Military Review

Punching, but unnecessary. Projects of American anti-tank guns Т8

41
The standoff of armor and projectile is eternal. Naturally, at the dawn of civilization and the emergence of military art as such, this confrontation was much simpler and more mundane, but its very principle remained unchanged. If earlier to the primitive cold arms, spears and clubs were opposed by wooden shields and leather armor, then in the 20th century, manufacturers of shells and artillery did everything to achieve superiority over the new multi-ton metal “monsters” facing the battlefields.


In 1943, during the battles in North Africa, Allied forces first became acquainted with German heavy a tank The Tiger, and later after landing in Italy and Normandy, also encountered numerous German Panthers. The meeting with German tanks - representatives of the cat family - made a strong impression on American and English generals. German armored vehicles surpassed the Allied armored vehicles in many respects and could calmly hit it from a fairly large distance. At the same time, the strong reservation of the Tigers and Panthers in the frontal projection made them very difficult targets for both the tanks and the Allied anti-tank guns. The problem was that the new German tanks began to meet the Allies in fairly large quantities. It was impossible to ignore this state of affairs.

In parallel with this, the US military got acquainted closer with the German anti-tank guns, which did an excellent job with allied armored vehicles at all combat distances in almost any conditions. Especially Americans were impressed by the German 88-mm anti-tank guns Pak-43 / 41 and Pak-43. Naturally, the US military wanted to have something similar and approximate in combat characteristics and in their units.

90 mm anti-tank gun T8

In fairness it should be noted that the Allies realized that they had real problems with the defeat of German armored vehicles much earlier than the landing in Normandy. Already at the end of 1942, reports on the fact that new German tanks with enhanced armor were resistant to the most common anti-tank gun in the parts of the 57-mm began to fall on the table of the American and British generals. The US Army widely used the M57 1 anti-tank gun, which was a modification of the famous English 6 gun.

Designing a new anti-tank gun began with an eye to the German experience with their famous 88-mm anti-aircraft gun, which also turned out to be an excellent anti-tank weapon. The Americans had their own counterpart - a good 90-mm M1 anti-aircraft gun, which they decided to combine with the recoil mechanism of the 105-mm howitzer M2-1. A new anti-tank gun received the designation T8, and the carriage used with it - T5. At the same time, there were certain problems with the gun carriage. During the tests, it turned out that it had serious shortcomings, which, in particular, were manifested during the transportation of the tool on the road. A lengthy process of processing followed, which led to the appearance of the T5E2 gun carriage, which was classified as a limited standard weapon.

But this design did not satisfy the military, and after additional tests at the Aberdeen Proving Ground was rejected. As a result, work on the creation of a new anti-tank gun, to put it mildly, dragged on. They began at the end of 1942, and ended only in 1944. In total, three prototype T8 anti-tank guns were built. In this case, an order was even received for a production batch of 400 guns, which was never completed. One of the prototype guns in February 1945 of the year hit the front and took part in the final battles of World War II.

105-mm T8 anti-tank gun on the T17 carriage in transport mode

At the same time, at the beginning of 1945, the Americans once again revised their concept regarding anti-tank artillery. It was decided to abandon the 90-mm anti-tank gun in favor of an even larger caliber gun. This was due to the need to effectively deal with the German heavy tank Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B (Royal Tiger) and Panzerjäger Tiger Ausf tank destroyer created on its base. B (Jagdtigr). For a confident fight with them, the capabilities of 90-mm guns were considered by Americans to be insufficient, while for use in the Pacific theater of war, the capabilities of the gun were excessive. Numerous American 37-mm and 57-mm anti-tank guns could also fight with Japanese tanks.

So at the very end of the war in the United States began work on the creation of 105-mm anti-tank guns. They started back in October 1944. In addition to the appearance of the "Royal Tigers" from the Germans, the work on the creation of the gun also spurred the capture of the German 88-mm anti-tank guns Pak-43 / 41 in France. The new gun was definitely developed with an eye on the German trophies, which was reflected even in the appearance of the new American anti-tank gun, which, having changed the caliber, did not change its name and was also designated as Т8.

