Your favourite AT-guns of WWII

[dragos]

You must mean " heavy " British armors. Like Matilda. :roll:

Of course. Not Carden Lloyd

[Mark V]

Where from have you this stat? The Germans did focus primarily on attack during the early years.

Germany (Luftwaffe) invested heavily on AA already before the war. Their AA defences were absolutely second to none in early war - and so they could afford to field heavy AA-guns to protect field army.

Already in 1939 Germany had over 10.000 AA-weapons - among those over 2.500 heavy AA guns (almost all 88mm guns).

AA-artillery was always an top priority - starting from 1933.

Mark V

[Christian W.]

Matilda was a breakfast for Flak 88 but not for many tanks in 1940-1941. Her frontal armor was wery strong and you would have needed much to pierce it.

[w108ag]

But on the subject of AT

http://panzergeneral3.com/pzg3d/database/antitank.html

On this site where you can observe the statistic of units in the computer game Panzer General, the thing about AT units is that:

The JagdTiger takes the prize regarding firepower, namely 128mm PAK

Second are the JagdPanther and the Elepant with 88mm PAK

[Christian W.]

We are talking about " AT-guns ", not guns mounted in tanks.

[w108ag]

OK Mark V.

Lets take the stats:
You say the 88mm is nothing special because it was built in so many numbers early on.
The so called 3.7 incher was not called upon because the war was already decided by the time it was ready to kick ass.

You also say: "88 was good, but nothing exceptional as an weapon. And surely not an AT-gun."

Well it was indeed also used as a AT in the desert war and with good result.

Which bring me to the question - Are you saying that the 88mm was not so good because the Germans had her in so many numbers early on?

By the same argument you can say the entire Allied forces push was inferior during WWII. Which it was not, they won after all.

[Mark V]

w108ag,

When i said that 88 was not nothing special, i ment technologically.

And let's face it. It was an AA-gun, with secondary AT-capacity.

[richardrli]

What about the Russian 57mm guns?

[Christian W.]

Yes, 57mm ZIS-2. What about it?

[Panzergenadier]

Hello!!! Guys, let me clear something. The Fliegerabwehrkanone(FlAK) 88mm. was AA weapon. So it has smooth barrel in order to give the shell greater starting velocity (this velocity was needed to reach greater heights). The AT-guns have spiral-like cut in their barrels to make the shell more accurate in greter distances. So the 88 mm. could be used as AT-gun ,because it givs great velocity and this means that the shell will penetrate the armour. BUT it can penetrate it only in closer distances, because in greater ones the 88 mm. will be inaccurate due to irs smooth barrel.

Regards and my best wishes,

Panzergrenadier

[Mark V]

Hello!!! Guys, let me clear something.

Hi,

Sorry to say , but you didn't make anything clear in above post (other than smooth-bore guns are capable to higher V0).

The AT-guns have spiral-like cut in their barrels to make the shell more accurate in greter distances.

I guess you mean rifling ?? FYI all models of German 88mm FlaK guns and German PaKs (other than late war PAW 600) were rifled.

Regards, Mark V

[David Lehmann]

Hello,

French 47mm SA37 AT gun in May/June 1940.

David

[Tony Williams]

The 8,8 cm FlaK was only useful in certain circumstances, because although it was powerful enough to deal with any tank, it was just too damn big to be a satisfactory AT gun. The high-angle mounting meant that the gun was high up off the ground, and cold be seen from miles away unless it was carefully camouflaged. There was also no armoured shield to protect the crew. So it was only good if:

1. The combat ranges were very long
2. There was no danger of attack from artillery or fighter-bombers.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[Christian W.]

You are wrong about that one, armored plates were sometimes attached on the gun to give protection for the gunners.

And about the risk of being attacked by enemy planes. Well, if there was a large Flak 88 battery stationed in some hill ect: the Flak 88s could be used agaisnt them.

And the combat ranges wouldnt have been THAT long ( its max range was 14 km ).

[Tony Williams]

And the combat ranges wouldnt have been THAT long ( its max range was 14 km ).

More than long enough, since 1 km was the typical maximum anti-tank distance, with 2 km being just about the absolute maximum to stand any reasonable chance of hitting the target. There were a few kills at longer ranges, but they were rare.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum