The pershing tank

[Durian10]

There was a huge difference in the guns though between the M18 and Sherman, The early had a 76mm low velocity field gun, while the M18 had a high velocity anti-tank gun that used had a very high chance on penetrating heavy armor, low and behold the M18 Hellcat was not using the same model gun the Sherman was using, one big difference is that the M4's gun was an infantry support weapon while and that the M18's gun had a muzzle break, the M18's gun velocity was so high it was superior to the T-34-85's 85mm gun. This very gun was used on the British Variant we all knew as the Sherman "Firefly".

Not to mention that the Hellcat had a top speed of 97km/h (way faster than the M1 Abrams by 30km/h)

[USSWisconsin]

There was a huge difference in the guns though between the M18 and Sherman, The early had a 76mm low velocity field gun, while the M18 had a high velocity anti-tank gun that used had a very high chance on penetrating heavy armor, low and behold the M18 Hellcat was not using the same model gun the Sherman was using, one big difference is that the M4's gun was an infantry support weapon while and that the M18's gun had a muzzle break, the M18's gun velocity was so high it was superior to the T-34-85's 85mm gun. This very gun was used on the British Variant we all knew as the Sherman "Firefly".
Not to mention that the Hellcat had a top speed of 97km/h (way faster than the M1 Abrams by 30km/h)

no, the low velocity Early Sherman gun was an M3 75mm/39 penetration: 76mm @ 457m - more effective HE shell

the Hellcat had an M1 76mm/55 was the same one as the later Shermans - penetration 157mm @ 457 m

The Pershing/M36 90mm/52: penetration 221mm @ 457 m

The 76mm M1 was not the 17 Pdr that was on the Firefly - that was a much more powerful gun. 76mm/55 QF 17 Pdr: penetration 208mm@457m
This deadly gun had to be installed sideways to make it fit, and the back of the turret needed modification as well. These were used in limited numbers.

Soviet D5 85mm/54: 140mm@ 500m - but this gun had a much more effective HE shell

The hellcat was fast, and had very thin armor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat

The Hellcat, due to its 76mm gun, had major difficulty penetrating the glacis of Panther tanks. Due to the almost absent armor of the Hellcat and its use of high flash powder the Hellcat made a relatively easy target for German tank crews.

source for data above: 0 deg plate, best WWII ammo available
Introduction to Weapons Data

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1

The performance of this gun against armor was considered insufficient and led to the design of a higher velocity weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder

It was the most effective Allied anti-tank gun of the war.

[Durian10]

no, the low velocity gun was an M3 75mm/40

the M1 76mm/55 was the same one as the later shermans

It was not the 17 Pdr that was on the Firefly - that was a much more powerful gun.
The hellcat was fast, and had very thin armor

Introduction to Weapons Data

One thing I read about the Hellcat though was that it had a lot of succesful kills on tiger 1s and panthers

[Durian10]

One thing I read about the Hellcat though was that it had a lot of succesful kills on tiger 1s and panthers

And yes it was a 17pdr gun on the firefly, here's the link to the tank
Sherman Firefly

[USSWisconsin]

And yes it was a 17pdr gun on the firefly, here's the link to the tank
Sherman Firefly

Yes, the Firefly did have the 17 Pdr, the M18 did not. That is what I was trying to say - sorry it was not clear, I edited my earlier post to make it clear. The two guns, the M1 76 and the QF 17 Pdr had the same barrel length spec - so they look similar on paper but the 17 Pdr had a bigger cartridge with more powder - giving it phenomenal muzzel velocity for the time, and a very penetrating subcaliber APDS projectile. This gun was the best Allied ATG for most of the war (the US M3 90x600mm and Soviet D10 100x695mm were better, but in a different league, and were both less common)

The 76mm M1 was effective against most regular German tanks, and could kill the big cats with side or rear shots.

The M1 76mm used the same ammo as the 3"/53 M7 gun on the M10 Tank Destroyer - but was redesigned to make it lighter than that weapon. It was an adequate gun, and the best one available most of the time - US 90mm guns were rare until near the end of the war.
The Pershing's 90mm gun was much more powerful than the 76mm M1 gun, and had an effective HE round.

