Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Light, Mobile, and Deadly: the French Mle 1937 25mm Puteaux AT Gun" video.

Well, it wasn't enough for pre-War tanks of France herself. So. There's that.
130
@paint4pain To be fair, soviets pulled out 50mm of penetration out of PTRS/PTRD without APDS. So, you know. You'd need a lot more to justify a gun that can't decide what it is. Especially considering the unmatched mobility of AT rifles that allow them to easily flank or get an elevation on targets. And on the AT gun side of the spectre the other problem is lack of any dual purpose use for this gun. Very niche tool that falls between two much more important roles to fill.
26
@paint4pain 1938. 14,5x114 round was developed in 1938 along with the a few AT rifles for it. It was deemed excessive for production just like ZiS-2 57mm cannon in 1940. PTRS/PTRD is a second generation of AT rifles for this round. The closest comparison would be munitions used by 15mm versions of MG-151 autocannon. That one had 40mm of penetration even at 300m if german documents are to be believed. They thankfully they didn't make an AT rifle around it:D As I was saying, Boys was sabotaged by an attempt to cheapen out and use a derivative of .50 cal ammo necked to bigger bullet instead of developing new ammo. Mind you, they had 15x104mm BESA/Brno round in their hands since 1937. It had the same 33k joules as 14,5x114mm of soviets. So allies at the start of WWII in Europe could have had a VERY different AT rifle. And against 1939 german tanks it would have bordered on cruel overkill:D 25mm was still a mounted gun even if a light one. It would have much harder time to find and exploit said vulnerabilities compared to a gun that a 2 man team can handle on their own. Mounted gun that can't fight infantry or provide fire support. No, it is important. Majority of shells used by german and american AT gun crews and tankdestroyers were still HE shells. For example M10's in Italy had as much as 80% of their loaded ammo of pure HE shells. Soviets used HE shells even more often due to their preference for higher caliber guns instead of higher velocity ones, which was partially justified by shortages of high quality explosive filler. It wasn't a bad gun, but it was a gun without a role. As such it was a very niche and expensive tool. I'd actully suggest that better use for this round would be creating an AA autocannon and setting it up the same way as hungarians used Nimrod on tactical level as both SPAAG and tank destroyer. Problem was Nimrod was late.
9
@edi9892 modern low caliber APFSDS doesn't need explosives. The round is constructed with internal stress point that would use the velocity of the round after penetration to shatter it and transfer all that kinetic energy to resulting shrapnel. Explosive is used to provide energy, engineers had overstepped the whole problem by using already available energy of the round itself.
8
@jenkinsonian even at the end of its lifetime, Pz.IV didn't fully breach the 50mm limit. It still had vulnerable turret, rear and sides. Heck, even Panther had 50mm in its side hence side skirts and shortlived Panther 2 developement project that was cancelled after side skirts were introduced and proved to be effective enough. Pz.III suffered the same fate. The problem however is that level of armor doesn't require an AT gun, even if a light one. French had great 47mm APX gun and didn't have an AT rifle to go with it. This 25mm AT gun fills a very specific niche. And I'm sadly inclined to say an artificial one, made specifically for it. It was a good gun from engineering PoV, but having a good AT rifle instead of Boys would have been better.
4
@edi9892 don't try to smash together two different topics. To you I was answering on topic of low caliber APSFDS. Where is HE involved in that comment? Quote me on that part, please.
2
Well, in a way, they've created second most powerfull AT rifle after 2.8cm PzB 41 for a war that required AT guns.
2
@Paul-ie1xp I wasn't talking about 47mm APX gun though. That one was among the best ones in its class in the whole world.
1
@HingerlAlois to be fair, this gun has maximum penetration from 45 to 65mm at 90 degrees at point blank depending on the source. And here comes two problems: 1)while it'll fall into AT rifle classification in german serive just as 2.8cm sPzB 41 I've mentioned, it wasn't one. You can't have two people carry it and it's ammo on their backs. Meanwhile existing AT rifles had achieved armor penetration of 45-50mm(soviet PTRS/PTRD. Lahti was a bit behind with 40-45). This mobility allowed AT rifles to easily flank tanks and to fire from upper floors of buildings. Soviet AT rifles forced germans to adopt side skirts on their tanks and were dangerous to most armored vehicles to the very end of the war. Because even Tiger can be shot at through engine ventilation grate from elevation. 2)as Ian had pointed out, it isn't AT gun either. As it's NOT dual purpose in any way. Majority of shells shot even by german and american AT gun and tank destroyer crews at late war were still HE shells. So all in all, it lacked the mobility of AT rifles while being close to them in power(I mean top examples, not Boys failure that originated from desire to cheap out on developement and use HMG derived bullets) at the same time as lacking an ability to counter other types of targets as well as have a reserve on armor penetration that'll last it through the war. The gun fell between two niches.
1