I dont know, is it the best Gun because of the number of kills? By that analogy the best Fighter of ww2 may have been the BF-109, for Im sure it probably has the highest number of kills.
FIREFLY,
I believe part of the equation should be the actual battlefield performance, don’t you?
Look at the T-34, often stated the “best” tank of WW2, Why? I am sure it is NOT because of the one on one factor agains axis armour, After all it had weaker armour and a weaker gun, but its battlefield performance is what beat the German Armour.
Isn’t the BF 109 one of the best fighters of the war? 
:roll:
How ever would you know that?!
“In about September 1944, the British started to use APDS shot for the 17-pdr, which travelling at over 1200 meters per second increased the armour penetrating power of the 17-pdr greatly with a penetration of 140 mm armour over 1,000 yards (914 m). The disadvantages of APDS as compared with the 17-pdr’s regular APCBC ammunition was that it was much less accurate and did not do nearly as much damage to an enemy tank if it did penetrate. APDS shot remained rare accounting for only about 6% of the average loadout of a 17-pdr equipped British tank” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_QF_17_pounder
“the 8.8cm Panzerabwehrkanone (PaK) 43 and later 43/41 L/71 – was developed and put into production in 1943.”
“The Pak43/41 served in Army Heavy Anti-tank Battalions (schwere Heeres-Panzerjager-Abteilung) and saw service on all fronts for the remainder of the war.” http://www.panzermuseum.com/german-88-anti-tank-gun.html
“The PaK 43 L/71 was more powerful than the 17 pdr, but that didn’t come into use until later in the war, and that was never very common.” -Tony Williams"
Kinda puts it into the same category as the Pak 43 doesn;t it?:rolleyes:
[b]Here is some info on the Pak-Kwk 43 88mm,
[/b] [edit] PzGr. 39/43 (APCBC-HE)
Projectile weight: 10.2 kg
Muzzle velocity: 1000 m/s
Penetration figures given for an armoured plate 30 degrees from the horizontal
Hit probability versus 2.5 m x 2 m target [1]
Range Penetration in training in combat
100 m 202 mm 100 % 100 %
500 m 185 mm 100 % 100 %
1000 m 165 mm 100 % 85 %
1500 m 148 mm 95 % 61 %
2000 m 132 mm 85 % 43 %
2500 m n/a 74 % 30 %
3000 m n/a 61 % 23 %
3500 m n/a 51 % 17 %
4000 m n/a 42 % 13 %
[edit] PzGr. 40/43 (APCR)
Projectile weight: 7.3 kg
Muzzle velocity: 1030 m/s
Penetration figures given for an armoured plate 30 degrees from the horizontal
Hit probability versus 2.5 m x 2 m target [2]
Range Penetration in training in combat
100 m 238 mm 100 % 100 %
500 m 217 mm 100 % 100 %
1000 m 193 mm 100 % 89 %
1500 m 171 mm 97 % 66 %
2000 m 153 mm 89 % 47 %
2500 m n/a 78 % 34 %
3000 m n/a 66 % 25 %
Check out the “First Hit” percentage, pretty impressive for combat.:p:p:p
8.8 cm PaK 43 AT Gun
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
8.8 cm PaK 43 at US Army Ordnance Museum.
8.8 cm PaK 43/41 at US Army Ordnance Museum.The PaK 43 (Panzerabwehrkanone 43) was a German 88 mm anti-tank gun developed from the famous 88 mm anti-aircraft gun and used during the Second World War. It was the most powerful anti-tank gun of the Wehrmacht to see service in significant numbers. A number of armored vehicles also carried versions of this gun, under different designations, including: heavy tank Tiger II (KwK 43 L/71), self-propelled gun Nashorn (PaK 43/1), as well as tank destroyers Ferdinand/Elefant (PaK 43/2) and Jagdpanther (PaK 43/3 and 43/4).
The main version of the PaK 43 used a highly efficient cruciform mount. This made it an excellent weapon, with a full 360 degree traverse and with a much lower profile than the anti-aircraft version of the 88 mm, making it much easier to conceal.
Doesn’t appear to be the “lumbering Behemouth” that it is made out to be in this thread. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:8.8_cm_PaK_43_1.JPG
The numbers produced of the above AFVs are minuscule in comparison with Allied numbers mitigating any serious impact that this weapon had…
I would argue that the German 75mm mounted on the Jagdpanzers, Panther or on the Panzer Marks III & IV probably knocked out several times the number of Allied AFVs…
And the King Tiger was largely a fail when used in the Ardennes’ (Battle of the Bulge) offensive, largely because it was very unwieldy…
NICKD,
Absolutely, The '75 was a great caliber, but it too came in various lengths, obviously the panzer4 had a lesser gun than the 75mm L/70 of the Panther. Im sure you are right about the number of AFV’s kncked out with German 75’s (all calibers) than 88’s./
That is why it is difficult to answer a question of which is “best”
Does “best” mean in a one on one comparison or “best” in influencing the war.
I think we are maybe confusing what may have been the best with what may be the most effective. So the best gun may well have been better than any other but had little if any impact on the conflic or effect on the outcome of the war.
True. But even here it becomes problematic…
Was the German 88mm really better than the British 3.7" AA gun or the American 90mm? We can argue yes because it was developed into an anti-tank variant whereas the British gun never was but potentially have been a world beater, and the US 90mm was only beginning to be used in an anti-tank role by 1945 but was very adept at splitting Panthers and Tigers when it was mounted on the M-26 Pershing and got the chance…
One on One analysis as well as battlefield performance/effectiveness need to be taken into account. You can’t call a gun that was introduced in March 1945 “the best gun of the war” even if it had superior potential than any other. By the same token you can’t call the BF 109 (FIREFLY)the "best fighter of the war because it had more kills and ignore its performance flaws when compared to the latest allied fighters.
The ME 262 had the best performance of any other single airplane in the War, was it the “best”?
The T-34 was a war winning tank (en masse), was it the “best” one on one?
Actually, I’m going to make the case here that the 88mm is actually quite overrated, and the only reason for its notoriety was that is was the first medium anti-aircraft gun to be used in an anti-tank role and as direct fire artillery. But as a gun, the Allies actually had more potentiality. The infamous reputation of 88 was far more a case of ergonomics and creativity rather than the result of it being some fearsome super-weapon…
…
Comparatively, the 88 was not as powerful as its Allied counterparts. In the anti-aircraft role it fired a 20.3-pound shell at a muzzle velocity of 2,600 ft/s to an effective ceiling of 26,000 feet (at maximum 32,000 ft, 10,600 m). Although this was useful during the U.S. daylight raids, which typically took place at 25,000 ft, many aircraft could fly higher than its maximum effective ceiling. In comparison, the British 3.7-inch Mark 3 fired a 28-pound projectile at 2,600 ft/s to an effective ceiling of 32,000 feet, and the American 90 mm Mark 1 fired a 23-pound shell at 2,700 ft/s to the same height. They also had the advantage of a higher rate of fire, a side-effect of their automated fuse-setters that raised the rate of fire to about 20 rpm, as opposed to the original 88 which could generally reach only 15 rpm in the anti-aircraft role. To this was added proximity fuzes. These weapons were much more useful against aircraft even during WWII, and continued to have some use into the jet age. On the downside, the Allies weapons were heavier and less mobile, as well as being almost useless in the ground-attack roles until numerous modifications were carried out. While the U.S. 90 mm would go on to serve as a powerful anti-tank gun in some roles, it was by no means as universally deployed as the 88.
Now you’re contradicting yourself with two divergent arguments. How was a variant of the 88mm that was mounted on comparatively few AFVs better than the one that mounted on probably 90% of German WWII AFVs in an anti-tank role? I would surmise that there were as bout as many German 88mm in a pure anti-tank role as there were American 90mm’s in this role by 1945. Again, just an approximate guess…
By the same token you can’t call the BF 109 (FIREFLY)the "best fighter of the war because it had more kills and ignore its performance flaws when compared to the latest allied fighters.
The ME 262 had the best performance of any other single airplane in the War, was it the “best”?
The T-34 was a war winning tank (en masse), was it the “best” one on one?
I didn’t say it was “the best gun.” But it was actually more potentially devastating than was the much vaunted 88mm, and the US 90mm had greater muzzle velocity. Also, the 90 was mounted on the M-36 at the end of 1943, and saw significant post-war life on the M-46/47/48 series of tanks…
And the T-34 didn’t have to worry about being “one on one” since it was very easy to produce in large quantities, unlike the Panther or especially the Tiger. And the T-34/85 vs. a say Panther, well it comes down to the crew more than anything else…
So, left out of the poll (which I just noticed) was the US M3/T18/T19 90mm gun that fired an “improved velocity” AP round at 975m per second (over the AA version which was 823mps) and the US M1 76mm mounted on the improved M-4AE8 “Easy Eight” Sherman and the Soviet D-5 85mm tank gun?
And what about the British 96mm/32 pounder tank cannon which was derived from the venerable 3.75" AA gun for the Tortoise heavy assault gun?
It’s a shame the MOW didn’t pursue this farther than they did…
NICKD,
!!!
Don’t confuse the 88 AT gun with the Anti aircraft gun :roll::mrgreen:
Rubbish. I’m beginning to lose patience with you, Sickles, as you seem to be deliberately ignoring the points I’m making. The accuracy problem of the 17 pdr came only with the APDS shot, it was as accurate as anything else when firing APCBC. And it had a superior penetration to the 88mm L/56 when firing APCBC. Furthermore, the 17pdr would have stood a better chance of hitting the target than the 88mm L/56 because it had a higher muzzle velocity (yes, with APCBC not APDS) giving it a flatter trajectory and a shorter flight time. It was also much lighter and more compact than the 88mm L/56, making it more difficult to see and hit, and also greatly improving its battlefield mobility. The 17 pdr was superior to the 88mm L/56 in every respect.
Does it make a difference that the 17 pounder can penetrate 10 to 20 mm more armour than the L/56 when both were powerful enough to penetrate any tank encountered?
Yes it does. Penetration figures are generally quoted at a striking angle of around 30 degrees from normal, which is quite favourable - the best you’re likely to get in action. In many cases, the striking angle would be much worse, in which case the penetration of the AT guns drops off quite significantly. So you need a considerable overmatch of penetration to ensure that you can kill the tanks in all circumstances.
Which gun killed more enemy tanks?. That would be the 88mm L/56. Period.
Let’s see the figures you base that on, and a source for them.
TONY,
C’mon, who is the one ignoring facts?
Did you ignore my posts#24-25 & 26, That show your earlier dismissal of the 88 L/71 (being cumbersome and too few too late) to be quite possibly wrong.
_ Being that the L/56 was used during most of the war with devastating effects especially in Russia when on the defensive (when AT guns are usually used), I am quite sure it was a bigger killer than the 17 pounder, of course I cannot prove it.
_ I love how you dismiss the accuracy problems as only being to the sabot round. The SABOT is the reason why the 17 pounder became famous!!!
You talk about the greatness of the APDS round in earlier posts and at the same time dismiss the 88L/71 when in reality it was the Sabot that was rare! and inaccurate!!! Lets face it,Without the Sabot the 17 pounder was a very good gun. Not the greatest.
Um, I didn’t…
(Waving hand over head)…
I think I offered specific examples. And feel free to read this Wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M26_Pershing
Two M26A1E2 tanks were built during the Second World War. One of these made it to the ETO, assigned to the 3rd Armored Division. This experimental version of the Pershing, sometimes referred to as “Super Pershing” (as are other upgunned Pershing variants), had the 90 mm/70 caliber T15E1 high-velocity gun that threw a projectile at 3,850 ft/s (1,173 m/s). This gun could penetrate 216mm of rolled homogeneous armor at a range of 1000yd/914m against armor angled at 30 degrees [2]. At a range of 100yd/91.4m, it can penetrate 330mm vs RHA angled at 30 degrees[3]. *On April 4, 1945 near Dessau, the “Super Pershing” destroyed one King Tiger by striking its underbelly and knocked out another tank, probably a Panther, with a shot to its flank [4]. However, that was its only known combat engagement. Thus, the full capabilities of the T15E1 90 mm main gun were never demonstrated.
The 3AD Super Pershing was actually the T26E1 pilot tank. This tank while assigned to Task Force Wellborn destroyed at least 3 tanks, including the King Tiger at Dassau. This is according to John Irwin, gunner of the Super Pershing in his book, Another River, Another Town.
The facts are these (data from the official Royal Armoured Corps Tank Museum publication on WW2 tank guns), giving penetration performance for the guns in the same circumstances (against homogenous armour, at a striking angle of 30 degrees from perpendicular, at ranges of 1,000 and 2,000 yards):
17 pdr APCBC: 118mm and 98mm
17 pdr APDS: 170mm and 135mm
88mm L/56 APCBC: 101mm and 84mm
88mm L/71 APCBC: 167mm and 139mm
In other words, the 17 pdr comfortably beat the 88mm L/56 using the standard APCBC ammo (which is what the 17 pdr normally fired; APDS was in limited supply and was reserved for when it was really necessary), and it could match the 88mm L/71 by using APDS. It is true that the dispersion of the APDS rounds was greater than the usual type, but this was compensated by the very high muzzle velocity, giving a flat trajectory and short flight time.
Then you come to battlefield mobility, as determined by the weight of the guns:
17 pdr = 4,624 lb, 88mm L/56 FlaK gun = 10,992 lb, 88mm L/71 PaK 43 = 8,159 lb.
These figures show that the 17 pdr was clearly superior to the 88mm L/56, as it should be, being a purpose-designed AT gun rather than a lightly-modified FlaK gun.
The 88mm L/71 PaK 43 was certainly much more powerful than the 17 pdr, but it was also much heavier. And it raises the question: just how powerful did a gun need to be? As you said yourself, the 88mm L/56 was capable of knocking out almost any tank in the war, and so, obviously, was the 17 pdr. So why burden yourself with the massive extra weight of the 88mm PaK? In most circumstances, it was just overkill.
Germany could have had an anti-tank gun closely comparable with the 17 pdr, just by fitting the Panther’s 75mm L/70 tank gun to an AT chassis, but they never did it. This could penetrate 121mm at 1,000 yards and 89mm at 2,000. It would, I think, have been a more useful gun than the 88mm Pak, and because it would have cost much less to make, the Germans could have made more of them.
In reality, there was no “best” anti-tank gun, because it depended on the circumstances, and on the criteria chosen. Accordingly, I haven’t voted in this poll.
In what was the L/56 mounted?
How many were produced?
BTW, why are you not contradicting an earlier point you made (something to the affect) that the numbers don’t really matter, it is merely the effectiveness of the weapon (the 88mm) no matter how few made it into combat (relatively speaking as there were less than 500 King Tigers ever produced). Now we’re back to the “but the 88mm killed more tanks than the 17 pounder” as the central thesis of your argument. That may be true, but the version(s) of the 88mm that killed most of those tanks was inferior to the 17 pounder in most armor piercing respects…
_ I love how you dismiss the accuracy problems as only being to the sabot round. The SABOT is the reason why the 17 pounder became famous!!!
You talk about the greatness of the APDS round in earlier posts and at the same time dismiss the 88L/71 when in reality it was the Sabot that was rare! and inaccurate!!! Lets face it,Without the Sabot the 17 pounder was a very good gun. Not the greatest.
Largely based on opinion…There were in fact better Allied guns (and possibly German ones) that were never sent to the battlefield in sufficient numbers, but were clearly better than any variant of the 88mm…
And as an aside, I’m kind of agreeing with Tony here. The “troll alarm” went off after I read your first post, and I think you’re just throwing selectively edited Wiki links out here in almost an “Ironman” style of argument that has little to do with reaching an objective of truthful consensus, and more to do with arguing for the sake of it…