At the same time, the Americans definitely outdid the Germans not only with caliber, but also with the mass of their guns. The weight of the 105-mm anti-tank gun Т8 is American 8 (short) tons or in terms of the metric system of measures approximately 7250 kg. For anti-tank guns - this is very important. For example, the same German 88-mm anti-tank gun Рak-43 / 41 in a combat position weighed 4400 kg, which already caused problems with its use. To transport the German cannon, a specialized powerful tractor was needed, which did not eliminate the problems with transporting the gun on weak soils and off-road. The gun and tractor were vulnerable on the march and deployed in a combat position. In addition, it was very difficult to deploy, if necessary, for example, during an enemy flank attack.

105 mm T8 anti-tank gun

All of these problems were characteristic of the American 105-mm anti-tank gun T8. Separately, you can select large dimensions of anti-tank guns, which hampered their masking on the ground. The Germans themselves for their large size called their anti-tank gun Pak-43 / 41 "granary gates". At the same time, the feature of the American 105-mm anti-tank gun Т8 was that during transportation the barrel could be turned by 180 degrees, which reduced the overall length of the gun.

Despite the obvious shortcomings of the American 105-mm anti-tank guns were obvious advantages. The long barrel in 65 calibers provided the 17,7-kg with an armor-piercing projectile initial flight speed at the level of 945 m / s. At a distance of one kilometer such an armor-piercing projectile punched 210 mm armor, located at a right angle.

In total, the United States managed to create two such anti-tank guns, which reached the testing stage only by February of the 1946 year. By that time, the Second World War had already ended, and the Cold War had not yet flared up with the force to give life to this American “miracle weapon”. As a result, the project to create 105-mm anti-tank gun was closed. Today, one of these anti-tank guns can be seen in the exposition of the tank and artillery museum at the Aberdeen range in Maryland.

Based on materials from open sources
Author:
41 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. belarusik
    belarusik 2 November 2017 15: 12
    +8
    The gun can be normal, but it would be a problem to use it, 8 tons!
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 2 November 2017 15: 27
      +3
      Pa-ah-think .... just 105-mm! No. And then what to say about the 125-mm cannon "Octopus-B"? tongue It would be a good idea for Americans not to think about “self-propulsion” ?! what
      1. Lopatov
        Lopatov 2 November 2017 16: 01
        +4
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        And then what to say about the 125-mm cannon "Octopus-B"

        "Octopus-B" seems to be like 6500, that is, three quarters of a ton less ...
        And about the "gun carriage with rotation" - they are right. We have a bunch of people died or was crippled due to MT-12 (T-12)
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 2 November 2017 17: 04
          +3
          With me, one student lowered the MT-12 frame to his leg. And I hung on the trunk as a counterweight ...
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 2 November 2017 17: 33
            +5
            This is not scary.
            It’s scary when the gun drives into the commander or mechanic of the rear motoliga with a barrel. Or a corpse, or a cripple.
        2. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 2 November 2017 22: 57
          +3
          Quote: Spade
          "Octopus-B" seems to be like 6500, that is, three quarters of a ton less ...

          Well ... in kilograms I didn’t measure it (!) In this case, one ... one carrot: that one that cannot be moved to another position by handles “cheerfully and amicably” like Yu. Nikulin with Shulgin log! In the case of the Octopus-B, it was necessary to make the system self-propelled ...
          1. Lopatov
            Lopatov 2 November 2017 23: 42
            +2
            Quote: Nikolaevich I
            In the case of the Octopus-B, it was necessary to make the system self-propelled ...

            Because the guns on such carriages cannot be dragged manually by hand.

