Best tank gun of WW2?

Ok, here's a question for you tank-nuts, just for the hell of it....

What was, in your opinion, the best tank gun of WW2....and why?

Simple opinions or lots of technical burb welcomed!

 

There is only one that can possibly be entertained as the "Best Gun" The 88, high velocity, dead accurate, no need to take acount of anything.. just aim and fire. Held in awe by infantry and armour alike.
Still is to day amongst the Veterans.
Sapper

 

From my PM to Adam, with editing.





EDITJust thought I'd add that the 2 Pdr was perfectly addiquite for it's day and it seems unfair to compare it to such guns as the 88 etc.

You're right - the 2 pdr was perfectly adequate for it's day.... unfortunate that day was 15th July 1938.

 

Hi Mollusc,

To give a satisfactory to the question raised, one should consider where the tanks mounting different types of guns were deployed facing each other.

In the wide open spaces, where Tigers were able to fire at enemy tanks, outside the latter's killing range, kudos must go the the 88 mm, however, when deployed elsewhere they belong to others. In the Pacific and Far East theatres to the US 75 mm, in North Africa and Italy to the British 6 pdr.

In the hills of Tunisia and Italy the advantage, over both Tigers and Panthers, belonged to the Mark III and IV Churchills with their higher rates of fire and the ability to faster lay on their targets. The following is of interest:
http://www.northirishhorse.org/nih/Documents/25TB-TechSummary.html

Cheers, Gerry

 

Thanks Gerry, some very interesting data in that report.

 

which ever one makes a great stonking hole in a tank.

And that is all that shall be said by a Birder on the subject.

 

For raw destrucive power, the Pak 43 88mm of the Tiger II, Nashorn/Hornisse, and Jagdpanther would be hard to beat, plus it fired a useful HE round as well. Anything smaller would have a hard time beating the frontal armor of German and Russian amor, and anything much bigger would be harder to load.

At shorter ranges, anything in the 75mm or 76mm class would be adequate, but I'd feel better behind an 88.

tom

 

For raw destrucive power, the Pak 43 88mm of the Tiger II, Nashorn/Hornisse, and Jagdpanther would be hard to beat, plus it fired a useful HE round as well. Anything smaller would have a hard time beating the frontal armor of German and Russian amor, and anything much bigger would be harder to load.

At shorter ranges, anything in the 75mm or 76mm class would be adequate, but I'd feel better behind an 88.

tom

Assuming the same type of propellant is used, I think the size of cartridge case is a good indication of how much energy is behind a shell..... I used to have a nice little collection; British 2 pdr longcase AP (cartridge case was about 35cm long and 5cm diameter), Russian 85mm and German 88mm (Kwk36 ala Tiger 1) - these two were very similar in size, both about 60cm long and 9-10cm diameter), but the 88mm Kwk43 (or Pak43) case I had was a monster.... about twice the volume of the Tiger1's ammo.

 

I would say either the German 88/56, US 90/50 or Soviet 100/60. All three were very destructive guns in terms of anti-armor performance. All also had excellent HE destructivenenss. The 75/70 and 88/71 were better anti armor guns for their caliber but paid a heavy price for that ability. Both had inferior HE rounds to their lower velocity counterparts. Both also suffered from greater inaccuracy (barrel droop, high rates of wear, barrel vibration).
Post war the US 90 and Soviet 100 remained in first line service for almost three decades. The 88/56 likely would have too had Germany not lost the war.
At the beginning of the war the British 2pdr and US 37mm were both excellent AT guns but were quickly made obsolete by the rapid pace of development in the armor field.

 

I would say either the German 88/56, US 90/50 or Soviet 100/60. All three were very destructive guns in terms of anti-armor performance. All also had excellent HE destructivenenss. The 75/70 and 88/71 were better anti armor guns for their caliber but paid a heavy price for that ability. Both had inferior HE rounds to their lower velocity counterparts. Both also suffered from greater inaccuracy (barrel droop, high rates of wear, barrel vibration).
Post war the US 90 and Soviet 100 remained in first line service for almost three decades. The 88/56 likely would have too had Germany not lost the war.
At the beginning of the war the British 2pdr and US 37mm were both excellent AT guns but were quickly made obsolete by the rapid pace of development in the armor field.

Valid points on the HE round (I was unaware that it was inferior to the 88/56) and barrel wear.

The German 7.92MM service round had the same fate as the 88 family of AA/Tank guns. It was/is and excellent cartridge that was pushed out by the victor's cartridge (30'06 Springfield).

tom

 

If you want big and overkill go Pak 44 128mm gun on Jagdtiger. Biggest gun of ww2 on a tank. But I find the high velocity 75mm on the Panther better.

 

I'll say the RO QF 75mm (with the US version a very close second).

Now you've all started hammering away on your keyboard to call me mental, might I point out that most of the guns listed so far have fairly bad HE, or are so massive in calibre they take forever to load, or a massive pieces themselves designed for other roles.

Consider the most likely threats a WWII tank is going to encounter In order of commanlity:

1. A German in a foxhole.
2. A German machine gun in a foxhole
3. A German in a foxhole with a panzerfaust
4. A German Anti-tank gun
5. A softskin
   
6. A Random lightly armoured box on some antique chassis
7. A Stug
8. A Panzer IV
   
9. A big cat.

All of the above, bar #9 which was so vanishingly rare, can be more than easily dealt with by the 75mm. Indeed some are targets the 75mm performs better against. Even #9 can be dealt with, albeit with more risk, losses and difficulty.

 

Listy makes a very good point. Most of the previous posts have concentrated entirely on armor penetration. To evaluate a gun as "the best" you have to take everything into account.
1. AP performance with various rounds at various ranges
2. HE performance
3. Ammunition size, weight, and stowage capacity
4. Sights and mount
5. Ease of operation
6. Noise, smoke, flash
7. Rate of fire
8. Reliability and ease of maintenance
9. Ease of manufacture and replacement

 

Accuracy too although that could be covered by performance.
A problem with the 17 pounder, and compounded by the time it took to reload when mounted in a Sherman.
Must have been terrible for the crew struggling to reload in cramped turret if they missed a Tiger with the first shot.

 

Tiger and Panther turrets were cramped too though, weren't they? Also Tiger traverse was pretty slow, iirc.

There wasn't a "best" tank gun as far as I can tell. there were just guns that were particularly impressive in regard to certain limited parameters (muzzle velocity, accuracy, flexibility, rate of fire etc.)

 

That should leave a few of you scratching your heads (I hope).