Author Topic: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles  (Read 65809 times)

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #50 on: April 27, 2014, 08:55:17 PM »
I guess my thinking on the M60 acquisition by the RAM (not the ARA) is that they were willing to trade off on agility & fuel consumption for better protection during landing operations & cheaper spares. Also, during the period of their decision, their focus is on interoperability with US forces in Viet Nam - where they have found themselves short of armour & having to rely on "borrowed"/leased M41's - & perceived "small island" threats in the Asia-Pacific region.

The initial purchase would be of slightly modified M60A1's, called the M60AS. I may take Greg's idea of upgrading to a 120mm gun to plastic, if I buy another kit, or in story form, if I don't - with the upgrades being something along the lines of the M60AS Phase 1 (M60AS/1) & M60AS Phase 2 (M60AS/2).

:icon_music:

Edit PS: The 120mm M60AS/2 upgrade would be a stop-gap whilst the IMI-ADI (Australian Defence Industries) nut out the technicalities re: Israeli-Australian component manufacture for the Merkava IV-AS LIC (called the Monash in Australian service) & would not include full upgrade to the full Magash 7 standard.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2014, 10:09:45 PM by Old Wombat »
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #51 on: April 27, 2014, 09:57:55 PM »
Well, the M60 was looked at as an alternative to the Leopard 1 by Australia so it wouldn't be too great a stretch to say that the ARA did get M60s (maybe designated M60 (AS1)) instead. 

The competition as between the Chieftain, the Leopard 1 and the M60.  The Chieftain was eliminated on cost.  The M60 'cause the US couldn't guarantee a single tranche of all 100 vehicles as the US Army had priority at the time as they were re-equipping with them.  It was also more expensive than the Leopard 1.   The Army decided that as it was likely they would end up with several different sub-types which would make training and maintenance more difficult if they bought several different tranches of vehicles, as well as the cost which would make it prohibitive for them to be able to purchase sufficient to equip 1 Armoured Regiment plus a training squadron (shades of the M1 Abrahms purchase), they would pass on it, in favour of the Leopard 1.  The Germans also offered a better deal on Australian industrial involvement - the four AVLB tanks were to have their bridges built in Australia.  The Germans however reneged on that and supplied the AVLBs, with bridges.

The M60 would have been more expensive to operate, it was like most US tanks, notoriously thirsty.  Spares though, would have been less expensive.   It was more heavily armoured than the Leopard 1 but less nimble .  In the original M60, its FCS was quite primitive compared the Leopard AS1.

There are pictures around of the M60 trials vehicle wearing 1 Armoured Regiment's tac signs on the hull glacis.   However, they would have been like the Leopards in plain green, in this case US Army Olive Green for the first decade before they started experimenting with camouflage on them.

I have read a bit on the Leopard vs M-60 trials but only vaguely recall mention of the Chieftain.  I had assumed it had been ruled out due to mobility and reliability concerns due to a personal belief the type had a bad reputation for such.  Subsequent reading has changed that opinion and I am interested in your statement that it was eliminated on cost grounds and wonder if it was actually trialled at all and if it was how it performed.  I am curious as the performance of the Centurion with the RAAC would I imagine have given the Chieftain a leg up in the competition.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #52 on: April 29, 2014, 08:52:59 AM »
Early Chieftains had reliability problems and were rather underpowered.  However, by the time the Australian competition came around most of those problems had been eliminated.   It was still a bit underpowered though, even by the Mk.5 but mobility was a secondary consideration compared to protection and firepower in the design.  It was quite expensive and eliminated AIUI from the competition even before the trials stage on that basis.  IIRC two Leopard 1s and two M60s arrived in Australia for trials.  The M60 did quite well but cost and the problems with availability told against it. 

