Tank guns

[save]

If the war was just prolonged by 3 months more, allied fielded both the Centurion and and the Super-Pershing heavy tanks, we know when the war endedd, Neither axis not allies did until it actually did.

[Jabberwock]

If the war was just prolonged by 3 months more, allied fielded both the Centurion and and the Super-Pershing heavy tanks, we know when the war endedd, Neither axis not allies did until it actually did.

The Pak 43 was still a better hole puncher than the Pak 44 to 2000m, and would have been adequate to deal with these 45-tonne class tanks out to around 1500m. It was also more accurate at long range (~60% hit rate at 1500m compared ~40% for the 12.8 cm).

[SmokinLoon]

*sigh* The term "best" is so ever used it is a bit of a shame.

No tank or tank gun in WWII was absolute "best". There are far too many factors to take in to consideration. Be sure and specify what category the term "best" is being applied to. The German 128mm may have had the "best" AP ability, but it would be quite low on my list of "most desirable" main guns for a tank in WWII.

Take in to consideration sights, range, AP ability, HE ability, reload rate, maintenance costs, manufacturing costs, etc, etc. Even at the end of the war, the German Panzer IV H with its 7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48 main gun was still highly formidable. One has to wonder what would have happened of the Germans would have upgraded the sights of the H and allowed it to engage enemy tanks starting at 1500m. The Panzer IV H was lacking only in armor, but it was still average.

[Widewing]

The Pak 43 was still a better hole puncher than the Pak 44 to 2000m, and would have been adequate to deal with these 45-tonne class tanks out to around 1500m. It was also more accurate at long range (~60% hit rate at 1500m compared ~40% for the 12.8 cm).

I suspect the lessons learned in North Africa and on the Steppes of eastern European were of very limited value in western Europe, where the average tank vs tank combat occurred at ranges far less than 1,500 meters. Same for Italy. When the range is close-in, the tank that gets off the first accurate round was often the winner.

Western European terrain cancelled much of the advantage of heavy tanks like the Tiger I and II, most notably their ability to engage at stand-off ranges. Many fights were at close ranges. It wasn't always the case, but it occurred more times than it didn't. The Panther, which was a terrific design for the open plains of eastern Europe, wasn't nearly as effective in France. Adding to this was it's God-awful lack of reliability, where 1/3 of the Panthers could be counted on to break down.

On the defensive, tank destroyers and motor carriages (both Allied and German) usually shot from ambush at short range.

When you look at the tank guns deployed by Britain and the US Army, the M1A1 and M1A2 76mm was probably the best all around gun short of the 90mm. It had a higher rate of fire than the 17 Pounder, and was more accurate. The Firefly conversion was cramped and inefficient, whereas the Easy 6 and Easy 8 Sherman turrets were roomy and far easier to fight in. Combined with the most common terrain encountered in western Europe, the later Shermans proved to be very effective.