Tanks normally needed HE more often than they needed AP in WWII. The heavy body of the 76mm projectile carried less explosive and broke up into fewer peices when it exploded - the 76mm HE projectile's effective blast radius was considerably smaller than the 75mm M3. This made the replacement of all the 75mm Shermans less desirable, a mix was best for operational use. The Fireflies didn't even have an HE shell until the end of the war, they were used sparingly in tank platoons, one Firefly to 3 or 4 regular Shermans. The Germans paid special attention to them when they saw them, their armor was not able to stop most late war German AT projectiles - even the smaller ones. Still the only German tank that was a serious challenge to the 17 Pdr with its armor was the King Tiger. But the little hyper velocity APDS tungsten subcaliber projectile it fired was less likely to kill the target than a larger projectile like the M1 76mm fired (IF the 76mm M1's projectile penetrated the target).

In contrast to the M10 tank destroyer, which used the chassis of the M4 Sherman, the M18 Hellcat was designed from the start to be a fast tank destroyer. As a result it was smaller, lighter, and significantly faster, but carried the same gun as the Sherman 76 mm models.

M18 Hellcat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Buick Gun Motor Carrige M18 had amazing speed (it had a radial aircraft engine), and could outmanuver most other armor, but it had only enough protection for artillery splinters and small arms (25mm on the front and 13mm elsewhere). I've wargamed with them and they are great for flanking manuevers, but fall apart in head on attacks. The ammuntion originally provided for the M1 76mm had problems with shattering on impact - it was over hardened. Later batches remedied this problem, but the poor gun already had a reputation as a bad gun. One WWII tanker commented that it made more noise and smoke and kicked up a lot more dust than the 75mm M3 and was not very superior in most respects.

76mm GMC M18


An assortment of tank ammo, the 75mm M3 is shown (75mmx350mm) note the short straight sided case
and the 17 Pdr (76x583mm) Note the big tapered and necked case (which is still smaller than the giant and deadly 75x640mm Panther round).
Look at those big German tank wreckers! and the dinky 37mm "door knocker". That giant 88x822mm thing is what the King Tiiger used.
ANTI


This is a 76mm M1 shell (76x539mm) like the M18 used. Note the longer straight sided case (compared to the 75mmx350mm M3 above)

Being a high velocity tank/anti-tank weapon this round is more usually seen with an armour piercing projectile. The round for sale here is the HE loading. Nice WW2 dated, Canadian-made brass case measures 76x539R and is headstamped '76MM M26 LOT142 [Government Arrow] DB/C 1944'. Complete with primer also dated 1944. Correct case with double crimp rings for HE projectile. Unfired M42 HE projectile has some pitting with an original, unfired driving band. Point detonating M48 nose fuze has some rusting to the lower edge (see 4th image below) but is marked M48'. No booster so fuze just sits in projectile. Threads on fuze and in projectile are acceptable and with a little work a booster assembly could be fitted so that the fuze screws into the projectile.
This round is a good, solid example of the HE loading used in both the American 76mm armed Sherman tank and 76mm anti-tank gun during WW2.

***PRICE CUT*** WW2 US (Canadian Made) 76mm M26 Tank/Anti-Tank Gun, M42 HE Round - SpecialistAuctions.com Rare, vintage and collectables online auctions

United States' 76 mm Gun Penetration Tables - World War II Vehicles, Tanks, and Airplanes
3-inch Gun M1918 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - the 76mm used the same ammo as this 1918 WWI gun - it was an old weapon by WWII - the 76mm was a redesign of the this 3" gun to lighten it and make it more suitable for tanks - it did not change the ammuniton or performance - which was the same as the 3" M7 gun on the M10.



90mm M3 Ammo (90x600mm)

comparison of 90mm M3 and 88mm Pak 36 (88x571mm) Tiger I ammo, they were similar in size and power - with the 90mm being slightly superior, later versions increased the margin of superiority - due to the HVAP M82 projectile's tungsten core, which the Germans did not have due to shortages of tungsten

Armor-Piercing Ammunition for Gun, 90-mm, M3, Office of the Chief of Ordnance, January 1945 (Lone Sentry)

Lone Sentry Site Map


The tall one is for the 85mm DT5
History

Now you should have more info than you ever wanted to see about these guns and their relative effectiveness ;)

[S2]

Durian10 Reply

Please provide your source and, also, a link to that source if possible. It's always nice to share.;)

[1979]

warmongering

I've wargamed with them and they are great for flanking manuevers, but fall apart in head on attacks.

I have found that the m-18 works out well together with the m-8 greyhound, some sort of armed reconnaissance force .

