounting angle and the nature of the elevation/depression mechanism of a mortar that happens to be powered and integrated into the vehicle as support bombardment detail ... think of it like the equivalent of a grenade launcher for an infantryman's rifle ... but scaled up for tank use, as portable indirect fire support as a default option 'built into the advancing tank forces.

 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users