the 37mm question?

FrankyVas · Post by **FrankyVas** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 7:29 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 · Post by **Mikimoto** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 7:59 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 · Post by **sven** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:05 pm

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 · Post by **FrankyVas** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:18 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 · Post by **sven** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 8:30 pm

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 · Post by **Mikimoto** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 10:07 pm

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...

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 · Post by **Lars Remmen** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 11:06 pm

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 · Post by **sven** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 11:22 pm

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 · Post by **vex** » Thu Jun 14, 2001 11:56 pm

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 · Post by **Lars Remmen** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 12:06 am

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 · Post by **sven** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 12:08 am

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 · Post by **Lars Remmen** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 12:12 am

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 · Post by **vex** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 12:16 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 · Post by **FrankyVas** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 12:40 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 · Post by **Lars Remmen** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 10:43 am

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 · Post by **JTGEN** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 11:29 am

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 · Post by **Phocks** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 11:48 am

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 · Post by **Gordon_freeman** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 4:19 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 · Post by **sven** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 6:14 pm

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 · Post by **sven** » Fri Jun 15, 2001 6:24 pm

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.