A drawback with the long guns were much shorter barrel life. A Panther or Firefly could "only" fire around 2,000 rounds before barrel change, the Panzer IV 6,000 (and Tiger as well), Sherman 75 mm 10,000 rounds. Then again, by late 1944 few Panthers were probably able to fire 2,000 rounds before being destroyed.
Also, that long main weapon made the tank nose-heavy, harder to steer and/or maneuver in tight spots. But a Panther or a Jagpanzer IV with the KwK 42 could stand off at far long ranges and fire ACCURATELY, well out of effective range of enemy tank guns.
Very good video with accurate info. I worked with a German who was the gunner in a Panther. He had many interesting experiences. He did say the Panthers 75mm was the best anti tank gun in WWII. He also said the bullet drop was half a meter at a thousand meters. Anything out to a thousand meters you could aim straight at it.
The problem with the US 76mm HE shell performance was actually caused by the fact that the US gunsights had only 1 velocity setting, meaning their HE shells had to be fired at high velocity as well. The Germans had gunsights that allowed 2 firing velocities and their high velocity guns did not have less effective HE shells as a result.
The 3"/76 mm HE M42 had other issues as well. It was originally an AA shell and of only ~5.9 kg overall and contained ~390 grams of TNT. Contrast the 75 mm HE M48 used by the Sherman 75 mm M3 gun (& earlier M2 75 mm). The M48 was designed as a field artillery shell, weighed ~6.6 kg and contained ~660 g if TNT. The 75 mm (fixed round) M48 was available with 3 propellent charge options: reduced, normal & super (M61 APC was super only). For shooting up things other than armoured vehicles in Western Europe extra velocity doesn't provide much advantage when ranges are under 1000 yd.
@@Elthenar all converted aa gun shells have bad he shells, because they are made to produce big fragment that can gamage bombers, and aren't effective against infantry. That's why panther he shell has more explosives than riger he shell
Hard to argue against the KwK 42 L/70. If they had managed to make the tank installed 17pdr as accurate as the original towed anti-tank version they there might be some debate. Of the smaller guns, the 6pdr is under rated - it was the first gun to knock out a Tiger and the first gun to knock out a Panther. Poor HE capability but fantastic in the ant-tank role. Look up the action at Snipe/Kidney Ridge in the desert campaign.
There’s a tale of an American 37mm gun on a Greyhound destroying a Tiger 2 on the 18th of December 1944 in the Bulge when it managed to get close to and behind the Tiger and hit the rear end at close range. But what’s the truth and what’s propaganda?
They did make the 17pdr accurate. The problem was the muzzle brake that was too small in bore and fouled the projectiles on the way out the muzzle (particularly the discarding sabot rounds). Once fixed they could reliably hit and kill Panthers out to 2400m. Unfortunately the problem was only nailed down in late 1944.
@@VIDEOVISTAVIEW2020 The rear armor on a Tiger 2 is 80mm - the same thickness as a Sherman’s frontal armor. The Greyhound took three shots at 20m range to penetrate the engine compartment (the third round drilled through the hole punched by the previous two shots).
@@allangibson2408 It didn't happen though, at least certainly not the way people think. There isn't enough evidence to confidently state that M8 has destroyed a Tiger II on that day.
yes but they still had to use the m4a1 after 5 years of war it was not until 1944 the brits had a tank that was reliable for combat not till comet or cromwell but lack of numbers
@@unaiestanconapelaez2526The US Army obtained a few PAK 36's to study before having one designed that was different. The Army did the same thing with the British 6 pounder to make their 57mm AT gun.
Very fine film footage, especially the Stug stuff. And I just noticed the tanker body hitting the ground a couple of seconds after the turret did on the T34. Way cool and since we know he died instantly not that Gross.
The 17 Pounder only had accuracy issues with the early APDS ammunition. This was traced to ammunition manufacture and the muzzle brake fouling sabot separation. The ammunition was corrected and teams of engineers visited tank regiments to bore out the muzzle brake aperture. By late 1944 the issue had been greatly improved. At its worst 17 Pdr APDS was accurate 47% of the time at 400 meters and 22% at 800 meters, compared to APCBC which was accurate 95% at 1,000 meters. However the standard APCBC round was more than capable at taking out German heavy tanks at battle ranges. It had a penetration of 140mm of RHA armour angled at 30 degrees and a distance of 1,000 meters. US 76mm APC could only penetrate 89mm at this range and the 7.5cm KwK.42 112mm with PzGr.39/42.
