Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

The US 90mm was not quite as good as the 88mm, but it was not a bad gun in the caliber. The 88 got it's fearsome reputation because it came into action as a stand alone AT gun at a time when most armies had tank guns of 50mm or less.

A lot of veteran stories refer to any German gun as an 88. Against the high altitude bombers of the 8th AF, the primary gun doing most of the damage was the 128mm flak. The 88mm didn't have the altitude to be effective above 20,000 ft. A lot of infantry stories I've read refer to being shelled by German 88mm artillery. Occasionally high velocity gun were pressed into the artillery role in emergencies, but probably the most common artillery the Germans used was the 80mm mortar. For field howitzers they fielded similar calibers to most other nations, with the 75mm being pretty common.

Against armor in a land battle, the 88mm was a bit better than other guns of similar calibers (such as the US 90mm and the Russian 85mm), but the Germans fielded the Tiger in September 1942. The first 85mm Su-85s didn't appear until about a year later. After the initial appearance of the Tiger, the Russians were sweating the introduction of massed produced Tigers, but fortunately for the Allies the Germans were slow to build them and they were in chronically short supply.

The Russian 85mm became commonplace by late 1944, but there were never enough American 90s. The M-36 and Pershing were the only vehicles to be fielded with them during the war, and the Pershing didn't show up until the end.

It's been a while since I looked at the ballistic numbers for the 88mm, 90mm, and 85mm. If I recall correctly, in hitting power per mm of bore, the 88 was probably the best, but only by a couple of percent. The 85mm was the worst of the three from my recollections, but it was also a little bit smaller shell too. The 88 did actually earn a good reputation, but I think history has also embellished its reputation a little too.

I have wondered what the war in Northern Europe would have been like if the US had foreseen the arms race going on in the East and realized they would need a Tiger killer ASAP. The Pershing lineage began in the spring of 1942, but progressed slowly. If there had been more push to have a 90mm armed tank fielded ASAP, development work could have advanced possibly a year earlier than it did. Then if the US had just abandoned the light tank and retooled the factory for Pershings, they may have been available in some numbers (though probably not huge numbers) by the Battle of the Ardennes at least.

The Israelis also proved post war that a 90mm could be mounted on a Sherman chassis, though I think it stretched the design to the limits.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

With respect, BigB, I'll disagree strongly. I was Artillery. I knew the 90mm M3 very well. I understand ballistics, and using ballistics, the 90mm M3 was superior to the German FLaK 18/36/37.

The 90/M3 was designed as an AA weapon. As it moved into the AP role, it retained its fundamental ballistic properties. Certain 'rounds' were designed to take advantage of the muzzle energy, but it was not a specific AT weapon, despite the fact it was mounted on tanks. What the tanks got was the base 90/M3 with a full boogie AP load-out.

The Germans dinked with the 88mm unmercifally. They made hi-velocity versions with chambers for larger and larger cartridges, and longer barrels, and different rifling twists. They made so many that they couldn't make any one of them in an efficient manner. So just which 88mm is one supposed to compare the 90/M3 to?

The Soviet 85mm/D44/48 was an AT gun, yes, but on a tank it was a DP gun. You must understand that Sov philosophy (like many others) was to gun and load their vehicles with anti bunker/emplacement rounds. Super hi-velocity doesn't work in this environment. The Sovs, like the Americans, went with moderate velocity weapons that would kill emplacements with HE to let the assault troops through.

Neither the 90/M3 nor the 85/D48 was considered a hi-v AT weapon. It worked out that they were ok, but they weren't designed that way. You really need to understand what a gun was designed to do before making comparisons.

BTW, I've made more fish tacos, in the past couple years, than the Germans made hi-v AT 88s. So what does that say?