When Size Matters: German Tank Guns

The Tiger's and Panther's guns (88mm L56 and 75mm L71) are very iconic and in some cases quite different to the guns of the Allies particularly the British guns. In this video with Dr. Jens Wehner we talk about how the Germans went for a longer barrel instead of going for a more sophisticated projectile. For this we look at some objects from Military History Museum of the Bundeswehr in Dresden permanent exhibition. Additionally, we have some footage from the Panzermuseum Munster.
Disclaimer I: I was invited by Militärhistorische Museum der Bundeswehr Dresden in 2019 & 2021. www.mhmbw.de/
Disclaimer II: I was invited by Deutsche Panzermuseum Munster in 2019 & 2020. German Channel: / daspanzermuseum English Channel: / @germantankmuseum
Thumbnail for the Churchill Video: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-291-1205-14 / Koll / CC-BY-SA 3.0
de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:B...
Panther & Tiger from the cover are from the Deutsche Panzermuseum Munster, "cut out" done by vonKickass.
»» GET OUR BOOKS ««
» The Assault Platoon of the Grenadier-Company November 1944 (StG 44) - sturmzug.com
» Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 - www.hdv470-7.com
»» SUPPORT MHV ««
» patreon, see videos early (adfree) - / mhv
» subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv
» paypal donation - paypal.me/mhvis
»» MERCHANDISE ««
» teespring - teespring.com/stores/military...
» SOURCES «
our brains
#GermanTankGuns,#WhenSizeMatters,#LongBarrel

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

You can follow Dr. Jens Wehner on Instagram, where he posts photos from air planes etc.: instagram.com/jagdfliegen/ Want to see more interviews with experts? Consider supporting me on Patreon or Subscribestar, these supporters make trips like this possible. Additionally, you will get early access (no ads) and other features, more info here: » patreon - www.patreon.com/join/mhv » subscribe star - www.subscribestar.com/mhv

[@thebigone6071]

You’re the best ever Bernhard!!!!

[@kevinyaucheekin1319]

Wrong, the so called expert got it wrong. The constraint for the Riech was availability of Tungsten. That meant that anti tank munition made of tungsten were much less available, so designs using advanced anti tank muntion using tungsten, molybenum, nickel was much more constrained. Tungsten was required also for cutting, grinding & milling machine tools to manufacture weapons, munitions, vehicluar parts like gearboxes/tranmission.

[@mattbowden4996]

You asked for it... The British 20 pdr gun as fitted to the Centurion and Charioteer was an 84mm L66 gun.

[@user-lg4mm3mf8i]

Barrels were made out of multiple pieces because the wear and tear wasn't evenly on them. Making them out of multiple pieces allowed the worn out section to be replaced while keeping the other part. This was also done for the 88 mm Flak 36.

[@keithplymale2374]

I have read that as well. To my memory they first did this with Flak 36.

[@jerry2357]

I don’t know whether this was actually done in the cases under discussion, but it’s possible to make a lighter barrel using multiple layers, if you make the internal diameter of the outer layer a bit smaller than the outer diameter of the inner layer. You then heat the outer layer so it expands, and put it in place. When it cools, it pre-compresses the inner layer so it can withstand a higher internal pressure. In effect, it takes a higher internal pressure before the inner layer goes from being in compression to being in tension. This method sometimes used when making pressure vessels to withstand very high pressures.

[@keithplymale2374]

@@jerry2357 Artillery has been manufactured that way in the past. I don't think it has ever been done with small arms though.

[@jerry2357]

@@keithplymale2374 That technique is only worthwhile for thick-walled pressure vessels. I suspect that other considerations (such as barrel flex) come into play with small arms, which means that there isn't an overall advantage of having a thinner walled barrel.

[@garyrogers6761]

As an 'old fart' from Australia, it is refreshing and of great interest to me to update and 'clean up' my small knowledge of military history with each and every video that you go to such great lengths to provide to us, that do not have the time or the inclination, to fully research ourselves ? I wish you and yours all the best for the holiday season and into the future and thanks for your not inconsiderable effort in producing these wonderful learning videos, from Australia !!

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Thank you! Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

[@oloflarsson407]

Post-war, the british 20 pdr had a 84mm L/67 gun and the Swedish Strv 103 had a 105mm L/62. The 20 pdr was designed to mainly fire full calibre APCBC-rounds and was highly optimized for the anti-tank role. The Strv 103 was based on the 105mm L7 (L/52), put as the tank allowed a longer barrel without much issues, it was fitted with that. When subcaliber and HEAT rounds became standard for anti-armour use, there was no longer much use for tank guns with a high lengt to bore ratio, as an increase in caliber was more important. This is because a increase in caliber increases the surface area, that the gun gases could push on in a sub caliber round and it increases the size of a HEAT warhead, both resulting in a increase in penetration. Very high length to bore ratios are really only useful when firing full caliber AP and HE rounds. So today mainly usefull for engaging aerial targets.

[@philstaples8122]

The two piece barrel was to do with barrel wear, you could change the part out that was basically shot out without replacing the whole barrel, higher velocity results in more heat and friction therefore more wear so the end of the barrel gets worn out faster. I'm an ex british tankie and i know about guns L55 is about right as was Chieftain, Centurion was L52. L55 seems to be a sweet spot

[@whiskeytangosierra6]

No worries, Werner, I know lots of english speakers who cannot pronounce "nomenclature".

[@JGCR59]

I suppose the reason germans went for maximum velocity with conventional shells was the lack of raw alloys. It was more economical to use them in barrels than in shells. I mean before 1941 the Germans actually developed squeeze bore barrel tungsten penetrators before the realization set in that this was unaffordable, so getting the maximum out of a whatever sized PzGr 39 was the most economically feasible approach

[@michaeldunne338]

I was wondering about that - whether they played to their strengths in metallurgy with gun barrels, and shied away from approaches that depended on say tungsten imports?

[@Mattamaza]

@@michaeldunne338 I was thinking the same about the propellant. Perhaps Germany couldn't secure an additive that the British had that made the explosion rate faster. Slower explosion means you need a longer barrel to accelerate the projectile up to speed.

[@michaeldunne338]

@@Mattamaza Interesting point. What kind of additives were you thinking of? Funny enough though, when it comes to the chemistry of propellants, I would have thought the Germans would have been in a good position given their strong chemical industry...? The Germans were the ones to figure out how to synthesize nitrates artificially (granted that was before WWI).

[@88porpoise]

I suspect there is also an element of design restrictions. The British limited the width of tanks to what could be transported by rail, which also limited their turret ring and how much room there was for the gun in the turret and just throwing more weight faster wasn't feasible without a new, wider design. But even if they threw out the width limit, they wouldn't bring in a whole new design as they couldn't slow production of what they had until right at the end (and that resulted in Centurion). The 17-pounder is 55 calibres long, so one short of the 88 on Tigers. The Americans would more likely care about barrel length as a shorter overall length would mean that the tank could more easily be shipped overseas. You also have the question of what is the practical benefit. The Germans had political pressure for more armour and bigger guns with more potential penetration. But in reality, how often would they be in a situation where a KwK 40 wouldn't do the job or something like a 55 to 60 calibres long KwK 42.

[@davewolfy2906]

@@michaeldunne338 the German chap who did that got the Nobel prize for it - after he developed gasses for use as weapons.

[@kimjanek646]

The Soviets built quite a bunch of long barreled AT guns. First they had the 57mm ZIS-2 that fired projectiles with 1000m/s muzzle velocity and had a L/73 barrel. Later they also built longer barreled versions of their 45mm guns, increasing barrel lenght from 46 to 68, increasing velocity from 745m/s to 870m/s. After the war they built a long 85mm gun, similiar to the German long 88mm, with a L/74 barrel and 1040m/s muzzle velocity, as well as a longer barreled 100mm AT gun with 63 barrel lenghts vs the WW2 variant with 53.5.

[@Sarfanger]

One modern L70 that comes to mind is OTO-Melara 60mm made by Italians for lighter vehicles in late 70s. Of course there is 20pdr that comes really close by 66.7 caliber.

[@chestercallahan8856]

This had been a great series of videos at the museum!

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

thank you!

[@whya2ndaccount]

The Leo 2 has gone from a L44 to L55 and the new proposed 130mm / L51 suggests that the Germans are currently using both approaches, leveraging off the high velocity ammunition natures first introduced in the Leo 1's L7 105mm gun and now extending the barrel as well. Also the length may not be that much different - a 75/L70 is (75x70 = 5,250mm), a 120/L55 is (120 x 55 = 6,600mm). Thermal jackets tend to reduce the issue of barrel heat or hotspots along the barrel.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

the reason for the RHM120 Barrel elongation from L/44 to L/55 is, that DM73 APFSDS is already close to the max penetrator length, wich is possible to store in the Leo2 racks and load into the chamber (about 70cm Penetrator, of wich the most is inside the charge). It is not really viable to elongate the penetrator much more, unless a new designed rack and chamber is installed to accomodate the longer ammunition or a new charge design with significantly more powerful propellant is developed (because the Penetrator takes space inside the charge,the charge volume is reduced, requiring more powerful propellant for longer darts, to compensate the lost propellant volume, or the muzzle velocity lowers). thus higher muzzle velocities is the way to go,to increase penetration. Similar problems appeared with the L30a1 of the Challenger 2, but due to the two part ammunition system, the penetrator length is limited to about 40cm and due to chamber design and barrel rifling the chamber pressure and muzzle velocity cant be increased any further. wich is why they moved on to the RHM120 L/55a1

[@christophercripps7639]

My understanding is that you are correct about the Brit 6 pounder barrel lengths. The Mark I had a bore length if 50 calibers (L/50). Mark II (anti-tank) & Mark III were "L/43" due to limitations of machine tools. The Marks IV & V were L/50. The USA 57 mm M1 was always an L/50. The US Army designated their APCBC-T shells (with explosive fillers) as "APC" in shorthand. These included the 75 mm M61 APC, 76 mm M62 APC, the 57 mm M86 & 90 mm M82 APC. Only the 37 mm M1 AA/M3 AT/M5&6 Tank cannon capped shells differed: the M51 APC(BC-T) for the M3/5/6 had no explosive filler & the M59 APC(-T) for the M1 AA had neither a ballistic cap nor a filler.

[@Wien1938]

Remember that the 17pdr was an L55 (edit: correction by comment below). Guns get shorter after the war (in calibres) because the calibre gets larger and they start using perfected APDS and then HEAT rounds. Great interview! :)

[@88porpoise]

The 17-pounder is 55 calibres long. Prewar and early war high velocity tank guns were general in the 40-50 calibres length. Guns in the 1940s in the war were generally 50-55 calibres long, although there were some longer guns like the KwK 42 (L70) and the 20-pounder (L66.7). The 50-55 calibres length has been the norm ever since.

[@brickbastardly]

12:37 "MOV on the next rabbit hole to dive down" excellent

[@Litauen-yg9ut]

Excellent info as always..

[@sapperjaeger]

Great discussion!

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

Trivia question for Dr Wehner as a former Leopard I driver: how much trouble is a long barrel when driver over and around obstacles, especially down into ravines or near buildings? Is there any record of how many tank barrels or guns were damaged by banging into the ground or buildings?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

I asked, he has no numbers, but noted that generally there were little problems with the "vertical" like ravines etc. but more on the horizontal, e.g., hitting a tree when traversing horizontally.

[@501Mobius]

One story comes from Bruno Friesen in his book Panzer Gunner. Late war he was assigned to a three tank platoon of PanzerJager IVs with the long 75mm gun. After ambushing a Soviet assault gun from a barn the PanzerJagers backed out of the barn and one turned too sharp and clipped the barn which damaged the gun trunnions. So one of the Panzerjagers could no longer fire.

[@jesper509]

Remembers from my school when i went for a week with a S tank platoon, its was a skill the drivers had to master, it was easy to drive the gun in to the mud when traversing slopes. (kids was supposed to go out and see how working was out in the real world, the army may not have been the best thing, but it was allowed for a high school kid.

[@501Mobius]

@@jesper509 That reminds me. My friend worked with a guy who drove a SU100 in the Czech army when he was young. He hated it because if he went too fast over a ditch it could dig the gun into the ground. It was nose heavy.

[@whya2ndaccount]

The other issue now is the turret bustle (the overhang at the back often containing ammunition, etc.). Now as a Crew Commander you are not only worried about the barrel overhanging at the front, but the bustle at the back (i.e. driving through a forest with the gun at say 10 O'Clock, there is a corresponding, although smaller overhang, at 4 O'Clock).

[@Redlin5]

Merry Christmas Bernard! Very thankful for all the dives into the archives you do for us in the English speaking world, greetings from Canada

[@michaelguerin56]

Thank you Bernhard and Jens. Good video. Interesting discussion.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

There are two ways to produce armor - cast and joined (usually welded, but in early WWII riveted was still used). The latter process allows for better control of the armor quality (you make plates of uniform thickness, rather than a casting that can cool at different rates) and can use a smaller factory (you're assembling from parts, not a few huge pieces). However, a lot of machine time is needed to cut in the hatches/ports/etc and prep the edges for welding of the solid rolled plates, as opposed to being formed in the mold for casting. This means you tend to need a lot of tungsten carbide cutting bits. Germany had to choose between making APCR shells and making the tools necessary to build more tanks. Post war, depleted uranium has a density good for penetrators, but not the mechanical wear for tools - so DU rounds let you save the wolfram for other uses.

[@milkman4137]

I don't know why but that "hello" from Jens Wehner at the start of the video makes me laugh every time i hear it

[@gracesprocket7340]

While large calibre guns have 'shorter' barrels than some of the WW2 types, it should be noted that an L55 120mm gun is within a gnat's whisker of the longest of the WW2 guns - the L55 128mm - and considerably longer than the L71 88mm KwK43 (which has a bore (excluding chamber) length of 5.426m, compared to 6.003m for the L55 120mm RM The medium calibre guns retain more elongated calibre lengths. The M242 25mm is L87, GD001 35mm is L90, Mk44 II 30mm is L80 and the Bofors 40mm is L70. These are all much shorter weapons, due to their smaller calibre, but efficiency through lengthened bore, commensurate with sufficient stiffness and accuracy and minimised weight is still present in modern AFV guns. It is clear that these fall well below the performance of the larger main guns of modern tanks, but they are effective at engagement of points defended by infantry, soft skin vehicles and light armour (including the rear and some portion of the flank of modern MBT - and comparable or superior to the performance in armour penetration (if not lethality) to many of the WW2 tank main guns).

[@CZ350tuner]

The performance of the 75mm. L.70 exceeded that of the 17 Pounder, using a comparable projectile. 17 Pounder = Up to 179mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards with APCBC/T shot. (Allied test figures). 75mm. L.70 = Up to 211mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 metres with APCBC-HE/T PzGr.42. (Kummersdorf test figures). The 17 Pounder used Cordite (Silk cords impregnated with nitric acid) as a propellant, where as all German guns used Binatol (acetone + toluene). Cordite has a slight edge over Binatol as a propellant.

[@michaeld.uchiha9084]

Yeah and cordite did blow up way better.😉

[@Bochi42]

I love how respectful and kind Bernard is when interviewing these experts who may not use English as much as he does.

[@steelhammer96]

another great talk! Maybe a bit too nerdy but I'd love to hear more about the the different capabilities of the guns. The Chieftain once mentioned that the Sherman with the short 75mm was liked better by the crews than the long 76mm because the improved anti infantry capabilites. Was it the same for the Tiger vs Panther?

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

> The Chieftain once mentioned that the Sherman with the short 75mm was liked better by the crews than the long > 76mm because the improved anti infantry capabilites. Was it the same for the Tiger vs Panther? so far I haven't come across anything in that regard. Considering the large amounts of Soviet tanks, I assume that anti-infantry capability that was less of a concern for the German tankers.

[@steelhammer96]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized thank you!

[@SantiFiore]

@@steelhammer96 I've read or heard somewhere Firefly crews didn't like their tanks to be a priority target, so they painted the end of the barrel to make it look shorter from afar, thus looking like a 75 mm Sherman.

[@prd6617]

@@SantiFiore isnt that was the 76 crews who painted their gun barrel?

[@jesper509]

@@SantiFiore I've seen a pic of that. So its checks out.

[@steffenb.jrgensen2014]

Very interesting! Not at least the part about the two different philosophies: British medium length barrel and excellent shells vs German long barrel and mediocre shells. That also explains why the breech end of the 17 pdr appear so massive compared to the 75 mm/70 (or /48). The 17 pdr needed a lot more propellant to achieve superior MV and thus also a stronger breech end. Did give them some problem with mounting the gun in a turret though. In that context the German approach is perhaps a ltttle better than evaluated in the video.

[@robertmarsh3588]

Very interesting. Thank you. There's a great display of different barrels at the Tank Museum in Bovington. Gradually lengths have got longer but with increasing bore size, 76.2, 84, 105, 120mm etc presumably the calibre hasn't necessarily increased otherwise we'd be looking at very long barrel lengths indeed.

[@moistmike4150]

Great discussion! In the early '90's I was lucky enough to visit the German WW2 exhibits in the Technik Museum Sinsheim. They had a beautiful Panther on display there. My bucket list is to visit the rest of the German armor museums before I kick the aforementioned bucket.

[@mayamanign]

So both the Tiger and Panther muzzle velocity was higher than an M1 Garand. That's insane.

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

Couple of caveats - My research is limited to basic on what I found on Wikipedia and similar sources and also I am not an expert here. From what I read on the Internet, the current generation Rheinmetall 120mm gun is essentially the same length as the Panther's L70 gun. By this I do not mean in caliber length but in absolute length. This might be due to the propellant burn rate. I know there is a limit to the value of a longer gun. In general, the length is there to ensure that all the powder is burned before the projectile exits the barrel. After that is achieved, there is not any physics that pushes the projectile faster. You will spin the projectile more, but the increase in pressure due to the expansion of the gas is no longer a factor. So, it may be that we have just reached the practical length of a barrel to burn all the powder that we use given the propellants of each of the time frames involved. To state it more directly, would making an L70 120mm gun with today's propellants make the projectile faster? I don't know.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

modern tank guns are smoothbore and dont spin the projectile. a spin on an APFSDS would greatly reduce accuracy and range, on HEAT it will reduce penetration power.

[@zhufortheimpaler4041]

@N Fels the royal ordnance L30a1 is not a modern tank gun but a polished up relic from the 60's

[@88porpoise]

@@zhufortheimpaler4041 The L30 is an effective and modern gun. In practice the main advantage of a smoothbore is it can simplify sabot rounds, but that is a design problem that can be managed and has been done, and HEAT works better in a smoothbore. Meanwhile HESH effectively requires a rifles barrel. The smoothbore can also be used for launching guided missiles, but as far as I am aware the Russians and Israelis are the only ones interested in that these days. The issue with the L30 isn't the capabilities of the gun, it is the lack of interchangeability and benefits of scale for ammunition development and productions in comparison to the Rheinmetall 120mm. The Indians have recently developed their own 120mm rifle because they, like the British, really like their HESH. And it is probably the best anti-fortification option out there, but others seem HEAT and HE good enough for that while providing a shell more effective against APCs, light armoured vehicles, and older tanks so you can save your sabot for tanks.

[@88porpoise]

@N Fels It isn't that long ago that the standard tank gun of most Western aligned countries (and China) was the British L7 or another design based on it (such as the Swedes building a longer gun with a different recoil mechanism in the Strv 103, but it was ultimately based on the L7 and used L7 ammunition). And it is still extensively used around the world. /That description would much more accurately apply to the French post-WWII. Even though they went with a 120mm smoothbore, it is different and cannot use ammunition for the Rheinmetall gun. Similar to their 105mm rifle that couldn't use L7 ammunition.

[@88porpoise]

@N Fels What? The L7 is still used in numerous countries. There are about 20 countries using the M60 Patton alone. You also have a smattering of countries operating M47s, M48s, Chieftains, Leopard Is, a number of countries are operating T54s/T55s with L7s plus local designs like the Japanese, Taiwanese, Agentines. In most cases these are smaller countries or second line tanks behind a Rh-120, but it is also being used in modern lighter vehicles. The US uses them on Strykers while China, Japan, and other countries have similar vehicles.

[@Mattebubben]

There were a couple of 105mm guns that were above L/60. For example The Swedish S-Tank was equipped with The Bofors L74 105mm L/62 Gun. And the Chinese Developed the ZPL-94 105mm L/62 gun which was used on a number of tank variants. And then there were also some Prototype 105mm guns that were longer then L/60 such as the Royal Ordnance 105 mm Improved Weapon System. So there were a couple of high caliber guns with that were above L/60. It's also important to remember the difference between relative caliber length and the actual barrel length. For example the Standard L7 105mm L/52 gun is 5460mm long, a 105mm L/62 gun is 6510mm long. While 120mm L/55 guns (Like the British L11, L30 and the German Rh-120 L/55) are 6600mm long. So these are still really long guns With all of them being longer then the Panthers 75mm L/70 (5250mm) While all but the standard L7 are longer then the Pak/Kwk43 88mm L/71 (6248mm). So they still made guns that were really long but due to the larger calibers the relative caliber length is lower even though the overall barrel length is longer. But at a certain point you have a greater increase in performance by increasing the caliber rather then the length. For example the Rheinmetall Rh-120 L/44 120mm gun is 5280mm Long. This is only 30mm Longer then the 75mm Gun of the Panther. But due to the improvements in Projectiles, Propellants, and barrels it's a SIGNIFICANTLY more powerful gun despite being only L/44.

[@am17frans]

In the generation of tanks and guns immediate after ww2 was also when HEAT shells really started to get good., so I guess velocity was less important.

[@terraflow__bryanburdo4547]

The shining American caliber champ was the 105 mm gun T5E1, L65 and found on the T-28 "Doom Turtle"

Interesting discussion. That there was a more German way of approching the Problem and a more British one, is an new thought for me. But from what I know so far, I cant say that I agree. I mean I am aware of HVAP and so on, but: Making a any canon longer, to an extend, can give you more initial velocity, which is what you want in a kinetic projectile. But as stated by some others, there is a limit to this. At some point the "Treibladung" has no more treib to give. I would say that we dont have higher L's in modern Guns should be down the higher absolute Caliber numbers and not to some trend. I mean as long as your projectile is kinetic, you obviously want more initial energy, no matter what. So why dont have both, a loger gun and a better proyectile. But of course balistics of tank guns are complicated. To much for any youtube comment. Which is why I recommend Richard Ogorkiewcz's books on Tank Technology.

[@hansvonmannschaft9062]

Great comment! If I'm allowed to add something, I'd say let's not forget that in the post WWII era, sometimes (most of the time, actually), equipment characteristics aren't chosen on a performance basis, but on the need to satisfy non-tactical needs, like, "keep the barrel short so it fits in this airplane/ship, etc 🙂 Cheers!

[@andrewstrongman305]

Our technology reached a 'critical mass' point some years ago, before which the dreams of engineers could never be met by industries. Even today, few countries are capable of manufacturing high-quality cannons or AFV's; and for the most part have little need to do so. Australian industry is capable of building really rugged wheeled APC's, but tracked recon/IFV's and MBT's can easily be acquired. We've retired our old Leopard 1's in favour of M1A1's and are now replacing them with M1A2 SEPv3's. Rheinmetall's Lynx or Hanwha's Redback IVF's will be adopted in 2022.

[@ThatZenoGuy]

I think 'it was mostly the barrel' is a little inaccurate. The German APCBC shell design was pretty impressive stuff, and had a huge role in the AT potential of their guns.

[@Hybris51129]

I seem to remember readimg many years ago the Germans considered a L/100 cannon either as a towed anti tank gun or as something mounted on either a Tiger or Panther. I can't say if it was true or not but it does fit the German way of getting more penetration from a given gun.

[@dmcarpenter2470]

Jens!

[@CZ350tuner]

The early 6 Pounder was L.45 (as found in the Crusader Mk.III, Churchill Mk.III & 6 Pounder AT Gun Mk.I). The later 6 Pounder was L.52.

[@totensiebush]

I know that Cold War tank barrels aren't as long in calibers, but how do they compare in feet/meters/etc? The calibers are significantly larger, so an 88 L/71 would be 6248mm, that's about a 120 L/52 which is in the range of production lengths for the Rh-120.

[@thomasbaker6563]

Interesting bit on the shortened 6lbr, as both the UK and America had well developed gun foundry's which were making warship guns. Most of which are much larger than even the Tigers and panthers. Are there any good sources on this?

[@Colonel_Overkill]

Regarding the weight of the shell, the ballistic cap will weigh a small amount but even without why not just weigh the shell from the case then add additional weight for the explosive filler, fuse if needed and cap. I would think the data on these would be available if not the whole shell. If I am overlooking something then feel free to poke holes in my question. Also, as an addendum the 105mm L7 rifle post-war had a longer barrel then panther. It was only 55 calibers long against the 70 of panther but was a few centimeters longer physically. The 120mm gun is around 2m longer physically also at 55 calibers.

[@thebigone6071]

I love you Bernhard!!!!

[@hurnn1543]

When you get to 105-120 mm barrels a 70 caliber length would be crazy long 24 foot long barrel for a 105/70 and 27.5 feet for a 120/70.

[@Tepid24]

I think for the lack of variety in the Cold War it should be noted that (exaggerating for comedic effect) about half the tank-fielding nations in the world used the same guns. Until the 80ies practically every vaguely NATO-related tank had the British L7 105mm gun or a license-produced copy of it. From the 80ies onwards you have the same thing with the Rheinmetall 120mm. This doesn't necessarily reflect that "people had figured out how to perfect tank guns at this point" it is just as much a reflection of economic and political ties, rather than just a question of engineering.

[@t5ruxlee210]

The fact that many Centurion tanks distributed throughout NATO, etc, when it started were secretly bought and paid for by the USA was supposedly a closely guarded secret. Especially from American politicians with tank building related facilities in their own districts...

[@rogersmith7396]

If I recal the original Abrams had a 105 mm smoothbore German gun which seemed like a political decision. I think they have all been upgunned to 120 mm.

[@Tepid24]

@@rogersmith7396 The original Abrams had the same rifled 105mm (copy of the British L7) as the contemporary M60A3. It did get the German 120 pretty soon though

[@davidbrennan660]

A video for the ladies.....nice details and points to think about.

[@HurrpyDurrDerp]

I have a similar 1/16 scale Tiger II as the one in the museum :)

[@hansvonmannschaft9062]

Haha good point, it seems the Luftwaffe also bought Tamiya or Revell models hahaha 🙂 Edit: I had the Italeri one 😀

[@Mattamaza]

Interesting . . . Do we know the chemical differences in the propellant used between the German and British guns? Would be interesting to know what the difference is and how this affects muzzle velocity.

[@Volksgenossen]

Metallurgy. Metallurgy is the word.

[@CZ350tuner]

The gun on the T-34/57 was 57mm. L.73.

[@luisgimenez8660]

The two part barrel was for economy. They need only change the first part due to severe wear of the rifling by shooting a high velocity and heavy shell. Also lack of resources explain the simpler german ammo.

[@hansvonmannschaft9062]

But, didn't they use the PzGrt 39 since the beginning of the war? I don't mean to disagree on anything else, nor to sound challenging, just making a remark on that particular point.

[@kimjanek646]

As far as I know did the Germans use a different propellant powder than other nations. It was less powerfull for the weight but it supposedly had some beneficial properties. Potentially it produced less smoke, which was important so that the gunner could observe the impact of his shot. So the longer barrel might have been necessary to get the necessary power, using that kind of propellant. German documents about Soviet 76.2mm field cannons show that they fired 6.3kg AP shells using just 1.08kg of propellant powder, reaching 662m/s. There was also a special AP shell fired from the same cannon that used 1.4kg of propellant instead, increasing muzzle velocity to 745m/s. In comparison, the German KwK 40 L/43 used 2.43kg of propellant, firing a 6.8kg shell with 740m/s. So quite the difference in powder amount for nearly the same performance. Soviet propellant is said to produce a large amount of smoke and Soviet documents note that T-34-85 gunner couldn't observe the shells impact below 1000-1200m because of the smoke produced by the gun. Recoil might also be less violent since the shell has more time to accelerate. From a quick search on the internet, the 17pdr apperently used "almost" 9 pounds of propellant, which is roughly the same 4kg as used by the Panthers KwK 42. Both guns produced similiar muzzle energy, yet the KwK 42 is 70 calibers long while the 17pdr only 55. But it is said that the 17pdr produced a large muzzle blast, probably because of the shorter barrel.

[@stuartm2106]

The shorter barrel on the 17-pounder probably had something to do with limiting its weight. Towed AT guns have to be manhandled by the gun crew quickly if the approaching tank is not within the limited traverse of the carriage eg if the tank is attacking from the rear. Excessive muzzle blast is a real disadvantage for a towed gun as it gives away the position and you can't "shoot & scoot" as a tank or SP gun can. It's difficult to believe that the muzzle blast wasn't noticed during development.

[@rogersmith7396]

Burn rate is proportional to surface area exposed. Propellant grain size can be manipulated to change burn rate. Burn rate is also affected by temperature and pressure. Some allied ships had climate controlled ammo storage so multiple shell firings were more precise and predictable.

[@5co756]

If you got longer barrels , you need a powder that burns slower or you blow up your barrel . Pistols for example use a faster powder than rifles , cause the barrel is way shorter . I think on tanks it's the same .

[@potator9327]

It is a bit strange to say that it is a performance of the projectile when it was accelerated to the same velocity from a shorter barrel (also strange to talk about the same ballistic performance when the British 17 pounder had a muzzle velocity about 50 m/s lower). In my opinion, it is just as much a performance of the gun. However, a shorter barrel usually wastes part of the propellant charge if a comparable muzzle velocity is to be achieved, since a large part of the pressure cannot act in the shorter barrel, because the projectile is already out before the pressure could be fully transmitted on the shorter length. In addition, the cartridge as a whole must be larger and heavier, as must the breech, since it must withstand a higher pressure at the beginning. At least when comparing the 17-pounder and the 7.5-cm KwK 42, the conclusion therefore hardly fits.

[@CZ350tuner]

The 75mm. L.70 projectile shown is a APCBC-HE/T PzGr.42 as no APCBC-HE PzGr.39 ammunition was made for the 75mm. L.70

[@TTTT-oc4eb]

It was named Panzergranate 39/42. Tiger 1: Panzergranate 39-1 Tiger II: Panzergranate 39/43 Panzer IV: Panzergranate 39

[@PositionLight]

Was't the Soviet 57mm Zis-3(?) L73?

[@andrewcox4386]

Interesting to note that the T14 has a 48 calibre gun which is a massive outlier in modern MBT weapons. From my own experience in aerospace then boring an accurate hole gets exponentially more difficult as the tool tends to flex as it gets longer and move the hole off centreline. It would be interesting to know just how they did it on a production basis 🤔

[@hanfpeter2822]

Maybe an outlier in absolute terms, but the Rheinmetall l44 or l55 are really Common. I thought that many soviet and russian Designs also chose l48?

[@LarsAgerbk]

The longer barrels is superior because it looks better.

[@matex600]

have you tried gates of hell ostfront and if you have how accurate does it seem

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

yeah, well considering one can repair a knocked out tank in a few minutes, I would say not very much, then again if you compare it to company of heroes, I would say it is more accurate.

[@matex600]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized thank you for the reply love the videos Matt

[@CZ350tuner]

6:44 The 17 Pounder was 76.2mm. L.58, not L.55.

[@TTT-dv5ys]

Russian t-34-57 utilized zis-4 cannon with length of barrel 73 caliber already in 1941

[@raylast3873]

But they didn‘t go for higher caliber lengths with the later models.

[@raylast3873]

Ok but for the post-WWII tanks the barrel length can‘t just be a matter of production convenience can it? It‘s not that it‘s not a factor but especially the Americans are notorious for accepting higher cost/upkeep designs if it gets them better combat effectiveness. So it has to be either that there are combat disadvantages to the longer barrels or that they simply don‘t need them, for example because barrel length becomes less relevant in speeding up the projectile (SABO) or even projectile speed becomes less relevant to penetration. If it were just a question of cost, I‘m pretty sure there would have been someone, especially on the NATO side, who was going to try it anyway at least once. Unless of course the cost were actually so insane as to make it completely unacceptable, but that would surprise me given the Germans were doing it before.

[@kast7n336]

Zsu-57-2 uses 57mm L76.6 s-60 gun

[@sanguineaurora8765]

I don't think it's as simple as "They didn't have superior ammo so they cheesed it by making longer barrels." There must be a reason why Allies and Soviets didn't use the same cheese. Especially given that Soviets were ready to use every possible cheesy option as long as it gave even a slight edge, so not seeing soviets making longer and longer barrels until they built more advanced tanks is a bit suspicious isn't it? I'm not an expert but i know one thing, within history, NOTHING as simple as it seems, so an Expert saying "They couldn't make better ammo so they compensated with longer barrels" is very dismissive.

[@King.Leonidas]

Denmark is using a longer version of the 120mm on there leopards

[@edi9892]

Didn't the Soviets have a longer 85mm? AFAIK, it wasn't produced in large numbers as the vehicles that were supposed to bear them were never put into production...

[@florianw.9545]

120 mm Gun in L-71 configuration? Cute 8,520 mm long...

[@theromanorder]

Im jeliss that you and so many people have access to such great museums and i have jack quwat. 1st world problems ladies and gentlemen.

[@MrErdem95]

More i look to Panther more i think it looks like T54 and the rest though Panther itself looks like T34. T34 was really a revolutionary first gen MBT.

[@variszuzans299]

Well, the Germans had better gunpowder than the allies. The British used cordite, which is based on nitroglycerin. The Germans had nitroglycol based formulations which were more stable and with better burning characteristics. I think this is the reason why they could make such long barrels.

[@rogersmith7396]

Battleships had longer barrels than these.