I wouldn't worry too much about any of it. I only skim watched this presentation but , even so, it's quite clear that it's full of Bunk. You should watch the Matimus presentation on the QRF 17 pounder. Basically the whole thing about the 17 pounder being inaccurate is a modern myth put about by the ''Sherman tank was the bestest tank evaaaar'' club that likes to believe that it was perfect just as it was. And of course the 17 pounder was a highly accurate weapon . Why else was so much effort made to get the thing into the field ? I mean ,... the AMX 13 had a shortened version of the Panthers L70 gun !???!!! erm ,... no . It was a new gun , developed from the Krupt weapon , not the Panthers Rhine Metal . Right there ! Total bunk
The 7.5cm KwK.42 was slightly superior at short range, they were almost identical at 1000 meters (150 vs. 149 mm), the 17 pdr was slightly superior at long range. The Panther's Panzergranate 39/42 was designed to defeat sloped armor and had poorer ballistics at long range than the 17 pdr (and Tiger).
I didn't know that the 17pdr was a 75mm 'equivalent' - had always thought that it was around 90mm. Something new learned. You got a thumbs up for that!
@@chrishoopiiaina5368 the drive wasnt that bad, when the driver was trained well and the maintenance was difficult but very important. The french did very well after the war with the Panther.
@@michaeld.uchiha9084 that is why they lasted until 1957 in regular service and 10 of them until 1970 as training tanks for tank drivers. Some of the Panthers were sold to Uganda after 1957. Do not know how long they lasted there.
The quality of the panther optics themselves may have been the best, but the number and layout of the gunner and TC optics in the M4 allowed for quicker target acquisition and shot on target for the M4 even if the optics had less magnification or clarity.
How many infantry soldier's lives were saved because the lowly M4 Sherman was up front banging away at machine gun nests, bunkers, pillboxes etc. In huge numbers that made a big difference.
You’ve got it the wrong way around - the British adopted the 6pdr first which the US then adopted, they called it the 57mm and made a few changes (the two most notable were different commercially available wheels & a longer barrel, which the UK had always wanted to do but they didn’t do this at first due to production capacity issues). You are correct that whilst the 17pdr firing APDS had a spectacular penetration amount at 1000 yards, it was so inaccurate that it wasn’t worth firing over 500 yards, but you have forgotten to mention the 77mm gun fitted to the Comet Tank. This was basically a 17pdr with a shortened fatter cartridge case, it was 76.2mm but was called 77mm so as not to confuse when supplying ammunition. Its APDS ahead a lower muzzle velocity but never had the Firefly’s inaccuracy problems. So it was this gun and probably not the Panther’s 75mm that had the greatest penetration in WWII.
The 17 pounder was also mounted in the British Challenger. This was essentially a lengthened Cromwell, apparently not very successful. (citation needed) It was also mounted in the Archer and Achilles tank destroyers. The Archer's gun faced over the rear deck.
The American Tank Destroyer by NW Europe always had 76mm gun along with specialized anti-tank ammo. Introduced in Europe was the M36 Tank Destroyer with a high velocity 90mm gun. But you can’t put that 90mm HV gun onto an M4 Sherman. After WW2 the US Army phased out the TD’s in favor of the do-it-all Main Battle Tank
@@mrvk39 …. I’ve never seen a published survival rate of the M4 versus the tracked TD’s. For the role the TD’s were designed for, they worked. However because those situations were rare.
Good video, a few minor things that are not quite right. The Panzer 4 was never classified as a heavy tank nor was it intended for infantry support. All Panzers were equiped to Panzer divisions not infantry divisions so we're not used to support the infantry. The low velocity gun is good at soft targets such as anti tank guns, trenches, infantry.
