the 37mm question? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

FrankyVas -> the 37mm question? (6/14/2001 10:29:00 PM)

Was the American 37mm anti-tank gun so much better than the german one? In the game the yankee gun has almost twise as much penetration as the german one (79 vs 39) even though the range is half that of the german (20 vs 40). I have trouble believing that the american 37mm gun is almost as effective as the german long 50mm. Frank V.



Mikimoto -> (6/14/2001 10:59:00 PM)

Hello. If I remember correctly it was caused by the AP ammo. No tugsten in the german ammo. A lot of tugsten in the US ammo.



sven -> (6/14/2001 11:05:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mikimoto: Hello. If I remember correctly it was caused by the AP ammo. No tugsten in the german ammo. A lot of tugsten in the US ammo.
But Mikimoto that is not fair.... I know the answer let's crank up the german one past the US one....



FrankyVas -> (6/14/2001 11:18:00 PM)

No, no!!!!!!!!! I don't want the German one to improve. It was an underpowered weapon. I just think that the US gun is WAY too powerful. I've read many books and they all mention how crappy the US 37mm gun was. Well, in the game the US 37mm gun is a good gun, able to kill most German tanks where as everyone elses 37mm and even 40mm(2pdr) guns suck. Frank V.



sven -> (6/14/2001 11:30:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by FrankyVas: No, no!!!!!!!!! I don't want the German one to improve. It was an underpowered weapon. I just think that the US gun is WAY too powerful. I've read many books and they all mention how crappy the US 37mm gun was. Well, in the game the US 37mm gun is a good gun, able to kill most German tanks where as everyone elses 37mm and even 40mm(2pdr) guns suck. Frank V.
We had better ammo..... A weapon is made up of many components.... our ammo was fortified.... it penetrated better....



Mikimoto -> (6/15/2001 1:07:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by sven: But Mikimoto that is not fair.... I know the answer let's crank up the german one past the US one....
Hi Sven. Well, if you want... :D Its a US conspiracy to make the US more powerfull than the germans. All you know the German 37mm AT-Gun was better and more powerfull than US one. It used megatungstegnironmaiden ammo, capable of destroying a KV-1 at 2000 mts. range ;)



Lars Remmen -> (6/15/2001 2:06:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by sven: We had better ammo..... A weapon is made up of many components.... our ammo was fortified.... it penetrated better....
Sorry but I think you're wrong. It wasn't the quality of the ammo but something else. The reason the US gun is more powerful is that its projectile was heavier than the German projectile (0.86 kg or 1.92 lbs opposed to 0.354 kg or 0.78 lbs) and that the US guns muzzelvelocity was higher than the German guns (885 m/s or 2,900 fps opposed to 760 m/s or 2,495 fps). Thus you have a heavier projectile travelling at a higher speed which equals more energy to penetrate armour.



sven -> (6/15/2001 2:22:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Lars Remmen: Sorry but I think you're wrong. It wasn't the quality of the ammo but something else. The reason the US gun is more powerful is that its projectile was heavier than the German projectile (0.86 kg or 1.92 lbs opposed to 0.354 kg or 0.78 lbs) and that the US guns muzzelvelocity was higher than the German guns (885 m/s or 2,900 fps opposed to 760 m/s or 2,495 fps). Thus you have a heavier projectile travelling at a higher speed which equals more energy to penetrate armour.
Lars that was sort of my point. The US gun was a different gun than the German. I chose not to elaborate on the 'better ammo' because honestly we have all danced this dance before. sorry, sven



vex -> (6/15/2001 2:56:00 AM)

that its projectile was heavier than the German projectile if you're going to get technical, tungsten is what makes it heavier, heavier then brass,steel,etc.etc. but also alot harder then lead. thereby giving it mass(=force)while not compromising on its hardness (ability to pierce).



Lars Remmen -> (6/15/2001 3:06:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by vex: that its projectile was heavier than the German projectile if you're going to get technical, tungsten is what makes it heavier, heavier then brass,steel,etc.etc. but also alot harder then lead. thereby giving it mass(=force)while not compromising on its hardness (ability to pierce).
Tungsten is heavier but the entire projectile is not made up of tungsten. Only a part of it. Actually the projectiles utilizing tungsten were lighter than the ordinary AP projectiles resulting in a higher muzzel velocity. But because the projectile is lighter the energy contained in the projectile when it leaves the muzzel is not as great as in an ordinary AP projectile, thus the velocity and the superior AP effect wears away pretty fast making a tungsten projectile a good choice only at relatively short ranges.



sven -> (6/15/2001 3:08:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Lars Remmen: Tungsten is heavier but the entire projectile is not made up of tungsten. Only a part of it. Actually the projectiles utilizing tungsten were lighter than the ordinary AP projectiles resulting in a higher muzzel velocity. But because the projectile is lighter the energy contained in the projectile when it leaves the muzzel is not as great as in an ordinary AP projectile, thus the velocity and the superior AP effect wears away pretty fast making a tungsten projectile a good choice only at relatively short ranges.
Lars define short range. I think a 37mm is short range. I am not disagreeing with you by the way.



Lars Remmen -> (6/15/2001 3:12:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by sven: Lars define short range. I think a 37mm is short range. I am not disagreeing with you by the way.
Shorter than the standard AP projectile of the gun. Goes for any gun.



vex -> (6/15/2001 3:16:00 AM)

tungsten is/was too expensive to use as the more then just a part of the shell... i never stated it was the whole shell... and, you are being a bit nitpicky being that i was referring to YOUR statement about the relative heaviness of american vs german 37mm round. i was just adding some more metallurgy reasoning for your argument. weight+hardness+velcocity+shape determines most of the penentration.



FrankyVas -> (6/15/2001 3:40:00 AM)

Ok, thanks to all. I just wanted to know why it was so much better. I figured it was because of higher velocity and mass. Frank V.



Lars Remmen -> (6/15/2001 1:43:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by vex: tungsten is/was too expensive to use as the more then just a part of the shell... i never stated it was the whole shell... and, you are being a bit nitpicky being that i was referring to YOUR statement about the relative heaviness of american vs german 37mm round. i was just adding some more metallurgy reasoning for your argument. weight+hardness+velcocity+shape determines most of the penentration.
Being nitpicky? I just pointed out that I think you are wrong. Tungsten utilized in AP ammo is used to make the projectile hard, light and thus to make the projectile leave the muzzle faster then the ordinary AP round. Not to make the projectile heavier. Since you said (at least the was how I read it) that the reason the US round was heavier was due to tungsten I don't think that is being nitpicky :)



JTGEN -> (6/15/2001 2:29:00 PM)

OK Sven, that type of attitude towards wery good questions is not wery good for this kind of posts. The question is not that you have to shoot down every hint that the German equipement might not be in correlation to reality. What is your problem? Do you have some traumas or hate against the Germans that you have to address this way in several posts. Soon people (or some of them) are afraid to ask if this is the way their questions are treated. Are you trying to be funny. Well you are not, atleast if you can not make fun of US equipement too. Then it might show some real irony.



Phocks -> (6/15/2001 2:48:00 PM)

Just to clarify the reason why tungsten was/is used for AP projectiles: 1. It is dense. Thus, a projectile with a given diameter will weigh more when manufactured from tungsten. 2. It is very (very) hard- and when alloyed, tough. This is ballistically very important, as the round won't shatter at very high velocities, or deform on impact. This metal is also rather rare and hard to process and is used for many other, more critical items, e.g., machine tools. This explains why the Germans stopped using it in ammo after mid-1942 (at least it became extremly rare). The Allies on the other hand, cleverly managed to buy up virtually all the wolfram (tungsten-bearing ore) in the world, thus denying it form the Germans (Portugal produced a lot of it, and thus could export to Germany through Spain). It was still too expensive to manufacture EVERY AP round from the stuff, and unnecessary as well. BTW, there were many, many MANY types of AP ammo- the 37mm used by the US didn't use a sub-calibre penetrator of any sort that I am aware of during WWII, only the 76mm+ weapons did. Hope this helps. P.S., the US 37mm Gun also had a longer barrel, resulting in a higher velocity, even with the heavier projectile. [ June 15, 2001: Message edited by: Phocks ]



Gordon_freeman -> (6/15/2001 7:19:00 PM)

You are all talking of the Ammo only! As far as I am aware there were quiete a lot of other differences as well. The biggest is that the German gun had a bad optic! The Original vision range was aprox. 1000 meters, which Guderian mentioned was unapropriate for an anti tank gun. Then, it got the shorter barrel, as far as i remember. And, as everyone else said, the US got the better ammo.



sven -> (6/15/2001 9:14:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by JTGEN: OK Sven, that type of attitude towards wery good questions is not wery good for this kind of posts. The question is not that you have to shoot down every hint that the German equipement might not be in correlation to reality. What is your problem? Do you have some traumas or hate against the Germans that you have to address this way in several posts. Soon people (or some of them) are afraid to ask if this is the way their questions are treated. Are you trying to be funny. Well you are not, atleast if you can not make fun of US equipement too. Then it might show some real irony.
Gee GetGen I have yet to have seen four topics in one day on the request for improvements in US eqpt. by Yankee Fan. I have yet to see a double request for it by the way. German fan waltzes in and asks, "shouldn't the acc of the Panzerfaust be better?", "wonder why the Wulfram is being used as German MLRS", "shouldn't the US 37mm be as weak as the German 37mm?", and so forth ad infinitum.(oh and let's not forget the Goliath after all.) Seems you are a bit thin skinned. I do not make fun of the US eqpt. because quite frankly there is not as much of a demand by the US players for special treatment for its oob. If Yankee fan waltzed in and started demanding all Tank Destroyers, Jeeps, Cav scouts, and so on be elites I'd rip into them as well. The Tiger should not have turret armor of 21000000000, the 88mm does not have an AP of 9470000000. Makes for nice fantasy, but not physics. When German fan tries to justify it with anecdoatal evidence I laugh myself silly. regards, sven(decidedly unfunny)



sven -> (6/15/2001 9:24:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by George aka 2f: You are all talking of the Ammo only! As far as I am aware there were quiete a lot of other differences as well. The biggest is that the German gun had a bad optic! The Original vision range was aprox. 1000 meters, which Guderian mentioned was unapropriate for an anti tank gun. Then, it got the shorter barrel, as far as i remember. And, as everyone else said, the US got the better ammo.
Very good points George.



panda124c -> (6/15/2001 9:51:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Lars Remmen: Being nitpicky? I just pointed out that I think you are wrong. Tungsten utilized in AP ammo is used to make the projectile hard, light and thus to make the projectile leave the muzzle faster then the ordinary AP round. Not to make the projectile heavier. Since you said (at least the was how I read it) that the reason the US round was heavier was due to tungsten I don't think that is being nitpicky :)
OK my two cents. If you make a core of tungstan inside a shell (surrounded by a steel/lead jacket) the shell will be heavier than a normal AP round. If you also drive this round at a higher velocity. Then you will get much higher energy in the round. Now an interesting thing happens when this sort of round hits an armor plate, the outer jacket peals off but it imparts the overall energy to the smaller tungstan core giving it a much higher energy per sq inch this much higher energy causing the core to penatrate a much thicher plate. A higher velocity can be achived by using something other than steel/lead for the jacket. Using a pure tungstan round it not feasiable because you wear out the rifleing in the barrel and it's to heavy to achive the velocity. The velocity is important for two reasons it is part of the force equation and the longer a round takes to reach a target the more it drops this caused and accracy problem. Did I say two cents opps. :D



sven -> (6/15/2001 10:01:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by pbear: OK my two cents. If you make a core of tungstan inside a shell (surrounded by a steel/lead jacket) the shell will be heavier than a normal AP round. If you also drive this round at a higher velocity. Then you will get much higher energy in the round. Now an interesting thing happens when this sort of round hits an armor plate, the outer jacket peals off but it imparts the overall energy to the smaller tungstan core giving it a much higher energy per sq inch this much higher energy causing the core to penatrate a much thicher plate. A higher velocity can be achived by using something other than steel/lead for the jacket. Using a pure tungstan round it not feasiable because you wear out the rifleing in the barrel and it's to heavy to achive the velocity. The velocity is important for two reasons it is part of the force equation and the longer a round takes to reach a target the more it drops this caused and accracy problem. Shh! Don't confuse them with facts.... just reduce the American gun. Did I say two cents opps. :D



FrankyVas -> (6/15/2001 10:44:00 PM)

Sven, please refrain from posting again unless you have something constructive to say. One post might have been OK? but you haven't said anything usefull. Most people don't know how a gun's ballistics work and would be interested in learning. If they read your crappy posts they probably won't read on and won't learn. Frank V.



AmmoSgt -> (6/15/2001 10:56:00 PM)

OK some simple facts Iron is atomic number 26 atomic symbol FE Tugnsten is atomic number 72 atomic symbol W look it up on any periodic table Tugnsten is significantly heavier per cubic centimeter than Iron.. Energy is Mass x velocity SQUARED or E=Mc^2 Apples and oranges.. as armor developed ammo to defeat armor developed and not all shells are constructed to be AP types , different AP types are constructed differently , and HE shells are constructed very differently. HE is different from AP just as APCR is constructed different APDS... Ammo needs to be compared ger 37mm AP v us AP not APCR v APDS .. AT ammo is divided into two Broad Categories, Kinetic Energy and Chemical Energy...BUT even within a broad category , different construction is used to exploit different techniques of penetrating armor, and differing quality and hardness of specfic alloys used makes direct simple comparsions based on even the same spefic class of ammo dificult .. Add to this that any mismatch of propelent burn speed and barrel lenght severly reduces any assumed advantage of barrel lenght .. even the proportions of the shell and shape drastically effect performance. The type and number of groves in the rifling and the twist rate effect accuraccy and likelyhood of some ammo designs and types working better and being more stable than others out of the same gun . Take the US M250cal and the Russian 12.7 the boattail design of the US bullet makes for a superior performance the length to diameter ratio also plays a roll. As well as i can enumerate the significant factors the Desigh on a Gun and the associates ammo is not cut and dried .. Amazing synergies happen that are more art and luck than engineering The US 8" How M-1 was one of those amazing happenstance that created an incredibly accurate gun , While the US 175mm was a absolute disaster CEP wise ( Center Error Proable , the way artilery accuracy is measured ) The US 37mm was almost oe of those miracle guns in the eariler versions , and some tweaking turned into a wonder gun for it's caliber.. but it was more a wish and a fluke than a deliberate thing .. The German 37mm was an average gun and useful enough as at the time for what the percived threat was



sven -> (6/15/2001 11:01:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by FrankyVas: Sven, please refrain from posting again unless you have something constructive to say. One post might have been OK? but you haven't said anything usefull. Most people don't know how a gun's ballistics work and would be interested in learning. If they read your crappy posts they probably won't read on and won't learn. Frank V.
Dear Mr. Vas: Have you attempted to read any of the older threads on the issue? Do any of the new guys? I am always happy to help and have in the past. German Fan tends to whine... a lot. My opinion! Have at it!



Lars Remmen -> (6/15/2001 11:56:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by pbear: OK my two cents. If you make a core of tungstan inside a shell (surrounded by a steel/lead jacket) the shell will be heavier than a normal AP round. If you also drive this round at a higher velocity. Then you will get much higher energy in the round. Now an interesting thing happens when this sort of round hits an armor plate, the outer jacket peals off but it imparts the overall energy to the smaller tungstan core giving it a much higher energy per sq inch this much higher energy causing the core to penatrate a much thicher plate. A higher velocity can be achived by using something other than steel/lead for the jacket. Using a pure tungstan round it not feasiable because you wear out the rifleing in the barrel and it's to heavy to achive the velocity. The velocity is important for two reasons it is part of the force equation and the longer a round takes to reach a target the more it drops this caused and accracy problem. Did I say two cents opps. :D
All-right... For the 7.5 cm Pak 40: AP: Weight 6.8 kg or 14.5 lbs. Muzzel velocity 750 m/s or 2.460 fps. AP40 (Tungsten cored): Weight 4.1 kg or 9 lbs. Muzzel velocity 930 m/s or 3.050 fps



Belisarius -> (6/16/2001 12:49:00 AM)

Another swing at it: Tungsten (funny considering it's a Swedish word, meaning 'heavy rock', but in Swedish it's called 'Volfram' ;)): density 19.3 kg/dm^3 Iron: density 7.86 kg/dm^3 But tungsten's main physical ability is that it has the highest melting point of all metals (3380ºC). Does this have any importance? From what I know, tungsten was used in ammo to obtain a projectile with a very hard, heavy core. (hardness does matter when penetrating armor). Depleted uranium is used today for the same reason.



vex -> (6/16/2001 1:56:00 AM)

I originally Posted: if you're going to get technical, tungsten is what makes it heavier, heavier then brass,steel,etc.etc. but also alot harder then lead. thereby giving it mass(=force)while not compromising on its hardness (ability to pierce). a simple (and correct answer) to a simple question to add some more information to a problem. i am a degreed chemist with a master's in chemical engineering and work as such. i could have pointed at the density, atomic weight and boiling point which all point to the same answer in a long winded way but didn't see the point because, that wasn't my point. i would love to have a educated discussion/argument on such a topic but calling me wrong and then stating the same answer in different ways shows that you are being a know-it-all who only cares about trying to be right and not have an intelligible conversation/discussion. this is more of a "jerry springerish" type argument and therefore will take no part in it. their are numerous reasons for the 37mm phenom in SPWAW another could even be the way guns were often tested in WW2 (see "death traps" by cooper) or many other tales of flawed US ordinance tests. oh, to take a shot at being larsish or svenish. AmmoSgt, your information is quite proper - however, i believe that e=mc2 is not the equation you are looking for, because this is part of eintein's quantum theory where c=the speed of light coeffient. i believe you were looking for force=massxacceleration. maybe i am wrong?



Lars Remmen -> (6/16/2001 2:07:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by vex: I originally Posted: if you're going to get technical, tungsten is what makes it heavier, heavier then brass,steel,etc.etc. but also alot harder then lead. thereby giving it mass(=force)while not compromising on its hardness (ability to pierce). a simple (and correct answer) to a simple question to add some more information to a problem. i am a degreed chemist with a master's in chemical engineering and work as such. i could have pointed at the density, atomic weight and boiling point which all point to the same answer in a long winded way but didn't see the point because, that wasn't my point. i would love to have a educated discussion/argument on such a topic but calling me wrong and then stating the same answer in different ways shows that you are being a know-it-all who only cares about trying to be right and not have an intelligible conversation/discussion. this is more of a "jerry springerish" type argument and therefore will take no part in it. their are numerous reasons for the 37mm phenom in SPWAW another could even be the way guns were often tested in WW2 (see "death traps" by cooper) or many other tales of flawed US ordinance tests. oh, to take a shot at being larsish or svenish. AmmoSgt, your information is quite proper - however, i believe that e=mc2 is not the equation you are looking for, because this is part of eintein's quantum theory where c=the speed of light coeffient. i believe you were looking for force=massxacceleration. maybe i am wrong?
A know-it-all? Said you were wrong? No I said I *THINK* you are wrong. And I put that *THINK* into the sentence very deliberately. I've tried to explain why I think so. If you think I am wrong do feel free to explain to me why you think so. If you've allready done so I haven't understood it as such and apologize. I don't mind being proven wrong - it happens to everyone from time to time.



AmmoSgt -> (6/16/2001 2:07:00 AM)

yes sorry E= mv^2 i think same basic formula only c is indeed specifically the constant for speed of light



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.828125