128mm vs 88mm

[Curco]

which one does more damage in real life?

[Atlas is]

Depends.
The soviet 128 mm and the german 88 mm differed a lot in real life.
But overall the 128 was superior.

[Curco]

i mean the jagdtiger vs tiger 2 who has better armor piercing

[tomasoltis]

which 88 ? There were 2 types, one of Tiger I (FlaK36 basically) and the other was the one on PaK43, elefant, KT, Nashorn etc.

There are diminishing returns for using smaller caliber much faster. 128 mm used much more propellant, but for antibomber purpose, it reached their height in 1/3 or so time compared to FlaK36 (Tiger I) heavier projectile loser velocity much more slowly.

88 was bouncable at range just fine, because it lost velocity at range unlike 128. Same principle applies wh Panther had better penetrating gun at clsoe range than Tiger, while at 1km+, Tiger penned better. Same reason why IS-2 gun had better pen than 88 of KT past 1.5 km+. JT gun was an overkill.

[Atlas is]

In real life th jagdtigers gun was the definition of overkill :D
I think besides reload speed it was better in every aspect possible but it wasn't necessary at all.
I think I heard that it was so powerful that it sometimes shot through a tank without dealing any real damage.
In theory the 128 from the jagdtiger could pierce anything that was ever created to that point but there were too few to really say something about effectiveness.

[CursedPanther]

Originally posted by Zeva Atlas having a good time.:

In theory the 128 from the jagdtiger could pierce anything that was ever created to that point but there were too few to really say something about effectiveness.

Even if the Germans managed to mass produce them at the time, it would still be extremely vulnerable to air power. The Allies would simply call in planes to take one out.

[Maschinengewehr]

For armour penetration, the Jagdtiger's 12.8cm PaK 44. For HE, the 8.8cm PaK/KwK 43.

[Atlas is]

Originally posted by CursedPanther:

Originally posted by Zeva Atlas having a good time.:

In theory the 128 from the jagdtiger could pierce anything that was ever created to that point but there were too few to really say something about effectiveness.

Even if the Germans managed to mass produce them at the time, it would still be extremely vulnerable to air power. The Allies would simply call in planes to take one out.

Yeah but that's a different variable :D
The jagdtiger was already on their own too much. It was was to expensive only to be able to kill tanks that didn't exist.
In my opinion this fits with the late war mentality of the Nazis where they tried to create Weapons that were just over the top and super strong instead of beeing useful in the war they were fighting.

[Curco]

so which one would win 1 vs 1 king tiger or jagdtiger?

[CursedPanther]

Originally posted by Curco:

so which one would win 1 vs 1 king tiger or jagdtiger?

Jagdtiger, from a frontal assault.

[tomasoltis]

there is also a thing that if you reliably hit a tank area multiple times it will weaken armor and successive shots might penetrate ... Hitting doesnt mean instant penetration and even a penetration doesnt mean instant incapacitation of a tank ... also most tanks from the side are much worse armor, so while at certain frontal angles modern tanks are resistant, to reduce weight, but it means that side shots are possible with relatively weak guns.

[Low Expectations]

Originally posted by Curco:

which one does more damage in real life?

128mm and 88mm, its just the barrel size which does not prove the capability to penetrate an armor. Penetration depends on how much powerful the GUN is and whats the material of the Shell u r firing. So bigger barrel does not mean bigger penetration. But yea, Jagdetiger had 128mm gun which was capable to penetrate any ALLIED ARMOR at distance of 3000mtr. But jadgetiger came in late 1944 when the war is almost over.Although it had some disadvantages as well. Like After firing one shell there is massive smoke which used to cover up the entire tank and its harder for tank crews to further visibility :P. Even i read in one article that a Tiger II was captured by Red Army and they were testing its armor by firing PTRS on it. They fired 283 rounds from point blank range but it could not penetrate its armor :). German Late war Tanks were lost heavily for inexperienced crew (coz experienced crews were lost their lives in the battle) and poor welding of the armor (coz of emergency Duty, they had no chance to weld it properly). Only Russian had good Tanks to deal with German Tanks, but still German Tanks were 1 step ahead. Good Technology cant Give you the Victory, Strategy is the main thing. and it was basically 3v1 Battle and Germany is a very Small Country according to area.

[Maschinengewehr]

Originally posted by Musafir:

128mm and 88mm, its just the barrel size which does not prove the capability to penetrate an armor. Penetration depends on how much powerful the GUN is and whats the material of the Shell u r firing.

It depends on amount of propellant used, type of propellant used, weight of the projectile, length of the barrel, aerodynamics of the projectile, projectile density etc etc. Then there's HEAT, HESH, APDS, APFSDS etc.

Even i read in one article that a Tiger II was captured by Red Army and they were testing its armor by firing PTRS on it. They fired 283 rounds from point blank range but it could not penetrate its armor

So they fired a nigh obsolete AT rifle at a very heavily armoured tank. So?

Only Russian had good Tanks to deal with German Tanks

Wrong.

German Tanks were 1 step ahead.

Wrong. It's just that no other country was stupid enough to think that overly expensive 70 tonne tanks that could barely move under their own weight for very long was a good idea, and they were right.

Good Technology cant Give you the Victory, Strategy is the main thing. and it was basically 3v1 Battle and Germany is a very Small Country according to area.

Germany lost it in all categories though.

[Low Expectations]

Originally posted by Bit:

Originally posted by Musafir:

So bigger barrel does not mean bigger penetration.

While there are exceptions (e.g. significantly shorter overall case lengths), a larger shell diametre generally equates to more potential volume of propellant and projectile. This correspondingly allows for higher muzzle velocity and additional penetrator mass, both of which increase kinetic performance and retention of energy over long range. Explosive fill is also typically increased, improving HEAT and HE performance.

So According You Sherman and Panther should have Same Penetration right ?

[Maschinengewehr]

Originally posted by Musafir:

Originally posted by Bit:

While there are exceptions (e.g. significantly shorter overall case lengths), a larger shell diametre generally equates to more potential volume of propellant and projectile. This correspondingly allows for higher muzzle velocity and additional penetrator mass, both of which increase kinetic performance and retention of energy over long range. Explosive fill is also typically increased, improving HEAT and HE performance.

So According You Sherman and Panther should have Same Penetration right ?

That's not what he said.

[Maschinengewehr]

And to add that the M1 76mm cartridge dimensions were 76.2x540R, an increase of just over 66% over the M3 75mm's 75x350R.