8
9

The 76mm gun was mediocre! (self.ShitWehraboosSay)

MaxRavenclawIn reality, most tank battles took place at ranges over 2km! が 投稿

You'll never guess who said this... Zaloga... So I stumbled upon this while reading Armored Thunderbolt:

The 76mm gun was a mediocre, half-hearted attempt that was inferior to its contemporaries such as the German 75mm KwK 43 on the Panther, the 17-pounder on the British Sherman Firefly, or the Soviet 85mm gun on the T-34-85. In 1944, Ordnance again improvised using the 90mm antiaircraft gun, but this barely matched the capabilities of the smaller and lighter British 76mm gun (17-pounder) or German 75mm gun, and it did not approach the performance of the German 88mm tank gun.

Wait, what?!

全 11 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]somenbjornBritainOp's Scheißposter of the Month 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

Context seriously needed.

Just looking at stats found at Archive Awareness I need to see the context to understand why he is claiming that. Now data is done differently, I didn't find any single test for the 76mm M1 on the same table as the others. Only found an american document about Yugoslavian M1s and then the Soviet testing for the rest. So M1 might very well be off by several mm. Shots are at 0 degrees and at 1000m.

M1 76mm: APC 109mm penetration, HVAP 178mm. Exit velocity is 792 m/s and 1036m/s respectively.

US 90mm: APC 147mm, HVAP 252mm. Velocity is 854m/s and 1167m/s

85mm D-5/S-53: (T-34-85) (Ammunition type was not specified) 102mm, 800m/s

88mm L56 (Tiger)

103mm, 810m/s

Panther 75mm L70

114mm, 1000m/s

So he isn't refering to penetration power, except the 90mm and the 75mm on the Panther all are practically in the same ballpark.

Or does Zaloga give different penetration stats?

For the Murrican guns For Stalin-Stahl and Kruppstahl

[–]MaxRavenclawIn reality, most tank battles took place at ranges over 2km![S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well, what I can tell you is that the 76mm firing APCBC can pen the Tiger I at about the same range an 85mm APBC can, so maybe HE power? The 76mm affirmations could be taken as valid, but it's the 90mm that gets to me. The 90mm was better than the 17 pounder and 88mm KwK 36 in pretty much every way...

[–]somenbjornBritainOp's Scheißposter of the Month 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Exactly, so perhaps he isn't referencing penetration, RPM or HE ability? But rather something else, like cost, ease of maintenance etc.

Hopefully /u/MaxRavenclaw can expand the text and include Zalogas reasoning.

[–]MaxRavenclawIn reality, most tank battles took place at ranges over 2km![S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

That's the point. There is no reasoning. He explains throughout that the muzzle flash was low HE was an issue that made the army prefer the 75mm early on, then goes ahead and says that after the Panther became a more numerous threat, everyone realized they should have went the British way and strap bigger guns on their tanks.

I guess he could refer that the 76mm was mediocre at dealing with the Panter and Tiger II? He has this before:

The U.S. Army had extensive technical details of new German tank and antitank weapons in the summer of 1943. But unlike the British Army and the Red Army, the U.S. Army failed to appreciate the tactical implications of this technical data, which would have served as the basis for a requirement for better firepower and protection on the Sherman in 1944. There was no technical reason that the U.S. Army should have been the only major army in 1943-44 to fail to develop a new high-velocity tank gun capable of dealing with the panzer threat.

[–]somenbjornBritainOp's Scheißposter of the Month 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Zaloga what the hell were you smoking?

Bigger guns? the 17 pounder is 3 inches or 76.2mm. I guess it is also a whopping 32mm longer.

[–]MaxRavenclawIn reality, most tank battles took place at ranges over 2km![S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, the message of this book is a bit mixed... the conclusions sound great though. I'll make a post about them eventually.

[–]Magnavoxx 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah, that's like his opinion, man...

Don't know why he's bringing up the 85mm as superior, though. They were pretty much on par with each other when it came to penetration.

My opinion is that there is more to a gun/tank combo than just penetration figures, and I think the T23 turret w/ M1 gun mount is superior to most others. Not that surprising that it was a balanced, thought through option, as they took their sweet time to perfect it.

The Panther's gun mount was especially imbalanced with the excessively long barrel and lack of bustle. It had pneumatic assistance for the elevation and if that broke it became pretty difficult to hand crank (see the French reports), also traverse was impossible on very uneven ground which also points to a very imbalanced turret in the turn axis orientation.

One can also note the lack of post-war designs with the long barrels that the Germans were so fond of. 70 and 71 calibers for the KwK 42 and 43 respectively hasn't been on a tank since that I can think of. Nobody seems to want that, so I don't know what the complaint is, really.

[–]MaxRavenclawIn reality, most tank battles took place at ranges over 2km![S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah... I was kind of taken aback when I read it.

[–]pitaenigma 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I recognize some of these weapons!

[–]MightyVanguardis literally Hitler for saying the Nazis were bad 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Why yes, it was so inferior that it could punch a hole straight through a Tiger's frontal armor, or the tiger II's side armor.

Also, comparing the 75mm on the Panther as better is just using World of Tanks logic.

I'm sure he also didn't take into account that the U.S. used it through Korea and wiped the floor with T-34s all the way through.

[–]MaxRavenclawIn reality, most tank battles took place at ranges over 2km![S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is Zaloga we're talking about. Of course he took that into account. He has an entire chapter on post-war Sherman use. He says that the Sherman and T-34 were equally matched in Korea, except that Korean soldiers were poorly trained, so Sherman had an advantage.

So this isn't some Wehraboo. I'm just trying to figure out if he's made a mistake, chose bad words or I'm just not understanding what he's trying to say.