kraze Posted January 10, 2018 Share Posted January 10, 2018 Oh boy WW2 era typical kinetic rounds are something entirely different for sure, essentially being oversized bullets. But there also some sabot rounds present here and there. Would a 57mm APDS fired from a Churchill IV even compare to a 75mm slug fired from Sherman? Would a 76 mm brit M10 APDS outperform an 88mm German AP round? Surely even during a relative infancy of sabot rounds they should pose a huge threat due to smaller mass, better acceleration and the devastating force focus in a very small point? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 57mm APDS had vastly better AP qualities than the AP round from the 75mm.....That's why Churchill III*, IV & VI (if I have my numbers right) were added to many 75mm equipped units (about 1 per platoon, not necessarily all platoons). All the figures are available online, just use your Google-Fu. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougPhresh Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 If I remember the 17lbr APDS was devastating, if it could connect with the target. Accuracy left much to be desired but penetration would take care of the big cats with no problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraze Posted January 11, 2018 Author Share Posted January 11, 2018 Yeah, thanks. They indeed seem to be very deadly... but the low count of APDS in a loadout and a subpar performance of a 57mm AP however makes IV a rather "glass cannon" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 I recall shortly after introduction of the APFSDS dart round in the late 70s the US Army finally admitted when firing 90mm APDS from their M48s a round would sometimes just fly off at an odd angle. If the subcaliber core didn't separate cleanly from the sabot it could be knocked badly off course. If you're talking 88 you need to specify which. The 88 KwK36 L/56 on the Tiger 1 wasn't much better than Panther's 75mm. There were plans to mount the Panther gun in the Tiger 1 turret but they decided against it due to the large stockpile of 88 ammo. Russia produced 30mm thick T34-76 bow applique armor that was said to make the bow 88-proof. It wasn't very common because it overloaded the front suspension. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraze Posted January 11, 2018 Author Share Posted January 11, 2018 What made 88mm L/56 not present any real advantage over german 75mm? Shouldn't the punch get increased proportionally? I certainly didn't see Churchill stop a hit from 88mm on its frontal armor I think 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 (edited) Penetration of rolled homogeneous armor at 0° at 750 meters, in millimeters: US 75L40 (Sherman): AP: 84 APCBC: 77 UK 57mm AP: 100 APCBC: 96 APDS: 150 UK 76mm/17 Pdr AP: 160 APCBC: 156 APDS: 244 German 75L70 APCBC: 158 APCR (rare): 216 German 88L71: APCBC: 211 APCR (very rare): 269  Edited January 11, 2018 by Vanir Ausf B 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraze Posted January 11, 2018 Author Share Posted January 11, 2018 Man, that Sherman is crying right there 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 11, 2018 Share Posted January 11, 2018 Its a bit comparing apples and oranges but: 88 Flak36 APCBC: 129mm (500 yards), 118mm (100 yards) ...which would be frighteningly impressive circa 1941 but other guns quickly caught up and surpassed it. Â Â 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougPhresh Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 6 hours ago, kraze said: Man, that Sherman is crying right there Luckily tanks (and even M10s) used far more HE than AP. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Blimey, bit surprised to learn the 6pdr's standard AP round was superior to the 75mm.....Muzzle velocity is king I guess? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 (edited) Sherman HE was notably superior to both Panther and 17 pounder because the high velocity guns demanded thicker shell walls which resulted in less HE filler. I read somewhere long ago that Brits ranked the 17 pounder poorly as an 'all-purpose' tank gun due to the inferior HE rounds Another round US tankers praised in reports to [edit: 'Eisenhower'] himself was the good-old smoke round, believe it or not. I read an AAR involving New Zealand Shermans versus Tigers in Italy near  war's end. I was shocked to read half of the shells in the Sherman's ready rack were smoke shells. What??!! Edited February 2, 2018 by MikeyD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kraze Posted January 12, 2018 Author Share Posted January 12, 2018 Considering Sherman's inferiority in direct combat versus german big cats I take it they used smoke to outright blind enemy tanks and cover their flanking maneuvers so they had any chance of striking weak spots. Would make sense. I've read somewhere that otherwise before Shermans would take out a Tiger head on they would lose 5 tanks and by that time the 6th one will be able to get into a good striking position 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted January 12, 2018 Share Posted January 12, 2018 Yup, but it's always worth chucking some HE into the mix too. If they were lucky a green German Panther crew might see the dense smoke from a WP round coming through the ventilators and, assuming their tank to be ablaze, bail out.....Straight into the HE round that follows it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falaise Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Hello everyone it's my first intervention!! I spoke with a former tankman of the 2nd AD Leclerc, during the fighting in the pocket of Falaise, the French were with the Polish of the 24th lancer at the exit NE of Chambois He explained to me that they hired panthers on the ridge at over 2000 m with WPs to set them on fire, He remembered burning one they hited the horse-drawn convoys with the same ammunition! Gruesome ! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ithikial_AU Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 On 12/01/2018 at 7:18 AM, MikeyD said: Its a bit comparing apples and oranges but: 88 Flak36 APCBC: 129mm (500 yards), 118mm (100 yards) ...which would be frighteningly impressive circa 1941 but other guns quickly caught up and surpassed it. Â Â Which is why I'm part of the the "Hope we get Mid-Early War CM" brigade. Completly different battlefield to experience given the different kit the nations fields. Though granted a Flak36 is scary in any situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Quote I've read somewhere that otherwise before Shermans would take out a Tiger head on they would lose 5 tanks I've read/heard from various sources (probably a British TV show )Â that that often-quoted statement has been misinterpreted. Tanks normally operate in platoons of five. So EVERYTHING they do it would be five tanks doing it. A Tiger spotted on the hillside? You send a tank platoon (at the very least) to resolve the issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 ^^What he said, but British platoons only had four tanks as a rule (but one was usually a Firefly). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 On January 11, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Vanir Ausf B said: Penetration of rolled homogeneous armor at 0° at 750 meters, in millimeters: US 75L40 (Sherman): AP: 84 APCBC: 77 UK 57mm AP: 100 APCBC: 96 APDS: 150 UK 76mm/17 Pdr AP: 160 APCBC: 156 APDS: 244 German 75L70 APCBC: 158 APCR (rare): 216 German 88L71: APCBC: 211 APCR (very rare): 269  I find myself wondering why APCBC is consistently performing more poorly in those statistics. If it didn't offer better performance, why develop and field it? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoMac Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said: I find myself wondering why APCBC is consistently performing more poorly in those statistics. If it didn't offer better performance, why develop and field it? Michael Ahh, but keep in mind that the APCBC outperforms the AP against Sloped Armor by a greater margin... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 3 hours ago, JoMc67 said: Ahh, but keep in mind that the APCBC outperforms the AP against Sloped Armor by a greater margin... Wasn't it developed to defeat face-hardened armour that would sometimes shatter regular AP shot? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 The "cap" in both APC and APCBC was designed to dig into sloped armor...and was higher hardness so it could have improved effect against hardened armor. The "BC" was added to APC shells because an aerodynamic shape kept the velocity higher to a greater range, with the concomitant benefits. I don't think APC had a long usage period once better alternatives were found. It was a stopgap.  To @Michael Emrys the effectiveness of APCBC was with sloped armor. The numbers above seem to be at a perpendicular strike angle. In that case, I would suppose that the blunt cap on any capped projectile (APC or APCBC) would be a hindrance when compared to the pointed AP nose. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 5, 2018 Share Posted February 5, 2018 The most recent research suggest that against rolled homogeneous armor uncapped AP is better than APC or APCBC whether the armor is sloped or not. That runs counter to prevailing wisdom and calls into question why armor penetrating caps were introduced. APCBC does outperform AP against face-hardened armor and is also better at retaining energy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 10 hours ago, c3k said: The "cap" in both APC and APCBC was designed to dig into sloped armor...and was higher hardness so it could have improved effect against hardened armor. @Michael Emrys Not to say that you are wrong about that, but what I have read is that the cap was actually made of softer metal with the idea that it was less likely to skid off a sloped surface, allowing the core of the projectile to penetrate. Either way, it would seem that we agree that APCBC offers significant advantages. 10 hours ago, c3k said: To @Michael Emrys the effectiveness of APCBC was with sloped armor. The numbers above seem to be at a perpendicular strike angle. In that case, I would suppose that the blunt cap on any capped projectile (APC or APCBC) would be a hindrance when compared to the pointed AP nose. That all makes sense. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 6, 2018 Share Posted February 6, 2018 (edited)  Found something... Armor Piercing, Capped (APC) To increase the armor protection without increasing the armor plate's thickness, and consequently its weight, face hardening the armor plates was common during the Second World War. As the name implies, the face hardening process increases the hardness of the part of the armor plate facing outwards. This increased hardness will make it more difficult for the shell to penetrate the plate, and might even cause it to scatter on impact. A countermeasure against face hardened plates is to place a cap on a regular armor piercing shell. This cap has a very hard tip, designed to break the hardened face, and a soft steel body, designed to protect the armor piercing shell from the force of impact. While the actual penetration of the armor piercing shell is in itself the same as that of the uncapped armor piercing shell, the cap is a disadvantage when firing against regular armor plates that are not face hardened. The reason for this is that part of the mass, and therefore kinetic energy, of the shell is located in the cap, which does not aid the penetration of a regular armor plate. The above is from https://panzerworld.com/anti-tank-ammunition#sources ...and references to a Ft. Sill report. Edited February 6, 2018 by c3k 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.