Jump to content


Photo

Was The 88Mm Gun An Overkill For The Tiger Tank?


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#41 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 0948 AM

The data are taken from the official firing tables. Yes, the 2 second ballistic paths is unknown to me as a usual size of ballistics.


Edited by Stefan Kotsch, 18 March 2019 - 0949 AM.

  • 0

#42 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 1118 AM

 

This is not very meaningful in terms of "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics

I guess the question of abysmal is "compared to what?"

Compared to Napoleonic cannon for 2 seconds.

(Taken from official firing tables)

75mmHEAT_vs_cannon.jpg


  • 0

#43 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 1249 PM

I think that leads to nothing.  Such curves are still suitable for war games.  But the ballistics of tank guns is a bit more expensive to rate regarding "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics".

 

 
 
 


  • 0

#44 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 1708 PM

 the ballistics of tank guns is a bit more expensive to rate regarding "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics".

Opinions vary


  • 0

#45 Ken Estes

Ken Estes

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 18 March 2019 - 2220 PM

Mostly, the low velocity of the early HEAT ammo did not give confidence in the US forces in engaging moving targets. The difficulties in stopping NKPA T-34/85s with Infantry AT and 105mm howitzer munitions, even when hit, gave a certain pause for thought as well.

 

A USMC tank officer, who commanded 1st Tk Bn in WWII, gave this opinion in the USMC Staff after the USMC brigade commander reported engagements at 1st Naktong:

 

 

[BGen Craig:] During the tank attack 75mm recoilless rifles and 3.5” rocket launchers successfully damaged the enemy’s tanks. The first enemy tank was hit by four rounds of recoilless rifle fire and halted; the right track of the second enemy tanks was hit and blown off by 3.5” rocket fire at a range of 75 yards and set on fire. As a result the second enemy tank ran into a ditch. The recoilless rifles fired four rounds of ammunition at the first tank; one round each at the second and third enemy tanks all at ranges of 100 yards. Rocket 3.5” [sic] hit all enemy tanks.

 

Although hit by 75mm recoilless rifles and 3.5’ rockets the enemy tanks continued firing and only one was completely immobilized. One enemy crewman attempted escape from enemy tank No. 2; and three crewmen from No. 3; all were killed by small arms fire.

 

No Marine aircraft participated in the attack on the enemy tanks since the Tactical Air Coordinator (airborne) called planes off to prevent endangering our troops.

 

LtCol Stuart laconically remarked on the copy of Craig’s letter that he routed throughout headquarters:

 

 

Apparently 75 recoilless & 3.5 bazookas took hostile tanks under fire first, followed by our own tanks.

It is significant that hostile tanks were “hit by 6 rds of 75 recoilless & all hit by 3.5” without stopping fire from any hostile tanks (para 7) The efficiency of HEAT type “penetration” has often been questioned & this tends to prove that such penetrations cannot be counted upon to positively put a tank out of action. This is not meant to infer that HEAT AT weapons are of no value or should be eliminated.

 

 


  • 0

#46 DougRichards

DougRichards

    Doug Richards

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 10,518 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 0015 AM

 

Mostly, the low velocity of the early HEAT ammo did not give confidence in the US forces in engaging moving targets. The difficulties in stopping NKPA T-34/85s with Infantry AT and 105mm howitzer munitions, even when hit, gave a certain pause for thought as well.

 

A USMC tank officer, who commanded 1st Tk Bn in WWII, gave this opinion in the USMC Staff after the USMC brigade commander reported engagements at 1st Naktong:

 

 

[BGen Craig:] During the tank attack 75mm recoilless rifles and 3.5” rocket launchers successfully damaged the enemy’s tanks. The first enemy tank was hit by four rounds of recoilless rifle fire and halted; the right track of the second enemy tanks was hit and blown off by 3.5” rocket fire at a range of 75 yards and set on fire. As a result the second enemy tank ran into a ditch. The recoilless rifles fired four rounds of ammunition at the first tank; one round each at the second and third enemy tanks all at ranges of 100 yards. Rocket 3.5” [sic] hit all enemy tanks.

 

Although hit by 75mm recoilless rifles and 3.5’ rockets the enemy tanks continued firing and only one was completely immobilized. One enemy crewman attempted escape from enemy tank No. 2; and three crewmen from No. 3; all were killed by small arms fire.

 

No Marine aircraft participated in the attack on the enemy tanks since the Tactical Air Coordinator (airborne) called planes off to prevent endangering our troops.

 

LtCol Stuart laconically remarked on the copy of Craig’s letter that he routed throughout headquarters:

 

 

Apparently 75 recoilless & 3.5 bazookas took hostile tanks under fire first, followed by our own tanks.

It is significant that hostile tanks were “hit by 6 rds of 75 recoilless & all hit by 3.5” without stopping fire from any hostile tanks (para 7) The efficiency of HEAT type “penetration” has often been questioned & this tends to prove that such penetrations cannot be counted upon to positively put a tank out of action. This is not meant to infer that HEAT AT weapons are of no value or should be eliminated.

 

 

 

 

IIRC there was a Churchill hit and penetrated by a Panzerfaust, the effect of which blew all hatches open.  The crew promptly closed the hatches and kept on fighting the tank.


  • 0

#47 Inhapi

Inhapi

    Wielder of the Unicorn Hat

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 725 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 0555 AM

 

 

This is not very meaningful in terms of "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics

I guess the question of abysmal is "compared to what?"

Compared to Napoleonic cannon for 2 seconds.