            In general, Americans are interesting guys in this regard. They languished until the mid-60s, were born a bunch of self-propelled prototypes, and how cut off. Frustrated, probably 8)))
            And therefore, at the moment, the only modern 155-mm non-self-propelled howitzer in the world is the US-British M777
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 3 November 2017 00: 46
              +3
              Quote: Spade
              They languished until the middle of the 60's, gave birth to a bunch of self-propelled prototypes, and how they cut it off. Frustrated, probably 8)))
              And therefore, at the moment, the world's only modern 155-mm non-self-propelled

              Well, a different concept “prevailed” at that time: self-propelled guns were cut off ... And the M777 would be much easier to use “military-post-war” guns. Moreover, the Americans used to dream their howitzers more often by helicopter “rolling” than motor vehicles "tow ... that's not self-propelled (probably ... wink ).
      2. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 2 November 2017 16: 07
        +4
        Quote: Nikolaevich I
        Pa-ah-think .... just 105-mm! No. And then what to say about the 125-mm cannon "Octopus-B"? tongue It would be a good idea for Americans not to think about “self-propulsion” ?! what

        Why do they need about it think?

        The fact of the matter is that the Yankees had tank destroyers. But they needed a towed anti-tank vehicle for infantry.
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 2 November 2017 23: 02
          +2
          Quote: Alexey RA
          they needed a towed anti-tank vehicle for infantry.

          PTP-8 t ..... "Pro bow"? How to tow ... than to tow .... to whom to tow ............
    2. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 November 2017 16: 10
      +6
      Quote: belarusik
      The gun can be normal, but it would be a problem to use it, 8 tons!

      The funniest thing is that in a caliber of about 100 mm, it was entirely possible to make anti-tank missiles weighing 3600-3700 kg. And even less - given the absence in the US of a shortage of quality steels.
      1. Lganhi
        Lganhi 3 November 2017 06: 43
        +1
        N-yes, the Yankees are big lovers of overdoing it with the mass. The Soviet BS-3 fired 100-mm shells weighing 15 kg and an initial speed of 900 m / s, which is quite comparable to the American 105-mm monster. But at the same time, the American gun is twice as heavy, but not twice as powerful. The same can be said about the American 76-mm anti-tank gun weighing 2,4 tons. While the German 75-mm anti-tank gun weighed a whole ton less, although the speed of their shells were the same - 792 m / s. Judging by the American planes, they seem to have excellent engineers. But was it really impossible to design smaller mass guns?
        1. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA 3 November 2017 10: 09
          +2
          Quote: Lgankhi
          Judging by the American planes, they seem to have excellent engineers. But was it really impossible to design smaller mass guns?

          Heh heh heh ... just American planes are an example of how you can feed a single-engine fighter to 6-10 tons. smile
          Here, for example, is an example of an engineering solution for the Hellcat tail (right photo).

          The pattern of lining the fuselage aft with narrow overlapping strips was also preserved, in which a significant area of ​​the lining goes in two layers, which also clearly did not contribute to weight loss. The number of Hellcat fuselage support elements increased to 21 frames and 22 stringers (F4F Wildcat had 15 and 10, respectively), and not only because of the increase in size - the step of the frames and stringers became noticeably smaller than that of F4F , and the number of reinforced frames increased. At the same time, the stringers were made from the same profile as on the predecessor, and the frames were even from a more powerful one, and without any attempts to lighten them using the holes characteristic of the frames of a Japanese fighter.
          © midnike
          To hell with aerodynamics and weight control - long live technology! And for everything else there is a powerful engine. smile
          1. Lganhi
            Lganhi 3 November 2017 10: 22
            +1
            Well, their strategists were excellent. No wonder Stalin ordered the full copy of the B-29 and make it a Soviet copy of the Tu-4.
            1. Rzzz
              Rzzz 27 November 2018 20: 03
              +1
              Stalin ordered this not because of some outstanding "excellentness", although at that time there was nothing better in the world. If we recall those times, it will become clear that there is no effort, no money, and even less time to develop your own bomber jacket. The allies sharply became opponents, and it was necessary to have some kind of answer, especially since the bomb was on the way.
        2. Yura Yakovlev
          Yura Yakovlev 3 November 2017 20: 00
          +2
          "It seems that judging by American aircraft, their engineers are excellent. But was it really impossible to design smaller guns?"
          Engineers may be excellent, but if science lags behind, then engineers cannot do anything. Our consider trunks according to another theory of strength. What formulas, such and results. I also knew about this. Stalin, who mocked the British, gave Churchill at the Yalta Conference our 76 mm. the cannon, which in all respects exceeded the English one of the same diameter.
          1. Lganhi
            Lganhi 3 November 2017 21: 14
            +1
            Maybe a 57 mm gun? The British 57-mm gun with the same mass as the ZIS-2 had an initial velocity of a caliber projectile weighing 2,7 kg 850 m / s, while the Soviet velocity of the projectile weighing 3,2 kg was 1000 m / s. It makes no sense to compare the English 76-mm gun and the Soviet ZIS-3, the ZIS-3 weighs 1200 kg, the English gun weighs 3000 kg, but it fired 7,7 kg shells at an initial speed of 884 m / s, our gun fired 6,5 660 kg shells with an initial speed of XNUMX m / s, that is, they were guns of a completely different class.
            1. Yura Yakovlev
              Yura Yakovlev 4 November 2017 07: 14
              0
              Indeed, with the same caliber, the class is not the same, especially when you need to drag the gun on yourself. And when you consider that it shoots 1,5 times further, and weighs 2 times lighter, then there is no need to compare. ZIS-3 was the best gun of the second world. But the point is not that, but that the theory of sopromat in our country at that time went further than in the decaying West. Maybe that’s why they still haven’t really learned how to make rocket engines.
              1. Lganhi
                Lganhi 4 November 2017 09: 58
                0
                Most likely the matter is the case. When designing tools, our engineers accurately calculated the margin of safety and made tools of minimal metal consumption and weight with good reliability. Amerskie engineers probably use other data.
                1. Yura Yakovlev
                  Yura Yakovlev 4 November 2017 12: 15
                  +1
                  I have already spoken about this. Ours consider trunks according to the theory of strength for cylinders, and Americans according to the second (general). They obviously don’t really know anything about our theory, or they don’t trust it. Well, if the barrel turned out to be twice as heavy, it is natural that the mass of the entire gun will be twice as large. Here we must pay tribute to D.I. Mendeleev, who made the correct methodology for determining the distribution of gas pressure in the barrel during a shot along the length of the barrel. The correctness of the calculation also depends very much on this.
                  1. Dedall
                    Dedall 4 November 2017 19: 19
                    +3
                    Gentlemen, in continuation of this topic, the closing of the materials resistance department at the Novocherkassk Polytechnic University (SRSTU named after Platov) can be considered as a diversion of the British and Americans, carried out to combat the development of the experience of their ancestors. The students were left with the test with the exam type. And after that, no one is surprised by the armored car weighing 12 tons, which are being imposed on our army. Even I, a doctor by profession, think that in such a machine with such armor the body itself should have load-bearing properties. But still AutuCAD believes, and it is made according to American standards and we get who we have ..
  2. prodi
    prodi 2 November 2017 16: 17
    +1
    why not continue the topic of conical trunks of cannons, which could have a shorter length, and, probably, weight?
    1. Nikolaevich I
      Nikolaevich I 3 November 2017 04: 02
      +1
      Well, "tapering" is not a panacea ... just "tapering" the "super gun" cannot be bungled. You still have to add a powerful charge, and these are the increased overall weight and weight characteristics of recoil devices, gun carriage ... Anyway " easy ",, super.pushka ,, not get.
      1. prodi
        prodi 3 November 2017 07: 21
        0
        Well, for example, 20mm scrap in a 100mm sleeve BS-3 and a 50mm pipe; Use suspended wheels as additional anti-recoil wheels (forward rotation)?
        1. Nikolaevich I
          Nikolaevich I 3 November 2017 10: 55
          +2
          What is it for ? It is possible to read, of course ... but is it necessary? At present, anti-tank guns are no longer “quoted” as an effective anti-tank weapon, even self-propelled guns. If the Sprut-SDM self-propelled gun is adopted, it is only because some military men “dreamed” about a light tank (i.e. one is “writing,” the other is “thinking.”) Guns with a conical ("cone") nozzle are, nevertheless, a "discounted" version of the Cannon with a Conical Barrel (ACS). In the ACS, the conical part makes up the greater part of the total barrel length ... In a "classical" (cylindrical) barrel, the pressure of the powder gases decreases as the projectile moves along the barrel, because the "volume" of the barrel increases. In the conical barrel, as the caliber decreases, the barrel "volume" remains, as it were, constant; that is, the pressure does not drop (really, not significantly compared to the "cylinder"). Hence, the high characteristics of the conical barrel .In a gun with a cylindrical barrel and with a conical nozzle, the "cone" has a shorter length than the cylindrical part. That’s “intuitively pure” and you’ll figure it out ... But actually, you can really consider the option of a gun with a traditional barrel (“cylinder”), as a “basic” one, with an optional conical nozzle application ... and “experiment”.
          1. prodi
            prodi 3 November 2017 11: 37
            0
            I meant the 100mm breech and the usual 50mm barrel. You asked about the lightweight supergun
            1. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 3 November 2017 23: 27
              +1
              Miles sorry, I didn’t understand you.
          2. Yura Yakovlev
            Yura Yakovlev 3 November 2017 20: 14
            0
            "In a" classical "(cylindrical) barrel, the pressure of the powder gases decreases as the projectile moves along the barrel, because the" barrel "volume increases

