Jump to content


The 8.8 cm KwK 36 a.k.a. short barreled 88

Tigers Germany 8.8cm KwK 36 L/56

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

Poll: The 8.8 cm KwK 36 a.k.a. short barreled 88 (48 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 250 battles in order to participate this poll.

Should the German 8.8cm KwK 36 get a penetration buff?

  1. Yes (27 votes [56.25%])

    Percentage of vote: 56.25%

  2. no (21 votes [43.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.75%

Should the gun get an accuracy buff?

  1. Yes, buff it to .30 (7 votes [14.58%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.58%

  2. Yes, buff it to .33 (25 votes [52.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 52.08%

  3. no, it's fine as it is at .36 (16 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Vote Hide poll

Thuis001 #1 Posted 31 January 2018 - 11:05 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 5578 battles
  • 383
  • [-SBN-] -SBN-
  • Member since:
    05-29-2015

Hello everyone, with the hinted mini-marathon that starts in a couple of days one of the tanks that came across as a possible choice was the Tiger 217. While this is in no way confirmed this would be an interesting thing. However after a quick look at Tanks.gg shows us that this is just a third tier VI Tiger with a short bareled 88. And to be fair, those tanks never seem to do too well in games. So I was thinking about a possible buff to the gun/tanks.

 

Penetration buff:

the standard AP(CBC) round should be buffed from the rather tragic 145mm pen (srsly? that thing faces IS-3's and Anime tanks...) to around 160mm or even better to around 180mm as this is a sniper.

the premium APCR round should be buffed to around 219mm of pen. (which it actually had in RL aswell.)

*note: the AP rounds had 162mm pen against a flat plate. However the Germans didn't test their guns against flat plates but rather against plates angled at 30 degrees from the vertical. This is were the original (and very poor at this point 132mm pen comes from)*

 

Accuracy buff:

This thing is a sniper, but with .36 on the tier VI tanks this role isn't really doable. The Tiger had really good gun sights (going as far that a British gunner once got 5 consecutive hits on a 41*46cm plate on a distance of 1,1km (that is some skill right there)) so something like .33-.30 would be a bit more in place.

 

I would like to know what you guys think about it. 


Edited by Thuis001, 01 February 2018 - 07:37 AM.


Grand_Moff_Tano #2 Posted 31 January 2018 - 11:09 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1200 battles
  • 10,221
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

KwK 43 L/71 is the long barrelled 88, you are thinking of the KwK 36, which is L/56, not L/43.

 

You'll also find that at a 100 meters, the APCBC round is 132mm of Armour penetration, and 171mm from the APCR.


Edited by Chipmunk_of_Vengeance, 31 January 2018 - 11:15 PM.


Balc0ra #3 Posted 31 January 2018 - 11:38 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 62764 battles
  • 14,382
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostThuis001, on 31 January 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

Penetration buff:

the standard AP(CBC) round should be buffed from the rather tragic 145mm pen (srsly? that thing faces IS-3's and Anime tanks...) to around 160mm or even better to around 180mm as this is a sniper.

 

It had 132mm before. So imagine how fun that was when, before the 3-5-7 MM when you were the only tier 6 on the map vs 10+ tier 8 tanks. But as you said, it's a support HT. So it's not like you have to seek out IS-3's now. You have tier 8 HT's to, help them. It's not them that should help you. As for the pen? I could argue that giving it 160 at the most could work if it got a minor DPM nerf. As it has great DPM due to the low pen. Brawling tier 6 HT's have better pen, but no DPM to speak of. The ARL 44 has 212mm on it's AP pen for one of the 90mm's. But crap dpm due to it.

 

View PostThuis001, on 31 January 2018 - 11:05 PM, said:

the premium APCR round should be buffed to around 219mm of pen. (which it actually had in RL aswell.)

*note: the AP rounds had 162mm pen against a flat plate. However the Germans didn't test their guns against flat plates but rather against plates angled at 30 degrees from the vertical. This is were the original (and very poor at this point 132mm pen comes from)*

 

Before the buff it was 171 iirc. That they also got from the 30 degree tests at 100m. The US test did indeed show 219 at 100m. But 190mm at 750m. So WG went with that instead. As they thought 200+ was too good for it vs the role it has. TD's have good pen for support roles. Not support HT's and meds on mid tiers. They are more on ROF instead, as this also have. But 194 on most rolls is more then enough if you wait for the IS-3 to turn the hull a bit so you hit the flat front vs the angles. And it's enough for most Jap HT's. But you want it to pen everything and all at +2. I get that.... but lets be realistic to.

