Anti-Tank guns vs. Tanks

[Andreas]

I'd just like to point out here that CMBB models the fact that it is not calibre that matters, but what you do with it. More specifically, what kind of ammo you use.

Early war 45mm ammo was flawed, leading to much lower penetration than would be expected. Later war, when the gun was issued either decent ammo or even Tungsten core rounds, it became a lot more useful.

June 1941 AP penetration 100m @0°

Fascist occupant PAK36 - 51mm

Heroic defender of the Rodina 45m38 - 37mm

June 1942 AP penetration 100m @0°

Fascist occupant PAK36 - 51mm

Heroic defender of the Rodina 45m38 - 63mm

June 1943 Armour penetration 100m @0°

Fascist occupant PAK36 (AP) - 51mm

Fascist occupant PAK36 (Tungsten) - 90mm

Fascist occupant PAK36 (Stielgranate) - 181mm

Heroic defender of the Rodina 45m38 - 63mm

Heroic defender of the Rodina 45m38 (Tungsten) - 97mm

It is quite interesting to note that the difference in AP and HE penetration for the PAK36 is quite low, compared to the 45mm.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Mike:

Except of course that the 45 was much better than the German 37, that the 57 was much better than the German 50, and that the 100mm was better than everything except the 88L71 and 128mm....except IIRC the 128mm was a field gun and not an ATG so I guess it shouldn't be compared......

Actually, the German 37 was much better than the Russian 45 at that stage in the war. Once the Russians finally improved the ammo for the 45mm gun then it was much better but by that time the Germans were commonly fielding the 50mm Pak38 which outclasses the 45mm.

The Russian 57mm had great penetration but were very rare. The Pak40 at this point had the same rarity and was clearly the better gun.

More common were the Russian 76mm AT guns but they lacked punch for their size. The German Pak38 had much more punching power than any of the Russian 76mm guns.

And here's the capper: The German 88 AA gun was often used as an AT weapon all throughout the war. The Russians never had anything close to that power in the first two years of the war.

So, yes, I was correct in saying that the Russian AT guns were basically crap when compared to German guns.

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by Bastables:

1941 the 4.5cm gun was in short supply due to Anti tank warfare only being given production priority after the German successes in 1940 France, NKO beginning the formation in May 1941 of specialised antitank brigades which sucked away anti tank guns from the rifle divisions. The Brigades were destroyed in place due to low mobilisation; 18 percent. ( 1998 Glantz Pg162-163).

Actually the 1941 AT brigades couldn't suck away AT guns from rifle divisions simply because those new units were not intended to be equipped with AT guns but with Divisional and Antiaircraft guns used in the antiarmour role.

Regards,

Amedeo

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Pak40:

[snips]

The Russian 57mm had great penetration but were very rare. The Pak40 at this point had the same rarity and was clearly the better gun.

It's also clearly 300 Kg heavier, so its slightly better penetration performance is not altogether unexpected.

Originally posted by Pak40:

More common were the Russian 76mm AT guns but they lacked punch for their size.

When you say "Russian 76mm AT guns", I assume you are talking about the 76mm divisional guns, which were really dual-role field guns rather than specialist anti-tank weapons. The idea that they "lacked punch for their size" is not one that stands up to a moment's inspection. The ZiS-3 (1942 divisional gun) is famously one of the most efficient field artillery pieces ever designed. It performs at least as well in tank-shooting as field pieces of 75 to 88mm calibre from other nations, which are typically heavier.

Originally posted by Pak40:

The German Pak38 had much more punching power than any of the Russian 76mm guns.

If you chose your sources carefully you could show either the ZiS-3 or the Pak-38 to be superior, but unless you allow the PaK 38 AP40 for purposes of the comparison then you cannot show "much more" punching power.

Sources giving believable penetration figures for the F-22 "Adder" (1936 divisional gun) are about as rare as rocking-horse manure, but if it can't hit harder than the PaK-38 I would be very surprised indeed.

Originally posted by Pak40:

And here's the capper: The German 88 AA gun was often used as an AT weapon all throughout the war. The Russians never had anything close to that power in the first two years of the war.

An interesting choice of "capper". It was, of course, a Russian gun the F-22, mildly re-jigged in the guise of the PaK 36®, that really did most of the tank-shooting that made the 88's bogeyman reputation in the Westen Desert.

Originally posted by Pak40:

So, yes, I was correct in saying that the Russian AT guns were basically crap when compared to German guns.

I don't think so. If the Russian guns were such crap, why did the Germans think so highly of the ones they captured?

All the best,

John.