This is all gleaned from the fellow who wrote a historical report to analyse the M1 purchase.  He predicted that the ADF would be using the M1s for training with the idea being that 1 Armd Regt. would be taking over pre-positioned M1s provided by the US Army if it was to deploy overseas.  This all came about because of a very silly and intemperate statement that John Howard made on radio during an interview that the Army might deploy an "armoured brigade group" to Iraq for the invasion in 2003.   Everybody who knew anything all pricked their ears up and said, "What 'armoured brigade group'?"   We'd have been scrabbling to get an armoured battalion group there and if we did, it would have been very much outclassed by the Iraqis and more than likely a liability for the coalition.   After the war was over, Army held that over Howard's head and he gave them the M1s but they didn't purchase sufficient to equip 1 Armd. Regt. and a training squadron in total.  So, it all harked back to the problems with purchasing M60s for the replacement for the Centurions... 

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #53 on: April 29, 2014, 09:05:22 AM »
I guess my thinking on the M60 acquisition by the RAM (not the ARA) is that they were willing to trade off on agility & fuel consumption for better protection during landing operations & cheaper spares. Also, during the period of their decision, their focus is on interoperability with US forces in Viet Nam - where they have found themselves short of armour & having to rely on "borrowed"/leased M41's - & perceived "small island" threats in the Asia-Pacific region.

I'd expect them to get M48a3s then, Guy, if it's during or just after Vietnam.  As already related, the M60s were in high demand for some time.  Only Israel had higher priority than the US Army.  The M48 was actually not a bad tank and did quite well in most of the conflicts it was involved in, when it was handled properly.  The main exception was the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 but that was primarily a problem with inferior Pakistani command, than necessarily the vehicle itself.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #54 on: April 29, 2014, 10:43:25 AM »
Early Chieftains had reliability problems and were rather underpowered.  However, by the time the Australian competition came around most of those problems had been eliminated.   It was still a bit underpowered though, even by the Mk.5 but mobility was a secondary consideration compared to protection and firepower in the design.  It was quite expensive and eliminated AIUI from the competition even before the trials stage on that basis.  IIRC two Leopard 1s and two M60s arrived in Australia for trials.  The M60 did quite well but cost and the problems with availability told against it. 

This is all gleaned from the fellow who wrote a historical report to analyse the M1 purchase.  He predicted that the ADF would be using the M1s for training with the idea being that 1 Armd Regt. would be taking over pre-positioned M1s provided by the US Army if it was to deploy overseas.  This all came about because of a very silly and intemperate statement that John Howard made on radio during an interview that the Army might deploy an "armoured brigade group" to Iraq for the invasion in 2003.   Everybody who knew anything all pricked their ears up and said, "What 'armoured brigade group'?"   We'd have been scrabbling to get an armoured battalion group there and if we did, it would have been very much outclassed by the Iraqis and more than likely a liability for the coalition.   After the war was over, Army held that over Howard's head and he gave them the M1s but they didn't purchase sufficient to equip 1 Armd. Regt. and a training squadron in total.  So, it all harked back to the problems with purchasing M60s for the replacement for the Centurions...

I remember that statement well and coming after the defence cuts and project cancellations of the late 90s was just icing on the cake. 

I have often found that those who believe Australia spends too much on defence honestly believe that we have a defence force approaching the size and capability of the US and that many of those, including politicians change their tune when they discover just how small the ADF is.  It is actually inconceivable to the average person that a nation with Australia's geography doesn't have hundreds of tanks, fighter jets and a couple of aircraft carriers.

An Australia Chieftain or even Challenger I buy would have been great for the 91 Gulf War, as would an M-60 buy to be honest, it would have permitted Australia to actually send a battle group to support allied forces.  Never understood why under our old structure that we didn't attempt to maintain an up to date armoured brigade, they don't really cost that much more than a LI bde while providing significantly more combat power.

To me a CAV (wheeled), able to deploy self supporting combined arms squadrons, formation is a no brainer, as is an actual tank brigade (two tank, one armoured infantry btns) and an air mobile LI brigade with everything else being to fill gaps and provide enabling capabilities, i.e. an APC regiment to lift the LI as required, possibly with a sqn of AAV-7s and another of Vikings / Broncos.