            Here you are wrong. The velocity of the projectile and the pressure in the barrel increases depending on the length of the barrel in calibers. The increase in pressure in the barrel stimulates the rate of combustion of gunpowder, which is a consequence of a further increase in pressure, and the process of increase in pressure outstrips the increase in the internal volume of combustion of powder gases
            1. prodi
              prodi 4 November 2017 20: 40
              0
              in my opinion, this is some kind of muddy topic: the old trunks are clearly conical, modern, like, straight
            2. Nikolaevich I
              Nikolaevich I 5 November 2017 03: 59
              +1
              Quote: Yura Yakovlev
              Here you are wrong.

              Maybe it’s wrong: I read the article (on which I “relied”) a long time ago ... maybe the memory failed, maybe the author of the article was mistaken ...
              Quote: Yura Yakovlev
              The velocity of the projectile and the pressure in the barrel increases depending on the length of the barrel in calibers.

              So you need to increase the length of the barrel to "infinity"? But didn’t you come across “artillery” articles where conclusions are drawn about the “unnecessaryness” of excessive lengthening of gun barrels (both gun and gun)? Are there “critical” values ​​for lengthening trunks when the “game is not worth the candle”.

              Quote: Yura Yakovlev
              The increase in pressure in the barrel stimulates the rate of combustion of gunpowder, which is a consequence of a further increase in pressure, and the process of increase in pressure overtakes an increase in the internal volume of combustion of powder gases

              At a certain point, yes! But there is the next stage, when the rate of increase in the internal volume of powder gases does not keep pace with the rate of increase of the projectile space ....
  3. Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich
    Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich 2 November 2017 17: 25
    +3
    This is a purely Pindossian uzhOss, like the revolving .500 S&W Magnum, only in relation to artillery :-)))
    It turns out that not only Grabin suffered at that time ...
    But Grabin somehow managed to fit into 3650 kg in the case of the 100-mm BS-3.
    And even though BS-3 itself was considered as a complete technical nonsense due to its mass,
    but ... almost 8 pindoc tons in the role ... VETs look already simply inadequate :-)))
    1. Alexey RA
      Alexey RA 2 November 2017 17: 50
      +5
      Quote: Sharikov Polygraph Poligrafovich
      And even though BS-3 itself was considered as a complete technical nonsense due to its mass,
      but ... almost 8 pindoc tons in the role ... VETs look already simply inadequate :-)))

      Plus 5 mm to the caliber, plus 50 m / s to the initial BBS speed - and twice as much mass.
      But hell ... how? © belay
  4. Clone
    Clone 2 November 2017 20: 26
    +2
    Quote: belarusik
    8 tons!

