This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've read a couple of times that the performance of the 20-pdr is "about twice that of the 17-pdr", without much by way of explanation of what's meant by that. Twice the penetration at 500 yards? The same penetration at twice the distance? If anyone could expand on that claim (or debunk it) please do so! Chris 22:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The above comment was edited by an anonymous user. I restored the original text of the comment. Below is the redaction by the anonymous user. Bukvoed ( talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"In a number of respects, the 20 pounder's design followed that of the German 8.8 cm KwK 43, such as a length of 66.7 calibres and the ability to fire conventional APCBC projectiles."
The article states that the 20 pdr fired both APCBC and APDS, but the comparison chart is comparing the subcaliber APDS round in the 20 pdr with full caliber rounds in all the other guns...wouldn't it make more sense to use figures for the APCBC projectile? JDS2005 ( talk) 05:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes it would, but I haven't been able to find any decent sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.120.98 ( talk) 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess we have the same question here as with L7 article:
"During the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a Soviet T-54A medium tank was driven onto the grounds of the British embassy in Budapest by the Hungarians. After a brief examination of this tank's armor and 100 mm gun, British officials decided that the 20 pounder was apparently INCAPABLE OF DEFEATING ITS FRONTAL ARMOR."
So why is this still a part of the page if it's a proven lie? We know it was capable of doing alright, it just wasn't providing _complete superiority_ over soviet tank at real battle distances. And that one is mostly affected not by armor of T-54/55, but by its CANNON. Weapon development is usually aiming for superiority with the opponent, not just "catching up". Should those lines be deleted? 37.214.74.83 ( talk) 23:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The article does not give anywhere a link to the source for the 1465m/s figure. The reference[5] in that paragraph does not contain this data. So, I ask again, what is the source? Because I have a primary document that shows a much lower figure of 1370m/s. Peasant wiki ( talk) 17:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've read a couple of times that the performance of the 20-pdr is "about twice that of the 17-pdr", without much by way of explanation of what's meant by that. Twice the penetration at 500 yards? The same penetration at twice the distance? If anyone could expand on that claim (or debunk it) please do so! Chris 22:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The above comment was edited by an anonymous user. I restored the original text of the comment. Below is the redaction by the anonymous user. Bukvoed ( talk) 17:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"In a number of respects, the 20 pounder's design followed that of the German 8.8 cm KwK 43, such as a length of 66.7 calibres and the ability to fire conventional APCBC projectiles."
The article states that the 20 pdr fired both APCBC and APDS, but the comparison chart is comparing the subcaliber APDS round in the 20 pdr with full caliber rounds in all the other guns...wouldn't it make more sense to use figures for the APCBC projectile? JDS2005 ( talk) 05:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes it would, but I haven't been able to find any decent sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.120.98 ( talk) 18:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
I guess we have the same question here as with L7 article:
"During the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, a Soviet T-54A medium tank was driven onto the grounds of the British embassy in Budapest by the Hungarians. After a brief examination of this tank's armor and 100 mm gun, British officials decided that the 20 pounder was apparently INCAPABLE OF DEFEATING ITS FRONTAL ARMOR."
So why is this still a part of the page if it's a proven lie? We know it was capable of doing alright, it just wasn't providing _complete superiority_ over soviet tank at real battle distances. And that one is mostly affected not by armor of T-54/55, but by its CANNON. Weapon development is usually aiming for superiority with the opponent, not just "catching up". Should those lines be deleted? 37.214.74.83 ( talk) 23:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The article does not give anywhere a link to the source for the 1465m/s figure. The reference[5] in that paragraph does not contain this data. So, I ask again, what is the source? Because I have a primary document that shows a much lower figure of 1370m/s. Peasant wiki ( talk) 17:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC)