coe Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 Any pointers as to the comparisons of the 17 pdr and the 88mm? which would be "better" against an identical target. I assume like 88mm 1943 version Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barticus Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 First of all, I am no grog, but....... The problem with making this kind of comparison is EXACTLY which '88 are we talking about? The '88 AA gun, '88 AT gun, the Tiger I main gun, or Tiger II main gun? IIRC, they all had significantly different ballistic data. I have seen data, quite awhile ago now, that the Tiger II's 88 (kwk/40?) had spec's that were only marginally less effective than the 128mm main gun on the Jagdtiger! As far as Combat Mission goes, essentially the 17 lber, regardless of deployment, is a much better tank killing weapon despite it's being a little less accurate at longer ranges. I believe this is the SABOT round 'tipping off' problems being modelled. The '88, however, is a much better HE weapon for use against infantry and un-suspecting buildings by virtue of it's larger calibre, hence greater HE capacity. Whichever way you want to look at it, though, either of these guns are more than sufficient to deal with the enemy's armour. Bart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted June 13, 2001 Author Share Posted June 13, 2001 that makes sense, I was thinkingof the late model 88 mm AT Did the 88 have tungsten ammo too? How was the 17lber without sabot and just regular AT ammo? Although I guess by that time some Panzerjagers had the 128 mm? C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barticus Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coe: that makes sense, I was thinkingof the late model 88 mm AT Did the 88 have tungsten ammo too? How was the 17lber without sabot and just regular AT ammo? Although I guess by that time some Panzerjagers had the 128 mm? C.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I am sure to get corrected if I am wrong, but I don't believe the Germans EVER made tungsten rounds for any '88, they didn't NEED to. The 17 lber AT rounds were always SABOT, regardless of tungsten or not. The ONLY time the Germans use the 128mm gun (as a tank main gun) was on the Jagdtiger, and thankfully not many were produced. I believe the Maus was supposed to use the same gun, but it was only in the prototypes phase when the war ended. Rumours persist that one of them did see action against the Russians, however. Bart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warphead Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 There are even different versions of the 17 pounder (one called the 77 mm for logistic purposes). 128 mm gun was used in the Jagdtiger and some rare prototypes only. Edit: Too late, Barticus summed it up. The Maus had the 128 mm and a short coaxial 75 mm gun. The rumor that is was used is just that: a rumor. The russian museum in Kubinka owns the only Maus still in existance. And they assembled it from wrecks and spare parts. They never encountered a Maus in combat. [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Warphead- ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 First of all, get the Fire Department on stand-by, this one is bound to burn up. I think the 88mm edges out the 17lbr by being more versatile, after all the gun was used for everything, but as far as CM go the 17lbr is still my favorite (The AVRE is a close second, just for the cool factor of seeing KT's and Jagdtigers blow up like Shermans on night & fog battles...IF it hits...) Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Barticus: Well, I am sure to get corrected if I am wrong, but I don't believe the Germans EVER made tungsten rounds for any '88, they didn't NEED to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to a book I have (The Tiger Tank by Roger Ford) they did indeed make some tungsten cored Pzgr.40 for the 88L56. "The tungsten-cored Pzgr.40 rounds were always in very short supply, and when they were issued - at the rate of between four and six to a tank - they were supposed to be held in reserve for particularly difficult targets." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bog Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 Particularly difficult targets? Like a giant hamster? What tank did the Tiger have trouble penetrating? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 The Germans had APCR designations for both the KwK.36 & KwK.43 ammunition Ie, 8.8 cm Pzgr.40/44 etc. As well as live fire penetration data which has been listed on the forum in the past. Regards, John Waters [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Robertson Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 The 17pdr fired two main types of AP rounds APCBC and APDS. Firing APCBC it was roughtly equivilant to the much larger German 75mm L70 weapon. Lossing out slightly at short ranges but being superior at over 1200meters due to its heavier round. Firing APCBC it was significantly superior to the 88mm L56 flak gun, and the variation of that piece that is mounted in the Tiger. The 17pdr also fired the SVDS (now called APDS). This had penetration greater than the 88mm L71 firing APCBC rounds. CM over estimates vertical penetration of this weapon and under estimates slanted angle penetration. SVDS rounds were not particualry accurate as there was not the manufacturing tollerances to produce them in 1945. Those which flew staigth and hit were deadly accurate and tended to penetrate. Those which didn't work properly missed or broke up on angluar surfaces. The 88mm started with the flak gun, then this was adapted for use in the tiger tank. Later a much longer 88mm was developed, the L71. The Germans developed APCR rounds for all of their AT guns, however rarely fielded them. The 50mm gun did use APCR more regualry as its standard ammo was often ineffective. APCR rounds were also fielded for the 88mm as used by the Tiger they were reserved for heavy tanks like the IS2 at short ranges, over about 1500m they start to be out penetrated by conventional APCBC. The Tigers 88 firing APCR had considerably less penetration than the 17pdr SVDS round, it was barely superior to the APCBC of the 17pdr weapon especially at any range. The 88 L71 also had and APCR round, this out penetrates the 17pdr at ranges of less than about 1500m but is beaten by the 17pdr at longer ranges. However APCR was probably never used on this weapon operationally since it was pretty much unessisary as this weapon could knock out any allied AFV anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roksovkiy Posted June 13, 2001 Share Posted June 13, 2001 The 17lb firing its special APDS ammo(from August 1944) was only marginally better than the 88L71 firing its normal APBC ammo. This however was in theory as a report from the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces notes: WO 219/2801, SHAEF documents on tanks. AGp/1420/12/G(SD), dated 11 Mar 1946, " on the vulnerability of the King Tiger, the King Tiger's glacis is invulnerable to 17-pdr APDS. The front plate cannot be penetrated up to 0 yards, and the turret front at only 100 yards." Also a number called the "critical azimuth at 1,000x" is mentioned in the SHAEF report, but not explained. So a 17lb firing APDS, knocking out a King Tiger from the front just didn't happen in real life, even though in theory the gun had the AP performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Robertson Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roksovkiy: This however was in theory as a report from the Supreme Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Forces notes: WO 219/2801, SHAEF documents on tanks. AGp/1420/12/G(SD), dated 11 Mar 1946, " on the vulnerability of the King Tiger, the King Tiger's glacis is invulnerable to 17-pdr APDS. The front plate cannot be penetrated up to 0 yards, and the turret front at only 100 yards." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> WO 219/2801, SHAEF documents on tanks. Appendix A to 21 AGp/1420/12/G(SD), dated 11 Mar 1945, on the vulnerability of the King Tiger, states that the King Tiger's glacis is invulnerable to 17-pdr DS. It is stated that the nose can be penetrated up to 1,200 yards, and the turret front at 1,100 yards. For the performance of the 77mm gun, subtract 1,100 yards from the APCBC performance and 650 yards from the DS performance of the 17-pdr. To penetrate a King Tiger, 75mm M61 must strike the lower hull side at 750 yards or the turret side at 400 yards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 Without APDS 17 pounder bounces off Panther glacis at all ranges, even the badly flawed armor. However, 17 pounder APCBC at Isigny did crack the Panther glacis at 200 yards or less, making follow-up hits near the crack penetrations if close enough. With 17 pounder APDS, maybe half the hits really hit and have a chance to penetrate. British reports indicate that after firing APDS 17 pounder accuracy might suffer big time, something that did not occur after 76mm guns fired HVAP. 17 pounder penetration advantage over 88L56 on Tiger, firing APCBC, is not that great, maybe 14mm at point blank. If 17 pounder barely penetrates a target damage might be small, 88 has HE filler that detonates which makes it more dangerous. Tiger fired HE at 810 m/s which is relatively high velocity, good at hitting vertical targets. What was 17 pounder HE fired at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 If an equal number of Fireflies and Tigers faced off, who wins most often? If Tigers support German infantry attack on Allied stronghold, or Fireflies support Allied attack, who wins most often? Firefly with all-cast hull is one of the most vulnerable targets of war, only good thing about cast hull is that shots that land towards outside edges will bounce due to large impact angle. There is a chance that 17 pounder hits on Tiger mantlet will shatter fail when they overpenetrate at most combat ranges. Hulldown, a Tiger has it all over a Firefly. In frontal confrontations: It takes a Firefly to deal with a Tiger, it takes a PzKpfw IVH or StuG IIIG or Marder to deal with a Firefly (comparison limited to 75mm thru 88mm gun vehicles). Don't mention Firefly in same breath as Tiger. Blasphemy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babra Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bog: Particularly difficult targets? Like a giant hamster? What tank did the Tiger have trouble penetrating?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sherman Jumbos for one. I suspect all tungsten, such as there was, found its way to the Eastern front though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: If an equal number of Fireflies and Tigers faced off, who wins most often? <snip> It takes a Firefly to deal with a Tiger, it takes a PzKpfw IVH or StuG IIIG or Marder to deal with a Firefly (comparison limited to 75mm thru 88mm gun vehicles). Don't mention Firefly in same breath as Tiger. Blasphemy!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Quite right - imagine comparing a medium tank weighing 30-odd tons that can KO a 65 ton heavy with that heavy - the heavy is obviously a complete waste of space!!! Sheesh - what's the point of that extra 30 tons??? [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bog: Particularly difficult targets? Like a giant hamster? What tank did the Tiger have trouble penetrating?