You are not logged in.

Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.

Kaiser Kirk

Lightbringer and former European Imperialist

  • Send private message

81

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 5:19am

Well there would have been no reason to oversize the turret ring to fit a high velocity 75mm. A HV 75 will also weigh more and likely take a bigger turret, leading to additional weight to consider with the attendant questions of what the suspension and drive train were meant to take.
However, a HV 50-57mm gun would likely fit the current tank - much like the Pz-IIIN & Pz-IIIJ.

82

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 5:29am

The upgrade from a short to long barrel 75mm shouldnt require to much alterations see Sherman and Pzkw IV and I have still to see a tank that lowered its gun caliber and entered mass production. Frankly other than the T-34/57 which tanks went down in gunsize?

83

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 10:11am

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
The upgrade from a short to long barrel 75mm shouldnt require to much alterations see Sherman and Pzkw IV and I have still to see a tank that lowered its gun caliber and entered mass production. Frankly other than the T-34/57 which tanks went down in gunsize?


Pretty much all the later British tanks which had interchangeable mountings for the 6pdr, 75mm QF and 95mm Howitzer. They built a mix of types with the different armaments but the medium 75mm was preferred because of the larger HE shell. However, a longer 75mm wouldn't fit, so for the anti-tank role, the 6pdr was used instead. Penetration was fine with around 100mm at 500m as opposed to 70mm of the 75mm QF.

Something extra in favour of the smaller kinetic energy weapons is the non-availability of HEAT and HESH shells.

84

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 6:30pm

Could you give an example? The British tanks that went from 40mm Gun/75mm Howitzer combo to 57mm Gun/ 95mm Howitzer to 75mm Gun/95mm howitzer but never from 75mm to 57mm gun. Not to mention that the british OQF 75mm is just a bored up 6lbs gun

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Vukovlad" (Jun 4th 2008, 6:42pm)


85

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 6:45pm

The Centaur and Cromwell all had interchangeable 57/75/95. The 95mm was best for infantry support, the 57mm best for anti-tank and the 75mm in between the two. Increased levels of armour and the need for a better overall weapon lead to the 17 pdr and 77mm.

86

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 6:51pm

That the 57 &75 mm is interchangeable is hardly surprising as it is the same gun and yet the 57mm guns were replaced by the 75mm gun in later models to get a "universal" gun.

87

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 7:04pm

The medium 75mm was more useful given the lack of German tanks to kill, but the appearance of infrantry with panzerfausts. Gothia Works seems to want a better anti-tank gun, so is lengthening the 75mm (which probably wouldn't fit any more) instead of decreasing calibre and weight to something which is currently overkill itself. Then again the Japanese are bringing out a T-34++ with a high velocity 75mm gun....

88

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 7:04pm

Which system are used in WW to calculate Caliber (length) in WW?

89

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 7:37pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Which system are used in WW to calculate Caliber (length) in WW?


Depends on the country. Typically its the bore length but some measure the barrel and not the chamber. The difference is only around 4 calibres.

75mm L50 = 75x50 = 3.75m length * 1.06 = 3.975m approx total length of gun.

90

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 7:39pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
The medium 75mm was more useful given the lack of German tanks to kill, but the appearance of infrantry with panzerfausts. Gothia Works seems to want a better anti-tank gun, so is lengthening the 75mm (which probably wouldn't fit any more) instead of decreasing calibre and weight to something which is currently overkill itself. Then again the Japanese are bringing out a T-34++ with a high velocity 75mm gun....


Why wouldnt it fit? Needs more counterweight yes but other than that?

91

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 7:41pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Which system are used in WW to calculate Caliber (length) in WW?


Depends on the country. Typically its the bore length but some measure the barrel and not the chamber. The difference is only around 4 calibres.

75mm L50 = 75x50 = 3.75m length * 1.06 = 3.975m approx total length of gun.


I know it depends on country which is why I asked if a single system is used since there were at least three systems used in WW2, Chamber +barrel, barrel, rifling

92

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 7:59pm



Time to upgun my tank designs. Used to have a 47/32 Bohler. Now has a 100/65 naval rifle.

Maybe Italy should adopt the MerkaGavin instead?

:D

This post has been edited 1 times, last edit by "Red Admiral" (Jun 4th 2008, 8:00pm)


93

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 8:45pm

A mere 100mm?? I was thinking a little bit bigger... something like this (not sure if the picture will work).

:)

94

Wednesday, June 4th 2008, 10:02pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral


Time to upgun my tank designs. Used to have a 47/32 Bohler. Now has a 100/65 naval rifle.

Maybe Italy should adopt the MerkaGavin instead?

:D


Could as well go to Warhound Titans, Vulcan cannons have as much bearing on what we discussed as the 100/65....

95

Thursday, June 5th 2008, 10:26am

There seems to be a want to introduce a 1944/45 style tank more than a decade beforehand with little reasoning behind it.

96

Thursday, June 5th 2008, 2:25pm

I would expect the only mobile AA to be a single 20mm on the back of a truck with (maybe) armoured shutters over the cabin.

The longer calibre guns aren't needed, the South American wars are the only ones in WW with extensive tnak Vs tank combat. With the ranges we are fighting at it makes no sense. Even the latest SAE tanks are not that thickly armoured to warrant such guns and the Argies have only light tanks too.

97

Thursday, June 5th 2008, 2:35pm

I agree: mobile AA should be in it's infancy, if it exists at all. Germany certainly doesn't have any mobile AA weapons, though that might change in the late 1930s as more half-tracks become available as mounts for such weapons. The US is prone to pintle-mounted MGs on it's tanks, and will be installing .30 Brownings on the new M3s, but for now that's the extent of US mobile AA. Again, as more half-tracks become available, some light AA might appear on a few of them, but it's not something to expect to see much of.


From my understanding of the situation re: upgunning tanks, there are a couple different limiting factors. First, there's recoil and weight, a weapon that recoils too much will overstress the hull and the chassis, and a weapon that weighs too much will unbalance everything (requiring a counterweight which drives up overall weight, etc). There's also the size of the turret ring, which appears to limit the use of larger weapons (commonly cited as the reason the Panzer III could not use the 75mm/48 and the Panzer IV could not use the 75mm/70, while the Panzer IV could be upgraded from the 75mm/24 to the 75mm/43 and /48). I expect the limitation here is on how much room there is in the turret for the weapon, it's recoil, and it's ability to be loaded.

98

Thursday, June 5th 2008, 11:35pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral
There seems to be a want to introduce a 1944/45 style tank more than a decade beforehand with little reasoning behind it.


Another strange statement...

99

Thursday, June 5th 2008, 11:39pm

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
I agree: mobile AA should be in it's infancy, if it exists at all. Germany certainly doesn't have any mobile AA weapons, though that might change in the late 1930s as more half-tracks become available as mounts for such weapons. The US is prone to pintle-mounted MGs on it's tanks, and will be installing .30 Brownings on the new M3s, but for now that's the extent of US mobile AA. Again, as more half-tracks become available, some light AA might appear on a few of them, but it's not something to expect to see much of.


From my understanding of the situation re: upgunning tanks, there are a couple different limiting factors. First, there's recoil and weight, a weapon that recoils too much will overstress the hull and the chassis, and a weapon that weighs too much will unbalance everything (requiring a counterweight which drives up overall weight, etc). There's also the size of the turret ring, which appears to limit the use of larger weapons (commonly cited as the reason the Panzer III could not use the 75mm/48 and the Panzer IV could not use the 75mm/70, while the Panzer IV could be upgraded from the 75mm/24 to the 75mm/43 and /48). I expect the limitation here is on how much room there is in the turret for the weapon, it's recoil, and it's ability to be loaded.


That depends on how you difine mobile AA, AA vehichles able to fire while marching is probably some time off, Heavy truckmounted AA on the other hand is quite common.

The Pzkw IV was able to mount the KwK 42 but was seen as a waste of resources as it was supposed to be replaced by Panthers and the E series

100

Friday, June 6th 2008, 12:06am

Quoted

Originally posted by Vukovlad
Another strange statement...


Not really. Don't see many high velocity 75mm guns before then. The Japanese Type 96 is a T-34++ with armour around twice as thick, massively increased speed and a high velocity 75mm gun. A bit better than a T-34/85 and similar to a Panzer V. Definitely 1944 territory.

Gothia Works seems to be going the same way with high velocity 75mm guns.

Quoted

From my understanding of the situation re: upgunning tanks, there are a couple different limiting factors.


Recoil and weight aren't that big factors unless its a very light tank. Weight isn't much, even for a modern 105mm its only about 1200kg. Medium velocity 75mm is around 300kg. This is from a nice little book on AFV design I have borrowed. Counterweights on the breech end take up volume and may be more of a problem. Internal space in the turret is the largest problem. How much the gun elevates/depresses depends on what height you have the trunnions and external fittings. Then there is the recoil length and the need to push a new round into the breech. The 88L71 was able to fit into the Panther's Smallturm, but its an interference fit and barely able to load ammunition.