Grant and Pershing tanks? -1 reply

Please wait...

emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#31 15 years ago

No. Military nomenclature sometimes make no sense.

Brits for decades had used the pound system. The designation usually described the weight of the shot but the shot could vary depending on the type of shell, ergo a AP round could weigh more than a HE round.

While it is true there were different gun designations used through WW2 the vast majority of British weapons were based on the pound system.

US not being on the metric system usually used the inch system for cannons and caliber for bullet sizes. The early M3 Gun Motor Carriage was used in Tunisia as a tank destroyer and carried a 3" 75mm gun and was proven to be woefully inadeguate.

It was replaced by the M10 Gun Motor Carriage armed with a 76.2mm gun that was adapted from a USN 3" AA gun. The M10's weapon was originally designated as a 3" gun but IIRC sometime in 1944 the US adapted metric system for cannon designations.




jlpilkey

maus what peace a shit porsche

50 XP

29th July 2005

0 Uploads

52 Posts

0 Threads

#32 15 years ago

ive had a chanse to work on a panther in germany and the frontal armor is a lot better than the tigers. that what the old tankers say and historians says




Dr.Fritz

Promiscuous Girl

50 XP

6th July 2005

0 Uploads

5,842 Posts

0 Threads

#33 15 years ago

Its only better because the Panther had sloped armor allowing the shells to bounce off.




wjlaslo

I've defected to the Pies

50 XP

13th August 2004

0 Uploads

2,762 Posts

0 Threads

#34 15 years ago

It's "only" because of that? I would think that sloped armor counts for a lot. Look at the T34, 35mm of armor but acting like it had 100 cuz of teh 510p3n355 (slopeness).




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#35 15 years ago
wjlasloIt's "only" because of that? I would think that sloped armor counts for a lot. Look at the T34, 35mm of armor but acting like it had 100 cuz of teh 510p3n355 (slopeness).

The T-34/76 had 45mm front upper hull armor sloped about 65deg from vertical. That gives a relative armor thickness of about 78mm. This was offset partially by the large driver access hatch in the front plate which weakened the front plate to the extent that it was often used as a aiming point of German gunners.

Another factor is that sloped armor was negated by Germany's PzGr.39 APCBC round and the T/d factor. When a 75mm or 88mm round hits 45mm of armor angled 65deg from vertical with a soft ballistic cap, the slope is not going to help because the diamater of the round overwhelms the thickness of the armor.




wjlaslo

I've defected to the Pies

50 XP

13th August 2004

0 Uploads

2,762 Posts

0 Threads

#36 15 years ago

Ah, you are God of Info on WWII! You are like a human encyclopedia! lolol