 

View PostThuis001, on 31 January 2018 - 11:05 PM, said

 

Accuracy buff:

This thing is a sniper, but with .36 on the tier VI tanks this role isn't really doable. The Tiger had really good gun sights (going as far that a British gunner once got 5 consecutive hits on a 41*46cm plate on a distance of 1,1km (that is some skill right there)) so something like .33-.30 would be a bit more in place.

 

If he keeps the same pen as now. I would not mind giving it 0.33. As if you buffed the pen to 180mm, and 219 gold pen, 0.33 dispersion and almost 1900 base DPM at tier 6. It would be a nasty tank when top tier. It's not just the +2 MM up he gets you gotta consider. It faces tier 4's with no dpm or pen to speak of to. So if he can auto pen those from the hip and out dpm 3 of them at the time. Well... just saying.

 


Edited by Balc0ra, 31 January 2018 - 11:41 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #4 Posted 31 January 2018 - 11:44 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 6977 battles
  • 3,468
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

*sigh*

Another one of these?

Inb4

 

The 8.8 L/56 is fine the way it is.


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 31 January 2018 - 11:46 PM.


TheWarrener #5 Posted 31 January 2018 - 11:47 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 2040 battles
  • 331
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017
Honestly it is 3rd best non td gun at tier 6, just after strv 74 and skoda t25. You have both alpha and dpm, along with respectable accuracy for the tier and above average pen. Stop complaining. 

Grand_Moff_Tano #6 Posted 01 February 2018 - 12:03 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1200 battles
  • 10,221
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 31 January 2018 - 10:44 PM, said:

*sigh*

Another one of these?

Inb4

 

The 8.8 L/56 is fine the way it is.

 

Every German tank may not be Tigers but most of them are Big Cats :P

P33K #7 Posted 01 February 2018 - 12:13 AM

    Lance-corporal

  • Player
  • 20376 battles
  • 65
  • Member since:
    03-26-2015
Pen is just fine nowadays, but reload could be a bit faster. Doesnt even need to be t7 or jpz iv level, but now its just slightly lacking.

Snake_Keeper #8 Posted 01 February 2018 - 09:25 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8383 battles
  • 677
  • Member since:
    02-04-2016
The short 88 is acceptable with pen at the moment, there are other German guns that are more in need of a pen check than the short 88. Like the gun on the Pz. T25 magically having lower penetration than the same gun on the Czech tanks.

iztok #9 Posted 01 February 2018 - 10:42 AM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 35163 battles
  • 2,371
  • Member since:
    10-28-2010

> The 8.8 cm KwK L/56 a.k.a. short barreled 88 penetration buf

Yeah. We cried for 7 years, from open beta, that 132mm pen was not enough. You have a chance to get it buffed again around 2025. :sceptic:


Edited by iztok, 01 February 2018 - 10:43 AM.


Grand_Moff_Tano #10 Posted 01 February 2018 - 12:22 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1200 battles
  • 10,221
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
I should point out that on armour at 90° the armour penetration of Panzergranate 39 APCBC round is 162mm at a range of 100m, and 219mm at 100m with Panzergranate 40 APCR round. But this will never happen with the RNG on Penetration values which should really be removed.

AliceUnchained #11 Posted 01 February 2018 - 12:27 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 37820 battles
  • 8,521
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 31 January 2018 - 11:44 PM, said:

*sigh*

Another one of these?

 

The 8.8 L/56 is fine the way it is.

 

It is not. It has lower than historical performance, and should be at least on par and actually slightly better than the US 90 mm M3. 



Grand_Moff_Tano #12 Posted 01 February 2018 - 12:42 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1200 battles
  • 10,221
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
If you want another gun that underperforms, then you got the British 17-Pounder, they were capable of delivering quite a lot of stopping power to an Enemy tank, usually only needing the one shot to knock out a Tiger I or Panther.

AliceUnchained #13 Posted 01 February 2018 - 12:56 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 37820 battles
  • 8,521
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostChipmunk_of_Vengeance, on 01 February 2018 - 12:42 PM, said:

If you want another gun that underperforms, then you got the British 17-Pounder, they were capable of delivering quite a lot of stopping power to an Enemy tank, usually only needing the one shot to knock out a Tiger I or Panther.

 

That applies to all medium and large caliber guns basically... Or do you think Ze Germans needed more than one penetrating shot to knock out an M4 with their 7.5 and 8.8 cm guns? Penetration wise, the 17-pounder is quite alright in WoT (as the German 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 did perform somewhat better penetration wise).

Grand_Moff_Tano #14 Posted 01 February 2018 - 12:57 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1200 battles
  • 10,221
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostAliceUnchained, on 01 February 2018 - 11:56 AM, said:

 

That applies to all medium and large caliber guns basically... Or do you think Ze Germans needed more than one penetrating shot to knock out an M4 with their 7.5 and 8.8 cm guns? Penetration wise, the 17-pounder is quite alright in WoT (as the German 7.5 cm KwK 42 L/70 did perform somewhat better penetration wise).

 

True, but I do feel in game the 17-Pounder needs more damage compared to the contemporary 76,2mm M1 gun used by the Yanks.

Edited by Chipmunk_of_Vengeance, 01 February 2018 - 01:01 PM.


arthurwellsley #15 Posted 01 February 2018 - 01:03 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 50480 battles
  • 2,506
  • [-B-C-] -B-C-
  • Member since:
    05-11-2011

I do not own a Tiger 217, but I do own the Japanese crew trainer the Heavy Tank no.VI, which I understand is a clone of the Tiger 217. The Heavy Tank no.VI is balanced in tier VI. I therefore see no ned to buff either of them in game terms. If anything they are over performing;

J19 Tiger I Jpn


Edited by arthurwellsley, 01 February 2018 - 01:20 PM.


Grand_Moff_Tano #16 Posted 01 February 2018 - 01:07 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1200 battles
  • 10,221
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011
I'm more interested in knowing what Tiger 217 is, since I'm only aware of the Japanese Tiger and the 131.

AliceUnchained #17 Posted 01 February 2018 - 01:08 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 37820 battles
  • 8,521
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostChipmunk_of_Vengeance, on 01 February 2018 - 12:57 PM, said:

True, but I do feel in game the 17-Pounder needs more damage compared to the contemporary 76,2mm M1 gun used by the Yanks.

 

Agreed, but the same applies to the higher velocity 7.5 cm caliber German guns. One could argue because the British did not use any HE filler in their AP rounds, the after armor effect would be somewhat less compared to AP-HE rounds but as HE filler is not taken into consideration in WoT (as far as I am aware) it's a moot point.

Grand_Moff_Tano #18 Posted 01 February 2018 - 01:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 1200 battles
  • 10,221
  • [BC28] BC28
  • Member since:
    05-20-2011

View PostAliceUnchained, on 01 February 2018 - 12:08 PM, said:

 

Agreed, but the same applies to the higher velocity 7.5 cm caliber German guns. One could argue because the British did not use any HE filler in their AP rounds, the after armor effect would be somewhat less compared to AP-HE rounds but as HE filler is not taken into consideration in WoT (as far as I am aware) it's a moot point.

 

We Brits used the APCBC round for the 17-Pounder, this should provide more kinetic damage than an APHE round. It is also what gave the 17-Pounder its excellent Stopping power.

 

Edit: The Panther, going by Wikipedia which is normally accurate were shell data is concerned, fires an APCBC-HE round at a higher muzzle velocity than the 17-Pounder, so I do agree that it should do more damage than it does now. But it would be interesting to see what the stopping power of the weapon was since they were far deadlier than the 8,8cm KwK 36 and 43.


Edited by Chipmunk_of_Vengeance, 01 February 2018 - 01:17 PM.


AliceUnchained #19 Posted 01 February 2018 - 01:17 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 37820 battles
  • 8,521
  • [322] 322
  • Member since:
    10-18-2011

View PostChipmunk_of_Vengeance, on 01 February 2018 - 01:10 PM, said:

We Brits used the APCBC round for the 17-Pounder, this should provide more kinetic damage than an APHE round. It is also what gave the 17-Pounder its excellent Stopping power.

 

I am very much aware of that (APDS as well btw, but limited), and the 17-pounder certainly was an excellent anti-tank gun (albeit somewhat cumbersome and with high profile as towed AT). But that APCBC lacked an explosive filler, and thus would have a somewhat lesser after armor effect compared to APCBC-HE (but I have no idea how to quantify that, plus I am fairly certain that even without the explosive filler a penetrating shot from the 17-pounder would be sufficient to knock out any vehicle in WW II). For comparison, the German APCBC did have an explosive filler and still achieved higher penetration (higher muzzle velocity and harder nose for the projectile). 



Spek_en_Bonen #20 Posted 01 February 2018 - 01:19 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Beta Tester
  • 31489 battles
  • 6,808
  • Member since:
    07-27-2010

Germans calculations were based on "50% penetration with specially selected shells (as in, they selected the very best shells and they only needed to pen 50% of the time)"

As opposed to the other nations, which didn't use "speshul test shells" and used actuall penetrations instead of a percentage of shells penetrating...

The selection is done very much the same way as they select rifle rounds for designated marksmen (or "snipers" _)

 

Different methods of testing.

 


Edited by Spek_en_Bonen, 01 February 2018 - 01:20 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users