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #55 on: April 29, 2014, 11:11:39 AM »
Carousel auto-loaders are generally a bad idea for tanks if you care about the crew at all.  The US was playing with a number of tank auto-loaders throughout that period and the West even got a few that worked.  See the Strv 103 for a good example of that.  I think the gun would have to return to the same position after each shot or you'd have to go with an oscillating turret.  The US played with oscillating turrets in the 50s and 60s and didn't like them, so I'd imagine they wouldn't go with one in the 1970s.  You could definitely do one, though, it's not that impractical.
Just a thought, use a fixed gun in the turret with elevation by differential suspension as on the Strv 103.

This works as long as you're only pointing the gun forwards.  Your ability to depress or elevate the gun to the side on uneven terrain becomes severely compromised when you have to rely on the suspension to do it for you.  It also means that you essentially can't fire on the move, since the suspension can't be relied upon to both propel the tank in one direction and depress or elevate the gun to any target off the centerline.  In that sort of case, why bother with the turret at all?  Then you end up right back at the S-tank.

Early Chieftains had reliability problems and were rather underpowered.  However, by the time the Australian competition came around most of those problems had been eliminated.   It was still a bit underpowered though, even by the Mk.5 but mobility was a secondary consideration compared to protection and firepower in the design.

This statement surprises me, if I'm honest.  I know the Chieftain's reliability and mobility improved considerably over its service life, but I've never read that it was "good".  Everything I've read says that was the vehicle's Achilles' heel right up to the end.  Again, it got much better, but it still wasn't as good as the Leo or M60 according to the accounts I've come across.

Cheers,

Logan

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #56 on: April 29, 2014, 11:40:36 AM »
Early Chieftains had reliability problems and were rather underpowered.  However, by the time the Australian competition came around most of those problems had been eliminated.   It was still a bit underpowered though, even by the Mk.5 but mobility was a secondary consideration compared to protection and firepower in the design.

This statement surprises me, if I'm honest.  I know the Chieftain's reliability and mobility improved considerably over its service life, but I've never read that it was "good".  Everything I've read says that was the vehicle's Achilles' heel right up to the end.  Again, it got much better, but it still wasn't as good as the Leo or M60 according to the accounts I've come across.

Cheers,

Logan

It's all relative, Logan.  The British army came away from WWII with very different lessons compared to the US and German Armies.   They placed protection as the primary attribute for their tanks.  Firepower came second and mobility last, so the Chieftain suffered for most of it's life from being what appeared to be being underpowered compared to its US and German counterparts.   However, neither of them could really go head-to-head with the enemy in the same way as the Chieftain either.  Towards the end of it's service life, reliability was quite good, by all accounts but it was still a sluggard.  When the Jordanians took over a large slice of the UK Chieftain and Challenger I fleet they upgraded their engines and firecontrol systems.  They even did so to the Chieftains that the Iraqis had captured from the Iranians.   The Iraqi had over a hundred Chieftains in their fleet when Gulf War I rolled around.   A few were encountered by the Allied Coalition but didn't perform well because they were mishandled.

It's just a different approach to the compromises the designers faced.  It's rather like how most Soviet/Russian equipment is misjudged because many Westerners don't understand the reasons why it's designed the way it is.

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #57 on: April 29, 2014, 09:37:44 PM »
I guess my thinking on the M60 acquisition by the RAM (not the ARA) is that they were willing to trade off on agility & fuel consumption for better protection during landing operations & cheaper spares. Also, during the period of their decision, their focus is on interoperability with US forces in Viet Nam - where they have found themselves short of armour & having to rely on "borrowed"/leased M41's - & perceived "small island" threats in the Asia-Pacific region.

I'd expect them to get M48a3s then, Guy, if it's during or just after Vietnam.  As already related, the M60s were in high demand for some time.  Only Israel had higher priority than the US Army.  The M48 was actually not a bad tank and did quite well in most of the conflicts it was involved in, when it was handled properly.  The main exception was the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 but that was primarily a problem with inferior Pakistani command, than necessarily the vehicle itself.

I'd suggest they were thinking longer-term for the major purchase of the M60's, possibly with a small number of M48's leased/lend-leased in-country in Viet Nam, later, to bolster the M41's. The overall RAM purchase wouldn't have been as large as an army one, either.

OK, so the RAN probably would have balked at the cost & the delay in receiving them may have been an issue ...

... but this is Whif World, after all, so a little bit of leeway shouldn't be too much to ask. ;)
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #58 on: April 29, 2014, 10:15:56 PM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #59 on: April 29, 2014, 10:51:17 PM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

Yes, I like the look of the M48, too (especially the A3), but, in comparison to the M60, the M48 was poorly armoured & under-gunned. :icon_crap:

Besides, the Israeli modifications are pretty cool! 8)
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline LemonJello

  • MARPAT Master
  • Member number 100...WooHoo!!!
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #60 on: April 29, 2014, 11:09:54 PM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

Yes, I like the look of the M48, too (especially the A3), but, in comparison to the M60, the M48 was poorly armoured & under-gunned. :icon_crap:

Besides, the Israeli modifications are pretty cool! 8)

I was just pondering an indigenous modernization program for the M-48s in RAM service.  Take the best of the lot as the US begins to transition to the -60 and bring them to Australia?  Sure, why not? I'd see a SLEP starting with bolt-on armor leading to new composite turrets with upgraded guns (105s, then 120s?).  Internally, engine/drive train modernization as well as communications/fire control/survivability updates that are tailored to the threats/situations the RAM would face can also be integrated.  This way, you'd get a unique, Australian MBT that looks almost nothing like the basic M48, nor any of its other derivatives in service anywhere else in the world.   

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #61 on: April 30, 2014, 02:27:46 AM »
Something different…a ROC CM-11 (M48H) "Brave Tiger":



This comprises of a up-gunned M48A2 turret mated to an M60A3 hull. 



One can get Hobby Fan M48H Add-on Armor as shown above - see here for an example
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 02:33:54 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #62 on: April 30, 2014, 04:17:31 AM »
Couple of pics from a July 1968 AW&ST article on automotive gas turbines.





“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline finsrin

  • The Dr Frankenstein of the modelling world...when not hiding from SBA
  • Finds part glues it on, finds part glues it on....
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #63 on: April 30, 2014, 04:31:43 AM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

On a purely aesthetic basis.  My favorites are M-47 and the M-48 with T shape muzzle.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #64 on: April 30, 2014, 07:16:56 AM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

On a purely aesthetic basis.  My favorites are M-47 and the M-48 with T shape muzzle.

Got a de-barrelled Israeli M-48 that I need to fix one day.  It is perhaps the best build I ever did which is why my psycho adopted brother took such pleasure in wrecking it and then bragging about what he did.  Need a new barrel but more to the point need to match the paint which is the killer.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #65 on: April 30, 2014, 08:21:30 AM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

Yes, I like the look of the M48, too (especially the A3), but, in comparison to the M60, the M48 was poorly armoured & under-gunned. :icon_crap:

I think that depends very much on where you believe the RAM are going to be operating.  The M48 was more than adequate in Vietnam and quite capable of taking on T55s as was shown in the 1972 offensive.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #66 on: April 30, 2014, 08:23:36 AM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

On a purely aesthetic basis.  My favorites are M-47 and the M-48 with T shape muzzle.

Got a de-barrelled Israeli M-48 that I need to fix one day.  It is perhaps the best build I ever did which is why my psycho adopted brother took such pleasure in wrecking it and then bragging about what he did.  Need a new barrel but more to the point need to match the paint which is the killer.

Just say it's got a replacement tube and the paint is brand new and so doesn't match the rest of the vehicle.

Offline Rickshaw

  • "Of course, I could be talking out of my hat"
Re: M26 and M46 Pershing, M47, M48, M60 Patton, and M103 Family of Vehicles
« Reply #67 on: April 30, 2014, 10:09:59 AM »
M-48 IMO looks tougher and meaner than the M-60 as well as being subject to some pretty extensive and successful upgrades over the years.  The RAM could do worse  ;)

On a purely aesthetic basis.  My favorites are M-47 and the M-48 with T shape muzzle.

I must admit I like the M47.  It was quite a well shaped turret and looks the part.  Perhaps from watching too many Hollywood Spanish WWII movies?  The T-shaped muzzle brake on the M48 is also a personal favourite.  Perhaps 'cause I watched too many Japanese monster movies as a kid and the Type 61s always had one?

Offline Cliffy B

  • Ship Whiffer Extraordinaire...master of Beyond Visual Range Modelling
  • Its ZOTT!!!
    • My Artwork
Most of these are on the first page but there's a few different ones

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,7417.0.html
"Radials growl, inlines purr, jets blow!"  -Anonymous

"Helos don't fly.  They vibrate so violently that the ground rejects them."  -Tom Clancy

"If all else fails, call in an air strike."  -Anonymous

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
My attempt, now damaged Israeli M-48 with a scratch build cupola and now broken MG mount
« Last Edit: May 19, 2014, 02:17:18 PM by Volkodav »

Offline Jeffry Fontaine

  • Unaffiliated Independent Subversive...and the last person to go for a trip on a Mexicana dH Comet 4
  • Global Moderator
  • His stash is able to be seen from space...
My attempt, now damaged Israeli M-48 with a scratch build cupola and now broken MG mount
So now you have an opportunity to really tart up that M48. 

As for the cupola, keep it simple, if you have an M113 cupola in the spare parts box it will fit.  Other options to consider would be the gunner's turret from the LVTP-7, this is the turret with the single M85 .50" MG and not the UGWS with the M2 .50" BMG and Mk19 40mm GMG.  Other options that are retro would be to look at the early Sherman cupolas from the big hatch Sherman which had both types of cupola.  There was an image in an old Israeli publication showing an M4 Sherman all-around vew cupola mounted on an M48.  This was before the IDF went to the "Urdan" cupola as standard. 
"Every day we hear about new studies 'revealing' what should have been obvious to sentient beings for generations; 'Research shows wolverines don't like to be teased" -- Jonah Goldberg

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
Better Ammo For US Medium Tank Grade 90mm Guns?
« Reply #71 on: June 12, 2014, 01:37:18 PM »
90mm GIAT F4, who's APFSDS round is claimed to be able to penetrate the glacis of a baseline T-72 at 2000m.  If that 8.5 tonne armoured car can carry it in it's 2-man turret, I see no reason why the 23.5 ton M-41 couldn't fit it in it's 3-man turret.

This comment, while not directly related to the Pershing and Patton tanks, did get me wondering about one thing:

I've been hearing people putting the US medium tank grade 90mm guns into the same category as the German 88mm L/56 whereas the Russian 100mm gun is seen as being on the same level as the more-powerful 88mm L/71...... and the 100mm gun remained in use all the way up to now despite bigger guns have been exported.  Did the 90mm gun actually have unrealized potential, and if so, would the ammunition technology of the 1980s have been able to keep the gun reasonably useful (the French 90mm F4 gun being the one measuring stick I can find) as an anti-tank weapon?

Or am I still better off going through the trouble of a full-on gun replacement?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 02:02:02 PM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
I've long put the British 17pdr, German 7.5cm L/70, German 8.8cm L/56, and US 90mm M3 guns in roughly the same category for penetration. Obviously, the British 20pdr, German 8.8cm L/71, and American long 90mm (T15-series, for example) would be superior to the shorter guns. So, where do the Soviet 100mm guns fit? Well, for me, somewhere in the middle, but leaning towards the latter group, especially in the postwar years.

Again, though, you have to realize a bunch of things. First of all, comparative tests from the period are terribly flawed, to say nothing of the raw data from the various nations. What counts as a "penetration", what was the Brinell rating of the target armor, etc. That means that most of this is guess work at some point. Also, ammunition quality matters quite a lot, generally US and USSR ammunition in WWII was pretty terrible but got better as the war went on. German and British AP ammunition tended to be of a consistently higher quality than US and Soviet ammunition during much of the war years. There are plenty of exceptions to these, though. For example, Oskar Schindler was famous for producing thousands of rounds for Germany that were of intentionally poor quality.



The Panther's 75mm and the British 17pdr and frighteningly similar guns when you compare them, much long the American M3 90mm and the Tiger I's 88mm gun are very similar to each other. The 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 and QF 17pdr are notable for being the lowest caliber guns in the group by quite a fair margin. They were higher velocity, incredibly accurate, and had amazing penetration. They were also smaller, lighter rounds, so you could reload them faster and carry more of them. The downside? The HE rounds were pathetic and their barrel life was quite short. This isn't just an interesting factoid from the testing grounds, these all translated to actual battlefield trade offs.

The American long 90mm guns were just experimental and never had all the bugs worked out. The postwar guns actually relied heavily on HEAT rounds, so the AP performance was not as important. From what I've read, M48 Pattons with 90mm guns could reliably knock out T-54/55s in combat, but struggled against IS-3s. The fantastic British 105mm L7 did not have that issue and was better in every conceivable way (comparable to the Soviet 115mm).



My personal rule of thumb is that, other than a few outliers like the 57mm ZiS-2, a Soviet gun is generally best compared to the Western gun of slightly lower caliber. That's usually do to a lower velocity and results in being able to carry fewer rounds, being slightly more inaccurate, and taking longer to load. It has the advantage of a shorter development cycle, extended barrel life, and greater HE content.

Everything's a trade-off.

Cheers,

Logan
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 10:42:17 PM by Logan Hartke »

Offline dy031101

  • Yuri Fanboy and making cute stuff practical- at least that's the plan anyway
  • Prefers Guns And Tanks Over Swords And Magic
From what I've read, M48 Pattons with 90mm guns could reliably knock out T-54/55s in combat, but struggled against IS-3s.

It would seem to me that most M48 Pattons involved in combat beyond those operated by Israel are M48A3, which seems to have a different 90mm gun from those of all Pershing and previous Patton models.

Are they completely different guns using different ammunition or is M48A3's gun just a mere successor of the previous 90mm guns that can fire certain new kinds of rounds (that allows the M48A3 to better deal with T-55 than, say, M47 and M36 in Yugoslav Civil War could?) but are otherwise compatible in terms of ammunition?

As for the French F4 gun, what factors contributed to its suitability as a tank destroyer weapon in the '80s compared to the American 90mm guns?  Would those factors have been applicable to those American guns if there was the will within that time period?
« Last Edit: June 12, 2014, 11:44:58 PM by dy031101 »
Forget about his bow and arrows- why wait until that sparrow has done his deed when I can just bury him right now 'cause I'm sick and tired of hearing why he wants to have his way with the cock robin!?

Offline Logan Hartke

  • High priest in the black arts of profiling...
  • Rivet-counting whiffer
Yes, I know the US postwar 90mm guns were different than the WWII models, I wasn't trying to imply any different. As to their effectiveness, I'm not sure, I'd have to look it up in my Hunnicutts. From what I remember, though, the WWII M3 90mm had difficulty with T-54/55s frontally, but I've not read of major issues from M48 Pattons in that regard. One other thing to note is that the T-54/55 was actually quite weak from the side and rear aspects. I've come across accounts of M18 Hellcats in the Yugoslavian Civil War knocking out numerous T-54/55s with medium-range shots to the side armor.

As for the postwar French guns, I don't know enough to say for certain, but I'd imagine it was a combination of higher velocity and better ammunition that allowed it to continue to remain effective decades later. I think they used APFSDS, something that the US 90mm guns didn't benefit from in the 40s and 50s.

Cheers,

Logan