[@dxrinc]

The Israeli SUPER SHERMAN

[@oscartang4587u3]

Want to know what make German gun in WWII so heavy. American can put a long 75 on M24, but German cannot put a long 75 on a Pz III. And the weight of 88 Pak 43/41 is similar to 100 M1944 (BS-3) and 128 Pak 44 is about 40% heavier than 122 M1931/37 (A-19) and 130 M1954 (M-46)

[@mattbowden4996]

The 75mm M6 found on the M24 was not particularly long - only 39 calibres so actually slightly shorter than the 75mm M3 used in the Sherman.

[@oscartang4587u3]

@Mialisus Thank you for your answer. Sorry if you feel any disrespect from my reply, I don’t mean to do any. However I think technically and doctrines different was the result but not the reason of Germany Gun is so heavy. Unless letting Anti-Tank gun to stuck in mud was part of the German doctrine in 1944, it seems “why German gun was so heavy” was a technological(metallurgy) question instead of a technically’s and doctrine’s one. For the second answer, your answer is the result but not the cause of the problem. The reason putting a 75 L/48 on a Pz III require that much modification is because the 75 L/48 was too heavy to put on Pz III.

[@oscartang4587u3]

@@mattbowden4996 7.5 cm KwK 37 L/24 was 490kg(wiki), but 75 mm Gun M6 was 410 lbs [186kg] ( The Sherman Tank Site). What really make such significant weight different is the question that I wish to ask.

[@luisgimenez8660]

I think the problem to fit the 7,5cm L48 in the PzkwIII was more due the size of the recoil assembly, they cannot fit it within the diameter of the turtet ring.

[@stuartm2106]

@@oscartang4587u3 I don't know about tank guns specifically but I recall a statement (by Ian Hogg?) that a problem with the German le FH18 105mm howitzer was that it was too heavy due to Germany's shortage of light alloys which had to be reserved to higher-priority uses. This weight problem caused the loss of many howitzers during the retreats of 1943-45 when they couldn't be moved fast enough in the face of Soviet breakthroughs and had to be abandoned. Presumably this was mainly in the horsedrawn batteries which made up the bulk of the German artillery. The Allies had no shortage of alloys so were able to slim down their guns without loss of strength. I also suspect that because of their shortage of tungsten they increased the case capacity to increase powder charge and thus the velocity of the AT round. However that requires a longer barrel to ensure the powder charge burns completely - hence the longer barrels of late-war Panzers. You can't simply compare barrel calibre, you also have to consider the size of the shell casing as well. (I'll bet that if you compared the Sherman's 75mm round with the Panther 75mm the Panther would have a substantially longer and wider propellant casing). More powder means more breech pressure which requires more metal so a heavier breech, stronger recoil system etc etc. It all adds up to more weight.

[@Overlord734]

After the war Soviets produced 85mm AT gun D-48 L74. They did try to develop long barrel 85mm cannon in 1944-45, but the prototypes were unreliable and inaccurate.

[@Teedo_]

A discussion between you two, Ralf Raths and "The Chieftain" would be amazing!

[@guidor.4161]

Why not simply weigh the rounds?You have them right there...

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

That stuff degrades etc. as far as I remember the weight of the present rounds there was taken into account as well in the sense of this was the minimum weight, but I could be wrong, we talked about it in Summer 2021, so it has been a while.

[@guidor.4161]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized Interesting...

[@edi9892]

What I find fascinating is comparing how big the Maus is and how small more advanced tanks are that feature a similar calibre gun with equal if not superior performance... I think that the breach got significantly shorter and the recoil system better. Similarly the cartridges got significantly shorter due to using a more aggressive propellant (while the old barrels could barely cope with even less aggressive propellants)

[@tomppeli.]

Chrome-lining the barrels really tends to help against barrel corrosion. But yeah, back when I first came to the same conclusion it was kind of whack.

[@achtungvolk7807]

These are two of the most German Germans who over Germaned. Granted I’m not German.

[@losernerd9291]

Big Deutche Energy

[@l.a.wright6912]

I wouldn't describe it so much as a difference in methodology between 30s, ww2 and postwar designs so much as a change of metta. We see in the 30s a primary focus on armour first and this works well through to the t34, but in 1942 with the German implementation of longbarrel, high velocity, guns we see a shift in the metta away from armour towards said guns. This is further shown post war where we see the move almost entirely away from heavy tanks towards medium and light tanks as to protect thoroughly against high velocity guns one would need an increasing obscurity of armour (something which the Germans and soviets definitely found out)

[@kimjanek646]

Wäre es zu viel verlangt das Interview auf Deutsch zu führen? Ich finde Dr. Jens Wehner kann sich einfach nicht gut auf Englisch ausdrücken.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

Hier gilt nicht der korintherkackerische Oberlehrer-Standard von ein paar eingebildeten Wichtigtuern, die trotz klarer harter Indikatoren (Views, Subscriber, Like/Dislike, etc.) immer wieder absurde Realitätsverweigerung auf Basis ihrer äußerst begrenzten Wahrnehmung kundtun. 1) Die Videos mit Jens kommen gut bis sehr gut an, siehe Views, like to dislike ratio (sofern noch sichtbar... weil KZbin meinte es sollte abgedreht werden) und auch die Rückmeldungen von native speakern. 2) Wäre ich nachdem "feedback" gegangen, welches von so manchen Deutschsprachigen über die Jahre kam, müsste ich 50 Subscriber und 1000 Views haben. Fakt ist, dieser Kanal hat 20 Mio Views und der Hauptkanal ist kurz vor 100 Mio Views. Also vielleicht mal auf die Zahlen schauen und kurz überlegen, ob man vielleicht komplett unqualifiziert ist, hier groß ein "feedback" kundzutun, welches einfach nur eine verpeilte Beleidigung ist. Und ja, es wäre zuviel verlangt, Antwort hier: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qpqZh6qqZZmmjdk

[@kimjanek646]

@Military History not Visualized Verstehe. Ich finde, dass was ich geschrieben habe ist nicht wirklich eine Beleidigung. Zumal ich mein ursprüngliches Kommentar extra umgeschrieben habe, da man dieses durchaus als Beleidung hätte auffassen können, obwohl es sich auch nur um meine Persöhnliche Meinung gehandelt hat, wenn auch etwas obszön. Ich dachte mir es würden alle davon profitieren wenn Dr. Jens Wehner sein Wissen möglichst genau wiedergeben kann und es nicht selbst ins Englische übertragen muss, was ja durchaus nicht so leicht ist wenn es um technische details geht.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

> Ich finde, dass was ich geschrieben habe ist nicht wirklich eine Beleidigung. Der Ton macht die Musik und wenn du anfängst mit: > Wäre es zu viel verlangt das Interview auf Deutsch zu führen? Wo ich herkomme benutzt man die Phrase "wäre es zuviel verlangt" im Kontext von "bist du zu blöd oder zu faul für X". So, sehr schlechter Start. > Ich finde Dr. Jens Wehner kann sich einfach nicht gut auf Englisch ausdrücken. English native speakers und andere haben kein großes Problem mit diesen oder anderen Videos mit Jens.

[@alericc1889]

Ballistic Round not a Grenade.

[@1982asd]

The Germans caught on to this size matter, too heavy tanks were slow and often got stuck in the mud or froze in. This was especially true for Tiger II Today's tanks have a flatter design, not coincidentally: it's completely unnecessary to make too big monsters that were easy targets on the front The Russian T34 was the response of the Germans to the Tiger I tank but it is difficult to decide which tank was the better construction: the T34 was fast and relatively large in caliber, while the Tiger I was slower but had thicker armor and slightly larger caliber. In my opinion, the Tiger II was a spectacular but already too heavy and slow tank and due to its large size was an easier target for enemy tanks and anti-tank units The Germans later created the STUG IV, which was an effective and inexpensive anti-tank gun but was too late for war. It would have cost a lot to the Germans if the 88mm Panzerschreck had been developed for infantry as early as 1941

[@zachariaszut]

In the battlefield one did not have a sweet girlfriend saying size did not matter, what counted was what you did with your gun. What one did mattered but everyone knows that size favours the penetration.

[@rogersmith7396]

The German 75 was a bitch.

[@Kuzmorgo]

Mein gott! Zis was zuch a jerman video!

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

I think this again proves the director of the British Tank Museum's view on British vs. German design. British design = effortless elegance, as in a superior shell, vs German design = big, complicated, beautiful and expensive, as in a large complicated gun.

[@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized]

> I think this again proves the director of the British Tank Museum's view on British vs. German design. > British design = effortless elegance, yeah, that also explains why David Fletcher called his part I on British Armour in the Second World War "The Great Tank Scandal" and why the British used so many US tanks, see Fletcher's book on British Armour on American Designs. Maybe there is a language barrier, but there are few things in World War 2 which I would see as "effortless", the only one where it might apply is the Americans providing its industrial might to support its various Allies, then again Chieftain notes that there was a very important civilian made general if I remember in charge that did a great job in converting the industry properly, so I might be terribly wrong here.

[@chaptermasterpedrokantor1623]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized I reckon that just because they want to make it look effortless doesn't mean it was. And just because it was big beautiful complicated and expensive doesn't mean that it was bad. Don't know if you have seen the director's video, kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3e8eZuKmJV4aMk He does say in the vid that the British handicapped themselves in WW2 that they thought they had invented tanks in WW1 so they felt they had nothing to learn in designing tanks. And got a rude awakening after the fall of France. I have to say, your video does explain what has always puzzled me, why the Germans used long tank guns and the Allies always seemed to have short tank guns. One mystery solved. Now I'm going to try to get Fletcher's book.

[@rogersmith7396]

@@MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized The British loved American tanks in North Africa. Far superior to what they had. Grants and Shermans.

[@Joe-lu4tw]

It may be something you've already explained, but I don't really watch your videos now because i don't really like the format of talking to someone else in a museum. I would be more likely to watch if you did more concise videos where you just present us something interesting. Just some viewer feedback for you.

[@rogersmith7396]

Wolfram is latin and is the symbol found on the periodic table of elements. It is always called Tungsten in English. Latin is a dead language.

[@bkucinschi]

Really?? Wolf Rahm is Latin?? You probably read too fast the Wikipedia page.

[@rogersmith7396]

@@bkucinschi I have a BA in Chemistry and worked as a research associate for four years. The periodic table is ancient and is in latin. Gold is AU for Auric like Auric Goldfinger.

[@bkucinschi]

@@rogersmith7396 : Indeed there are a lot of elements (Pb, Fe,Cu,Ag, Na,etc.) whose names come from Latin (simply because they are known from ancient or medieval times, and at that time Latin was the universal educated language). But others are just "Latinized" names, like mercury (Hg= hydrargyrum, from Greek, hydro+argyros = "fluid silver"). "Scandium" originates ethimologicaly in "Scandinavia", "Americium"

[@Kyle-gw6qp]

@@rogersmith7396 The periodic table is not ancient. And it's not in Latin.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

The 76mm gun the US used was originally 57 Caliber but shortened to 52 Caliber because of balancing issues. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/76_mm_gun_M1 There are two balance issues. 1) The point on the gun where the elevation knobs are fitted 2) On the tanks turret between the weight of the gun on the front of the turret and the back - where sometimes a counter weight of some type was fixed. .

[@Obirzoe]

Might be a bit late but the experimental SU-152 Taran had a nearly 10m long barrel after WW2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SU-152_%22Taran%22

[@Dark_Plum]

Part of reason may be material restrictions for production ammo. Panzergranate 40 used tungsten (as mentioned in video) but it was very limited in quantity so they wanted to maximize potential of all ammo by elongating barrels. Or maybe it's case of what technology they had and witch they hadn't. Maybe it was easier for them to overcome problems of long barrel then make better ammo.