Did the US test the 88/L71?

[jwduquette1]

They would have to put sights on it first. Many other factors kept it an AA gun.

 

You mean like the gunsight on this self-propelled Canadian thingy?

 

 

Germans did it with flak-18/36 -- americans did it with 90mm HAA but the British can't do it for their 3.7" anti-aircraft guns? If the proper motivation were there than I'd reckon the British could figure how to put a direct fire gunsight on the thing. And I presume that since the British developed service ammunition of both the AP and APCBC flavor for 3.7" HAA they must have eventually figured out how to put a direct fire gunsight on the thing. Service Ammunition for 3.7in:

 

[Shortround6]

THis from wikipedia, take it as you will;

 

"This was mainly because the 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun mobile mounting was almost twice as heavy as the German "88". Redeploying it was a slower operation, and the heavy AEC Matador artillery tractor normally used for towing could operate on hard surfaces only. Additionally, heavy AA Regiments equipped with the 3.7-inch (94 mm) gun were controlled by Corps or Army HQ, or at even higher level HQs, and command of them was not often devolved to the commanders at Divisional levels where the anti-tank role might be required. Prolonged firing at low elevations (not part of the original specification) also strained the mounting and recuperating gear."

 

AP ammunition was issued for self defence. Germans even issued AP rounds to the 12.8cm guns mounted on concrete flak towers in Berlin. Didn't make them real anti-tank guns.

 

British may have lacked the proper motivation beacuse after North Africa they had decent AT guns. 6pdr was no slouch and the 17pdr would see to most anything short of a King tiger.

German use of 88s was desperation. After a while as anti-tank guns they were worthless as AA guns. Predictor connections and fuse setters have been "lost" along the way to make them easier to set up and use as AT guns. I wonder how many tons of supplies were lost in North Afican ports due to British air attacks while a fair portion of the large AA guns were swaning about the desert;)

Edited April 18, 2009 by Shortround6

[jwduquette1]

AP ammunition was issued for self defence. Germans even issued AP rounds to the 12.8cm guns mounted on concrete flak towers in Berlin. Didn't make them real anti-tank guns.

 

Seems like someone here on this forum just posted accounts of 12.8cm Flak towers knocking out Soviet tanks. So in times of desperation these were apparently used in an antitank role.

 

British may have lacked the proper motivation beacuse after North Africa they had decent AT guns. 6pdr was no slouch and the 17pdr would see to most anything short of a King tiger.

 

Yeah -- no argument there. But of course the 6-pdr wasn't available at BattleAxe or Brevity or Crusader or the like. And 6-pdr was only available in limited numbers during Gazala. And 17-pdr -- well probably no reason to bring it into the spot light based upon it's very limited availability toward the tail end of the N.Africa Campaign.

 

German use of 88s was desperation. After a while as anti-tank guns they were worthless as AA guns. Predictor connections and fuse setters have been "lost" along the way to make them easier to set up and use as AT guns. I wonder how many tons of supplies were lost in North Afican ports due to British air attacks while a fair portion of the large AA guns were swaning about the desert;)

 

Again no argument there. 88mm was used successfully (or desperately whatever word you like best) as an antitank gun in France, Russia and N.Africa -- probably other places as well. The point is the same level of desperation can be applied to the other side of the Hill with the 8th Army in N.Africa between 1941 and 1942. Desperation could also be applied to the Russian's employment of 85mm HAA in an antitank role. If desperation is the motivation than why not try the 3.7-inch HAA gun?

 

This is way off topic. Suffice to say you aren't going to change my mind that the 3.7-inch couldn't have been utilized as an antitank weapon in times of desperation ala the 88mm. There is no basis for saying it couldn't have been successful. Conversely the one incident I can think of in which it was used in N.Africa in an antitank role it was supposed to have been rather successful against tanks of the 15th Panzer Division. Perhaps with more wide spread use the Germans would have called an audible and employed artillery or smoke or whatever to successfully neutralize any effectiveness it might have had in an antitank role.

 

Yes it's big -- just like the Flak 88mm was big -- just like the Soviet 85mm HAA was big.

 

I'll end my foray into this off topic diversion with the following. Who ever want's it can have the last word on this subject as this is all purely speculative at this point. Anyway, a dude named Sir Frederick Pile (Commander in Chief of Antiaircraft Command from 1939 to 1945 -- he had served in the Royal Tank Corps as well) was a big advocate of using the 3.7-inch as an antitank gun in N.Africa. The following pages are from "The Sidi Rezeg Battle, 1941" by Agar Hamilton and are rather interesting because to me at least Hamilton trys to present a fair picture of both sides of the coin, jumping back and forth between the pros and cons associated with the issue...

 

 

Edited April 18, 2009 by jwduquette1

[rmgill]

Maybe you already know this, but the British tested the armor penetrating capability of their 3.7" HAA. Pretty good performance as I recall -- better than the 88mm Kwk36 (pzgr with small bursting charge). It could have been a nice weapon for the 8th Army to use in an antitank role in N.Africa.

 

Or were you interested in contrasting Shoeburyness results with Aberdeen?

 

I was just speculating on tests given there's a 3.7" at aberdeen sitting out in the aisle of rust along with all the german stuff.

[rmgill]

They would have to put sights on it first. Many other factors kept it an AA gun.

 

I've seen images of gun sights on them both spider ring and telescopes for direct fire shoots. How do you think the guns setup for static positions on places like Malta or along the Coast of the UK were going to be used for direct fire shoots at landing craft? The spider ring sights were clearly simple but it's no difficult thing for REME fitters to fab up brass and steel clamps and mounts for telescopes or for spider ring sites.

 

 

 

 

and another (low angle even)

 

Another low elevation shot.

Looks like an extemporized telescope mount.

 

And I have to wonder why people thought the Prime mover couldn't go off road.

 

 

I didn't know the US heavy 6x6s were awful off road. Same goes for the AEC Matadors. They're not half tracks, but still.

[C.G.Erickson]

Thanks, C.G. But the penetration at 1000yd is?

For your purposes (Wargaming)...why not just use the figures from Aberdeen that you posted before?

 

True Ballistic tests do alot more than, just what can what projectile do, at such and such range.

 

They look at projectile integrity at velocity. They fire the projectile at as high of velocity as possible to check shatter tendencies.( Results of this testing discredits shatter gap theories as results show obliquity of strike is the deciding factor...but that is a topic for another thread.)

 

They look at the Protective Ballistic Limit against said projectile. (How to stop Penetration.)

They look at Mixed Zones of success of penetration at velocity.

 

They look at total penetrations at velocity. In the case of Burster charges Did Burster charge cavity remain intact after passing through the target plate.

 

In these tests of the 88 vs 90mm, they fired each projectile at the highest velocities possible to check projectile integrity. Against 8" thick plate at 0 degree obliquity. 88 rounds were rejected intact. 90mm rounds shattered to varying degrees with the T33 showing the worse results. 88mm projectiles did not exhibit shatter tendencies until 45 degree obliquity was introduced. That was the reasoning behind the testers recommendations to make US Projectiles with the German specs.

 

C.G.

[EchoFiveMike]

In these tests of the 88 vs 90mm, they fired each projectile at the highest velocities possible to check projectile integrity. Against 8" thick plate at 0 degree obliquity. 88 rounds were rejected intact. 90mm rounds shattered to varying degrees with the T33 showing the worse results. 88mm projectiles did not exhibit shatter tendencies until 45 degree obliquity was introduced. That was the reasoning behind the testers recommendations to make US Projectiles with the German specs.

 

OK, so how was actual T33 performance vs real targets? Because Hunicutt reports(in Pershing) that T33 would punch Panther glacis at 900m(yds?) and when fired from T15E2 gun at 3200(+)fps would do the same at 2800m(yds?) S/F.....Ken M

[Ken Estes]

The main difficulty with converting AA guns to surface roles might lie more with controls vice sights. Typically, AA guns use separate pointers and gunners, one controlling elevation, the other traverse, and in the case of the medium and larger AA guns, the need for director controlled barrage fire causes all kinds of additional instruments and sighting devices to get in the way, at least. Rommel's famous instructions to his Luftwaffe AA commander at Tripoli to convert a large portion of his 88s to antitank roles ruined them as AA weapons, over the latter's objections. Contrary to popular notions, it was not a dual-purpose weapon, and the elevation controls were slaved to the front seat gunner, who also had traverse and direct fire sights for the direct fire role.

[Mobius]

For your purposes (Wargaming)...why not just use the figures from Aberdeen that you posted before?

I will use it. But knowing where it came from lets me frame it in the way it was arrived at. If it was under the German testing method or the US Army testing method.

 

The 88mm Pak43 and the 90mm T33 penetrated the basically 8" of the T-55 turret front in the Yugo tests. But not 8" RHA in the US tests.

[Przezdzieblo]

90 mm AP T33 was said to make a hole in Panther glacis at more than 1000 meters when fired by Pershing gun. It could be done even if rounds shatter during penetration - which as far as I know was pretty common in case of very hard T33 round. It was solid shot, without explosives, so it`s effectiveness depended on spall and round`s fragments.

 

 

C.G.Erickson, could you elaborate shatter gap thread? How results you mention about discredit that theory?

Shatter gap could occur even with low obliquity, only with velocity change. Of course, double ballistic limit (which is, I guess, technicaly definition of shatter gap, as desctription of effect with no direct look at reasons) may be also an effect of obliquity, with no velocity change. Which factor - and why - could be called decisive?

 

 

 

P.S. Mobius, about which US tests you are talking about? I guess T33 can penetrate 8 inch at 0 obliquity - but, at first, not intact, and, secondly, with enough velocity. US tests seems not show "penetration of XX round at YY distance" but "velocity AA needed to perforate BB inch target at CC yards".

Edited April 18, 2009 by Przezdzieblo

[Mobius]

I just found this pdf on the 90mm. Nothing like yet on the 88mm/L71.

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/docr.../projectile.pdf

 

Also one reason the US Aberdeen is using the German tests.

Description: Memorandum rept.

Pages: 13

Report Date: 25 JUN 1945

Report Number: A258459

 

Abstract: Metallurgical examination, including fracture tests, Brinell hardness surveys, chemical analysis, macroscopic examination, and microscopic examination, was made on sections from 2 1/2-in, 3-in, 4-in, and 65-in thick ballistic test plates that had been made from the same hear and had been submitted jointly by Standard Steel Spring Company and Great Lakes Steel Corporation to Aberdeen Proving Ground for experimental and acceptance ballistic tests. The extensive spalling revealed by the ballistic tests was found to have been caused by extremely poor steel soundness. Because of the numerous laminations present in the fractures, the impact toughness of the plates could not be determined accurately. However, fractures of the 4-in and 6-in plates showed much crystallinity, and each plate, except the 3-in plate, was revealed by Brinell hardness surveys and microscopic examination to have been incompletely quench hardened. Grain sizes were coarse (ASTM No. 2 to 4). When evaluating the ballistic limits of at least the 4-in and 6-in plates, their poor impact toughness as well as their poor steel soundness should be considered.

Edited April 18, 2009 by Mobius

[wilsonam]

And can we share some of this data from Aberdeen for other weaponry? Or is it published somewhere? Or, even, are you going to make me pop over there and trawl through the archive for myself ?

 

Cheers,

 

Alan

[Przezdzieblo]

Great find! Thanks!

[C.G.Erickson]

OK, so how was actual T33 performance vs real targets? Because Hunicutt reports(in Pershing) that T33 would punch Panther glacis at 900m(yds?) and when fired from T15E2 gun at 3200(+)fps would do the same at 2800m(yds?) S/F.....Ken M

The question, if you can excuse me, is how many T-33 projectiles were fired in actual combat situations through the T-15E2 Gun....IIRC, just one instance against unidentified targets.

 

C.G.

[C.G.Erickson]

I will use it. But knowing where it came from lets me frame it in the way it was arrived at. If it was under the German testing method or the US Army testing method.

 

The 88mm Pak43 and the 90mm T33 penetrated the basically 8" of the T-55 turret front in the Yugo tests. But not 8" RHA in the US tests.

Results are the same whether it is German testing or American testing.... I have seen flaws in British testing and in Russian testing...most results were to increase Russian/British confidence in their weapons which in truth did not exsist.

 

C.G.

Edited April 18, 2009 by C.G.Erickson

[C.G.Erickson]

I will use it. But knowing where it came from lets me frame it in the way it was arrived at. If it was under the German testing method or the US Army testing method.

 

The 88mm Pak43 and the 90mm T33 penetrated the basically 8" of the T-55 turret front in the Yugo tests. But not 8" RHA in the US tests.

 

Against cast armor.

[C.G.Erickson]

And can we share some of this data from Aberdeen for other weaponry? Or is it published somewhere? Or, even, are you going to make me pop over there and trawl through the archive for myself ?

 

Cheers,

 

Alan

LOL...Do like I did and peruse the 200 plus boxes of the 156 Record Group.

[C.G.Erickson]

Seems like someone here on this forum just posted accounts of 12.8cm Flak towers knocking out Soviet tanks. So in times of desperation these were apparently used in an antitank role.

Yeah -- no argument there. But of course the 6-pdr wasn't available at BattleAxe or Brevity or Crusader or the like. And 6-pdr was only available in limited numbers during Gazala. And 17-pdr -- well probably no reason to bring it into the spot light based upon it's very limited availability toward the tail end of the N.Africa Campaign.

Again no argument there. 88mm was used successfully (or desperately whatever word you like best) as an antitank gun in France, Russia and N.Africa -- probably other places as well. The point is the same level of desperation can be applied to the other side of the Hill with the 8th Army in N.Africa between 1941 and 1942. Desperation could also be applied to the Russian's employment of 85mm HAA in an antitank role. If desperation is the motivation than why not try the 3.7-inch HAA gun?

