Does anyone know if the W.W. 2 88mm A/T gun could penatrate any of the cold war armor say up to the M60 or T 62 or Leopard and Cheiftain series tanks at ranges up to 1,000 meteres?
I have always wondered if that gun could

The AFVs listed above possessed no thicker armor than WWII tanks. So if the 88 could punch a hole in a Pershing it sure could punch a hole in the M60, Leopard, T62 or Chieftan.

I seem to wonder what kind of ammo tanks/AT guns use. After seeing pics of tans hit by such rounds, I notice some of them have holes where the rounds struck. My conclusion there is it is not tipped with explosives (eg. HEAT). It's not likely that sabots (APDS) existed then.

Depends when these tanks were hit. Sabot rounds have been in use since 1944 at least - first introduced for the 6-pounder.

You mean which parts they are hit? If they are hit in some parts, all they get is a hole in the armor but in some parts, the armor could be torn if the round triggers an explosion?

Wow! Didn't realize sabots were already in use then. From the pictures I saw, the AT rounds don't seem to look like sabots. Of course, I am basing it from the modern version of the sabots.

I will have to disagree with GSP, the M60-series and especially the Chieftan have much thicker armor than WW2 counterparts and from direct front I seriously doublt with WW2 ammo that the 88 could pierce the armor. If you go the M60A3 with thermal sights, which existed during the last years for the Cold War, the tank crew would spot and engage the 88 first!

a bit o/t but I think finland still used 88's as costal guns until quite recently
but I'd find it hard to imagine an 88 pentirating a cheiftian a few facotrs the cheiftain was a direct descendent of the centurian which was built due to tigers and 88's also the quailty aof steel would be much better due to tanks not being mass produced to aid a war effort
therefore stell would be better made and hardered due to processes moving along since the 88 was develped

The Germans had real problems with the production of the SABOT round as the core element of the round is tungsten. Tungsten was one of the strategic materials that was always in short supply. One of the principal sources of tungsten was Franco's Spain, a source which dried up when 'back-channel' diplomatic pressure was put on the Franco regime by the allies.

Regarding the initial question, the 88 was a formidable weapon in its day but by the 1960s/70s its time had passed. This question assumes several aspects... Firstly that tank vs. tank (or anti-tank) is like some console game, many other factors would come into play, use of airpower, modern artillery and visibility. Secondly, an 88 would have little success against modern (even discounting CHOBHAM) armor, only a lucky shot could disable a vehicle such as a Chieftain or M60. Finally, armor thickness is not the issue here, rather it is the structural composition of the armor and the angular design. A front glacis plate of 100mm becomes (effectively) 150mm when angled at 30 degrees....Jim

"The powerful 88mm gun was able to knock out Sherman, Cromwell and T-34/85 tanks at a range of 3,500 meters (2.2 miles), far beyond the range of enemy guns."

From a web-site on the King Tiger. I will stand by my statement. The 88 on the King Tiger, Nashorn, etc. was able to knock out ALL allied armor at range it could penetrate the armor on the tanks of the "Cold War", M-60, T62, Leopard and Chieftain. All of these tanks possessed armor of steel, no ceramics, no chobham. A hull or turret side shot on any of these tanks would have been a knock-out blow.

The M60 series had good sloped armor on the hull front, but the turret sides were rather slab-sided. Without pulling out charts and graphs on armor density, the M60 could be knocked out by the King Tiger.
The T55 - T62 series the turrets were rounded giving them a low profile and round deflection, however, like all tanks they had weak spots. Hulls sides, rear end.
The Leopard - sloped armor, rounded turret yet, the armor was not so thick as to prevent penetration.
The Chieftain - This one would probably hold up the best vs. the King Tiger. Heavy armor sloped hull and turret.

I believe the hypothethical question was poised what would happen between the 88 of the King Tiger vs these tanks. A static fire test. The M60 parked and shot at by the 88 at various ranges. In an actual battle all of the cold war tanks would have a decided advantage over the King Tiger in the areas of speed, optics, and gun.

So this you stand by? I don't know which site you were using about the King Tiger (Which by the way was not the great Tank it seems to be today?) As for a King Tiger taking on a M60 and winning? I guess anything is possible but that does not make it likely. As for a frontal shot taking our an M60? No way! The M60's I was in had approximately 4" of armor set at 60 Deg which would defeat the Armor Piercing Capped (APC) of the Tiger II at all but the closest battle ranges. Yes a side shot might be achievable; at close to moderate ranges, but hey a Sherman could kill a tiger with a side shot as well! So if your point is that the 88 L71 was such a great gun why was it not used as a tank gun after WW II? The German 75mm L70 was used in modified form by the French but the 88 was not used at all? I wonder why? Did all the Nations put there national security on the line by turning down this super weapon while some others adopted the "less effective" 75? No the L71 88mm was not the wonder weapon it seems to have become on these modeling boards as any one can tell from it's post war use? The Tigers were good defensive weapons and I do not dispute that fact but they were not successful tanks for to be successful as a Tank one must designed it to work as well in offence as it does in defense. This the Tigers did not do. Mobility is the key to Armored Warfare and the Tiger's (Especially the Tiger II) were sadly lacking on this key element. So in conclusion I would have to say that yes an 88mm with the Ammo used by the Germans in WW II would possible(but not likely) kill an Modern (Cold War Tank) but so could the RPG if you fired enough of them. The 88 mm anti tank gun was not used after WW II because it was no longer considered effective by the standards of the time.
Cheers
Jeff Larkin

To add a caveat to this discussion, if the M60 in question was instead a Magagh from the Israeli Defence force or an M60A1 RISE/applique with the extra armor package than the ABC round of an 88 L 71 would NOT penetrate from the side either.
The spaced armor value of the applique would seriously deplete the penetrative ability of the kinetic round and it would bounce off the side turret armor.
Chieftains had armor the equivelent of 500+ mm in thickness due to the heavy angling of the plate and the quality of castings used.
Leopard and AMX-30s both valued menuverability over armor and hense had NO armor over 200-250mm. Seems the Germans learned their lesson from the immoveable objects (Die Panzern) of WW2 (which could not stop the irrestistable force of Allied armor!!!)
Then of course we can ask how would the esteemed 88 L71 fare against something more akin to a King Tiger, say a Conqueror or an M103? Both built to deal long ranged death to a tank based on the idea of the "immoveable object" (the heavy tank) the IS-3 and T-10 both of which could have easily dealt with fields of King Tigers with their well sloped armor and super heavy 122mm guns that at 3000 meters would knock the welds apart or knock the turret off on German armor, without having to penetrate them.

According to the info I have, the 88mm of the King Tiger could penetrate 8.1 inches of armor at a range of 500m. Could this knock out an M60? I am certain of it. I know for a fact the M60 turret armor doesn't come close to this on the sides. I am fairly certain that there has never been an AFV close to that on the side. Even the JagdTiger only had 3.3 inches on the side.
While the King Tiger may have been slow an clumsy, I am fairly certain that we are all fortunate that the Third Reich didn't produce any where near the numbers of them as we did Shermans and the Soviets the T34 series. There were only 490 King Tigers produced. There were 29,000 T34c and T34/85's produced alone. Add into the mix the tens of thousands of Shermans. We are also lucky they only built about 5460 Panthers. Indeed there is strength in numbers.
As for the idea that the 88's time had passed as WWII,ended I point out most weapons systems of the Germans were phased out. Why? Most likely logistics. The Allies won with their weapons systems. Why would they incorporate systems that would require they change all of their inventories? Why did't the Germans maintain these systems? How could they , they just lost the war.Once they started to develop the Bundeswehr they would be working within the NATO realm.
To illustrate that inferiority was not the demise of the 88mm I would like to point out that the 105mm gun of the M48 had a penetration of 8.4 inches. Not much better.
Could the 88mm knock out a new M1A1 etc? Well, everything is vulnerable in the rear end. This comparison really is moot anyway because the 88mm was not developed as the armor systems were.
Also of note, the 122mm gun of the JSII and JSIII had a penetration of 5.7 inches, also at a range of 500m.

i agree with jeff larkins points,

also something that needs to be taken into account is the quality of the steel and other metals used in the rolled homogeneous armour of the M60/cheiftan etc, it was of much better quality than that of WW2 tanks.

i seriously doubt an 88 firing WW2 ammo could have penatrated the frontal armour of a cheiftan from any angle. it would have simply bounced off.

fair enough an 88 could take out most modern tanks from the side or rear but these areas are rarely engaged by towed guns in battle, and a modern tank would make mincemeat of a king tiger in open battle.

dont forget the 17-pdr with its sabot ammo was superior to the 88, and that was taken from service with most armies by the 60's.

the 88 was a good gun, but not as good as many people think it was. most of the post war weapons were far better.

cheers

joe