RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

First there was Tank of the Month. Then the heart-wrenching Pup of the Month. Now for the first time allowed on screen: Mother-in-Law of the Month.

Herr Dr. Professor wrote: First there was Tank of the Month. Then the heart-wrenching Pup of the Month. Now for the first time allowed on screen: Mother-in-Law of the Month.

NNoooooooo lets not go there , get that idea well out of our heads , la la la la la la .

Jarlath wrote:

43rdRecceReg wrote:I read recently, that with APDS rounds, the 17-Pounder was even more deadly; and that it possessed an even greater penetration potential than the vaunted 88mm Tiger 1 gun.

Stolen and extrapolated from the Wiki's

88 X 571R MM from 8.8cm KWK 36 L56 (4.92m barrel/56 Calibres)
Range/Penetration on 30d slope/Penetration Percentage
APCBC (Armour-piercing, capped, ballistic cap) 773m/s muzzle velocity

• 100m / 132mm pen / 100%
• 500m / 110mm pen / 100%
• 1000m / 99mm pen / 100%
• 2000m / 83mm pen / 87%

APCR (Armour-piercing, composite rigid) Aka Tungsten Core, 930m/s muzzle velocity

• 100m / 171mm pen /100%
• 500m / 156mm pen / 100%
• 1000m / 138mm pen / 99%
• 2000m / 110mm pen / 71%

76.2 X 583R MM from Ord QF 17 pdr (4.19m barrel/55 calibres)
Range/Penetration on flat with 50% Penetration Percentage
APCBC (Armour-piercing, capped, ballistic cap) 884m/s muzzle velocity

• 100m / 174mm pen
• 500m / 163mm pen
• 1000m / 150mm pen
• 2000m / 126mm pen

APDS (Armour-piercing, discarding sabot) 1204m/s muzzle velocity

• 100m / 275mm pen
• 500m / 256mm pen
• 1000m / 233mm pen
• 2000m / 194mm pen

Note the difference in how the Germans vs the British/USA list penetration figures. Actual percentage penetrations on sloped armour vs 50% on vertical surfaces.

If you want to see Sherman 75-76mm effectiveness look at Page 22 of https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1045347.pdf
Panthers were nearly invulnerable from the front

Neatly appropriated!. Unless I've read this wrongly, it looks like the 17-Pounder really did outperform the 88mm. Accuracy probably wasn't as great. I found that the cut-down, de-tuned 17-Pounder in the Comet was more accurate than the 17-Pounder itself.

Captain Hilts wrote:

Herr Dr. Professor wrote: First there was Tank of the Month. Then the heart-wrenching Pup of the Month. Now for the first time allowed on screen: Mother-in-Law of the Month.

NNoooooooo lets not go there , get that idea well out of our heads , la la la la la la .

THANK YOU: a salute of gratitude from Wisconsin to Jarlath north of the border for the handy-dandy AP potential table and the link to the interesting report. I admit this is all interesting, and may it henceforth be entirely theoretical, as all battles should be with IR or 6 mm BBs--loser has to buy dinner and/or beer.

43rdRR,

Great little video! What made me cringe about the story, was the poor Tommy's going against the Panzer's with their PIATs. Now there's a job I'd not want!

Let's not get started with Mother In Law's. I bet I have you all beat! Mine is not of this Earth!

Cheers,
Eric.

EAO wrote:43rdRR,

Great little video! What made me cringe about the story, was the poor Tommy's going against the Panzer's with their PIATs. Now there's a job I'd not want!

Let's not get started with Mother In Law's. I bet I have you all beat! Mine is not of this Earth!

Cheers,
Eric.

Perhaps folk have been too quick to write the Piat, or, Projector Infantry Anti-Tank- off At 100m, it had a greater effective range than the early Panzerfaust (30m), was reusable, and didn't blow holes in anyone unfortunate to be behind it. Then again, It could only penetrate 100mm (4 in) of armour- but could, and did knock Panthers out, whilst the early Panzerfaust could manage 140mm; but the operator had to be perilously close to the target to hit it. The PIAT had an indirect range capability of over 300m. It did have problems with dud fuses, and could give the operator's should a hefty kick, but continued to be used even after the war (The North Vietnamese used captured Fench examples, apparently). It was also highly effective against concrete emplacements, and houses. This one is taking a potshot at Hermann Goering's enormous posterior, which had been spotted on parade by reconnaissance aircraft

43rdRR,

I stand corrected! I knew the PIAT could be devastating and I knew it had a longer effective range than the Panzerfaust. However, I didn't know that the range was that much better! Every yard gained in a human vs. panzer confrontation must have been very welcome! Any type of that confrontation must have been highly nerve wracking, to say the least! I had always been led to believe that their shortcoming was largely due to their poor arming issues. From what I had read it made it sound like it was a very high percentage of failures. Thanks for the extra info!

Cheers,
Eric.