    It is simply amazing how and due to what the Americans managed to equip such weight ??? Our BS-3 was considered the top of metal, but here in general ... some kind of limit. belay
    1. family tree
      family tree 2 November 2017 22: 38
      +4
      Quote: Clone
      some kind of outrage.

      The limit was the German Pak44, 128mm, 10-odd tons, although there are variations, riveted on three different carriages.
  5. Sverdlov
    Sverdlov 2 November 2017 21: 16
    +2
    Hmm, how did they turn the trunk out of the vehicle? I haven’t found a picture anywhere.
    I know everything about the mechanics of the D-30, but here? And the muzzle of thirty in one of the options is similar.
    I'm starting to think that Petrov was familiar with this thing and developed the idea ...
  6. Alexey RA
    Alexey RA 3 November 2017 22: 14
    0
    But we also had such a monster - the 107-mm M75 anti-tank gun, which weighed 7,5 tons in combat position.

    According to the adopted TTT, the initial velocity of the projectile 107 mm guns kept at around 1020 m / s. A projectile weighing 18,8 kg was to penetrate at a distance of one kilometer an armored plate 160 mm thick, installed at an angle of 30 degrees. The barrel length was limited to 70 calibers. The rate of fire was set at 10 rounds per minute, and loading was supposed to be unitary. When developing the guns, the 152-mm ML-20 howitzers-guns, including its sights, were used to the maximum. Along with anti-tank functions, the gun was supposed to play the role of a hull, for which its ammunition included a high-explosive fragmentation shell with an initial speed of 730 m / s and a mass of 18,8 kg.
    © Yuri Pasholok
    However, the requirement to maximize the use of the ML-75 serial carriage played a role in weighting the M20.
    1. Yura Yakovlev
      Yura Yakovlev 4 November 2017 12: 04
      0
      The design of the gun does not come from the gun carriage, but from the barrel. If the use of the carriage from the ML - 20 was ideally suited, then why reinvent the wheel. Most likely, the recoil force of these guns is the same.
      1. Alexey RA
        Alexey RA 6 November 2017 20: 24
        0
        Quote: Yura Yakovlev
        The design of the gun does not come from the gun carriage, but from the barrel.

        In theory, yes. But in the specific case of the pre-war USSR, the design of the gun could have come "from availability." Very often, it was written directly in TK "with the maximum use of commercially available components and products." For the same ACS designers, the additional rink required to install the gun often destroyed the whole system - "nobody will do special chassis."
  7. Yura Yakovlev
    Yura Yakovlev 5 November 2017 09: 48
    +2
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    At a certain point, yes! But there is the next stage, when the rate of increase in the internal volume of powder gases does not keep pace with the rate of increase of the projectile space ....


    You are absolutely right in this. Generally speaking, the pressure rises, but it lags behind, since the source of combustion (or explosion) is located in the breech. Therefore, the outer part of the barrel is made a cone to the exit of the projectile
  8. Yura Yakovlev
    Yura Yakovlev 5 November 2017 10: 07
    0
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    So you need to increase the length of the barrel to "infinity"? But didn’t you come across “artillery” articles where conclusions are drawn about the “unnecessaryness” of excessive lengthening of gun barrels (both gun and gun)? Are there “critical” values ​​for lengthening trunks when the “game is not worth the candle”.

    There are two examples from the development of classical artillery. The first is a 210 mm Parisian cannon. and a length of 130 calibres, fired at Paris in 1918. Range up to 130 km., But fired at 75-80 km. There were no means of observation at such distances, so shelling was carried out according to newspaper reports. After the shot, they waited for the Paris newspapers to report where the shell exploded, and made corrections for long-range shooting. A good example of how correspondents and journalists worked against their country. The second example is the Dora gun. But you can read about this article in the public domain. In general, artillery has already reached its limits of development, so the main emphasis is on improving shells.
    1. Romka47
      Romka47 5 December 2018 10: 37
      0
      I have never heard about this, the funny side, the terrible phenomenon of war.