The Panzer IV was designed as an infantry support vehicle. There's more than enough documentation, easily available, here on the internet to prove this. When the Pz IV was recast in the anti-tank role its place was eventually taken by the non-turreted (and thus much cheaper) Stug III and Panzerjager 38(t) aka "Hetzer". And when the Pz IV was introduced it was the Wehrmacht's heaviest tank.
The Russians also had large numbers of 37mm early in the war, and many were captured by the Germans. Many carriages were used to manufacture 75mm infantry guns, as were German 37mms
@@peasant8246 Against what? A foxhole flush with the ground???? Delay fuse ricochets answer many issues. and high velocity shots through windows are better too. Are you that guy from Axis history forum that poses as a know it all?
The 76 mm Sherman was a 75 mm bore, they only added a mm to the name to prevent ammo supply confusion. The 3 inch, 75mm, and 76 mm all had the same bore diameter just different ammo and barrel length.
No, it is a 3 inch gun, which is 76.2 mm. They called the sherman 76mm NOT to confuse it with the M10 3 inch ammunition (which used the same projectile but a different case.)
I think you're thinking of the Comet's gun that was called "77mm", even though it was 76.2mm, just like the 17 Pounder, which was also 76.2mm & fired the same slugs, but used different shells, meaning they weren't compatible. So the Comet's gun was named '77mm' so it wouldn't get mixed up with the 17 Pounder.
German 75mm L70 was a 1000ms gun, and was used by French post war tanks like Amx13 so its the best 75mm wwII gun. Yes amx13-75 use same gun as Panther.
I think that the Sherman m3 gun was better. It depends on several factors speed and maneuverability of the tank rate of fire, which the Sherman great at, ammo load and optics. Since you engage infantry vastly more than armor this is the best gun for that work. For anti armor work the Sherman had smoke and wp shells. This allowed Sherman's to maneuver while the enemy was blind. Couple this with vast numerical superiority the Sherman held its own. Mines and anti tank guns caused the vast majority of allied tank losses. Tactical doctrine and tactics are as important as penetrating power.
Indeed, even when facing armor it's not bad. Tank crews didn't seem to change tactics when facing Panthers, they just hit more. Otto Carius writes how a Jagdtiger was destroyed by a group of three American tanks
Very good feature except that penetration statistics for the Soviet 76.2mm F-34 and the all those quoted for the 17pdr. (including the 100mt. range at 9:15) are for 0 degrees striking angle. Also, the ordinary Panzergranate 39/42 of the KwK.42 had a penetrating capability of 145mm (not 138) at 100 meter range/30 deg. striking angle. As for the rest, a very good and informative video. (penetration figures from Armor & Gunnery by Bird & Livingston.
Too bad they underperformed against Shermans, the best team should have the best numbers. And I don't know if they are any good fighting the non tanks part of the war.
@@jerryfromthepub5125 The main gun mounted on the Panzer V was highly accurate, simple to maintain and could out Range the PAK43, these are qualities that you would want if you are in a Tank!!!!
The American 57mm was the British 6 pounder made in the USA. The Brirish 6 pounder was superior to the American 75mm as an antitank gun, but inferior against soft targets.
People talking about western 75/76mm variants while yall sleeping into Japanese Type 5 75mm tank guns that Imperial Japan literally improved the design
The US Army used the 75mm all-purpose cannon on the M4 since it could fire AT, HE, WP and cannister. It's shorter caliber also allowed the turret to transverse 360 degrees in the typical European urban streets without hitting buildings. It's HE round's detonator also was adjustable for upon impact or for a .25 second delay. The delay was for after penetrating buildings or for ricochet shots off the crests of hills or off the sides of masonry buildings. That made the shell bounce over the hills to explode above hidden soldiers or around the street where troops were waiting with an AT gun. The M4 did that at intersections hidden from view due to it's short gun barrel being hidden from view by a building.
@@1957tennis The overwhelming majority of M4 Shermans knocked out were hit by a single round fired by a German anti-tank gun at ranges beyond the effective range of the Sherman. The Sherman was one of the Greatest American blunders of WW2, Gen McNair was responsible for producing a tank that was completely ineffective at engaging enemy tanks and lacked sufficient armor protection against enemy anti-tank weapons. The McNair tank destroyer doctrine was a epic failure in real world combed in the European Theater!
