Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Main Gun Reloading Times?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Main Gun Reloading Times?

    Does anyone have some reliable references for reloading times in action for any or all of these?

    Tiger I

    Tiger II

    Panther

    Panzer IV

    Sherman

    T-34

    T-34/85

  • #2
    It would vary, the greates time would be getting the shell from its rack.
    So the location of the ammo storage wouldbe the deciding factor, as all the tanks you list have one-piece ammunition.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Glen B. View Post
      Does anyone have some reliable references for reloading times in action for any or all of these?

      Tiger I

      Tiger II

      Panther

      Panzer IV

      Sherman

      T-34

      T-34/85
      Reloading time = ROF?
      I know its not THE answer, but the German tanks stated with semi automatic breech (spitting out the empty shell case) could fire around 6 shots the first minute. AS always the loaders physique matters especially with the 88mm shells and fire slows down considerably after a few shots. Also aiming and other stuff must be taken to account.

      Soviet T-34/76 used smaller lighter shells and could spit ammo fast, according to accounts using 50-60 rounds in a approx 20min assault. Have not seen any stats but probably around 6-7 rpm standing still.

      The rest don't know.

      Actual combat fire rate, read big Average, for all tanks should be expected around 1 or 2 shots per minute to be effective with maneuvering and targeting time included. During heavy engagements (multiple enemies 600m) a healthy German crew would probably fire once every 10 to 20 seconds (if analyzing tank crew accounts).

      I have seen documentary footage of Russian AA gun crews working 85mm AA guns at about 15 rpm. Of course crew is like 6 people handing up ammo to the loader.

      /Pappy
      Last edited by Pappy; 15 Nov 12, 10:51.
      "Charley Dontīt Surf."

      Comment


      • #4
        I think this is highly variable. It depends alot on the loader's ability / skill, where you are in terms of the ammo supply, and a number of other very variable factors.

        For example, in a T34/76 once you go thorugh the 6 ready rounds reloading time will skyrocket as the loader is now forced to start pulling "suitcases" of three rounds each from the floor of the tank, open them, and then retreive rounds to load.
        The same is true of the other vehicles. For example, many Tiger II crews didn't carry rounds in the turret bustle (back of the turret) out of fear of a penetration or spalling hit (spall liners were installed but gave little confidence) that would set that ammunition off. So, in that case the loader is going to racks low in the hull for rounds.

        The Sherman can be blazingly fast from the ready racks on the turret basket but then much slower when you are trying to reach through the basket to racks in the sponson.

        The Panther's turret is effectively split in two by the empty case catch basket making it nearly impossible for the loader to reach nearly half the ammunition.

        I'd say 6 shots a minute would be doing good in a WW 2 tank. Prolonged fire would cut that down to maybe 1 or 2 a minute pretty quickly.

        Comment


        • #5
          A few years back there was thread on the Axis History Forum about the subject:

          According to a report by Lt. Col. John A. Beall, Commander of 702nd Tank Destroyer Battalion to General Eisenhower in March 1945:
          ("A comparison of the fire power of the 90-mm gun as mounted in the American M36 tank destroyer with the firepower of the German tank...")

          rounds per minute
          M36 10~
          T26E1 10~
          Panther 15~
          Tiger II 15~

          From a British test in 1945 (max/avg/min rpm)
          Jagdpanzer 38 14,29/9,16/6,74
          Panzer IV/70 18,75/5,97/3,55
          Jagdpanther 10,53/5,29/3,53
          Jagdtiger 4,8/2,98/2,16

          Comment


          • #6
            Rate of fire in combat was not very high because tanks did not simply sit in one place and shoot. A tank would fire one, two, maybe three rounds before moving to a new postion. To sit longer was to invite the enemy to start shooting holes in you.

            On a range you could get plenty of shot down range for larger guns but in combat,...with all the jinking about,... maybe 4-5 rounds if the moves are short and the driver quick in repositioning the tank. Its,

            "Bang,....Bang. <CC> Driver reverse!"

            Clankety-clankety-clankety-clank.

            <CC> "Driver halt! Gunner take over!"

            <gunner> "Driver advance,... slow,...,...,... driver halt!"

            <gunner> "Firing,... NOW!"

            Bang

            <CC> "Reload!"

            <Loader> "Loaded!"

            <gunner> "Firing,... now!"

            Bang.

            <CC> "Driver reverse!"

            Clankety-clankety-clankety-clank.
            The Purist

            Words ought to be a little wild, for they are the assault of thoughts on the unthinking - John Maynard Keynes.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by NagaSadow View Post
              A few years back there was thread on the Axis History Forum about the subject:

              According to a report by Lt. Col. John A. Beall, Commander of 702nd Tank Destroyer Battalion to General Eisenhower in March 1945:
              ("A comparison of the fire power of the 90-mm gun as mounted in the American M36 tank destroyer with the firepower of the German tank...")

              rounds per minute
              M36 10~
              T26E1 10~
              Panther 15~
              Tiger II 15~

              From a British test in 1945 (max/avg/min rpm)
              Jagdpanzer 38 14,29/9,16/6,74
              Panzer IV/70 18,75/5,97/3,55
              Jagdpanther 10,53/5,29/3,53
              Jagdtiger 4,8/2,98/2,16
              Don't know what to say. To me this is computer game figures. I mean yeah for sure with open guns but guns in turret?? Love to see how these 1945 fire test were conducted.
              Empty the tank-ammunition-storage-contest in 10 minutes with leprechaun loaders on steroids?
              Minimum RPM what is that!? Laziest guy in the company?

              /Pappy
              "Charley Dontīt Surf."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Pappy View Post
                Don't know what to say. To me this is computer game figures. I mean yeah for sure with open guns but guns in turret?? Love to see how these 1945 fire test were conducted.
                Empty the tank-ammunition-storage-contest in 10 minutes with leprechaun loaders on steroids?
                Minimum RPM what is that!? Laziest guy in the company?

                /Pappy
                They were using Lucas made stop watches....

                Comment


                • #9
                  I served & fought with the 1st Cav. I can say this with 100% certainty. A tank with a human loader will out do a tank with a auto loader every time.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Hi everyone! I've just registered to this Forum because I've been reading your discussions with quite some interest for a few days, always having some comments in the back of my head.

                    Is it too late to reply to this topic?

                    I think the question is less how many shots a tank did fire in a minute but how many shots it was able to fire in theory. So you take the minimum time between two shots and extrapolate it to estimate a rounds-per-minute-value.
                    As far as I've read it was quite common to fire two or more shots in a row (for example firing a HE shell for an enemy tank and an AP afterwards or when the first hit didn't set the target on fire) before moving again. So the question is how fast these shells were fired consecutively and whether the target had time to react, for example. That's why I'm interested in this topic.

                    Originally posted by Pappy View Post
                    Don't know what to say. To me this is computer game figures. I mean yeah for sure with open guns but guns in turret?? Love to see how these 1945 fire test were conducted.
                    Empty the tank-ammunition-storage-contest in 10 minutes with leprechaun loaders on steroids?
                    Minimum RPM what is that!? Laziest guy in the company?
                    /Pappy
                    One does often see numbers for a ROF for field-atillery/ anti-tank guns which, I assume, were tanken from statistics on training grounds. I get the idea that much tank gun ROF data is just based on the corresponding AT gun values - which I think won't actually fit because of the cramped room in a tank turret.
                    There are some values given concerning russian guns on english.battlefield.ru
                    What do you think of those?

                    I served & fought with the 1st Cav. I can say this with 100% certainty. A tank with a human loader will out do a tank with a auto loader every time.
                    16 Nov 12 23:39
                    Isn't that depending on the weight of the shells? I can imagine that very heavy guns would even require an auto loader.
                    Why are some tanks use auto loaders anyway? You're not the first person I hear from that a human loader performs better and auto loaders seem to be quite vulnerable so what's the benefit?

                    I'm sorry if there are bad mistakes in my text, English is not my first language. Feel free to correct me.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Autoloaders are used when you want to make the tank smaller. Some bureaucrats believe they also save money by having one crew member less. Size of the shell matters as well as the size of the human loader! The M-1 Abrams went from a 105mm main gun to the German 120mm. You still have only one guy loading. Also with a larger main gun you run out of ammo sooner!

                      Pruitt
                      Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                      Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                      by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by NagaSadow View Post
                        A few years back there was thread on the Axis History Forum about the subject:

                        According to a report by Lt. Col. John A. Beall, Commander of 702nd Tank Destroyer Battalion to General Eisenhower in March 1945:
                        ("A comparison of the fire power of the 90-mm gun as mounted in the American M36 tank destroyer with the firepower of the German tank...")

                        rounds per minute
                        M36 10~
                        T26E1 10~
                        Panther 15~
                        Tiger II 15~

                        From a British test in 1945 (max/avg/min rpm)
                        Jagdpanzer 38 14,29/9,16/6,74
                        Panzer IV/70 18,75/5,97/3,55
                        Jagdpanther 10,53/5,29/3,53
                        Jagdtiger 4,8/2,98/2,16
                        Seems accurate, the semi automatic breech on the German guns must have helped a lot to increase the ROF.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          You forgot: AP UP "Gunner traverse right " target Tank 1000 "Target acquired" on the way!!!!!!!!
                          Driver forward!!! HE up "gunner traverse left" Bunker 600
                          or something akin to that
                          The T/34 I am not sure how fast the turret can traverse the ROF in a combat situation may have some relevance in any tank but if the crew doesn't work well together and/or the turret is to slow.....
                          Game Over

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The T-34 had a two man turret until they enlarged it to fit an 85mm in it. In the older models the Tank Commander was also the loader. Try leading several tanks while loading and looking for signals from the CO's tank!

                            Pruitt
                            Last edited by Pruitt; 19 Apr 13, 20:06.
                            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              It might not have made too big of an impact, but the loader would also have to deal with all of that brass rolling around in the turret with him if they were have to expend any decent amount of ammunition, given he didn't have time to get rid of it. Quarters in a turret are tight enough without having extra junk in your way.
                              "You listen to the ol' Pork Chop Express on a dark and stormy night......"

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X