Thread: Best Tank of WWII

Originally Posted by Big K

today i faced 2 of these and they could survive from my direct frontal hits from over 500mt with 75mm Grant's main gun.

what are the main differences and difficulties of production between high and low velocity guns?

considering 75mms of Panther tank and 75mm of Shermans

75mm is simply the shell diameter, not the length or bursting charge. IIRC the US M2 and M3 75mm guns were adapted from the French quicking 75mm feild guns and had a decent HE charge, but not much propellant. The Panthers 75mm by comapison is much bigger using a necked down cartridge providing more propellant and thus increased round velocity for AP use. The barrel was also longer at 70 caliber and this also helped boost velocity and impact energy.

Kind of like the major difference between .50 AE and .50 BMG, or between .22 rimfire and .223 Remington.

Match it to optics and, voila!

Originally Posted by S-2

Match it to optics and, voila!

The 7.5cm KwK 42/L70 continued in service after the war both in Panther tanks used by the French, but even longer in a cut down version called the CN75-50 used on the French AMX-13 and of all things the Sherman tank via the M-50 Super Sherman of the Israeli Defence Force.

obviously high velocity guns are much more effective.

so why Allies didnt equip their tanks firstly with this type of weapons?

Originally Posted by Big K

obviously high velocity guns are much more effective.

so why Allies didnt equip their tanks firstly with this type of weapons?

For the Americans, it was a matter of tank doctrine. Tanks were not supposed to kill tanks, that was the job of tank destroyers. Tanks bypass the heavy forces and focus on destroying rear echelons.

There are several reasons I can think of for the Brits. One, they used a lot of American equipment, although you will notice that they were the first to mount a high velocity gun in the Sherman, the 17 pdr. Two, most of their indigenous tanks were designed with the 2 pdr in mind, and there was simply not enough room to pack a really big gun inside. The Churchill turret had to have significant redesigns to allow a 75 mm gun. The Brit's later tanks were built designed to take more powerful guns.

from all the answers i understand that building a H.V. gun must be much more expensive and difficult than a L.V. gun.

is that right?

I don't know if costs have anything to do with this, but most sources agree that the US Army's rejection of replacing the obsolete 75mm M3 with the high velocity 76mm M1 gun was due to the opposition from the more infantry-minded generals as well as the opinion from US tank crews that they did not want to lose the 75mm's infantry killing power.

The 76mm high-explosive round only had half the explosive charge of the old 75mm and new German heavies had not been encountered in large numbers. In Tunisia Tigers were rare and put in seperate heavy armor battalions, and the Allies mistakenly believed that the Panther tank would be similarily deployed.

It is also noteworthy that 37th tank bn, 4th Armd. Div. of Patton's 3d Army resisted the adaption of the 76mm guns, to the point that Col. Abrams had to make the example by selecting an Easy-Eight as his command tank, after they had fought the biggest tank-battle on the western front against two Panzer Brigades' worth of Panther tanks in Lorraine!

Opinion changed swiftedly after the Ardennes Offensive of course, when the terrible weather and inhospitable terrain forced the Americans to fight head-on against German Panther and Royal Tiger tanks. Then the 12th Army Group declined any new 75mm Shermans for its forces, and all Sherman variants except Easy-Eights and 105mm howitzer assault tanks were dropped from production.

Originally Posted by Big K

from all the answers i understand that building a H.V. gun must be much more expensive and difficult than a L.V. gun.

is that right?

yes, even if both breeches and barrels are built to the same quality the icnreased recoil systems and longer barrle (more metal) make it more expensive.

Question:

Why did the 'obscolete' US 75mm M72 AP pentrate more armor than the 'advanced' M61 APBC? Did one replace the other, or were they both issued at the same time?

Originally Posted by Anon

Elefant wasn't a tank, and was about as mobile as British WWI Mk1 tank.

The Panther G is my pick as best overall tank of the war. Speed, mobility, firepower, protection. The Panther G had it all.

The British Firefly should also be a selection on the list, technically it was a sherman, but one with the very powerful 17lb AT gun, a gun that could penetrate the frontal glacis of any tank(note this would not include the Elefant and Tiger Tank Destroyers) that saw service in the war.

The best US version of the Sherman was the M4A3E8/76, and that was actually a very good tank, with very good armor and a powerful 76.2mm high velocity gun.

The M-26 should also be on the list. Came at the end of the war, but it is generally felt that it was a good match for the best German heavy tanks.

t 34 is the best one its lighter armor is more effective then other tank so think about it

Cough, cough.

Anon, a former moderator whose forum handel was M21 Sniper, who we love dearly, had left the forum to take care of his own a couple of years ago.

In other words, please allow the tattered remains of the horse, as well as that of the panther, elephant and tiger, to rest in peace. Amen.