 

This is way off topic. Suffice to say you aren't going to change my mind that the 3.7-inch couldn't have been utilized as an antitank weapon in times of desperation ala the 88mm. There is no basis for saying it couldn't have been successful. Conversely the one incident I can think of in which it was used in N.Africa in an antitank role it was supposed to have been rather successful against tanks of the 15th Panzer Division. Perhaps with more wide spread use the Germans would have called an audible and employed artillery or smoke or whatever to successfully neutralize any effectiveness it might have had in an antitank role.

 

Yes it's big -- just like the Flak 88mm was big -- just like the Soviet 85mm HAA was big.

 

I'll end my foray into this off topic diversion with the following. Who ever want's it can have the last word on this subject as this is all purely speculative at this point. Anyway, a dude named Sir Frederick Pile (Commander in Chief of Antiaircraft Command from 1939 to 1945 -- he had served in the Royal Tank Corps as well) was a big advocate of using the 3.7-inch as an antitank gun in N.Africa. The following pages are from "The Sidi Rezeg Battle, 1941" by Agar Hamilton and are rather interesting because to me at least Hamilton trys to present a fair picture of both sides of the coin, jumping back and forth between the pros and cons associated with the issue...

 

 

 

 

And rounds for the 128mm AT gun in the Jagd Tiger were not specifically manufactured for AT use?

[C.G.Erickson]

90 mm AP T33 was said to make a hole in Panther glacis at more than 1000 meters when fired by Pershing gun.

Tests proove otherwise.

[C.G.Erickson]

I just found this pdf on the 90mm. Nothing like yet on the 88mm/L71.

http://cgsc.leavenworth.army.mil/carl/docr.../projectile.pdf

 

Also one reason the US Aberdeen is using the German tests.

Give me a break..... Aberdeen tests list the Armor Plate fired at and its quality.

 

Are you saying that American tests distorted test results? Excuse me for another Tom Jentz moment....but Bull Shit.

 

In comparison tests, what reason could there be in tests between Foreign projectiles and American projectiles fired against the same plate? FIRED AT THE SAME PLATE..

 

Someone has a secret agenda.

 

C.G.

[Mobius]

Results are the same whether it is German testing or American testing.... I have seen flaws in British testing and in Russian testing...most results were to increase Russian/British confidence in their weapons which in truth did not exsist.

C.G.

I thought the US used the Army criteria and the German criteria was more in line with the Naval ballistic criteria. Clearly there should be a difference if only a bit of light need to pass through the hole and the entire shell with cavity intact needs to pass through the hole.

[C.G.Erickson]

I thought the US used the Army criteria and the German criteria was more in line with the Naval ballistic criteria. Clearly there should be a difference if only a bit of light need to pass through the hole and the entire shell with cavity intact needs to pass through the hole.

Your prior post about test plate quality had nothing to do with Plate quality during firing tests? The post made excuses for performance of projectiles against plate. German vs American.

 

How do you rationalise that vs test fires against similar plates in the Aberdeen tests? Bull Shit.

[C.G.Erickson]

Your prior post about test plate quality had nothing to do with Plate quality during firing tests? The post made excuses for performance of projectiles against plate. German vs American.

 

How do you rationalise that vs test fires against similar plates in the Aberdeen tests? Bull Shit.

[Mobius]

Your prior post about test plate quality had nothing to do with Plate quality during firing tests? The post made excuses for performance of projectiles against plate. German vs American.

 

How do you rationalise that vs test fires against similar plates in the Aberdeen tests? Bull Shit.

??

I have no knowledge of the tests of the 90mm and 88mm vs. similar plates. I was wondering why one set of data included with a bunch of Aberdeen data seemed to of german origin. If they hadn't tested the 88mm/71 at the time or place of the other tests could be a reason.

[C.G.Erickson]

??

I have no knowledge of the tests of the 90mm and 88mm vs. similar plates. I was wondering why one set of data included with a bunch of Aberdeen data seemed to of german origin. If they hadn't tested the 88mm/71 at the time or place of the other tests could be a reason.

To disprove your thesis.. In a prior post you present the following:

 

"Abstract: Metallurgical examination including fracture tests, Brinell hardness surveys, chemical analysis, macroscopic examination, and microscopic examination was on sections from 2 1/2-in, 3-in, 4-in and 65-in...(65Inch?...WTF) Ballistic test plates that had been made from the same hear. (HEAR?) and had been submitted jointly by Standard Steel Spring Co. and Great Lakes Steel Corp. to Aberdeen Proving Ground for experimental and acceptance Ballistic Tests.

 

What a crock of Bull!!!!

 

Want to know who provided armor to APG for actual testing?

 

Carnegie-Illinois Steel Corp

Midvale Steel Co.

 

So where are you finding your RESEARCH? Why are you posting false assumptions if your original query has nothing to do with plate quality during testing....Just another War Gamer....

Edited April 18, 2009 by C.G.Erickson