Tanks and other Armoured Vehicles Image thread.

[ATP]

I'd guess either an early M4A3 or a late M4A2, hard to tell without seeing the engine deck which is the giveaway for the A2. It has the more angled hull which is a mark of early tanks, but it also has the cast instead of bolted nose, and that turret is a later design. A lot of them were modified in their lives so it could be a real frankenstein of mixed and matched parts

That is a 75mm gun which was okay, but the long 76 was much better. Not as much punch as its German or British contemparies but it was considered the most accurate gun of the era

According to what i read,american 76mm was better then soviet 85mm and as good as german 88/56mm/that for Tiger A.Tiger B 88/71 was much better./

 

[Zachowon]

More accurate than the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70? That one has a very good rep.

I can't tell about accuracy but the German 75 did have slightly better pen with APCR where as once the US got HVAP-T M93 it wasn't that different. What mad etchings was Oanther sloped armor

 

[PsihoKekec]

It was more accurate then the 17 pounder

There was no mayor difference with basic AP shell and HE shell, it was only APDS round that was trouble, due to sabot hitting the muzzle brake.

 

[Zachowon]

There was no mayor difference with basic AP shell and HE shell, it was only APDS round that was trouble, due to sabot hitting the muzzle brake.

Which wasnt that needed for long shots on most late war German tanks?

 

[Harlock]

It was more accurate then the 17 pounder

It was at long range, but at combat ranges there wasn't much in it. The difference was a 17pdr would go through a German tank and the M1 wouldn't. Unless of course you loaded HVAP ammo, but that had so much power behind it the round became extremely innaccurate

More accurate than the 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70? That one has a very good rep.

Apparently so, though not by much. The M1 apparently had remarkable ballistic qualities which gave the shot a very flat trajectory. Though the flip side was the optics weren't so good as the German gun so I suppose accuracy on the range vs accuracy on the field might not translate.

 

[PsihoKekec]

The problem with KwK 42 was that it came only with magnification optics, while American guns came with both magnification and non-magnification optics (for target acquisition), which meant that American (and British) gunners had easier time sighting the target, which often gave them the first (or even second and third) shot.

 

[Zachowon]

The problem with KwK 42 was that it came only with magnification optics, while American guns came with both magnification and non-magnification optics (for target acquisition), which meant that American (and British) gunners had easier time sighting the target, which often gave them the first (or even second and third) shot.

After the muzzzel break was added
The smoke from the rounds caused the gunners view to be obscured.

It was at long range, but at combat ranges there wasn't much in it. The difference was a 17pdr would go through a German tank and the M1 wouldn't. Unless of course you loaded HVAP ammo, but that had so much power behind it the round became extremely innaccurate



Apparently so, though not by much. The M1 apparently had remarkable ballistic qualities which gave the shot a very flat trajectory. Though the flip side was the optics weren't so good as the German gun so I suppose accuracy on the range vs accuracy on the field might not translate.

Now the 90mm used by the Americans was damn good

 

[Harlock]

Regarding accuracy post war tests found that the dispersion at 1000m for the M1 76mm was about .26, the German 75/42 .29, 17pdr .39, US 90mm .32 and Russian guns in the .5 to .6 range. 17pdr firing Sabot at 1,000m was an impressive .9 to 1.4 which is quite a gap

(That means it would hit within 26cm of the aiming point etc)

 

[paulobrito]

And for sake of complete the list - how about the german 88? the L56 and L71?

 

[Zachowon]

Regarding accuracy post war tests found that the dispersion at 1000m for the M1 76mm was about .26, the German 75/42 .29, 17pdr .39, US 90mm .32 and Russian guns in the .5 to .6 range. 17pdr firing Sabot at 1,000m was an impressive .9 to 1.4 which is quite a gap

(That means it would hit within 26cm of the aiming point etc)

So the M1 76mm was the most accurate of them

 

[Harlock]

firing standard ammo yes, HVAP was a bit more unstable and comparable to the sabot rounds but standard ammo it was extremely accurate. The 75mm was very accurate too.

These figures are at 1,000 yards, beyond that the German gun holds accuracy very well at longer ranges but most combat isn't going to be quite so far out. Ballistically the American guns were very well made and had good velocity, just a bit let down by ammo.

 

[paulobrito]

These figures are at 1,000 yards, beyond that the German gun holds accuracy very well at longer ranges but most combat isn't going to be quite so far out.

Unless you are in the Eastern front, in some places.

 

[Zachowon]

firing standard ammo yes, HVAP was a bit more unstable and comparable to the sabot rounds but standard ammo it was extremely accurate. The 75mm was very accurate too.

These figures are at 1,000 yards, beyond that the German gun holds accuracy very well at longer ranges but most combat isn't going to be quite so far out. Ballistically the American guns were very well made and had good velocity, just a bit let down by ammo.

They could hit and pen most targets besides the Panter and Tiger 2 at range from the front. The 90 thiugh, that thing could Pen all but tiger 2.
Hell the 90 was just a little bit better then the 17

 

[Harlock]

They could hit and pen most targets besides the Panter and Tiger 2 at range from the front. The 90 thiugh, that thing could Pen all but tiger 2.
Hell the 90 was just a little bit better then the 17

They tested the 76mm and a 17pdr in the US to see whether or not it was worth the US buying the UK guns. The target was a captured Panther hull which they took turns shooting at with different ammo types.

Results were that the 76mm firing standard ammo hit every shot but failed to penetrate the Panther glacis armour. The 17 pdr with standard ammo again hit every time but did penetrate most of the hits. With HVAP they missed with about half the shots but the majority of those that hit did go through, likewise with 17pdr APDS they missed most of the shots but the hits went clean through.
On balance the 17pdr firing standard ammo had the best mix of hit and pen, but by that time the US was making the 90mm so decided it wasn't worth the effort to buy this gun and all its logistics when their own bigger cannon was on the way.

the 90mm is a solid weapon, I guess the British version was the 20pdr which was I think 87mm and was used on Centurions in Korea beside the US Pershings and Pattons.

 

[Zachowon]

They tested the 76mm and a 17pdr in the US to see whether or not it was worth the US buying the UK guns. The target was a captured Panther hull which they took turns shooting at with different ammo types.

Results were that the 76mm firing standard ammo hit every shot but failed to penetrate the Panther glacis armour. The 17 pdr with standard ammo again hit every time but did penetrate most of the hits. With HVAP they missed with about half the shots but the majority of those that hit did go through, likewise with 17pdr APDS they missed most of the shots but the hits went clean through.
On balance the 17pdr firing standard ammo had the best mix of hit and pen, but by that time the US was making the 90mm so decided it wasn't worth the effort to buy this gun and all its logistics when their own bigger cannon was on the way.

the 90mm is a solid weapon, I guess the British version was the 20pdr which was I think 87mm and was used on Centurions in Korea beside the US Pershings and Pattons.

The US 90 was a beast of a gun and the best of late War. The Slugger/Jackson was an astounding TD.

 

[Harlock]

To a degree, personally I'd go for the Russian 100mm which was used in their Tank hunters and later the T-55, bigger shell and higher muzzle velocity than any of the other allied guns that went into service. The Soviets used to call it 'The end of fucking anything' which is the literal translation

I mean most nations had better guns, the US had a 128mm I think for their monster tanks, the UK a 32pdr on theirs, German 128mm on the Jagdtiger but they all had issues. 90mm got the job done which is all that really matters

 

[Zachowon]

To a degree, personally I'd go for the Russian 100mm which was used in their Tank hunters and later the T-55, bigger shell and higher muzzle velocity than any of the other allied guns that went into service. The Soviets used to call it 'The end of fucking anything' which is the literal translation

I mean most nations had better guns, the US had a 128mm I think for their monster tanks, the UK a 32pdr on theirs, German 128mm on the Jagdtiger but they all had issues. 90mm got the job done which is all that really matters

On the tanks that were being made by the US. The ideas and everything. 155mm was in the works. The T28/T95 and the T30 both had plans for the 155

 

[Harlock]

The 183mm L4 will always make me smile for its sheer impractical dedication to destruction. The 50s had some amazing oddball weapons, from that Soviet flying saucer tank to the US putting nukes on everything

 

[paulobrito]

The 183mm L4 will always make me smile for its sheer impractical dedication to destruction. The 50s had some amazing oddball weapons, from that Soviet flying saucer tank to the US putting nukes on everything

Ah, yes, the FV4005 Stage II prototype - massive HESH damage. If hit the target, that is. Very 'fun' in WoT.

 

[Zachowon]

The 183mm L4 will always make me smile for its sheer impractical dedication to destruction. The 50s had some amazing oddball weapons, from that Soviet flying saucer tank to the US putting nukes on everything

Oh for sure.
This is from the 60s

And then you have the nukes on everythinf...or nuclear powered everything