(Taken from official firing tables)

75mmHEAT_vs_cannon.jpg

 

 

 

Looking at that graph, the French better had stored their 12 pdr "Napoleons" and used them with HEAT as AT weapons in 1940 :-) (on top of that.....they were smooth bores !!!!)


Edited by Inhapi, 19 March 2019 - 0555 AM.

  • 0

#48 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 0818 AM

Dispersion? Wind influence? And so on...
  • 0

#49 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 0823 AM

Yeah, that would make a great difference.   The 75mm HEAT had a dispersion greater than the APCBC shell.  For cannons they had wndage and I have no idea what the dispersion is.   But I consider dispersion in the camp of accuracy not ballistics.


Edited by Mobius, 19 March 2019 - 0824 AM.

  • 0

#50 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 0917 AM

Dispersion is integral part of the ballistics.
  • 0

#51 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1027 AM

Dispersion is integral part of the ballistics.

Then given similar trajectories what would be Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics and not in terms of dispersion?   


  • 0

#52 Stefan Kotsch

Stefan Kotsch

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 890 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1129 AM

So far, only the maximum trajectory heights are similar.

When comparing the maximum trajectory heights for modern APFSDS and HESH (for example) nobody comes up with the idea of ​​"Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics" for the HESH.
The British swear by their HESH. But, no question, a high initial speed is mostly beneficial.


  • 0

#53 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1153 AM

So far, only the maximum trajectory heights are similar.

I noticed that.  I suppose because in 2 seconds things generally fall the same amount.   Then I wonder what the difference is for the DM13.   I have compared the M392A2 to the BM-9 and the maximum height is pretty close.


Edited by Mobius, 19 March 2019 - 1156 AM.

  • 0

#54 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,784 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1348 PM

 

IIRC there was a Churchill hit and penetrated by a Panzerfaust, the effect of which blew all hatches open.  The crew promptly closed the hatches and kept on fighting the tank.

 

Lots of volume and space inside a Churchill with lots of stowed kit. Just look at the stowage diagram for one. The thing is practically laid out like a cathedral with two transepts and a shortened alter. 


  • 0

#55 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,170 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1637 PM

Dispersion is integral part of the ballistics.

??? 

External ballistics is about the theoretical trajectory of a round.  Dispersion is the random deviation from the expected norm of the theoretical ballistic trajectory.  You won't find a ballistic firing table which delineates all the possible answers of dispersion.  You just won't.


Edited by DKTanker, 19 March 2019 - 1638 PM.

  • 0

#56 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,170 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1643 PM

 

 

IIRC there was a Churchill hit and penetrated by a Panzerfaust, the effect of which blew all hatches open.  The crew promptly closed the hatches and kept on fighting the tank.

 

Lots of volume and space inside a Churchill with lots of stowed kit. Just look at the stowage diagram for one. The thing is practically laid out like a cathedral with two transepts and a shortened alter. 

 

One might recall the M1A1 incapacitated but not destroyed, by a "golden BB" in Iraq about 15 years ago.  The RPG29 round entered just below the turret ring, went through the gunner's seat back, under the gun, through the Turret Network Box, and expended itself in the hull armor on the opposite side of the tank.  No casualties and just the one electronics box destroyed.  The tank was back in tip top shape as soon as the TNB was replaced.


  • 0

#57 Mobius

Mobius

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,058 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1711 PM

Why 4.9 meters is the usual maximum height of a 2 seconds flight is because the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s2 .  The vertical acceleration is -gt2  The derivative of that is 1/2 g t.   The projectile travels 1 second up then for 1 second it falls for 4.9 meters.    That makes me question the DM13 firing table numbers.  

There can be some slight variation because of high speed air resistance is different at the start of the journey than at the end.


Edited by Mobius, 19 March 2019 - 1714 PM.

  • 0

#58 17thfabn

17thfabn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 1953 PM

Some years ago, Ken Estes wrote here that, at the end of the war, Germans were trying to compensate the lack of special alloys, needed to make effective AP projectiles, by using larger calibers, thus the 12.8cm. They even developed a kind of white iron, "wadcutter" shot, that needed very little amounts of alloying elements.

 

That would be an interesting projectile to read up on.


  • 0

#59 17thfabn

17thfabn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 163 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 2002 PM

 

I always thought that considering both HEAT and APDS were new technologies with thier share of issues you might be able to hit with the HEAT but will the fuzzing work as advertized or the APDS shell would easily penetrate most armour due to the difference trajectory than the tank gunners were not used to and problems with petal seperation accuracly hitting a tank was hard at a decent range.
Leaving the most effective way of pentrating armour or even hitting anything at a decent range with the optics and lack of accurate range finders of the time was to fire a very fast moving solid large projectile which the 88mm excelled at.

 

That is my understanding as well.  From what I remember reading, the fuzing on HEAT projectiles in that period was not I good enough to work properly in high velocity guns, limiting the use of HEAT to howiters and short barreled guns.  

 

 

 

 

 

My impression was that due to their low velocities standard types of anti-tank projectiles would not be effective in howitzers.  H.E.A.T. projectiles were issued to give howitzers some anti-tank capacity.

 

I believe the U.S.  105mm howitzer's M67 H.E.A.T. shell had decent penetration. Trying to find some hard data.


Edited by 17thfabn, 19 March 2019 - 2011 PM.

  • 0

#60 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,077 posts

Posted 19 March 2019 - 2053 PM

About 110-120mm, failed at high angles (>60deg)


Edited by bojan, 19 March 2019 - 2054 PM.

  • 0