L6/40 gun underpowered? -1 reply

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#1 10 years ago

While playing Bardia I noticed the L6/40 gun is much less effective than a PzB39. The L6 gun needs about twice to three times the number of hits of a PzB39 to destroy the Cruiser or Vickers tanks (both L6 and PzB39 have no effect on a Matilda).

Now, I know the L6 was a bad tank design and it actually fired the same bullets as the solothurn ATR, and I expected it to be roughly equivalent in damage to the PzB39, or maybe slightly inferior since the PzB39 was a much later design... but... is it supposed to be SO bad? PzB39 seems to do roughly twice as much damage...

I'm no expert about tank armaments or armors etc. anyway, but if the AP shells do so little damage, would it be realistic to have L6 loaded with HE rounds instead?




Refaim

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

1st March 2005

0 Uploads

106 Posts

0 Threads

#2 10 years ago

Well it's the same round used in the flak 30 and 38. It should atleast have the option of firing HE shells just as the 20mm KwK 30 on the 222 does. 20mm kwk 30 fires the same 20x138B round. Granted each of these cannon have different barrel lenghts, but for all intensive purposes they are the same. Even the Panzer II uses the same round in it's 20mm KwK 30 L/55 cannon. so it might not even be a streach to give it PzGr 40 ammo although i'm unsure of the actual historical fact of that. I'm not entirely sure on it's penetration relitive to the PzB39, but it should atleast be the equal of the 222 gun if not the same as the Panzer II as I can't find information on the L6/40's barrel lenght... but i was considered the equal of the panzer II in firepower acording to some sources. EDIT: Well after digging around alittle more it seems the gun mounted on the tank should be a Breda 35 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannone-Mitragliera_da_20/65_modello_35_%28Breda%29 . If that information is correct, it should be an automatic gun firing about 240 rpm from a 12 round clip and doing more damage than the Panzer II as it has a barrel length of 65 calibers instead of 55.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#3 10 years ago

uhm, yep, apart from the problem of damage dealt with each shot... it actually looks like the L6/40 mounted an autocannon by deafult :D

Is the single-shot cannon in FH2 supposed to represent some sort of variant? (I think they tried to mount about anything on those light tanks)

The Breda autocannon would also explain the 108 rounds of ammo that tank carries in FH2 :) It should be 9 trays of 12 bullets each.




[WOLF] Ionizer

Do the Squirrel Dance!

50 XP

19th March 2007

0 Uploads

975 Posts

0 Threads

#4 10 years ago

Nothing to add, but the Grammar Nazi in me needed to point this out:

Refaim;4164735Granted each of these cannon have different barrel lenghts, but [COLOR="Red"]for all intensive purposes[/COLOR] they are the same.

I believe the phrase is "for all intents and purposes." No biggie, but this kinda bugged me for some odd reason.




Moose12

I am also [130.Pz]Gef.Elche Pz

50 XP

6th December 2005

0 Uploads

4,456 Posts

0 Threads

#5 10 years ago

Oh god Ionizer, you are a prick haha. i said hi to you on wolf yesterday but you ignored me with a vengeance.




Uberhauptstormfuhrer

Dread pwns me!

50 XP

17th August 2006

0 Uploads

459 Posts

0 Threads

#6 10 years ago

Yeah that is the one thing that bugged me with that italian tank. Why doesn't it have an autocanon? Also why did the italians made such a useless tank sure they could do better?




Refaim

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

1st March 2005

0 Uploads

106 Posts

0 Threads

#7 10 years ago
'[WOLF Ionizer;4165610']Nothing to add, but the Grammar Nazi in me needed to point this out: I believe the phrase is "for all intents and purposes." No biggie, but this kinda bugged me for some odd reason.

You sir are mistaken... All intents and purposes would be more general, as in the 20mm Hispanio and the 20mm KwK 30 are the same for all intents and purposes as they where intended for the purpose of killing aircraft, but dissimular in intensive purposes as one was used to kill allied planes while one was used to kill german planes. Of course i'm making it up as I go :moon:.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 10 years ago

I searched a little about it and the gun should indeed be a Breda 35 20/65.

What I can't understand is the magazine size. The Breda 35 used 12-rounds magazines in it usual AT/AA configuration, but the standard ammo loadout for L6 tanks is reported as 296 rounds, which isn't divisible by 12 (and I don't think standard ammo load included spare rounds not loaded in a magazine, or a half-empty magazine). On the other hand, 296 is 8*37, since a 37-round magazine seems too big to me I suspect they might have used 8-rounds magazines, but I couldn't find any source mentioning this. Some (internet) sources state the Breda 35 was belt-fed but I don't think this is correct (except for captured guns used by commonwealth forces) - and IMO using ammo belts on L6 tanks seems really unlikely for many reasons.

So the questions open so far are: - are the 20mm tank guns (on L6, Pz.2 and 222) underpowered compared to the PzB39? - what magazine size was used for the L6's main gun? - were L6 tanks issued any HE rounds/magazines? Can any tank gurus help?




Refaim

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

1st March 2005

0 Uploads

106 Posts

0 Threads

#9 10 years ago

Based on a couple of sources i found the panzer II gun could penetrate 50 mm of armor at 100m at 30deg when using PzGr40, but only 20mm if usuing PzGr39. The PzG 38 penetrates 30mm at 100m and 60 deg. Assuming the standard relation of effective thickness holding true... 30*sqrt(3) gives 52mm of penetration for the Pzg38 at 30 degrees. SO they would be roughly equal at 100m with the panzer II using PzGr40 and the PzG 38 would be significantly better if the panzer II is using standard AP rounds.

I'm not entirely sure the relationship i used to compair the different angles would be accurate... i'll try it with listings for the same gun to see how accurate it is.




Refaim

The Internet ends at GF

50 XP

1st March 2005

0 Uploads

106 Posts

0 Threads

#10 10 years ago
Refaim;4165692Based on a couple of sources i found the panzer II gun could penetrate 50 mm of armor at 100m at 30deg when using PzGr40, but only 20mm if usuing PzGr39. The PzG 38 penetrates 30mm at 100m and 60 deg. Assuming the standard relation of effective thickness holding true... 30*sqrt(3) gives 52mm of penetration for the Pzg38 at 30 degrees. SO they would be roughly equal at 100m with the panzer II using PzGr40 and the PzG 38 would be significantly better if the panzer II is using standard AP rounds. I'm not entirely sure the relationship i used to compair the different angles would be accurate... i'll try it with listings for the same gun to see how accurate it is.

i was wrong at my comparision of the two angles... should be division by squrt(3) making the penetration only 18mm instead of larger. So overall the PzGr40 should be significantly worse than the panzer II.... too late at night to be doing this type stuff :)