[Stitch]

[ATTACH]25153[/ATTACH]
An assortment of tank ammo, the 75mm M3 is shown (75mmx350mm) note the short straight sided case
and the 17 Pdr (76x583mm) Note the big tapered and necked case (which is still smaller than the giant and deadly 75x640mm Panther round).
Look at those big German tank wreckers! and the dinky 37mm "door knocker". That giant 88x822mm thing is what the King Tiiger used.
ANTI

The King Tiger's long-barrelled 88mm (L71) KwK 43 was considered by many on both sides to be the best anti-tank gun of the War; it had a relatively high MV and a very flat trajectory (incidentally, this was the same AT gun as installed in the Jagdpanther). I suppose it's a good thing there were only 492 produced!

[Durian10]

Ok now it makes sense thanks for giving me that heads up, although im still confused on how the m18 hellcat was so succesful on killing tigers, probably because of its hit and run tactics, correct me if im wrong.

[Stitch]

Ok now it makes sense thanks for giving me that heads up, although im still confused on how the m18 hellcat was so succesful on killing tigers, probably because of its hit and run tactics, correct me if im wrong.

Maybe not hit & run but, whenever possible, Allied tanks would attempt to attack the big cats from the flank, and try and hit them in the side where the armor was thinner. An attack from the rear was even better, but it was fairly difficult to attack one of the German heavies from the rear during battle. Another factor is that, toward the end of the War, German tank crews weren't necessarily trained as well, so they tended to make rookie mistakes, like turning the entire tank around to get away from the Allies, thereby exposing their weak spot (their rear). Otto Carius notes several instances where novice tank crews made tactical mistakes with their tanks, and paid for it with their lives. Any of the German cats had superior armor to the front; therefore, the preferred tactic was to back away from an engagement, thereby presenting a well-armored front to the enemy, but this didn't always happen.

[RustyBattleship]

Nice looking pictures of ammo. But I don't see the 76mm Bottlenecked ammo used in the M32 76mm Gun that was on my M-41 Walker. It was very similar to the Navy 3"/50 but the neck lengths were different.

[USSWisconsin]

Nice looking pictures of ammo. But I don't see the 76mm Bottlenecked ammo used in the M32 76mm Gun that was on my M-41 Walker. It was very similar to the Navy 3"/50 but the neck lengths were different.

http://www.ww2vehicles-and-meetings.be/monument.htm

Picture 2 here has a cutaway with line drawing of ammuniton - if they had this stuff in WWII, it would have killed the big cats - it could kill a T54 with 8" of armor.

[RustyBattleship]

Interesting pictures Wisky. But the ammo we used looked like a .30-06 on steroids. It had a very high velocity and flat trajectory. At 1500 yards super-elevation from bore sight to target was only 17 mils. That's about 9 mils LESS than the 90 mm guns on the M-47 & M-48 tanks.

I have a shell casing sitting on my fireplace hearth, but haven't gotten around to photographing it. I used it for a "Piggy Bank" for a while, but in paper money often got wrapped around the burster tube still in it.

[zraver]

Interesting pictures Wisky. But the ammo we used looked like a .30-06 on steroids. It had a very high velocity and flat trajectory. At 1500 yards super-elevation from bore sight to target was only 17 mils. That's about 9 mils LESS than the 90 mm guns on the M-47 & M-48 tanks.

I have a shell casing sitting on my fireplace hearth, but haven't gotten around to photographing it. I used it for a "Piggy Bank" for a while, but in paper money often got wrapped around the burster tube still in it.

Max` penetration at 1500yds was 317mm of vertical armor using HVAPBC, this was barely enough to kill a t54 or a type 59 but not a t55 on the front level. ARVN M41's often were shooting down hill which negated the sloping effect of the soviet armor.

[zraver]

Interesting pictures Wisky. But the ammo we used looked like a .30-06 on steroids. It had a very high velocity and flat trajectory. At 1500 yards super-elevation from bore sight to target was only 17 mils. That's about 9 mils LESS than the 90 mm guns on the M-47 & M-48 tanks.

I have a shell casing sitting on my fireplace hearth, but haven't gotten around to photographing it. I used it for a "Piggy Bank" for a while, but in paper money often got wrapped around the burster tube still in it.

Max` penetration at 1500yds was 317mm of vertical armor using HVAPBC, this was barely enough to kill a t54 or a type 59 but not a t55 on the front level. ARVN M41's often were shooting down hill which negated the sloping effect of the soviet armor.