Sherman VC and Shermans in general, were the best tanks in WW2. Love all the different vehicles but just going off of production quality and stats, Shermans were the best.
@ Ghost Usher ......what planet do you live on??? The M4 Sherman was a cheap, mass-produced product that didn't have decent armor, good chassis, or an outstanding gun. Only the stabilization of the gun was excellent. In fact, it was so bad that the 8.8 cm shell of a Tiger 1 flew straight through the whole tank. The Panther's 7.5cm L70 destroyed it at 2000 meters. Its ammunition was so badly stored in the turret that it burned like a lighter, which also earned it the nickname "Bronson". It took 10-15 Shermans to threaten a Panther in combat, and that was only under 500 yards. Only the sheer mass and the constant supply of vehicles secured victory for the Allies in Field.
all good, except one thing - Panzer IV was not "infantry support" tank.. it was a support tank for Panzer Divisions, and was never assigned to Infantry divisions... those had StuGIII for such role... Panzer IV was supposed to provide HE fire support to Panzer III tanks... and in 1940, short 75mm had much better penetration than 37mm in Panzer III... Panzer IV was the only tank Germans could use against French Somua tanks..
no it was an infantry support tank, atleast during its early days. the difference is that the panzer core had major control of the tanks until AFTER the breakthrough in which case the infantry would take overall command of the panzer 4s. of course this rarely happened, because the panzer core never wanted to give them up and the infantry never wanted to hand them back. the stug strangely enough solved by being an artillery weapon and as such the infantry had full control of them, until they started using them in a anti tank role in which case the panzer core wanted them. and thats how the jagdpanzers became a thing. because the panzer core wanted something they couldnt get and as such made something they could.
@@Thekilleroftanks NO it wasnt.. it was only assigned to Panzer Divisions, and those were never fighting together with Infantry divisions... as those were too slow to keep up with them.. Panzer IV was always supposed to support Panzer III with HE fire. There were Panzer Grenadier Battalion within Panzer Divisions, but their role was to support tanks, not the other way around...
The short 75 had a explosive rounds that was much more effective than the 76 this is important because your not going to see many German tanks but you will see lots of at guns behind every hedgerow
@@owenvestrum1445 But this only mattered because by the summer of 1944 the Luftwaffe was severly weakend after years of fighting on the eastern front (and still mainly focusing their reserves there) and trying to deal with the Allied bombing raids on Germany itself. The american and british planes ruled the sky on the Western Front completely wiping out german tank columns so the short barreled Sherman was actually enough to deal with anything and as you said a good high-explosive round was preferred because the tanks were mainly fighting entrenched anti-tank/ field guns and infantry
Tamas, The vast majority of Luftwaffe fighters were lost in the west. Only 24% of Luftwaffe fighters were on the Eastern Front by the end of 1942. That dropped to 17% by the end of 1943. 60% to 70% of Luftwaffe fighters were deployed in Germany against the Anglo American strategic bombing campaign after 1942.
@@lyndoncmp5751 Still the point stands that the luftwaffe was doing strategic bomber hunting instead of actually supporting the armies on the western front so the german tanks had no chance against allied cas
yes, but because of muzzle flash, being extreme inaccuate and impossible to reload,only at the range , not in reality.the Firefly was primaly made to make schoolboys cheer "we had a gun that could defeat the terrible tigers!"
@@michaelpielorz9283 if they could have mounted the British equivilent of the feared 88mm into a tank it may well have been more feared than the 88mm. I understand that the Brits only used their 4.7" AA gun a few times in the AT role as the gunners were not trained to use it that way and ghey didnt like the open sights
Classical RU-vid commentator fact, 'inaccurate 17pdr'. Only with the early APDS shells, the ordinary armour piercing shell was perfectly fine, look up the Chieftan's video. Four fired 17pdr AP shells destroyed 3 Tigers at 800 yards, including that ss person. There is some argument 'aboot' who did it.
Good video. There is information saying the 17-pounder was only inaccurate when firing the then new APDS round, as I guess it's the same with everything new, they had teething problems with it. But we all know the Germans made the best tank guns as well as superior optics.
The Panther's 75mm seemed to be an over-achiever. It was more effective than the dreaded Tiger I's initial 88mm main gun. The M4 Sherman's 75mm was far less effective, and the British 76mm still not up to that standard. Fortunately for us, the early Panthers had a ton of problems and relatively few Panthers were made compared to the tidal wave of M4's.
Tiger I's gun could penetrate more or less anything the Panther's gun could, was more accurate and retained its power at longer ranges. At 2,500m to 3,000m and beyond it was superior. Did more damage after penetrating and had a better HE round.
@@lyndoncmp5751 All very good points. Still, most people would be surprised that they were even comparable, and the 88 platform was much costlier. We both agree that the quintessential 88 followed with the 'King Tiger'.
Without any doubt the 75 mm of the Panther. But also the 75 mm pak 40 used on the Stug III could be a serious contender, afterall they alone destroyed more allied tanks,Apc's,etc that all panzer models put together.
I'm sorry it took me so long to find this video. But before I watch the video here's my two cents, the German 75/43. I know I know everyone expects the 75/48 but while that was an excellent field gun, it ended up having to be de-tuned for the tank application, something about the cases swelling and not properly ejecting. Further, the high explosive is every bit as important, if not more, so then the armor penetration, field guns killed more tanks than tanks did. So, a mid-range velocity gun is the best compromise.
The French Army adopted the mk5 Panther for a few years after WW2. Regardless of how good the gun was the Panther was an unreliable tank compared to the Shermans they replaced.
58 seconds in and the narrator does not realize that the US 57mm was the Royal ordinance (British ) 6 pounder which the narrator goes on to say was roughly 57mm.
Some German tankers said they didn't fear a Sherman. Sherman crews said their guns were pea shooters . So we're does the info of the 76 mm come up with the 76mm being able to take on German tanks
Sherman's 75 mm had best ROF - 7 round burst in 15 sec, and the only stabiliser allowing quickest aiming time and short distance shooting in move. Smaller case allowed to take more rounds and quicker operate them. It was the best canon against everything but Tiger and front armor of Panther and derivates. 95% fights in ETW did not involve this tanks.
The US didn't use the 57mm gun on any tanks. The Canucks put 57mm guns in some of the Shermans they got from the USA, though, and they were pretty effective.
When Germany first encountered the t-34 kv1 in June of 1941 those Vehicles didn't have the F34 gun they were still equipped with the L 11 gun the Soviets were in the beginning of modernization and another thing 88 mm didn't first use attack tank in June of 1940 that started in Spain during the scw
The use of 88s in Spain is speculative at best. For one thing it wasn't necessary as all tanks there could be handled by 37mm AT guns wich are far more maneuverable in the rough terrain. Rommel gets first confirmed effective use credit in May '40.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 lol no. 😆 von Thoma writes about this in his memoirs. As does the records in the bundeswher. Go di done research before speaking
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 why would I do a RU-vid video on it when there are VR RU-vid videos on actual use of the 88 mm in Spain Nicholas Moran aka the chieftain video on the 88 mm been used in Spain I'm no expert I just passed along knowledge that most people don't know or it just goes by mainstream historians mainstream history isn't the truth or the 100% true
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 like most people believe the Battle of Kursk is the largest tank battle in World War II which fact it is not it is the Battle of Dubno and Brodi during the initial stages of operation Barbarossa in army group souths sector, next your going to tell me I'm wrong on that, lol
Which is best depends upon the situation. When Tigers are rare and Panthers uncommon but Fritz & his Pz IV, STU III or PaK 40 quite common, hordes of Sherman 75 mm, good tactics, an integrated artillery support network & air superiority, the Sherman 75 nm was usually adequate. The UK 17 Pdr was almost too much beast to fit in a Sherman 75 turret; US Armour force rejected the 76 mm M1 (which ammunition was far smaller/lighter than the 17) in the Sherman 75 turret. The Brits in fact developed a 3"/76 mm gun (OQF "77" mm) better suited than the USA 76 mm M1 or UK 17 pdr for mist combat in NW Europe. It used the same projectiles as the 17 pdr and had comparable penetration with APCBC to the USA 75 mm M61 APC & could be had with APDS. So I vote for the OQF 77 mm of the A34 Comet. The 17 pdr would get my vote if had been available in the Centurion; but if one allows the Centurion in the mix then why not the M26 with the gr8 90 mm?
Yes the 7.5 cm KWK 42 L/70 was very good but optimized a bit more towards anti-tank performance in the steppe. But the 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48 was adequate against common allied tanks in NW Europe except the freaks like the M4A3E2 Jumbo or later Marks if the Churchill.
Soviet competitor to Kwk 75 was 85mm gun installed on upgraded T-34 and SU-85, but leter they went to 100mm D-10 used on SU-100 tank destroyers designed to fight Panthers and Tigers on equal footing, as proven near Budapest in autumn 1944.
@@mladenmatosevic4591 I have been working on some WW2 AFV miniatures rules. The 75/76 and 3" and a few others, I'll list from low to high Penetration using the common APHE or Shot Red 76.2 F34 US 75 M-3 US 76, 3", and GE 7.5 L/48, also the Red 85mm (all pretty damn close) US 90, GE 8.8 L/56 (pretty close) Red 100, UK 17 Pdr, GE 7.5 L/70 (pretty close) GE 8.8 L71 The US 76 and 3" using HVAP did have more penetration but there were challenges unresolved therefore it seldom delivered as anticipated. Perhaps safe to say on par with the 88 L/56 and US 90 when they did work. The HVAP rounds were not common anyway after some arrived in the Fall of 1944. This did improve a bit by 1945. Most of what did arrive in theater did go to AT units, tracked and towed. Units that landed in the South of France did not receive HVAP per Zaloga. note: the HVAP and 17 Pdr APDS had no explosive filler so less effect when they do penetrate Thanks to all who said the German 7.5 HE was equal to the rounds fired by the M4. This is one of my favorite gripes with miniatures gaming rules. The Red F34 and US M3 were Artillery guns put into tanks. Moderate velocity due to modest cartridge length as well as modest barrel length.
@@68RatVette It is missing 122mm artillery gun from IS-2 and German 128mm which was most powerful of all but produced in fairly small numbers and effectively unmovable unless mounted on self propelled chasy. Bigger the gun was, it was harder and slower to reload and large majority of tank shells went against various fortified position, not tanks. Something like 75mm HE shell would destroy field bunker on first hit. For concrete was ideal something bigger.
I would bet that many tanks crews that thought they had lost their tank to an 88, probably lost their tank to the lowly PAK. Far more common on the front lines, easy to hide, and lethal at most ranges.
I need a double barrel 76mm rifled gun so if u miss the 1st shot already hve a 2nd shot ready to go, even if u need a bigger turret capable of hving two long barrels.
Hitler was always looking for a wonder weapon. He had one under his nose all the time but didn,t realize. The awesome 88 mm gun. One soldier who had a close shave with one said. it's not just anti aircraft or anti tank it's anti everything
“Roughly on equal terms” does not count when the Panther has knocked you out at 2,000 meters and you have to get below 1,000 and probably only a side or rear shot would penetrate
@@tedarcher9120 You have to see something to hit it. There are not too many places that you can see 5km. I believe the record for an antitank gun kill was 3.4km.
Sheer numbers compensated Sherman and T-34/76 tanks against their better armored and gunned German counterparts. Germans went for quality instead of quantity and lost badly.
Does the Centurion Mk.1 count as a WW2 tank? It was on its way to europe as the war ended. If we count it I'd say the 17 pdr was the best due to the Centurion's ergonomics being extremely good for its time (large turret ring, lots of space). If not I'd say the Comet's 77mm HV (actually 76mm but differently named to prevent confusion) was the best as it could accurately fire APDS unlike the full power 17 pdr. Of the tanks mentioned in the video I'd say the Sherman's 76mm was the best due to having a stabilized mounting.
OMG someone used the real world testing done in the months after D day, thankyou, best report I have seen, one note, the Canadians came up with a fix to the Apds rounds in 45 just was never used, Brits came up with one in 46 I believe. If I recall correctly from old reports rule of thumb was German 88 was about equal to American 90 was about equal to USSR 100. Something else to consider was the use of Tungsten Carbide as the penetrator on A.T. rounds which was in a bit of a short supply in the U.S., the medium velocity round that was used had a steel or capped A.T. round...any mistakes in memory or my old butts problem, corrections or updates are very welcome, trolls will be directed to the sunny part.
You're mostly correct, except the US actually had an abundance of tungsten, and was one of the largest exporters and extractors in the world. You were thinking Germany having the tungsten shortage. Sorry if I come across as nitpicky just trying to help clear up memories. Lord knows mine gets clouded.
@@theamerican_1945 My understanding is due to war time priorities the tungsten was prioritized for machine tools due to the fact we started out so late, I have read tons of references about how we had to make so many machine tools that there was a shortage of the machines to MAKE the tools and die for the machining tools, the Chieftain had a good one on the M-6 and there was another one on the Garand start up where they had to hand make the parts due to lack of machine tools. ???
@@franklinhadick2866 There was a slight delay on the tooling yeah, but by the time APCR was being actively used, we had the production already up and running. Its just that we never really quite needed the APCR as the AP rounds we had on hand were already good enough from the reports I have read. APCR was never manufactured in large quantities during the WWII, and it was given priority to the Tank Destroyers. Its not that America had trouble with it, we just didn't need it, so we never made that much. Tungsten went into other more useful things.
This can't be answered using only 1 stat. The question must be answered using a multitude of factors including AP and HE capability, the rate of fire, optics, and lets not forget cost. I think it is easy to say that over all the Panther's 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 was the "best", with exception being HE capability. The "best" HE capability belonged to the Sherman's 75mm. The AP ability of the Panther and Firefly's 17 Pdr were almost identical, but then the optics come in to play and advantage goes back to the Panther. The Soviets stepped up to the 85mm to be on the same playing field as the German 7.5cm KwK 40 L/48 and the US 76mm M1 tank guns in terms of AP but the 85mm did have an advantage in HE ability. If it were 1946, and I was given the task of forming a new tank army with any 75/76mm gun I wanted I'd be sure have have the Panther's main gun, optics, and HVAP ammo. I'd also go to task and have a better HE round available. :)
@@tedarcher9120 Hmm. A simple glance at the hard data shows a glaring disparity between the explosive components of the German 7.5cm Kwk 42 L/70 and the Sherman 75mm M1.
@@tedarcher9120 Furthermore... your stance that Panther's HE shell is superior to the Soviet 85mm and Tiger's 88mm shell is mind numbing. Shot for shot the Panther lags behind. Simple explosive amount should be enough. Remember: both the 85mm and the 88mm were designed from the beginning to fire an HE shell of some sort and adapted to AP. The Panther's 7.5cm was designed from the start for AP purposes and then adapted to HE. Have you referenced hard data yet comparing the Panther's 7.5cm and the Sherman's 75mm?
@@SmokinLoon5150 no. Panther fires the same shell as short barrell Panzer 4. 85 and 88mm were designed to fight aircraft, that's why they have fragmentation shells which produce large splinter which can damage aircraft at long rage. Yes, tiger shell has more filler, but it's also twice the weight
tank soldier rocket jet of copper require the usa tank to hve a blow blade front & rear to set of antitank shells to early or ground mines same idea. On a down slope shot u might hve 2 sit backward on the reverse side of slop to shoot over smaller trailing blade plow. Front shot forward blade plow would block a lowered barrel from firing down slop, unless u took blade off crazy though. The front big/ tall blade plow on front is extra armor dah.
That's a lie the Firefly gun was not better than the American 76 mm by contrary it was the other way around where you guys getting your information from? Yes really should watch either tank encyclopedia and or the chieftain Nicholas Moran
The 6 pounder is likewise 57mm 🤨 Don’t you mean the 57mm is the 6 pounder. Also, initial T-34s, being the ones encountered at the start of Barbarossa were armed with the F-11. The F-34 was probably only encountered later in 41 You should try and research these things as they are basic facts.
The American 57mm WAS the British 6dr. The Americans built the British Gun under license. The Germans fitted the L42/48 75 guns on Mk 4s to take on British tanks ? Ever heard of the T34 ? Seriously ???