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> IS 2 or some other heavy russian. Certainly it wouldn't be issued against Shermans. Even Jumbos. Who could tell a Jumbo from a normal Sherman from 1000 meters... --- me stupid [ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Jarmo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: Quite right - imagine comparing a medium tank weighing 30-odd tons that can KO a 65 ton heavy with that heavy - the heavy is obviously a complete waste of space!!! Sheesh - what's the point of that extra 30 tons??? [ 06-13-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dunno, whats even worse is that the mediums armor is vulnerable at max range to the OPFOR mediums standard 7.5 cm L/48 & the mediums armor is as paper to the Hvy tanks 8.8 cm as well. The Hvy's armor can defeat the meduims round. So you have a medium that has to pray it doesn't get spotted & hope it's rounds penetrate ...... Regards, John Waters [ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Robertson Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: There is a chance that 17 pounder hits on Tiger mantlet will shatter fail when they overpenetrate at most combat ranges. Hulldown, a Tiger has it all over a Firefly. "The supremacy of the anti-tank gun was proved at Robaa in January and at Sidi Nsir in February 1943; and in April and May of that year it was found that 17 pdr could knock out Tigers which were standinbg back at 1500 metres, expecting to engage British infantry unchallenged; but of all the anti-tank engagements in the Desert war the battle of Medinine on 6 March 1943 best illustrated the shift of power in favour of the well sited anti-tank gun." In practice the 17pdr had the abiltity to kill the tiger. "At Medinine the Army commander agreed to the deployment of 467 anti-tank guns and over 360 field and medium guns on a corps front. Anti-tank guns held their fire from defiles until targets were just 300-400 metres away" "a member of 10 Panzer Division, which had also served in Russia, reported that artillery fire at Medinine was "beyond all its previous experience".' Don't mention Firefly in same breath as Tiger. Blasphemy! How about Tigers in the same breath as Centurians. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Dan Robertson ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 a soda can is a soda can is a soda can is a soda can... little toys for my Cats to play with Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PzKpfw 1: Dunno, whats even worse is that the mediums armor is vulnerable at max range to the OPFOR mediums standard 7.5 cm L/48 & the mediums armor is as paper to the Hvy tanks 8.8 cm as well. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Err....so what? The medium can also penetrate teh OPFOR's own mediums out to max range, and the OPFORs mediums with 75L48 cannot penetrate the mediums own heavies. And the bloody 88 should be able to penetrate the medium - jeez, if a heavy tank gun couldn't dothat then it'd be even more of a complete waste of space! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The Hvy's armor can defeat the meduims round. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You forgot to add "sometimes" <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So you have a medium that has to pray it doesn't get spotted & hope it's rounds penetrate <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> well duh...it's a heavy, the medium's a medium - what the f*** do you expect?? However a heavy that can be KO'd from the front by a medium at normal battle ranges is deficient as a heavy! that hte heavy can KO the medium is expected.......at least I hope so! Oh..that's right - panzer 1 - yuo come from an army with a long tradition of heavy tanks (Pz 4A-F1) that couldn't defeat oppositino mediums (T34), so I guess it's a new and welcome concept for you! Edited 'cos I've been penging and forgot about smilies! [ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: Stalin's Organ ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 Hey Stalin, you need to relax. Clean up your cr@pped on bowl of Wheaties on carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ: well duh...it's a heavy, the medium's a medium - what the f*** do you expect?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dunno Organ what were you expecting?. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> However a heavy that can be KO'd from the front by a medium at normal battle ranges is deficient as a heavy! that hte heavy can KO the medium is expected.......at leasy I hope so!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well what 'Hvy' are we speaking of? the 8.8cm KwK. 36 which was inferior in penetration power to the 17lb could destroy the Firefly out over 3000ms while the KwK.43 would be just overkill. The Tiger E was developed in 41 & 42 & ruled the battlefeild for 2 years so I hope the Allies could develop a gun that could defeat its armor at some range . If were discussing the Tiger II then the Firefly has a problem, a big problem unless he avoids a frontal engagement. So the Hvy being 'deficent' would depend on the AFV as well as the circumstances or because it let the Firefly get in close range . <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Oh..that's right - panzer 1 - yuo come from an army with a long tradition of heavy tanks (Pz 4A-F1) that couldn't defeat oppositino mediums (T34), so I guess it's a new and welcome concept for you!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROFL, i touch a nerver their Organ? profanity & insults MUHAAAA... Regards, John Waters [ 06-14-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted June 14, 2001 Share Posted June 14, 2001 My spologies to the two (maybe more) souls who read my last post before it got smilied!! It was always intended to be y'know!! anyway - Pz 1 makes no good points at all of course - apparently there's no such thing as a good medium tank, because the M1A1 will destroy them all at 5 km without any chance of a return shot....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warmaker Posted June 15, 2001 Share Posted June 15, 2001 Nice to know that the M1's, Challengers, and Leopard 2's are all on the same side, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts