Aromor penetration not the most important thing

[Stormhouse]

Here are 3 letters talking about changing the gun or the Joseph Stalin tank from 122mm to 100mm. It also gives a good idea why the 122mm was not changed to 100mm even though the 100mm gun had better armor penetration.

letter 1

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons4_01.html

Letter 2

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons4_02.html

Letter 3

http://history.vif2.ru/library/archives/weapons/weapons4_03.html

[Captain Wacky]

Well, a variety of factors have to be considered when redesigning a new gun, especially for units that are already in the field. Most of the problems are listed in the letters, which I found very interesting.

What is most important in a weapon is its combat effectiveness, which takes into all the little factors like supply, reliability, etc. Armor penetration is not the only factor, but it is a fairly large one.

[Brian]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stormhouse:

Here are 3 letters talking about changing the gun or the Joseph Stalin tank from 122mm to 100mm. It also gives a good idea why the 122mm was not changed to 100mm even though the 100mm gun had better armor penetration.

<hr></blockquote>

Ah, yes, but then the role of the JSII was not primarily to take on other tanks. It was intended as a "breakthrough tank" and as such, was meant more to support and assist the infantry through the enemy's main line of resistance and allow medium tanks to exploit the resulting hole.

Therefore, it was more important to have a large capacity HE round, capable to smashing the largest bunkers, rather than necessarily being able to smash holes in thick armour plate.

Now, here's a question for you. How was this piece of armoured warfare theory any different from that of the much derided "split" within the British Army, betweem "I" and "Cruiser" tanks?

[PJungnitsch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Brian:

Ah, yes, but then the role of the JSII was not primarily to take on other tanks. It was intended as a "breakthrough tank" and as such, was meant more to support and assist the infantry through the enemy's main line of resistance and allow medium tanks to exploit the resulting hole.

<hr></blockquote>

The same mistaken ideas that the Americans labored under with the tank destroyer concept.

The slow rate of fire was felt by the Germans as the main drawback of the Stalins.

Karl Bormann, Tiger II commander:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>...since we shot complete rounds as opposed to the separate warhead and charge used with heavy Soviet tanks, my loader was quicker in reloading. The 88 was unbeatable!<hr></blockquote>

[Slapdragon]

Both the American and British divided system of tanks for fighting infantry and tanks to fight other tanks, or tanks to exploit and tanks to blunt counter attacks (both nations had different idea on this) which was taken from the Germans was proven to be unworkable in combat, leading to the development of the Universals, the Pershing and Centurion / Comet.

The Russians also found this to be the case, since the IS, although a success for what it was designed to do (Just as British I tanks worked and American TDs worked), had enough drawbacks that Soviet post war tank development abandoned the heavies. In fact, the only true heavy which made it into combat from a war time design and was a success after the war was the M106, and it was not enough of a success to justify its continuation.