CoolColJ Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Which gun is better, the Large cailbre 88 from the Tiger or the high velocity 75mm from the Panther in CM? CCJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Without a doubt the 88 from the Tiger. Against Allied armor it wasn't as much of a big deal (both were overkill in most cases), but against Russian stuff I would take the 88 any day of the year. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Which 88 and which Tiger? The 88 L/56 on the Tiger E (Tiger I) was distinctly inferior to the 75mm L/70 on the Panther in terms of penetrating power. The 88 had better HE performance due to the larger shell size. The 88 L/71 on the King Tiger was in turn better than either the earlier 88 and the panther's 75. I haven't seen any real data to support this, but I suspect that due to the higher muzzle velocities the 75mm L/70 and 88 L/71 were both more accurate than the 88 L/56. Since you have done extensive research in development of the game, I'm sure you have sources which can verify this. The Encyclopedia of German Tanks has some penetration data for these guns. You're right that either of them is more than adequate to destroy any armor the western allies had, but there were several soviet designs that could stand up to the 88 L/56 and the 75 L/70. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Charles is the data guy, so I will ask him for the offical response? But as far as penetration data goes, CM's is calculated based on physics, not flawed data sampled from a book (I say flawed because the science behind the test plate experiements is most often bad). One thing the 88 has over the 75 is kenitic energy. Now that you have me all interested, I will ask The Man for some charts. Me hopes he can squeeze some out. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dano6 Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 As for the 88mml56 compared to the 75mml70 the 75mm will win out in penetration due to its higher muzzle velocity than the 88. Remember that kinetic energy is KE=1/2(m*(v sqaured)) that means that velocity plays a much bigger part of kinetic energy compared to mass of the shell. The 75mml70 had somewhere close to 600m/s higher velocity than the 88mml56. This is huge. Anyways will wait for Charles opinion on the matter because my references are at home. dano6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 I've posted a penetration chart at http://www.bigtimesoftware.com/images/TigerPanther.jpg showing the Panther 75mm and the Tiger I's 88/L56 both versus a Sherman Jumbo. You'll see that the Panther's gun has an edge at short range due to its significantly higher muzzle velocity (925 m/s compared to 773 m/s), but that at long range (2000m or so) this advantage largely disappears because the weightier 88mm shell maintains momentum better over distance. The Panther's gun is also marginally more accurate due to the greater muzzle velocity. The high-explosive performance of the 88mm is significantly stronger than that of the 75mm however. Charles [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 08-26-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darstand Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Steve or Charles I have never seen a penetration chart before. Could you please take a little time to explain the chart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Steve, While I agree that the standard ballistics tests are far from the last word on gun performance, I am curious as to your assertion that there was flawed science involved. My first SWAG is how did they evaluate penetration: by steadily increasing the plate thickness in 1mm increments until a plate was found that could not be penetrated? To me it follows that if the germans were conducting these tests in a standardized way, using the same firing range(s) and the same form of armor plate then the test reports of performance can reasonably be accepted to represent the relative performance of their weapons. Comparing these results to those of allied tests can be misleading because of variations in armor hardness and impact angles. ( I believe the allies tested against vertical plate) FWIW, the book I mentioned earlier shows the following figures for the two guns mentioned at the top of the thread: (using normal AP ammo) at 100m against homogenous steel armor angled at 30 degrees from the vertical: 88 L/56 120mm 75 L/70 138mm and at 2000m 88 L/56 84mm 75 L/70 89mm while not as great as disparity as I thought I remembered, it still shows the panther's gun to be clearly superior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Charles could tell you better about why they are flawed, but I know a couple right off the bat. Different nations had a different definition of "penetrate". The Soviets, from what I recally, even counted serious damage as a "penetration". I also don't think that the tests were very standardized even within one nation's testing program. And there is also the problem with the type of armored plate being used, since there are several different kinds (CM simulates this BTW). And then there is the problem of different types of AP rounds used by the different nations. Oh, and the exact angle being shot at from l/r (oblique? sp). All of these factors mean that the test data in books is questionable at best. Some have even based conclusions solely on this data. Example... many sources say the 128mm gun in the Jagdtiger wasn't better than the 88 in the Kingtiger. At short range this is fairly true, but the JT could nail pretty much anything at 4000m where as the KT couldn't. CM showed us this data very clearly. Overall, I would still take the 88 L/56 over the Panther because it is just as good in relative AP performanace against Allied tanks, and it is better with the good ol infantry busting. Plus, it comes in that nice package of a Tiger Actually, I would take the Panther for other reasons I think... Steve P.S. The colors of the chart represent the chance of a kill from that particular range. The ranges are listed in the circles (meters) and the chance key is to the lower left (%). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted August 26, 1999 Share Posted August 26, 1999 Well if I could have it all I'd have an 88L71 in a Panther (with a slightly more powerful engine).. Otherwise I'd go with the Panther due to its mobility being better than a Tigers and the fact that it wasn't as likely to have an entire artillery battalion fire on it the instant it was spotted BUT if I had to go for a breakthrough through a strong enemy defence I'd like either the Tiger I or II (preferably the II of course).. So, again it comes down to what role you are in... In defence I would want an 88 since it is a better AT and AP gun... At short range the 75mm might outperform it but the 88 can still penetrate most tanks easily enough that it doesn't matter. Those few mm of extra penetration were usually overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted August 27, 1999 Author Share Posted August 27, 1999 WHat does the 'L' designation stand for ? Muzzle velocity? ie 88 L/56 CCJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted August 27, 1999 Author Share Posted August 27, 1999 Subjectively I've always thought the 88 was a better gun, but I guess I'm wrong now But it seems the 88 on the Tiger is not the same thing as the 88 on the Flak 88 CCJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhet Posted August 27, 1999 Share Posted August 27, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>WHat does the 'L' designation stand for ? Muzzle velocity? ie 88 L/56<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> CCJ, The L/ is the designation or seperator for the length of the barrel. This length is expressed in calibers. In your example the length of the barrel would 88mm X 56 = 4928mm or 4.928 meters (16.16 ft) ------------------ Rhet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted August 27, 1999 Share Posted August 27, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But it seems the 88 on the Tiger is not the same thing as the 88 on the Flak 88<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually it is (well, very nearly). The 88 that's "different" is the one on the King Tiger - the 88 L/71. The Tiger I and the flak gun use the 88 L/56. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest R Cunningham Posted August 27, 1999 Share Posted August 27, 1999 The 88 that started the legend was the FlaK 18 and FlaK 37. Both were 88 L/56. The KwK 36 on the Tiger I was derived from the FlaK 37 and had some significant modifications: it had a different recoil gear, different breech and a double-baffle muzzle brake. This muzzle brake served to reduce recoil but in so doing also reduced performance somewhat. Again taking the dubious, semi-scientific numbers from Chamberlain and Doyle's work ... Standard AP at 100M FlaK 18 & 37 127mm KwK 36 120mm and at 2000m FlaK 18 & 37 88mm KwK 36 84mm So the FlaK guns that gave the 88 its reputation were a little better than the one on the Tiger but the Panther's 75 was still the better AT weapon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolColJ Posted August 27, 1999 Author Share Posted August 27, 1999 I assume these muzzle brakes actually reduce the recoil, right? I can't see how, by looking at them, the physics of it escape me You'd think with a far few tons in a Tiger you wouldn't need muzzle brakes. CCJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts