# German 128mm - any good?



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 3, 2010)

At the moment, my thinking is that it was pointless. My reasons are:

In the Anti-tank role, the 88mm L71 was more than enough? and better than the 128mm. If it wasn't, then I'm sure the 88mm L100 would hae been a better upgrade?

If you're going to have a giant gun, why not just have the existing 155mm?

I know the 128mm would have made an awesome dual-pupose gun, but the ammo count would have been too low - just a few rounds of AP HE?

Most 128mms were L55, though some were L61 and mounted in a few Jagdtigers and the Sturer Emil. I wonder how they performed...

It was also considered for the Jagdpanther II - in what length I do not know. I wonder howw effective this vehicle would have been - some sources state it was to use a Panther II chassis, others just a normal Panthers.

I hope this hasn't been covered before? If it has, sorry!


----------



## hartmann (Apr 4, 2010)

Hello schwarzpanzer ¡¡ 



> If you're going to have a giant gun, why not just have the existing 155mm?



Germany didn’t have this calibre. It was the 15 cm (really 149,1 mm).
It was briefly considered for the Maus and E-100 in the form of the KwK 44 15 cm L39, although I think that It was dropped fastly in favour of the new 128 L66 PaK 44 (enlarged barrel) and the new 17 cm KwK gun (I think that It was around 50 calibres length) with an APCBC-HE PzGr 43 shell weighing ¡¡71 Kg¡¡  



> Most 128mms were L55, though some were L61 and mounted in a few Jagdtigers and the Sturer Emil. I wonder how they performed...



Slightly after the war, the US Army (If I remember well) used an M-26 “Pershing” as target versus the 128 mm L55 from a captured Jagdtiger (I don’t remember if it was dismantled and fixed in land or if they used the entire Jagdtiger and associated optics). The results were devastating (in both senses): The Pershing was completely penetrated by the glacis at near 2100 metres at first impacting shot. I don’t know exactly were did I read this, If It was in Hunnicutt´s book about Pershing or something similar.


In other state of things, the 128 mm L61 was the FlaK 40 gun adapted as improvised PaK gun, and only used APC-HE shells in the Sturer Emil. It used fixed ammo, of different length of the PaK 44/80 (which also used separated ammo, with at least 3 different propellant charges for different MVs). It was not used after this in an AFV.




> It was also considered for the Jagdpanther II - in what length I do not know



It had to mount the 128 mm gun PaK44/80, although it is not specified if it would use the standard L55 barrel or the lengthened L66 barrel. I will see if I find something more.

Best regards


----------



## CharlesBronson (Apr 4, 2010)

Any Good ? yes it was good, but I think it was also excesive( too heavy, slow rate of fire ) for the antitank needs of ww2. With an self propelled 88 flak 18, Pak 43 or flak 41 you were pretty much covered against anything on tracks the allies might had.


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 4, 2010)

CharlesBronson said:


> Any Good ? yes it was good, but I think it was also excesive( too heavy, slow rate of fire ) for the antitank needs of ww2. With an self propelled 88 flak 18, Pak 43 or flak 41 you were pretty much covered against anything on tracks the allies might had.




Many armies tended to stay with calibers they already had in use. In addition to simplifying tooling it some times took months if not a couple years to get the internal ballistics right (how much of what type of powder to not only get the desired velocity but to get it in a consistent manner from shot to shot (low standard of deviation) in a variety of weather conditions. Getting shells to perform consistently at long range or flight times for AA shells was also a largely trial and error proposition. Sometimes a small change in the ogive curve could either improve things or cause them to go to pot. 
Being able to base one cannon on an existing one speeded up development considerably even if the breech mechanism was changed or even if the barrel length was changed slightly. 

The 128mm was probably too big but there were a couple of projects to develop 128mm field artillery with greater range than the 15cm howitzer so there may have been some commonality with that.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2010)

128mm did not have any advantage vs. 8,8-10,5 German cannons if we look at their development. I agree with C. Bronson about the 'overkill' issue here, too.
German industry was able to produce 'super-Marder' as early as 1939 (not that they needed it bask then, but it was needed in Russia, and it would've been useful in West in 1940) - Pz-III chassis mounting Flak 18 (8,8cm/L56), supplemented later with 10,5cmL63 (or 10,5cm field cannon) on VK3001 chassis.


----------



## parsifal (Apr 5, 2010)

128 cm were developed firstly as superheavy AA guns, and in this role they were essential, because the early marks of 88mm simply lacked the performance to be effective above approximately 24000 feet (less if the barrel was worn). I havent the performance of the 128 mm wepapon in AA role, but it could reach very high altitudes, and was accurate


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 5, 2010)

As an AA piece, it had merit.
As an AFV gun, or towed AT gun, it was waste of effort.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 6, 2010)

*Hi hartmann,*

150mm? Sorry, my mistake - at least you knew what I meant!

I suppose the 128mm would have advantages over the 150mm, and be enough - though having one single gun might have had developmental, manufacturing and logistical advantages?

Was there an L66 KwK 44? I've heard of a rumoured L61 before - and the L55 was fitted to the Maus, tough I heard the L61 was intended for it. Also, some Jagdtigers were apparently actually fitted with an L61 - and were identified by the lengthened casemate, that extended out over the engine deck.

Thanks for the info. That reminds me of the 32pdr vs Panther tests - it was just ripped apart! The Pershings glacis wasn't brilliant though - it even had vertical areas. I wonder how malleable it was though, being cast?



> In other state of things, the 128 mm L61 was the FlaK 40 gun adapted as improvised PaK gun, and only used APC-HE shells in the Sturer Emil. It used fixed ammo, of different length of the PaK 44/80 (which also used separated ammo, with at least 3 different propellant charges for different MVs). It was not used after this in an AFV.



Thanks. Single-piece ammo? Makes me wonder why this wasn't mass produced? Overkill perhaps? Why the KwK 44 should use split-loading ammo is beyond me, if this older gun managed without. When you say PaK 44/80 - do you mean the barrel was 80 calibres long?



> It had to mount the 128 mm gun PaK44/80, although it is not specified if it would use the standard L55 barrel or the lengthened L66 barrel. I will see if I find something more.



Thanks, look forward to it, cheers!


*Hi CharlesBronson,*

Yes, that pretty much sums it up - but I was wondering for a 1945-1946 scenario, with IS-3's and T-54s - would previous guns be enough for them?


*Hi Shortround,*

Some nice info there!



> The 128mm was probably too big but there were a couple of projects to develop 128mm field artillery with greater range than the 15cm howitzer so there may have been some commonality with that.



Good point. Could Flak HE shells be used too? I suspect flak rounds would be devastating against infantry too? Perhaps a 128mm shells explosive yield is too low though - what made the ML-20 perform so well do you know btw?

I can't see why the PaK 36 was brought on the scene - when the Flak 37 on a simpler carriage would have had much better performance (thought that it wasnt needed?).


*Hi tomo,*



> 128mm did not have any advantage vs. 8,8-10,5 German cannons if we look at their development.



It would have been less likely to suffer shatter, when encountering the IS-2s 120mm hull armour, and even 90-100mm turret armour.

I think it was overkill only untill the IS-2 '44 model came on the scene (slope glacis).



> German industry was able to produce 'super-Marder' as early as 1939 (not that they needed it bask then, but it was needed in Russia, and it would've been useful in West in 1940) - Pz-III chassis mounting Flak 18 (8,8cm/L56), supplemented later with 10,5cmL63 (or 10,5cm field cannon) on VK3001 chassis.



Would have been good against Matildas. Did they actually go so far as to build one?


*Hi Parsifal,*

What you say makes it seem like an ideal anti-tank gun, but it seems something got lost in translation (sawing the barrel down to L55 for a start). I could see that the extra yield would be very useful for an anti-bomber flak shell.

I wonder if heavy flak guns were a waste of time? - much better use the crews as anti-tank gunners - and concentrate on more Zerstorer fighters, at the expense of bombing - as Rommel suggested?


I think that it's main competitor to the 128mm would be an adapted 155mm? - Or an 105mm friring APFSDS? - no the 88mm L71 L100, as I 1st thought?

Some good info guys, thanks! just like the good old days!


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> *Hi tomo,*
> 
> It would have been less likely to suffer shatter, when encountering the IS-2s 120mm hull armour, and even 90-100mm turret armour.
> 
> I think it was overkill only untill the IS-2 '44 model came on the scene (slope glacis).



I was talking about development advantage - the 10,5cm 8,8cm cannons were developed prior WW2. 
Plus, they were much smaller, their platform could have carried more ammo, while those cannons were able to kill anything at great ranges until VE day.
But certainly the bigger guns have bigger reserves for up coming threats. 



> Would have been good against Matildas. Did they actually go so far as to build one?



Nope, but they have had 8,8cm Flak mounted at half-tracks used them in France (12 pcs IIRC).



> Some good info guys, thanks! just like the good old days!



I just like to talk about hardware


----------



## vanir (Apr 7, 2010)

parsifal said:


> 128 cm were developed firstly as superheavy AA guns, and in this role they were essential, because the early marks of 88mm simply lacked the performance to be effective above approximately 24000 feet (less if the barrel was worn). I havent the performance of the 128 mm wepapon in AA role, but it could reach very high altitudes, and was accurate



FlaK-18 to 37 had alt 8km at 9.24kg (FlaK 36 to 37 had changeable barrel sections)
8.8cm FlaK-41 had alt 14.7km (48,250ft) at 9.4kg (maxim no in service 318 )
10.5cm FlaK-38 to 39 had alt 12.8km at 15.1kg
12.8cm FlaK-40 had alt 14.8km at 26kg (max no in service was 570)

The two proliferant types in forward deployment late in the war would be the 8.8cm FlaK-36 and 37, and the 10.5cm FlaK-38. The 12.8cm was used only within the Reich in mostly static emplacements but is famous for its twin tower mountings near high value targets. The FlaK-41 was prized but few and far between.

In the anti-tank role the Flak-41 could dispose of any tank at around 2km compared to around 1km for the FlaK-18.

This is just from my WW2 weapons encyclopedia, I'm not particularly well versed.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 7, 2010)

*Hi vanir,*



> This is just from my WW2 weapons encyclopedia, I'm not particularly well versed.



Don't worry, it's good enough for me! Thanks. 



> FlaK-18 to 37 had alt 8km at 9.24kg (FlaK 36 to 37 had changeable barrel sections)



IIRC the KwK36 didn't though (?)



> The FlaK-41 was prized but few and far between.



As a flak gun? The Pak43 was based on a rejected competitor for the Flak 41 competition IIRC?

I've heard that German proximity shells were pretty poor - rendering the flak guns not so good? - perhaps better to use them as AT guns?



> In the anti-tank role the Flak-41 could dispose of any tank at around 2km compared to around 1km for the FlaK-18.



Apparently the Pak43 (described above) took out an IS-2 heavy tank at 4,600m! (in a Horrnisse or Nashorn).


*Hi tomo,*



> I was talking about development advantage - the 10,5cm 8,8cm cannons were developed prior WW2.
> Plus, they were much smaller, their platform could have carried more ammo, while those cannons were able to kill anything at great ranges until VE day.
> But certainly the bigger guns have bigger reserves for up coming threats.



Great point, sorry I forgot about that. When did the 128mm 1st see service? I know I've got the info in my head somewhere... Maybe the 88mm was lucky that the Soviets ill-advisedly used armour that was hard, at the expense of being brittle - which, as someone on here recently said, should not be relied on to go on forever (when did this change btw? if ever?). I think it was able to deal with any vehicle in the West though, with rare exceptions like the Super Pershing Tortoise. Good point on the ammo though. Yes, I think bigger guns may have been necessary - maybe even 280mm's? - I can start to see the want for the guns on the Ratte now.  Still, 105mm proved to be enough in the Cold War (using better ammo though).



> Nope, but they have had 8,8cm Flak mounted at half-tracks used them in France (12 pcs IIRC).



Ah right. I know about those, I thought you meant a fully-tracked vehicle. Those were still being used in 1944 on the Ost Front btw. Do you have any combat data on them? Were they used in the anti-tank role? Were they intended for that?



> I just like to talk about hardware



Me too (as if you couldn't tell!). It seems were in good company here. Does all this tech stuff get on peoples nerves though?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 7, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> *Hi tomo,*
> Great point, sorry I forgot about that. When did the 128mm 1st see service? I know I've got the info in my head somewhere... Maybe the 88mm was lucky that the Soviets ill-advisedly used armour that was hard, at the expense of being brittle - which, as someone on here recently said, should not be relied on to go on forever (when did this change btw? if ever?). I think it was able to deal with any vehicle in the West though, with rare exceptions like the Super Pershing Tortoise. Good point on the ammo though. Yes, I think bigger guns may have been necessary - maybe even 280mm's? - I can start to see the want for the guns on the Ratte now.  Still, 105mm proved to be enough in the Cold War (using better ammo though).



Guess 128mm fired at enemy in 1941 
The 8,8 would've enjoyed a healthy performance margin over anything weaker than IS-2 in 2km distance (and vs. IS-2 under 1km without problem) even if Soviets have used better steel for their armor.
280mm? Why not 380-406 



> Ah right. I know about those, I thought you meant a fully-tracked vehicle. Those were still being used in 1944 on the Ost Front btw. Do you have any combat data on them? Were they used in the anti-tank role? Were they intended for that?



I was thinking of fully tracked vehicle for 'Super Marder'.



> Me too (as if you couldn't tell!). It seems were in good company here. Does all this tech stuff get on peoples nerves though?



Well, I do stay away from many topics, and tend to participate in techy ones  People are rightly pissed off when someone attacks other member _ad hominem_, not when people discuss (any) stuff.


----------



## Juha (Apr 7, 2010)

Hello Schwartzpanzer
Quote:"Ah right. I know about those, I thought you meant a fully-tracked vehicle. Those were still being used in 1944 on the Ost Front btw. Do you have any combat data on them? Were they used in the anti-tank role? Were they intended for that?"

Those half-tracks were primary designed as A/T vehicles, that's why they had armoured cabin. They were deployed in France 1940 with PzJgAbt 8 IIRC, with 1. PzD IIRC. The vehicle was based on 12 ton h-t, those 88s used in 44 were on 18ton h-t.

Juha


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 7, 2010)

*Hi Juha,*

Those half-tracks were primary designed as A/T vehicles, that's why they had armoured cabin. They were deployed in France 1940 with PzJgAbt 8 IIRC, with 1. PzD IIRC. They were put on 12 ton h-t those 88s used in 44 were on 18ton h-t.

Thanks for that info. I did wonder about the armoured cabin, but figured I'd made a mistake (protection against infantry, arty or AA attack maybe, or like on the Kayusha, I reasoned). Thanks for the info. It also appeared to me that the elevation wasn't that high?

BTW a cheapish, fully-built painted model of this vehicle will be made, along with some information on it, does anyone want me to post when it becomes available?

- this is for the later '44 vehicle btw, does anyone have any pictures of the earlier 12-ton one?


*Hi tomo,*



> Guess 128mm fired at enemy in 1941



In the Sturer Emil? Would have been (even more?) pointless back then though, so I can see why it was dropped - though I can't reason why they switched to split-loading?



> The 8,8 would've enjoyed a healthy performance margin over anything weaker than IS-2 in 2km distance (and vs. IS-2 under 1km without problem) even if Soviets have used better steel for their armor.



I was just thinking about prevention of shatter. Even the T-34/85 had advantages here when vs the 88mm - theoretically, though in practice the 88mm was always more than enough (the APCBC design will have helped there).



> 280mm? Why not 380-406



I was taking the 280mm armour of the IS-3 into consideration - and what calibre would be required to prevent shatter (a 280mm projectile could still theoretically shatter btw!).



> I was thinking of fully tracked vehicle for 'Super Marder'.



Ah right. How about a Nashorn/Hummel -thingy? (forget name).



> Well, I do stay away from many topics, and tend to participate in techy ones



Yes, I'm prone to doing that too.



> People are rightly pissed off when someone attacks other member ad hominem, not when people discuss (any) stuff.



I made the mistake of doing it in another Forum, funnily enough, that resulted in a few attacks.  - it meant a few people wanted to throttle me.


----------



## Juha (Apr 8, 2010)

Hello Schwartzepanzer
the gun was normal FlaK 18 on pedestal mounting, so it probably had usual high elevation, but I don't know how well the chassis could handle high angle firing and without predictor accurate AA fire was impossible a for heavy AA gun.

Some photos can be find here plus tech specs:

8.8 cm FlaK 18 (Sf) auf Fgst Zgkw 12t Sd.Kfz. 8


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 8, 2010)

There is a problem in trying to compare 1950-60 guns and projectiles with with WW II guns and projectiles.

Some countries Post war had better metallurgy in the gun barrels that allowed higher pressures to be use.

Propellants got a bit better.

You had that 10-20 years of extra development time on the projectiles. Granted peace time is slower than war time But the majority AP projectiles at the start of WWII were based on Navel projectiles scaled down and some of them from WW I. Granted people started using trick projectiles fairly quick but post war designers had all the experience of WW II to draw on, no material shortages to speak of, and less pressure to feild SOMETHING,ANYTHING, THIS MONTH and more time to get it RIGHT.

The British (NATO) 105 L7 was never intended to shoot a full sized normal AP projectile. It was designed from the start to use APDS as it's primary round with HESH as the secondary anti-tank shell. This is important because the the 105 cartridge case is basically a necked up 20pdr (83.4mm) case. The larger bore size allows more area for the propellant to push against which gets the lighter, sub caliber projectile moving faster for the same pressure. It made more efficient use of the propellant than the 83.4 mm bore. However if they had tried to fire a conventional 105 AP round from the barrel it would have had less velocity than the 83,4 mm round. A conventional 105 projectile weighing about 30-34lbs. vs the 20lbs of the 83.4mm. Once you are using APDS you can tailor the weight of the penetrator a bit better. 
Hesh rounds are never fired at full charge and so don't have any pressure problems. 

WWII guns were designed to fire full bore AP rounds, except for the German taper bores. This ment different choices had to be made. 
large WW II guns, 120mm and above almost have to use 2 part ammunition because of the size and weight of the ammo. By the time you get to 120mm you are dealing with 40+to 50lb projectiles and large heavy cartridge cases. combine that with restricted space inside an AFV and two piece ammo was almost mandatory. Modern 120+ guns with their much lighter projectiles, at least AP ones where the demand for high rates of fire would be greatest have much more manageable ammo. And even the British guns still used 2 piece ammo for quite some time.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 8, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> *Hi tomo,*
> In the Sturer Emil? Would have been (even more?) pointless back then though, so I can see why it was dropped - though I can't reason why they switched to split-loading?



Shortround6 covered that switch 



> I was just thinking about prevention of shatter. Even the T-34/85 had advantages here when vs the 88mm - theoretically, though in practice the 88mm was always more than enough (the APCBC design will have helped there).



Think 105mm would've overcome the danger of the projectile being shattered, while allowing twice the ammo count, half of gun weight, reduction of crew (though not issue if you field 2 pieces of such an AFVs), ticker armor for same weight - while still commanding the battlefield.



> I was taking the 280mm armour of the IS-3 into consideration - and what calibre would be required to prevent shatter (a 280mm projectile could still theoretically shatter btw!).



You were talking about 280mm gun - check your post... 



> Ah right. How about a Nashorn/Hummel -thingy? (forget name).



Nashorn/Hornisse was decent system; the Pz-III/8,8cm Flak combo would've been available 3 years prior, at 3/4 of price, while still having the considerable edge vs. armor of T-34 KV-1/2.


----------



## hartmann (Apr 8, 2010)

Hello to all 



> 150mm? Sorry, my mistake - at least you knew what I meant!



No problem, my friend (If you know how many times I have made mistakes). Hehehe  .



> Was there an L66 KwK 44?



It was experimental. They tried to extract all the maximum performance without too many changes I suppose (If I remember well, Soren posted sometime ago a scale model of the E-100 with this special enlarged barrel gun)



> I've heard of a rumoured L61 before



As it has been discussed previously, the only 128 mm L61 gun available was the FlaK40 gun adapted to AT role in the Sturer Emil.



> Also, some Jagdtigers were apparently actually fitted with an L61 - and were identified by the lengthened casemate, that extended out over the engine deck.



I don’t know about this. I will check for info .



> Thanks. Single-piece ammo?



It’s nothing, my friend . 

Really, it is very simple. FlaK guns need to reload as fast as possible, so If they had a rammer to help the gunners, It is far faster to reload a single piece ammo than a split one. 
All the heavy German Flak guns, both Luftwaffe/Heer, and Kriegsmarine, had single piece ammo, from 105 to 128 mm (also the rare and completely experimental FlaK guns of 150 mm FlaK Gerät 50 and 60, which were semiautomatic charged).



> Makes me wonder why this wasn't mass produced?



It was mass produced, but only in the form of FlaK gun. Which is very sad  .



> Why the KwK 44 should use split-loading ammo is beyond me, if this older gun managed without




It was more problems of internal ergonomics (like the 122 mm Soviet gun) and lack of pneumatic rammers than other things (It could be very heavy work for the gunners) as pointed Shortround.



> When you say PaK 44/80 - do you mean the barrel was 80 calibres long?



Oh, no. My fault  . 

The Rheinmetall-Krupp family of guns, designated commonly as “PaK44” were designated also as “Panzer Jäger Kanone 80", but the barrel length was the same, 55 (or 66 in extended barrel) calibres. I should have been clearer.

Hope this helps


----------



## vanir (Apr 9, 2010)

> FlaK 36 to 37 had changeable barrel sections
> IIRC the KwK36 didn't though (?)


I don't know about that but also I don't really know what I'm talking about myself, I should think the designation suggests you could change the breech section in a full tear down maintenance routine, assuming a spare was handy. This is the part which would be changed over in the FlaK-36, but this is also assuming the KwK36 designation has any relationship to the FlaK36. There is also however the consideration a KwK just doesn't have the fire volume requirements of a FlaK, the life of a barrel might equal the expected lifespan of a tank.



> As a flak gun? The Pak43 was based on a rejected competitor for the Flak 41 competition IIRC?
> 
> I've heard that German proximity shells were pretty poor - rendering the flak guns not so good? - perhaps better to use them as AT guns?



As a dual role weapon, all 8.8cm always had the dual role of AT support and front line magazines were equipped for this.
Schwerer PaK are more like turning them into a field weapon, arguable in terms of necessity with anything bigger than the 8.8cm imho, this was how the Russians got into trouble in that last ditch defence at the Oder (trying to bring up heavy AT support over marshy ground in the face of concentrated FlaK/PaK fire from a hilltop).
The FlaK-41 was probably unsuitable for this due to its highly complicated sighting system and extremely high maintenance design. It also needed to be close to logistical stores because if a batch of ammunition didn't have the highest quality brass machining the cases would jam. In the end the type was restricted for use within the Reich for reasons of technical issues but when it was working the gun had brilliant performance. Again so according to my encyclopedia.

In the AA role it had a rate of 25rds/min which was remarkable for its 14.7km ceiling. And as mentioned earlier it doubled the lethal AT range of earlier 8.8cm, and in common with them could be pressed into field gun service which was Rommel's favourite (and only) trick. By the time yanks got on the European continent they called anything and everything they saw "Eighty-eights," it's kind of annoying actually. Clear photographs of 10.5cm FH and 15cm sFH are marked "the 88's we spiked at Normandy"

I haven't heard anything bad about German proximity fuses, afaik they were good but again I'm not particularly well versed. You could be referring to the automatic fusing system specifically on the PaK-41, which if it was having technical issues on a particular day that would be one of them.


Hi Juha,

only one vehicle of the SdKfz8 (which is a 15t chassis, 12t is its design tow capacity in normal service) was ever converted to carry any kind of weapon, which is the vehicle you mention using a FlaK-18 and was service tested in France during 1940. According to my encyclopedia no further evidence of any other examples aside from a single vehicle can be found (ostensibly it is possible, but unconfirmed with evidence).

It is the same story with the SdKfz9 which was modified to carry a FlaK-37 during 1943 with fold down platform, stabiliser arms and an armoured cabin, but this one the book is adamant is only the one of these ever converted and no other weapon carriers were made from the chassis.
You're right about this one being an 18t chassis, which coincidentally also has an 18t tow capacity as an artillery tractor (recovery conversions were capable of doubling or tripling up and moving a Tiger though, tow capacity was frequently exceeded by German tractors and it's pretty likely you'll see a SdKfz9/2 running around towing damaged PzIVJ around Germany...yup, one book and I'm an expert just kidding).


----------



## Juha (Apr 10, 2010)

Hello Vanir
Chamberlain, Hilary Jentz: Encyclopedia of German Tanks… says ten were made on the chassis of Zgkw 12t in 1939 as heavy A/T vehicles, and yes, German designation means tow capacity, and in 1940 15 were made on the chassis of Zgkw18t, these had much bigger armoured cabin and were designed as dual purpose. A/T and AA, vehicles. It seems that Chamberlain et al are right because in the unit history of 1.PzD, there is the Kriegsgliederung for 1. PzD on 9. May 1940 where one sees that 1./(unclear digit) Pz.Jäg. 8 with 6 SP heavy A/T guns was attached to PzJgAbt 37. Also Niehorster’s GERMAN WWII ORGANIZATIONAL SERIES Vol 2/II (10 May 1940) knows 1./PzJgAbt 8 with 6 8,8cm Flak 18(Sf) auf Zgkw 12t, even if he allocates it to 2. PzD, which is probably in error because of the above-mentioned Kriegsgliederung and because I didn’t find any mentions of these vehicles in the unit history of PzJgAbt 38, which was the A/T battalion of 2. PzD.

Juha


----------



## vanir (Apr 10, 2010)

Thanks for the extra info Juha, it is quite convincing.
cheers.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 10, 2010)

Hi Juha,

Thanks for the info. Halftracks are easy to mix up for me. The other one was based on the Sdkfz 9 Famo, and also armoured - was this a tank destroyer too? Also, I've seen another unarmoured light vehicle that carried an 88 in France - dunno if it was a halftrack or not, do you happen to know what this was?


Hi Shortround,

I'm not sure that the German guns got all that better? Material shortages will have hurt - but these did not affect the design build of German guns/ammo? Of course, those cartridges which used sawdust as a propellant will not have been that effective!

Soviet projectiles were often bad - they were using Naval type even in the D-10T in the Cold War!

However, German designs seemed to be much better - for example, PzGr 39 was always APCBC, according to Ian Hogg and others. Was APCBC originally a Naval design?

Taking the 20pdr/L7 as an example - the 20pdr was based on the German KwK43, and the L7 was a rush-job, after the captured T-54 was examined in the Hungarian uprising.

Thats some good info on the L7, thanks. Apparently the British keeping the rifled 120mm gun is due to an obsession with HESH, so it could be called a primary consideration? (dunno anout in the 20pdr/L7. I wonder if you know, did the 20pdr/L7s APDS spin? was it fin-stabilised?

I was thinking, if the Sturer Emil could use a single-piece round, then shouldn't the carrier vehicles superstructure be made a little bigger to allow the same in the Pak/KwK 44? Then again, I wonder if the combat reports on the Sturer Emil stated something like: "Loaders completely knackered". 

I wonder if the 128mm used bagged charges - like the WW1 Howitzers did? Then again, using anything less than full-charge rounds is defeating the object IMO (tank destroying).


Hi tomo,



> Think 105mm would've overcome the danger of the projectile being shattered, while allowing twice the ammo count, half of gun weight, reduction of crew (though not issue if you field 2 pieces of such an AFVs), ticker armor for same weight - while still commanding the battlefield.



I can't quite remember the exact laws on shatter, but IIRC it requires a 10% bigger calibre than the thickness of armour to be penetrated? - so for 100mm, you would need a minumum of a 110mm gun? How important shatter is is a matter of opinion though - but I like to over-compensate. I agree that the 105mm would be awesome though. Also, shatter would probably be no problem at longer ranges - and the IS-2 would likely be toast before it got anywhere near enough for shatter to factor in? Also, later PzGr 39/43were better able to deal with shatter. You're points of how much more efective it would be are obviously well thought-out though.



> (though not issue if you field 2 pieces of such an AFVs)



Sorry, I don't understand.



> You were talking about 280mm gun - check your post...



Did I make a mistake somewhere? I know the 280mm is a silly size, but it would be the only gun able to resist shatter against 280mm of armour at close range (but even then...). Still, this would be going too far - why use a colossal gun to destroy something at point blank, when you can destroy it with smaller guns from a distance (150mm, for example). I think this is right at the limit of the gun vs armour envelope?... Out of interest, what would the 150mm HEAT round penetrate, do you think, if it got developed to Hl/C level?...).

Turns out that I overestimated the IS-3s armour though - max was apparently 220mm - so a 230mm would do.



> Nashorn/Hornisse was decent system; the Pz-III/8,8cm Flak combo would've been available 3 years prior, at 3/4 of price, while still having the considerable edge vs. armor of T-34 KV-1/2.



I never liked the Nashorn/Hornisse - IMO a bit more armour wouldnt go amiss. I wonder if the PzIII chassis would be better spent on the Stugs? - it needed the performance more IMO. Maybe the PzIV might have been a better choice - was the PzIV obsolete at this point...I think so, also, it had a sturdier transmission, so could carry a bigger gun than the PzIII chassis. I've thought a little about this before, can you tell?


----------



## Kurfürst (Apr 10, 2010)

tomo pauk said:


> As an AA piece, it had merit.
> As an AFV gun, or towed AT gun, it was waste of effort.



I agree.

Reactions: Optimistic Optimistic:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 10, 2010)

Hi hartmann,

Yes, we all make mistakes. Heavy arty is a weakness of mine though, so mistakes here will be common. Sometimes though, mistakes are inexcusable - like when I have info on something new, but I misspell it. I think corrections are good, if done with tact (like how you did). Typos are easy though - so long as we all get the gist of what each others saying?

Thanks for the L66 info, after some digging, I've found this too. This was also meant to be used on some Jagdtigers, and IIRC the Maus? It's easy to confuse with the L61 though. I'm sure though that there was an L61 128mm Pak/Kwk 44 too?... Its just my memory?



> I don’t know about this. I will check for info



I tried looking it up again. I stumbled upon it whilst researching something completely different (Lowe IIRC). Can't find it again though, I'm afraid. I did find a plan for the Jagdtiger with L66 though, if you want that? Next time I stumble across anything like that - I'll be sure to add it to favourites!



> All the heavy German Flak guns, both Luftwaffe/Heer, and Kriegsmarine, had single piece ammo, from 105 to 128 mm (also the rare and completely experimental FlaK guns of 150 mm FlaK Gerät 50 and 60, which were semiautomatic charged).



How many loaders? I wonder if these systems could be fitted into AFVs?... I can't see the point in making bigger flak guns - if proximity fuses are poor (unless that is the exact reason why?...). Still, the PaK 43 was able to deal with most threats, if not all. Germany had some good ammo, but some poor stuff too (prox. fuses, AP/HE).



> It was mass produced, but only in the form of FlaK gun. Which is very sad



Probably too much though - the 88mm being considered adequate. Still, you think they'd have developed better, just in case - like the ones we're discussing. Also better ammo, steel-cored APFSDS would have been enough to stop quite a few casualties that were victims of the T-34, KV Matilda. Would also have been good against the Churchill (which should really have been anticipated IMO).



> It was more problems of internal ergonomics (like the 122 mm Soviet gun) and lack of pneumatic rammers than other things (It could be very heavy work for the gunners) as pointed Shortround.



Would a pneumatic rammer not fit? Do you have a pic of one for a 128mm flak perchance? If youre going to build a big, 128mm vehicle - why not make it a bit bigger, I say.



> The Rheinmetall-Krupp family of guns, designated commonly as “PaK44” were designated also as “Panzer Jäger Kanone 80", but the barrel length was the same, 55 (or 66 in extended barrel) calibres. I should have been clearer.



No, thats fine, thank you.  I just say '128mm'!


Hi vanir,

Thanks for the flak info.



> There is also however the consideration a KwK just doesn't have the fire volume requirements of a FlaK, the life of a barrel might equal the expected lifespan of a tank.



That is a very good point!8) - one probably lost on German designers though, who just wouldnt learn that tanks arent meant to be pretty, visually impressive things that arent expected to last. Still, I think servicing would be important - its why the scrapping of the KwK 42 was suggested in one of these discussions. I think a Sdkfz 9 FAMO would be able to replace a 88mm L56 barrel easily enough?

Going bigger than 88mm (or not) is the point of this whole discussion! Bringing heavy AT guns up is not a problem, if they are self-propelled, even on boggy ground and under fire (though thats dependant on a good chassis design).

As for sighting systems and complexity - well they are things to consider when converting flaks to Paks/Kwks...

True with everything being called an '88'. Also, every tank was a 'Tiger' - be it a PzIV or Panther - or even an actual Tiger!

I dont think Rommel was a one-trick pony? I've read some of his thougts, which make sense. Having loads of Paks is a bad idea though, with an enemy strong in artillery. SPGs though...


Good info on the Flaktracks btw all!


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 11, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> . I can't see the point in making bigger flak guns - if proximity fuses are poor (unless that is the exact reason why?...).



It has to do with basic ballistics. For a given shell shape a larger diameter (and longer) shell will have a better ballistic co-efficient and for a given starting velocity either reach to a higher altitude or reach a given altitude (like 30,000ft) quicker. since it takes several years to develop a gun nobody was sure how high future bombers were going to fly and a shell that reaches 30,000ft a number of seconds quicker than another shell reduces the miss distance. 







schwarzpanzer said:


> Would a pneumatic rammer not fit? Do you have a pic of one for a 128mm flak perchance? If youre going to build a big, 128mm vehicle - why not make it a bit bigger, I say.



Well, there is big tank turret big and there is destroyer turret big

Seriously, a problem with fixed ammunition is the size of the round. how much longer is the complete round vs just the cartridge case? you need the room behind the breech to load the round. and unless you want ot fool with only loading at certain angles you need this room at both full elevation (a mighty big turret ring?) and at full depression (higher turret roof at rear)

See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankger.jpg


----------



## delcyros (Apr 11, 2010)

proximita fuzes in Germany were not poor. They were late and delayed.
By march 45, proxy fuzes for all schwere Flak (88mm to 128mm) were in production but only a few were fired in anger. Another big issue for advancing large calibres is the death zone of th shell.
This is directly related to the HE-capacity of the shell. The 88mm required a plane to be hit in very close proximita and occassionally, very heavy bombers even survived a direct hit. The 105mm assured the kill from close proximity, while 128mm are quite deadly against dense box formations of bombers. Better avoid 128mm concentrations.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 11, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi tomo,
> 
> I can't quite remember the exact laws on shatter, but IIRC it requires a 10% bigger calibre than the thickness of armour to be penetrated? - so for 100mm, you would need a minumum of a 110mm gun? How important shatter is is a matter of opinion though - but I like to over-compensate. I agree that the 105mm would be awesome though. Also, shatter would probably be no problem at longer ranges - and the IS-2 would likely be toast before it got anywhere near enough for shatter to factor in? Also, later PzGr 39/43were better able to deal with shatter. You're points of how much more efective it would be are obviously well thought-out though.



IIRC the right term is 'overmatching' - the projectile would be slightly of greater calibre than the thickness of armor in order to achieve overmatching. But since IS-2 was plenty of times defeated even by 75mm, I guess 105mm have had plenty of reserve.

Tnx for the compliment 


> Sorry, I don't understand.



My idea is that, if you field only 2 AFVs of some kind, the crew number is not really the issue. But if you plan to build thousands of some AFV design, the crew count does matter.



> Did I make a mistake somewhere? I know the 280mm is a silly size, but it would be the only gun able to resist shatter against 280mm of armour at close range (but even then...). Still, this would be going too far - why use a colossal gun to destroy something at point blank, when you can destroy it with smaller guns from a distance (150mm, for example). I think this is right at the limit of the gun vs armour envelope?...



Guess anything above 155mm (with 'normal' barrel, length of 20 calibres more), for a fully protected still movable AFV is/was not practical.


> Out of interest, what would the 150mm HEAT round penetrate, do you think, if it got developed to Hl/C level?...).



7,5 cm was able to do 100 mm, Panzerfaust (140mm) 200mm, so I guess some 200-250mm (pure guesstimation  ).



> Turns out that I overestimated the IS-3s armour though - max was apparently 220mm - so a 230mm would do.






> I never liked the Nashorn/Hornisse - IMO a bit more armour wouldnt go amiss. I wonder if the PzIII chassis would be better spent on the Stugs? - it needed the performance more IMO. Maybe the PzIV might have been a better choice - was the PzIV obsolete at this point...I think so, also, it had a sturdier transmission, so could carry a bigger gun than the PzIII chassis. I've thought a little about this before, can you tell?



Germans were not able to make Panther's turret to work on Pz-IV hull, so I guess Nashorn with full armor would've been (non-)maneuverable like Elefant  
Stugs were great vehicles, but the ones with 7,5cmL43 were available only from spring 1942 - much later than my proposal was feasible.
Pz-IV was decent vehicle - the Tiger's gun in an armored superstructure (even if only the frontal plate received tick armor) would've been feasible IMO.
Don't think Pz-IV have had that sturdier transmission - IIRC the PZ-III/IV Geshutzwagen was platform for Hummel.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 11, 2010)

*Hi Kurfurst/tomo, *



> As an AA piece, it had merit.
> As an AFV gun, or towed AT gun, it was waste of effort.



I think the main issue was: Why produce a 10-ton, 128mm supergun - then hamper it by effectively sawing off the barrel?? I myself would have requested a barrel length a minimum of the original L61 - better would be L66, or even L71 (?). It would seem from these discussions that the L66 was enough for the IS-3 and even IS-7 though, so I'll stick with that. - or would L61 be enough?...


*Hi Shortround,*

Thanks for the explanation, yes I can see how scaling up can change ballistics. Wouldn't larger shells have the same length-to-width ratio though? A larger round would have more 'carrying weight' though, but this gets complicated (kinda like the KwK 36 vs KwK 42 debate).

Should we go into it here?...



> Well, there is big tank turret big and there is destroyer turret big



Will the Maus do? I think the vehicles we're considering here are the Jagdtiger, Maus and bigger E-Series, also the Sturer Emil and similar, and maybe things like converted Elefants etc - all are of such a size that a little more wouldn't make a difference, and I'm sure that, with intelligent adjustments of the base, could fit the fixed L61 round (as indeed some did).



> and unless you want ot fool with only loading at certain angles you need this room at both full elevation (a mighty big turret ring?) and at full depression (higher turret roof at rear)



A big turret ring isn't necessary -the Jagdtiger for example, it's superstructure would be wider than the turret ring of the base KT. I think only SPGs would be able to mount these superguns initially - thinking any less might be folly, or at least impractical. When they started being mounted on tanks, well the aforementioned Maus and E-Series would be more than enough (this requirement was part of the design requirements? - maybe even more I think, like with the Panzer III being required to be able to take a 50mm, I think these were meant to later take 150mms?). If the German designers had learned from later Soviet designs, and had oversized turret rings and transverse engines, they might be able to have had 128mm guns in much smaller vehicles. Both feaures were not seen together though until the T-54 though, and would have took time to implement. However, these features were seen individually in 1944. The target vehicle is the IS-3 though, so making a few superheavy tanks TDs is not such a dumb idea - afterall, that is what both America and Britain did, when faced with the exact same problem.

Depression is a good point - but this can easily be worked around IMO - just have a bulge in the roof, as you suggested, or an open top, like on the Surer Emil. As for elevation though, this would cause problems (a taller vehicle, for starters).

Sorry the link you gave only has 37-88mm shells, and I can't find the mainpage.


*Hi delcyros,*



> proximita fuzes in Germany were not poor. They were late and delayed.
> By march 45, proxy fuzes for all schwere Flak (88mm to 128mm) were in production but only a few were fired in anger.



Well, that's almost as bad as not being there at all? Still, better late than never? 



> Another big issue for advancing large calibres is the death zone of th shell.
> This is directly related to the HE-capacity of the shell. The 88mm required a plane to be hit in very close proximita and occassionally, very heavy bombers even survived a direct hit. The 105mm assured the kill from close proximity, while 128mm are quite deadly against dense box formations of bombers. Better avoid 128mm concentrations.



Great info.8) This was my thinking, but thanks for confirming it via combat data - love it when that happens!



> The 88mm required a plane to be hit in very close proximita and occassionally, very heavy bombers even survived a direct hit.



Seriously?!!  I'd heard a direct with a 50mm was garanteed to KO a B-17?


*Hi tomo,*



> IIRC the right term is 'overmatching'



I sure hope so - cos I'm tempted to use it from now on!



> But since IS-2 was plenty of times defeated even by 75mm, I guess 105mm have had plenty of reserve.



This was mainly due to a screwy armour metallurgy doctrine by Soviet designers/manufacturers. If this changed, that would cease to bethe case. As someone on here very intelligently recently said, relying on this to last forever would be a foolish move indeed. However, despite this, I don't think the Soviets ever changed their tack (?).  Spall liners were introduced on indigenous T-72s though, IIRC.



> Tnx for the compliment



You're very welcome, credit where it's due. Thanks for being intelligent!



> My idea is that, if you field only 2 AFVs of some kind, the crew number is not really the issue. But if you plan to build thousands of some AFV design, the crew count does matter.



Very sorry, I'm afraid I STILL dont understand.  Are we talking total production numbers, or numbers of seperate designs?



> Guess anything above 155mm (with 'normal' barrel, length of 20 calibres more), for a fully protected still movable AFV is/was not practical.



The Bar seemed a decent proposal, the Ferdinand would probably have been OK with an intended 170mm and the Hummel could'vee been uparmoured without too much fuss? (dunno the lengths of those guns though, will look them up - unless you know them off by heart?).



> 7,5 cm was able to do 100 mm, Panzerfaust (140mm) 200mm, so I guess some 200-250mm (pure guesstimation ).



That'll do for me, thanks!  That figure is right in the ballpark were after! (220mm(?...)).



> Germans were not able to make Panther's turret to work on Pz-IV hull,



Thats a turret though - I'd just have the gun with a few sheets of armour.



> so I guess Nashorn with full armor would've been (non-)maneuverable like Elefant



Hey, the Elefant was maneuverable! Leave the poor thing alone!  I'd have just a _bit _more armour - enough to keep out the 76mm @ 2km (front) 1km (sides). Maybe 1.5km allround might be better though - depending on max rage of the 76mm?



> Stugs were great vehicles, but the ones with 7,5cmL43 were available only from spring 1942 - much later than my proposal was feasible.



Took me a while to wok that one out - you meant Flak 36, not KwK 36?  That's true, but an idea I had was an Erly Stug, with a Pak 38 and more armour. That would be good enough? If you could add in APFSDS, then you've got a winner? I also think that he PzIII 'Special' was doing a fine job in NA (but then again, so were earlier PzIVs (?). Myself though, Id've still scrapped the PzIV and strapped available any available arty onto captured/obsolete chassis'.



> Pz-IV was decent vehicle - the Tiger's gun in an armored superstructure (even if only the frontal plate received tick armor) would've been feasible IMO.



Yes. I don't see the need for tanks to be honest - I think SPGs are fine. I would scrap PzIV production - and use the chassis' for this vehicle. Any counter-points on this? Be great to hear them from anybody. 



> Don't think Pz-IV have had that sturdier transmission - IIRC the PZ-III/IV Geshutzwagen was platform for Hummel.



Early PzIIIs had flimsy 10-speeders. Later models had more robust 6-speeders. Originally, I thought this was just borrowed from the PzIV - but it seems I was wrong: According to Bryan Perret (IIRC ) the PzIV Ausf J had its transmisssion downgraded to the one from the PzIII - which apparently wasn't able to cope. I think the PzIV J was a waste of time btw. 

I'm afraid I don't know which transmission the Geschutzwagen III/IV (thanks!) had, I'm afraid.


----------



## Bug_racer (Apr 12, 2010)

Does anyone have any pictures of say a Sherman / Pershing or t34 / kv2 thats been hit by a 128mm ?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 12, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> *Hi tomo,*
> This was mainly due to a screwy armour metallurgy doctrine by Soviet designers/manufacturers. If this changed, that would cease to bethe case. As someone on here very intelligently recently said, relying on this to last forever would be a foolish move indeed. However, despite this, I don't think the Soviets ever changed their tack (?).  Spall liners were introduced on indigenous T-72s though, IIRC.



Would you fear more of some design that might be produced (in small numbers that is), or of the already present advantage you enemy has in sheer numbers of decent tanks? Wehrmacht was lacking world-beater medium tank design (that would lend itself for mass production, not least so it could be delivered for it's allies), not jet another big slugger.


> You're very welcome, credit where it's due. Thanks for being intelligent!



There are many more intelligent people in this forum; I like to learn from them 


> Very sorry, I'm afraid I STILL dont understand.  Are we talking total production numbers, or numbers of seperate designs?



Production numbers - the Sturer Emil was produced in 2 examples, so, if he had a crew of 10, that would not drain on the manpower Germany had available.



> The Bar seemed a decent proposal, the Ferdinand would probably have been OK with an intended 170mm and the Hummel could'vee been uparmoured without too much fuss? (dunno the lengths of those guns though, will look them up - unless you know them off by heart?).



We can take a look at Brummbaer for weight issues - and it really had those with 25 tons combat ready. The Hummel with full armor would've probably weighted 27-28 tons (30 perhaps with full ammo) - way to much for original chassis. That's why methinks that SU/ISU-152-like vehicle based on Panther chassis would've been far less troublesome.
The Ferdinand w/ 17cm would've been well balanced weapon, but the weight would've gone too much up. 
Length of 17cm barrel was perhaps some 9m (with chamber).




> Thats a turret though - I'd just have the gun with a few sheets of armour.



Se above about Hummel - worth also for Nashorn.



> Hey, the Elefant was maneuverable! Leave the poor thing alone!  I'd have just a _bit _more armour - enough to keep out the 76mm @ 2km (front) 1km (sides). Maybe 1.5km allround might be better though - depending on max rage of the 76mm?



No point in retaining the clumsy Flak 41 ordnance if you want a properly armored vehicle, since the armor for intended protected volume would've push the weight to above 25 tons. 
The proper KwK (from Tiger) was much more compact; add to that a decent armor and you have Super-StuG/Baby-JagdPanhter, with anti-tank performance comparable to JgdPz-IV/70 (ie. the late-44 AFV with Panther's gun), but feasible in 1942. Of course, it would've been much better against other-than-AFV targets.



> Took me a while to wok that one out - you meant Flak 36, not KwK 36?  That's true, but an idea I had was an Erly Stug, with a Pak 38 and more armour. That would be good enough? If you could add in APFSDS, then you've got a winner? I also think that he PzIII 'Special' was doing a fine job in NA (but then again, so were earlier PzIVs (?).



Of course, Pz-III with Flak 36 (8,8cm) 
StuG + 5cm PaK seem to me like too much a vehicle for too little the gun; Pz-IIIJ/L/M were decent AFVs indeed, better than your propose 
Perhaps StuG with captured Polish/French 75mm would've been much more useful AFV, with AP performance comparable with 5cm.
APFSDS was more a thing of 'Panzer 1946' (akin to Luft 46); the captured guns were available, reliable, and plenty. 



> Myself though, Id've still scrapped the PzIV and strapped available any available arty onto captured/obsolete chassis'.



In case Germans produced medium tank to replace Pz-IV, it would've been okay. But not before that 

Germans were able to produce pre-Marder by mating Pz-35(t) with Czech 76,5mm gun, then, pre-Wespe (same chassis with 100mm howitzer) for attack vs. Poland. After Poland, continue to produce 7TP with engine moved in center, and 75mm in back (later 40mm). Then, in preparation for Op Barbarossa, produce JgdPz-38(t) a.k.a. Hetzer, 1st with captured gun, later with 7,5cm Pak. In the same time, use the hull of Pz-35/38 to produce something like the Italian Semovente 150/40 


> Yes. I don't see the need for tanks to be honest - I think SPGs are fine. I would scrap PzIV production - and use the chassis' for this vehicle. Any counter-points on this? Be great to hear them from anybody.



Tanks are fine IMO; converting obsolete hulls into decent SPGs makes sense though.




> Early PzIIIs had flimsy 10-speeders. Later models had more robust 6-speeders. Originally, I thought this was just borrowed from the PzIV - but it seems I was wrong: According to Bryan Perret (IIRC ) the PzIV Ausf J had its transmisssion downgraded to the one from the PzIII - which apparently wasn't able to cope. I think the PzIV J was a waste of time btw.



From what I've heard, Pz-IVJ was simplified version of the Ausf. H, with no issues worth mentioning 



> I'm afraid I don't know which transmission the Geschutzwagen III/IV (thanks!) had, I'm afraid.



Here is what Achtungpanzer! site says about the G.w. III/IV:
_
In late July of 1942, it was decided to replace the gun with more powerful 150mm sFH 18 L/30 howitzer (without muzzle brake) based on the special chassis by Alkett/Rheinmetall-Borsig designated Geschutzwagen III/IV. It combined components of both PzKpfw III (mainly Ausf J - driving and steering mechanism) and PzKpfw IV (mainly Ausf F - suspension, engine, cooling system)._


----------



## Shortround6 (Apr 12, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> I think the main issue was: Why produce a 10-ton, 128mm supergun - then hamper it by effectively sawing off the barrel?? I myself would have requested a barrel length a minimum of the original L61 - better would be L66, or even L71 (?). It would seem from these discussions that the L66 was enough for the IS-3 and even IS-7 though, so I'll stick with that. - or would L61 be enough?...



Playing with barrel lengths doesn't really do much unless the powder charge is also changed.

See the difference between the German L43 and L48 guns.


schwarzpanzer said:


> Thanks for the explanation, yes I can see how scaling up can change ballistics. Wouldn't larger shells have the same length-to-width ratio though? A larger round would have more 'carrying weight' though, but this gets complicated (kinda like the KwK 36 vs KwK 42 debate).



Frontal area goes up with the square of the diameter while the weight goes up with the cube of the diameter, roughly. More weight per unit of frontal area means, most other things being equal, shell slows down less with range or time of flight. 




schwarzpanzer said:


> Will the Maus do? I think the vehicles we're considering here are the Jagdtiger, Maus and bigger E-Series, also the Sturer Emil and similar, and maybe things like converted Elefants etc - all are of such a size that a little more wouldn't make a difference, and I'm sure that, with intelligent adjustments of the base, could fit the fixed L61 round (as indeed some did).



all of which were a waste of time to begin with, making them bigger just makes them worse.

Steel weighs about 40lbs for a piece 1 ft by 1ft by 1 in thick. Lengthening a turret with 4in (100mm) side armor that is 3 ft high by 1 ft would mean an extra 960lb of armor just for the turret sides. another 160-240lbs for a 25mm thick roof (4-6ft wide). Any armor under this "bustle"?
the thicker the base armor the worse. the more you enlarge things the worse. 



schwarzpanzer said:


> Depression is a good point - but this can easily be worked around IMO - just have a bulge in the roof, as you suggested, or an open top, like on the Surer Emil. As for elevation though, this would cause problems (a taller vehicle, for starters).
> 
> Sorry the link you gave only has 37-88mm shells, and I can't find the mainpage.



Open topped vehicles don't do well in built up areas, troops tend to shoot down into them and/or throw things into them, grenades, molatov cocktails, demo charges, etc. They don't do well against airplanes and they don't do well against air-burst artillery shells. 
Given the length to width ratio of this thing I would guess it had steering problems also.

Here is a picture of the Flak ammo: http://www.missing-lynx.com/library/german/flakarticle_dmouritzsen12.jpg

While picture I linked to before doesn't have the 12.8cm ammo take a look at the two 88mm rounds and the largest 75mm round. Imagine trying maneuver even larger rounds in the confines of a tank turret.



schwarzpanzer said:


> Yes. I don't see the need for tanks to be honest - I think SPGs are fine. I would scrap PzIV production - and use the chassis' for this vehicle. Any counter-points on this? Be great to hear them from anybody.



Tanks are offensive weapons while SPGs (anti-tank) are defensive weapons. While the hull machine gun is over rated the turret MG is an important part of a tanks armament and having a coaxial gun with several thousand rounds of ammo is an important part of a tanks mission. It is also of great use for self defence, something that cannot be said of the MG 34 with 600rounds that was the so called secondary armament of many German SP guns. It had no mount or only a pintle and was either fired like a giant Tommy gun over the top of the side walls or through a loop hole in a rather scanty shield on some Stug IIIs.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 14, 2010)

Hi Bug_Racer,

None that I can think of, but if you want to research it yourself: IIRC T-34s were KO'd by 128mm Flaks at the Berlin Zoo - during the Battle for Berlin. Shermans were destroyed by Jagdtigers on the Western Front. I would advise looking there. Happy hunting! BTW I don't know of any K 44 or KwK 44 hits, but if anything turns up, you'll probably find it here.


Hi tomo,



> Would you fear more of some design that might be produced (in small numbers that is), or of the already present advantage you enemy has in sheer numbers of decent tanks? Wehrmacht was lacking world-beater medium tank design (that would lend itself for mass production, not least so it could be delivered for it's allies), not jet another big slugger.



A compromise would need to be reached. Though Blitzkrieg depended (in theory) on 2 types of tank: Breaktrough Exploitation. I say in theory, because the Blitzkrieg up untill Barbarossa was successful without Breakthrough tanks - but then again, using PzIIs for this role cst a lot of valuable German lives... I would argue that the Germans had 2 good tank designs: the DB VK3002 and Panther II - though neither were accepted (why??). You would still need a slugger though IMO - both for attack and defense.



> There are many more intelligent people in this forum; I like to learn from them



Yes there are, and the shocking thing is they dont get bored when you waffle o about tanks - infact, they even like it!  - weirdos. 



> Production numbers - the Sturer Emil was produced in 2 examples, so, if he had a crew of 10, that would not drain on the manpower Germany had available.



According to Achtungpanzer, the Sturer Emil had a crew of 5 - but the Jagtiger Maus had 6 (2 loaders, 1 extra). Brings my idea for the moving of the radio into the fighting compartment back into contention?...
It would be advantageous to reduce crew numbers, and yes, keep them safe.



> We can take a look at Brummbaer for weight issues - and it really had those with 25 tons combat ready.



I like the Brummbar, almost forgot about it!  - though, as with many later PzIVs, it was probably a little nose-heavy?



> The Hummel with full armor would've probably weighted 27-28 tons (30 perhaps with full ammo) - way to much for original chassis.



It could still be open-toped and reared, and the side armour isn't important. Also, the gun could be cut down a little? I like the Hummel as is - but only for indirect and/or long-range fire. I don't like the Nashorn though - anything intended to fight tanks had better be able to take a hit IMO.



> That's why methinks that SU/ISU-152-like vehicle based on Panther chassis would've been far less troublesome.



But then you've got the Panthers unreliability... It might wrk on a Panther II/Jagdpanther II though... or a KT, or Tiger chassis? I often wonder if the ML-20 would fit the T-34 or T-54 chassis - but I expect not!



> The Ferdinand w/ 17cm would've been well balanced weapon, but the weight would've gone too much up.
> Length of 17cm barrel was perhaps some 9m (with chamber).



That is long! The weight though could be remedied by removing the applique armour (didnt need it?).



> The proper KwK (from Tiger) was much more compact; add to that a decent armor and you have Super-StuG/Baby-JagdPanhter, with anti-tank performance comparable to JgdPz-IV/70 (ie. the late-44 AFV with Panther's gun), but feasible in 1942.



Thanks for the info. IIRC also the KwK 36 had better penetration than the Flak? Sounds great doesn't it? - think we've cracked it?!8) Later on, you could mod the chassis and have a fully-enclosed superstructure!



> Of course, it would've been much better against other-than-AFV targets.



Better?? Why not fit one with a LFH18 for that? - The Wespe was a similar vehicle, and apparently succesful(?).



> StuG + 5cm PaK seem to me like too much a vehicle for too little the gun; Pz-IIIJ/L/M were decent AFVs indeed, better than your propose



How DARE you!! They were still vulnerable to the T-34, Matilda II, Grant etc though. A Stug would have better armour, a lower silhoutte, lower weight, be easier to produce, have fewer crewmembers (?). This would result in fewer losses I think.



> Perhaps StuG with captured Polish/French 75mm would've been much more useful AFV, with AP performance comparable with 5cm.



Good idea!



> APFSDS was more a thing of 'Panzer 1946' (akin to Luft 46); the captured guns were available, reliable, and plenty.



Thats true, but it was trialled in the earlier 37mm (dunno when - hartmann?). Also dunno if it worked (but the theories sound, and it was test-fired). It might have been available, and made the PaK 38 more workable, whilst requring less tungsten. Steel cores may not have been considered at this time though - being only a desperate measure in '44, or just a crazy idea that wasnt to be taken seriously?



> In case Germans produced medium tank to replace Pz-IV, it would've been okay. But not before that



Id've stuck with the PzIII - for both roles, but not DP, as it couldnt mount the KwK40 - a shortened KwK 40 maybe? L35-40?



> Germans were able to produce pre-Marder by mating Pz-35(t) with Czech 76,5mm gun, then, pre-Wespe (same chassis with 100mm howitzer) for attack vs. Poland. After Poland, continue to produce 7TP with engine moved in center, and 75mm in back (later 40mm).



Great info thanks! I wondered about the 7TP. Great info again!



> Then, in preparation for Op Barbarossa, produce JgdPz-38(t) a.k.a. Hetzer, 1st with captured gun, later with 7,5cm Pak. In the same time, use the hull of Pz-35/38 to produce something like the Italian Semovente 150/40



Was the Hetzer as early as that?  I like your idea. The Bison was similar.



> Tanks are fine IMO; converting obsolete hulls into decent SPGs makes sense though.



Thanks. I wouldn't go mad with tanks - if you have them, you have the, if you dont you dont - though many disagree (but cant explain why). They do have some advantages though, in certain situations... It needs to be remembered that Panzer means 'armour' though, not necessarily 'tank'.



> From what I've heard, Pz-IVJ was simplified version of the Ausf. H, with no issues worth mentioning



No, it was a massive downgrade (IMO). I can give you a source, or tell you why, if you wish? It did have flammentoter exhausts though. Also increased range and lighter weight (which caused pointless compromises IMO).



> It combined components of both PzKpfw III (mainly Ausf J - driving and steering mechanism) and PzKpfw IV (mainly Ausf F - suspension, engine, cooling system).



Thanks. Seems like it had the worst of both worlds then!  (unless you automatically consider cheapest to be best?). Not sure about the steering mechanism though... - but would consider it part of the transmission myself.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 14, 2010)

Hi Shortround,



> Playing with barrel lengths doesn't really do much unless the powder charge is also changed.



I know, but I think the 50mm L42 L60 fired the same round?



> See the difference between the German L43 and L48 guns.



I just assumed they also fired the same round?... Any info on that, please?



> Frontal area goes up with the square of the diameter while the weight goes up with the cube of the diameter, roughly. More weight per unit of frontal area means, most other things being equal, shell slows down less with range or time of flight.



Thank you. I really ought to have remembered that. 



> all of which were a waste of time to begin with, making them bigger just makes them worse.



Desperate means call for desperate measures. The Alllies did the exact same thing, when faced with the exact same problem (with benefit of hindsight(?) better tech). At least the Germans didn't initally fanny about with a turret though.



> Steel weighs about 40lbs for a piece 1 ft by 1ft by 1 in thick. Lengthening a turret with 4in (100mm) side armor that is 3 ft high by 1 ft would mean an extra 960lb of armor just for the turret sides. another 160-240lbs for a 25mm thick roof (4-6ft wide).



On vehicles of this size, a couple of tons is a drop in the ocean.



> Any armor under this "bustle"?



Sorry, what bustle? On the Jagdtiger?



> the thicker the base armor the worse. the more you enlarge things the worse.



It wasn't just the armour, but the mechanical dsign. Even the Maus, with its heavier than ideal engine, turned out to be able to pull aprox 300400 tons reliably. Its overlpping roadwheels, too thick armour in places and other typical German WW2 tank design flaws let it down though. The Ratte I think though, was silly - and then the major enemy became not tanks, but aircraft (though the Maus had thicker roof armor - dunno how effective, but it can be worked out - incl. vs HE bombs?).

Most AFVs dont do well in built-up areas, with very few exceptions (PzIII N Sturmpanzer Brummbar being only 2 German vehicles I can think of - and maybe also the Wirbelwind).

Airplanes werent a problem in the East untill '43, and even then...



> Given the length to width ratio of this thing I would guess it had steering problems also.



Yes,thas a good point (also with the KV).

Thanks for the rammer pic, is that an 88mm? Am I wrong in thinking that 2 (or even a single?) loader could put a 128mm shell on the rammer, then when thats loaded, put another on the rammer for a quick 2nd shot? - would improve things a great deal?...



> While picture I linked to before doesn't have the 12.8cm ammo take a look at the two 88mm rounds and the largest 75mm round. Imagine trying maneuver even larger rounds in the confines of a tank turret.



Yeah, the Jagtiger Maus had 2 loaders for the split ammo, yet the Sturer Emil had 1 for a single-piece. That doesn't make sense? Room to maneuvre perhaps - and able to stay nice cool? (working environment, basically).

I don't see why SPGs cant be offensive. Infact Sturm essentially means attack, doesnt it? Apparently, Ferdinands were meant to be Breaktrough SPGs (or were just used like that mistakenly?).

There are some advantages to tanks: the Stuart PzIII N being 2 I can think of, and the Sherm - but that was down to the poor design of the Lee/Grant more than anything.

True on the hull turret MGs. Later Stugs had a co-ax, and the Hetzer had a system similar to the CROWS on the Abrams (but reloading was scary).


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 14, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi tomo,
> 
> A compromise would need to be reached. Though Blitzkrieg depended (in theory) on 2 types of tank: Breaktrough Exploitation. I say in theory, because the Blitzkrieg up untill Barbarossa was successful without Breakthrough tanks - but then again, using PzIIs for this role cst a lot of valuable German lives... I would argue that the Germans had 2 good tank designs: the DB VK3002 and Panther II - though neither were accepted (why??). You would still need a slugger though IMO - both for attack and defense.



They have had 3 heavy tanks (T, Pa, T2) 3 heavy SP At guns (Ferd, JgdTgr, JgdPan); producing a superb medium tank in good numbers (instead of 2-3 of the heavy AFVs) was NOT what they have had.



> According to Achtungpanzer, the Sturer Emil had a crew of 5 - but the Jagtiger Maus had 6 (2 loaders, 1 extra). Brings my idea for the moving of the radio into the fighting compartment back into contention?...
> It would be advantageous to reduce crew numbers, and yes, keep them safe.



Those 10 crew members were just mentioned to make my point in comparison 



> I like the Brummbar, almost forgot about it!  - though, as with many later PzIVs, it was probably a little nose-heavy?



Dunno if it was nose-heavy, but it was a little too much for Pz-IV chassis - it (chassis) was slightly too light when conceived.



> It could still be open-toped and reared, and the side armour isn't important. Also, the gun could be cut down a little? I like the Hummel as is - but only for indirect and/or long-range fire. I don't like the Nashorn though - anything intended to fight tanks had better be able to take a hit IMO.



Asking the Pz-IV chassis to have it all (armor, gun, maneuverability) in abundance is too much 



> But then you've got the Panthers unreliability... It might wrk on a Panther II/Jagdpanther II though... or a KT, or Tiger chassis?



There is no point IMO to spend a fortune in development for something you don't produce in good numbers, therefore Panther (esp from Ausf.G) would've offered the best compromise.



> I often wonder if the ML-20 would fit the T-34 or T-54 chassis - but I expect not!



Guess it would've require the major modification 
The Hummel-like vehicle was feasible though.



> That is long! The weight though could be remedied by removing the applique armour (didnt need it?).



I'd say delete the armor from Ferdinand chassis - you have the gun that shoots 30km away.



> Thanks for the info. IIRC also the KwK 36 had better penetration than the Flak? Sounds great doesn't it? - think we've cracked it?!8) Later on, you could mod the chassis and have a fully-enclosed superstructure!



I'll provide the drawings for both Pz-III -IV with KwK 36 



> Better?? Why not fit one with a LFH18 for that? -



You have the chassis, and you have the gun - in perhaps 100-200 km radius. Just bolt them together and your ready.



> The Wespe was a similar vehicle, and apparently succesful(?).



Perhaps the most balanced AFV (along with StuG-III) Germans have produced. I like it very much.


> How DARE you!! They were still vulnerable to the T-34, Matilda II, Grant etc though. A Stug would have better armour, a lower silhoutte, lower weight, be easier to produce, have fewer crewmembers (?). This would result in fewer losses I think.



Valid points - but why would you want 5cm when you have 75-76,2mm captured waiting, with 7,5cm Pak in development?


> Thats true, but it was trialled in the earlier 37mm (dunno when - hartmann?). Also dunno if it worked (but the theories sound, and it was test-fired). It might have been available, and made the PaK 38 more workable, whilst requring less tungsten. Steel cores may not have been considered at this time though - being only a desperate measure in '44, or just a crazy idea that wasnt to be taken seriously?



Last phrase is what I agree with 



> Id've stuck with the PzIII - for both roles, but not DP, as it couldnt mount the KwK40 - a shortened KwK 40 maybe? L35-40?



Pz-IV have had no such limitations 



> Was the Hetzer as early as that?  I like your idea. The Bison was similar.



Not "as early as that", but certainly feasible.



> No, it was a massive downgrade (IMO). I can give you a source, or tell you why, if you wish? It did have flammentoter exhausts though. Also increased range and lighter weight (which caused pointless compromises IMO).



Ausf.J paid the price for not having better medium tank in production prior Kursk, so they were pressed to make compromises - hence the Ausf.J.



> Thanks. Seems like it had the worst of both worlds then!  (unless you automatically consider cheapest to be best?). Not sure about the steering mechanism though... - but would consider it part of the transmission myself.



I'm not thrilled about it myself, but apparently it worked, more than 700 times


----------



## Vincenzo (Apr 14, 2010)

Panther was a medium tank also if it weight it's high like some heavy tank. Panther was cheap (less 20% more of Pz IV) and build for equipped the common tank battalion and actually go to its also if not in enough numbers for replace the Pz IV. i think the tank classification must be functional not based on one or an other like weights or guns.


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 14, 2010)

I'd say that Germans have _intended_ to have Panther as a new medium tank. Yet that morphed into either an over-complicated too expensive medium tank (therefore allowing only for cca. 5500 pieces built in a major economy at war footing, in 2,5 years), or the heavy tank that lacked heavier gun tick armor as one would've expected from one.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 15, 2010)

Hi tomo,



> They have had 3 heavy tanks (T, Pa, T2) 3 heavy SP At guns (Ferd, JgdTgr, JgdPan); producing a superb medium tank in good numbers (instead of 2-3 of the heavy AFVs) was NOT what they have had.



When I said 2 good designs, I meant 2 Mediums, sorry. However, I take it you would count the Panther II as a Heavy? What about the DB VK3002?

True, they totally failed to make a good medium tank (before France, that is). Though some would say that the PzIV was good (which I can understand). Also, the PzIII Special was a decent vehicle, and even the L42 37mm variants could deal with most contemporaries... (but not in the East). You make a very good point though.



> Those 10 crew members were just mentioned to make my point in comparison



I get your point, but max was 6 men? If my idea of moving the radio was done, then it could be back to 5 - with none of the disadvantages mentioned before?...



> Dunno if it was nose-heavy, but it was a little too much for Pz-IV chassis - it (chassis) was slightly too light when conceived.



The PzIV G was nose-heavy, maybe even the F2 too? 25 tons is possible for the chassis, but not if its unbalanced. Of course, the Jagdpanzer IV/70 was VERY unbalanced! 



> Asking the Pz-IV chassis to have it all (armor, gun, maneuverability) in abundance is too much



It is possible though... Not in abundance perhaps, but a decent amount - I think this is where the PzIV designs failed, too much of one, and not enough of the other, good design is being able to make a good compromise... I think also that there was an attempt to make one with sloping armour (unless it was fictional - I've seen 2 fictionals, but one other looked legit.).



> There is no point IMO to spend a fortune in development for something you don't produce in good numbers, therefore Panther (esp from Ausf.G) would've offered the best compromise.



Those I bases I offered used Tiger 2 mechanicals - would that be mass-produced enough? The Panther was far too flimsy to carry any more weight IMO, except perhaps the Ausf Gs ZF AK 7-400 transmission - and it's debatable whether even that got on there (though it was pretty much definately on later, or all Jagdpanthers, depending on source). That was far too late though IMO. I suppose if you deleted the turret and reduced the frontal armour though...(though I still think its too unreliable!).



> Guess it would've require the major modification



Funnily enough, the Egyptians put an 122mm in the T-34s turret. There were also 2 SU-122s...



> The Hummel-like vehicle was feasible though.



Thanks. It would also work on those 2? (but IIRC the ML-20 was much heavier than the SFH18 - or was that mainly the carriage? The D-1 was a lot lighter IIRC?



> I'd say delete the armor from Ferdinand chassis - you have the gun that shoots 30km away.



Thanks. I might put an extra 20-30mm on the sides though...



> I'll provide the drawings for both Pz-III -IV with KwK 36



Did it really exist?! Or are you gonna draw your/our idea? Either way, great stuff!8) I'm actually thinking of building a model of it - but PzIV model prices have shot up, seemngly as soon as I thought of it!



> You have the chassis, and you have the gun - in perhaps 100-200 km radius. Just bolt them together and your ready.



The factories were closer by? I was meaning have the same vehicle, but have the flak 88 for AT work, and the LFH18 for support? - kinda like the Nashorn Hummels relationship.



> Perhaps the most balanced AFV (along with StuG-III) Germans have produced. I like it very much.



Perhaps inferior to the Hummel though? and the Brummbar?



> Valid points - but why would you want 5cm when you have 75-76,2mm captured waiting, with 7,5cm Pak in development?



As a stop-gap. New vehicles guns in Germany could be shoved together? Perhaps the Marder is a better candidate for the superior 76mm? (though I would guess not). 



> Last phrase is what I agree with



 Both have massive advantages though, but I think only hartmann has the info? (Whens he comig back??)



> Pz-IV have had no such limitations



But it had much worse turret armour... (though admittedly no shot-trap)



> Not "as early as that", but certainly feasible.



Ah right, good idea. The Hetzer wasnt so good late-war IMO, though still performed well. Was a good ambush weapon. Was even used post-war! Early WW2 though, wouldve been great (but no gun available?).



> Ausf.J paid the price for not having better medium tank in production prior Kursk, so they were pressed to make compromises - hence the Ausf.J.



Yes, it was designed as a Support tank, not a Battle tank - let down by the PzIII Panther. 



> I'm not thrilled about it myself, but apparently it worked, more than 700 times



True, but how many times destroyed? The Ferd and Hetzer were also succesful that way, but not great designs? If it could take the armour gun of the Stug though, then I can see why. The Hummel was great though?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 15, 2010)

Hi Vincenzo/tomo,

Perhaps the Panther needs a new Thread to itself?

The Panther was too many ideas rolled into one - for e.g. a Heavy tanks front, a Medium tanks side and a medium tanks calibre, with a heavies length! - kinda like a poor MBT?

It had an over-complicated and expensive suspension system, yet a cheapo transmission ( initially gaskets) - sheer lunacy!

Tank classification depends on the nation. Also, its not always as simple as Light, Medium Heavy - for example, the early PzIIIs and IVs were Battle and Support tanks, respectively (both were aprox the same weight).

The Soviets classed by weight, the Germans by gun. Call the Panther a 'Battle Tank' and you can't go wrong (though it was slightly DP also!).


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 15, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi tomo,
> When I said 2 good designs, I meant 2 Mediums, sorry. However, I take it you would count the Panther II as a Heavy? What about the DB VK3002?



DB's "Panther" was some 10 tons lighter IIRC, which would've yielded handsome dividends on suspension transmission reliability. Plus the speed wouldn't be governed down (perhaps), also the consumption would've go down.
It was also smaller, but with the same armor as 1st serial Panthers.
Germans thought their gunners would've mixed it for T-34, yet Germans used captured T-34s without such problems. 


> True, they totally failed to make a good medium tank (before France, that is). Though some would say that the PzIV was good (which I can understand).


The decision to go with two very similar designs into production is one of bigger German mistakes IMO. 
Make a 20 ton tank, with 'frozen' dimensions of turret ring, and then mount turret with weapon you prefer.



> I get your point, but max was 6 men? If my idea of moving the radio was done, then it could be back to 5 - with none of the disadvantages mentioned before?...



It needed on extra loader compared with Marders, so 5 crew members would've be enough IMO.



> Those I bases I offered used Tiger 2 mechanicals - would that be mass-produced enough? The Panther was far too flimsy to carry any more weight IMO, except perhaps the Ausf Gs ZF AK 7-400 transmission - and it's debatable whether even that got on there (though it was pretty much definately on later, or all Jagdpanthers, depending on source). That was far too late though IMO. I suppose if you deleted the turret and reduced the frontal armour though...(though I still think its too unreliable!).



Whatever makes a tank more reliable is good, if you can get that particular into production battlefield in numbers to make a difference.



> Funnily enough, the Egyptians put an 122mm in the T-34s turret.



Not true - it was not T-34s turret...



> There were also 2 SU-122s...



The ordnance of 122mm howitzer weighted perhaps half of 152mm howitzer, with smaller dimensions to begin with.
What was the other SU-122, besides the one based on T-34?



> Thanks. It would also work on those 2? (but IIRC the ML-20 was much heavier than the SFH18 - or was that mainly the carriage? The D-1 was a lot lighter IIRC?



Weight of sFH was in-between of 2 russian pieces; too bad for Germans not mounting the muzzle brake - that would've allowed for even lighter howitzer. 
If the Italians managed to put their big 149/40 cannon on their under-20ton chassis, I guess Pz-IV was good for ML-20. Perhaps the armor would've been deleted completely though.



> Did it really exist?! Or are you gonna draw your/our idea? Either way, great stuff!8) I'm actually thinking of building a model of it - but PzIV model prices have shot up, seemngly as soon as I thought of it!


I'll draw the 'project', IIRC such things never existed.



> The factories were closer by?



Pz-35/38, 76,5mm and 100mm were all in Czech part of Czechoslovakia, therefor I'd say they were pretty near one from another 



> I was meaning have the same vehicle, but have the flak 88 for AT work, and the LFH18 for support? - kinda like the Nashorn Hummels relationship.



Whatever make those two useful German guns more mobile was good 


> Perhaps inferior to the Hummel though? and the Brummbar?



No point in comparing 10,5cm with 15cm howitzers; Brummbar was assault gun - like StuH-42 on steroids.



> As a stop-gap. New vehicles guns in Germany could be shoved together?



Germans have captured 75mm guns _before_ 5cm PaK was developed, so there is/was no 'gap to be stopped' 



> Perhaps the Marder is a better candidate for the superior 76mm? (though I would guess not).



Russian 76,2 F-22 cannon would've fit in PzJg-38(t) just fine, but Marder-like installation was easier to design. BTW, Yougoslav partisans have mounted PaK-40 20mm FlakVierling on hulls of their Stuart tanks in 1944/45 


> But it had much worse turret armour... (though admittedly no shot-trap)



Nothing to choose between Pz-III -IV when we talk about protection 



> Ah right, good idea. The Hetzer wasnt so good late-war IMO, though still performed well. Was a good ambush weapon. Was even used post-war! Early WW2 though, wouldve been great (but no gun available?).



Gun was always available; 'till something better is produced French/Polish/Czech 75 would do. It took Romanians to show their Maresal AFV in order that Germans take JgdPz-38(t) into development anyway.



> True, but how many times destroyed?



Destroyed by whom?
The main area that would've used ticker armor is roof, so the planes artillery shells would've present no threat. Then you need to provide decent armor to the superstructure armor, to prevent 12.7mm, 20, 23 37 projectiles from piercing the awarding target.
By the time you do that, Hummel is perhaps 30 tons heavy. No way Pz-IV chassis would've been able to carry all of that. And then we add extra 30-50mm to protect that from T-34s Shermans... 


> The Ferd and Hetzer were also succesful that way, but not great designs?
> If it could take the armour gun of the Stug though, then I can see why.



Ferdinand was combination of the superfulous chassis that was finally armed with top-notch gun, and proved good when fast movement was not required.
Hetzer (JgdPz-38(t)) was last-ditch effort to turn the chassis of an obsolete tank into something useful, and it was that - useful.
Not such great designs, but decent ones at least.



> The Hummel was great though?



Indeed, second only to the US M-12 GMC.


----------



## hartmann (Apr 17, 2010)

My God  ¡
The threads have avanced very fast until last time I connected. Very good stuff ¡¡



> Quote:
> Playing with barrel lengths doesn't really do much unless the powder charge is also changed.
> 
> I know, but I think the 50mm L42 L60 fired the same round?



I will check but It was an enlarged cartridge, althought both fired the same shell.




> Quote:
> See the difference between the German L43 and L48 guns.
> 
> I just assumed they also fired the same round?... Any info on that, please?




Yes, it was the same round.
Slightly off topic, but It was different cartridge, altough same shell that the used by the PaK 40 AT towed gun (L46).

Complicated things 

Best regards


----------



## hartmann (Apr 23, 2010)

Hi to all ¡


> Early PzIIIs had flimsy 10-speeders. Later models had more robust 6-speeders. Originally, I thought this was just borrowed from the PzIV - but it seems I was wrong: According to Bryan Perret (IIRC ) the PzIV Ausf J had its transmission downgraded to the one from the PzIII - which apparently wasn't able to cope. I think the PzIV J was a waste of time btw.
> 
> From what I've heard, Pz-IVJ was simplified version of the Ausf. H, with no issues worth mentioning



The only differences between the PzIV Ausf H and the Ausf J was that the Ausf J carried more fuel and more armour in the turret at the expense of the automatic turning mechanism of the turret (It had to be hand turned, which could be very exhausting), but It didn’t changed (as far as I know) the transmission.



> The Ferdinand w/ 17cm would've been well balanced weapon, but the weight would've gone too much up.
> Length of 17cm barrel was perhaps some 9m (with chamber).
> That is long! The weight though could be remedied by removing the appliqué armour (didn’t need it?).




Germany was working on a Waffenträger (Geschützwagen Tiger) based on the Tiger IB using a 17 cm gun (probably the KwK already mentioned), called as “Grille 17”. It used the 17 cm L50 gun (it only carried 5 pieces of ammo). The only prototype was captured in May of 1945 still unfinished in Haustenbeck (Padderborn); weighing 58 tonnes (It dispensed roof and back armour so It was lighter than the Tiger IB).
If we take the barrel length, It was some 8,70 metres. And we must add the chamber and muzzle brake. Probably it would be more than 9 metres, as Tomo said previously.
Nice true beast .



> APFSDS was more a thing of 'Panzer 1946' (akin to Luft 46); the captured guns were available, reliable, and plenty.
> That’s true, but it was trialled in the earlier 37mm (dunno when - hartmann?).




Well, very heavy anti bunker APFSDS shots in limited quantities were ready as early as May or June 1940 (prepared to burst the Maginot and Eben Emael fortresses). 
In late 1942 the 28 cm gun was modified as “Glattrohr” (smoothbore barrel) 31 cm gun to fire HEFSDS shells at very large ranges, and in 1944 Germany was playing with medium FlaK gun prototypes firing also HEFSDS shells. Taking in account that in the fights for Silesia in 1944 the 50 mm PaK 39 fired some quantities of uranium cored PzGr 40s, I would guess that If Germany had tried seriously; they would have obtained a smoothbore AT gun of medium size by late 1945.
Also, the only 128 mm FlaK 45 gun built (as prototype, with bigger chamber and extended barrel to 75 calibres) was allocated in firing trials with two barrels; one of them was rifled, and the other smoothbore gun (1500 m/s with APFSDS shots).
From the 37 mm PPS shot. I was said that it made trials in late 1943 and/or early 1944 given the early design of the ring shape sabot.




> Steel cores may not have been considered at this time though - being only a desperate measure in '44, or just a crazy idea that wasn’t to be taken seriously?



Hardened steel cored PzGr 40 shots were fired in 1943 and 1944 so it wouldn’t have been very crazy providing the shots were impacting at less than 1250 m/s (as It was a limit to prevent the shot break upon impact determined in Germany tests in Meppen and other tests instalations).



> I'd say that Germans have intended to have Panther as a new medium tank.



Quite true Tomo. Germany tried to make the “Panther” as the only medium tank, but the quantity of T-34 and “shermans” prevented the full switch from Pz IV to the “Panther”.




> Ah right, good idea. The Hetzer wasn’t so good late-war IMO, though still performed well. Was a good ambush weapon. Was even used post-war! Early WW2 though, would’ve been great (but no gun available?).
> Gun was always available




Yes, it always used the KwK/StuK 40 gun, which was in full production (although It never carried the PaK 40 gun as far as I know).


I hope this helps


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 24, 2010)

Hi hartmann,

Glad you like it! We’ve covered a lot of ground! 

Thanks for the 50mm info.

Yes, it is complicated, it is very complicated! I keep hearing different things. I hear upto 3 types: PaK/KwK 39 (non-bottlenecked rounds), PaK 40 (bottlenecked rounds), KwK 40 (reduced PaK 40 cartridges) – easy to confuse.

BTW, I think I can see why the PPS APFSDS round was rejected – the fins don’t seem suitable for a rifled barrel. I will have to study it further…


Hi tomo,



> They have had 3 heavy tanks (T, Pa, T2) 3 heavy SP At guns (Ferd, JgdTgr, JgdPan); producing a superb medium tank in good numbers (instead of 2-3 of the heavy AFVs) was NOT what they have had.
> 
> DB's "Panther" was some 10 tons lighter IIRC, which would've yielded handsome dividends on suspension transmission reliability. Plus the speed wouldn't be governed down (perhaps),



The suspension was overcomplex – and had proven to be a bad design on the Tiger, but less weight may have helped. Also, I can kind of see the usage for it on an ‘Exploitation Tank’. The transmission was also a bad design – but yes, again the lower weight may have helped (though the DB may have used a different trans to the MAN anyway?). I think top speed would be OK. The engine was also different - MUCH better than the crappy Maybach. A similar design was used for the later Maybach – the HL234.



> also the consumption would've go down.



That’s a good point.



> It was also smaller, but with the same armor as 1st serial Panthers.



Perhaps even better – IIRC it was sloped more, also it may have been thicker at the sides?



> Germans thought their gunners would've mixed it for T-34, yet Germans used captured T-34s without such problems.



I’ve heard accounts of captured T-34s being often targeted by their own sides PaK guns (despite the massive Swastikas crosses). Apparently, they fired on silhouette (fair enough), despite the cupola. I think the VK3002 would also have this problem – unless it could use some features from the MAN design (mid-mounted turret, rear plate etc).


As crazy as it sounds, I would have several designs:

Test the 2 Panther designs PROPERLY. End up having 3 (or more) Medium tank designs in simultaneous service: 

1. Pz III/IV – whilst waiting for the new Panthers (though would the chassis’ be better served for SPGs?).

2. Panther – Exploitation tank, maybe the DB3002, or similar. Armament would be KwK or (preferably) PaK 40.

3. Panther II – MBT. Design pretty much as actual Panther II – heavier more expensive, but more able to hold its own (Is this idea counter to Blitzkrieg thinking though?). Armament is 88mm.

I would also have 2-3 ‘Breakthrough’ or Heavy designs, each with 2 sub-variants:

1. Tiger – old design, as PzIII/IV above. Battle Support variants.

2. SPG – like the Ferdinand or Jagdtiger, based on Tiger chassis, bigger gun. Again, with Battle Support variants.

3. Konigstiger – new design, pretty much as it was in WW2. Would start with a Tiger, only with sloping armour though 1st.

It seems this was done anyway - with the E-Series.



> The decision to go with two very similar designs into production is one of bigger German mistakes IMO.



They had their points though: both tested several types of suspension, and torsion bars leafs both had their advantages in their respective roles.

Also, the turret designs were very different.

Having a single design migh have helped production, but not development. Which do you choose? By the time they were in prduction though, switching say, the PzIII chassis’ production lines to the PzIV design would hurt, rather than help. Besides, those torsion bars were more useful to its intended application. 

Why the PzIV Specials turret wasn’t developed was a mystery to me though – but (so far as I can think of) all mass-produced German WW2 turret designs were terrible.

Still, who says you need turrets…



> It needed on extra loader compared with Marders, so 5 crew members would've be enough IMO.



I don’t know the Marders crew (?), but as I see it, it was the standard 5-man crew, add an extra loader, then subtract the radio operator ( give his job to the Commander /or one of the loaders). Why this was never done eludes me, anyone know? (German radios too big/complex? – or a 4-man crew too small for effective maintenance?).



> Whatever makes a tank more reliable is good, if you can get that particular into production battlefield in numbers to make a difference.



Tiger II mechanicals were more costly, but still easy enough to mass-produce, I think? I think the Panther was too Schitzo – cheap transmission, but complex suspension. I can see the advantages of the overlapping wheels on a Medium design now though. 

In short, I don’t think KT mechanicals would hurt such an already expensive design? – infact, not having to make a few more (for spares) would probably save in the long run (about a week, at the Panthers breakdown rate! lol).



> Not true - it was not T-34s turret...



Well, it was _a_ turret…



> The ordnance of 122mm howitzer weighted perhaps half of 152mm howitzer, with smaller dimensions to begin with.
> What was the other SU-122, besides the one based on T-34?



Thanks. Here it is:







- the SU-122P. In searching for this, I found there was also an SU-122M SU-122-III. Here is a good link:

SOVIET SPs 1941-1945, Medium SPs, M.Svirin



> Weight of sFH was in-between of 2 russian pieces; too bad for Germans not mounting the muzzle brake - that would've allowed for even lighter howitzer.



So I suppose it was a good compromise? Still, the range of the ML-20 wouldve been useful, the lightness of the D-1?…



> If the Italians managed to put their big 149/40 cannon on their under-20ton chassis, I guess Pz-IV was good for ML-20. Perhaps the armor would've been deleted completely though.



Yes, a captured ML-20 on an old chassis would’ve been good. No armour necessary – getting enough of them for a whole battery might be though? The Italians also mounted their 90mm AA gun onto an M13/40 chassis – very similar to ‘our’ idea. Any more info on that Italian gun?

I suppose it would have been better if the Italians had just built ad crewed SPGs, leaving all the closer range fighting to the Germans?



> I'll draw the 'project', IIRC such things never existed.



Yes, I’ve seen it. I will add comments later. Did you draw it from scratch?



> Pz-35/38, 76,5mm and 100mm were all in Czech part of Czechoslovakia, therefor I'd say they were pretty near one from another



Good point, I thought you meant the 88mm Flak though? Using Czech guns is a good idea – but could they be trusted? Still, as they weren’t intended for frontline use (well they were, but you know what I mean? – long-distance work), this would be OK?



> Whatever make those two useful German guns more mobile was good



That’s true, any which way you can eh?



> No point in comparing 10,5cm with 15cm howitzers



Hate to do this, but could you? Was the 105mm pointless when the 150mm was available? (for indirect fire). I know the Wespe would be much cheaper than the Hummel, but… I can see the point in having it for the StuH though – and developing it further as a next-gen DP weapon, as discussed here previously.



> Brummbar was assault gun - like StuH-42 on steroids.



Yes, a good design IMO. – but yet another one which required the PzIVs chassis…



> Germans have captured 75mm guns before 5cm PaK was developed, so there is/was no 'gap to be stopped'



I meant using only what was available in Germany – new builds. Still, the 50mm would probably be best sent to NA – where it could cope (still in a Stug though?…). The captured 75mms weren’t that good, I heard? Also, were there enough of them?



> Russian 76,2 F-22 cannon would've fit in PzJg-38(t) just fine, but Marder-like installation was easier to design.



I meant put the best gun on the thinnest-armoured chassis (the Hetzer can afford to get a bit closer). Of course, you could use the one with the worst gun armour purely for HE fire? - the other as a Stug?



> BTW, Yougoslav partisans have mounted PaK-40 20mm FlakVierling on hulls of their Stuart tanks in 1944/45



Excellent bit of info! Any pics?



> Nothing to choose between Pz-III -IV when we talk about protection



There was a lot of difference, not least:






See the great big hole? - that’s on an Ausf J!! Also, because of this, armour could not rise above 50mm. 

Even on the PzIII G, the mantlet covered the turret front (well, most of it) and was 37mm thick. The turret front was 30mm. (according to one source). So 37 + 30mm = 67mm – though the spacing would mean this is actually worth more. There is that shot-trap to consider though – which IIRC wasn’t a problem on the PzIII design though. In addition to this, later spaced armour was added to the mantlet (not to be confused with Schurzen). Plus, the PzIII apparently had the best quality armour of any WW2 tank – as befitted a Battle Tank. The PzIV was nowhere near.

Hulls were similar though. (though the PzIV was probably slightly better here…). Most armour should be put on the turret front though, IMO (unlike with the IS-2).



> Gun was always available;



The PaK 39? I thought it was only available in ’41? (really ’42) – but that’s also true of the KwK 40, so I may be confused.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 24, 2010)

Hi tomo (Part 2),



> 'till something better is produced French/Polish/Czech 75 would do.



Good point, I think? Do you have any more info on the last 2?



> It took Romanians to show their Maresal AFV in order that Germans take JgdPz-38(t) into development anyway.



Great bit of info! An interesting vehicle, but I assumed it to be a Hetzer ripoff – not its inspiration.

Here is a link to it:

WorldWar2.ro - Maresal



> Destroyed by whom?



Whatever it was firing at (wafer thin armour). I don’t know attrition rates. Were you meaning the Nashorn/Hornisse, Hummel, or both sorry? - against what targets?



> The main area that would've used ticker armor is roof, so the planes artillery shells would've present no threat. Then you need to provide decent armor to the superstructure armor, to prevent 12.7mm, 20, 23 37 projectiles from piercing the awarding target.
> By the time you do that, Hummel is perhaps 30 tons heavy. No way Pz-IV chassis would've been able to carry all of that. And then we add extra 30-50mm to protect that from T-34s Shermans...



I don’t think the Hummel needed thick armour? – it was mainly used for indirect fire? If it had to attack a troublesome bunker, then maybe – but it could rely on out-ranging it? – or if no other vehicle was able, then it would be well protected against attack by these? It may still need heavy frontal armour though? This situation is a very good argument for a Durchbruchwagen with a Support gun?



> Ferdinand was combination of the superfulous chassis that was finally armed with top-notch gun, and proved good when fast movement was not required.
> Hetzer (JgdPz-38(t)) was last-ditch effort to turn the chassis of an obsolete tank into something useful, and it was that - useful.
> Not such great designs, but decent ones at least.



Yes, good uses of 'bad' chassis’ (though the Ferd was not used well @ Kursk IMO).



> Indeed, second only to the US M-12 GMC.



Yes, an old French gun on an old tank (if you can call it that?) chassis – yet it was pretty good. Shows that SPGs can successfully use sub-standard pieces. I think it was < the Brummbar in some respects though.


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 24, 2010)

Hi hartmann,

Some more good info thanks, please keep it coming!

The PzIV Ausf J had more changes than that. To be fair, some were improvements - like the Nahvertidigungswaffe, and the Flammentoter exhausts. I can check, but I am certain that in Bryan Perrets book on the subject, it says the transmission was downgraded to that of the PzIIIs (implying that it was different) - IIRC he then goes on to say that it made it less reliable. PzIII producion was finished though (bombed out), so perhaps this was just making use of the spare transmissions kicking about?

You say it had more armour in the turret though?


Ah yes, the Grille 17. This would be another one to consider. What was the use though? - as I see it, it would be unable to hit bunkers 1st time? - so perhaps a better idea would be thicker armour, but a shorter gun? Still, if the gun itself was easily disabled, that would shoot down this idea right away? Wonder what the reload speed was?



> Well, very heavy anti bunker APFSDS shots in limited quantities were ready as early as May or June 1940 (prepared to burst the Maginot and Eben Emael fortresses).



Thats some great info, thank you. Any more info on them?



> In late 1942 the 28 cm gun was modified as “Glattrohr” (smoothbore barrel) 31 cm gun to fire HEFSDS shells at very large ranges,



Smoothbores?! Great, we add them into the mix too.



> and in 1944 Germany was playing with medium FlaK gun prototypes firing also HEFSDS shells.



This apparently had nothing to do with AT APFSDS (it was argued) I must admit I agree with them (though Flak PaK development overlapped, I dont think the ammo ever did?).



> Taking in account that in the fights for Silesia in 1944 the 50 mm PaK 39 fired some quantities of uranium cored PzGr 40s,



Thanks, great info again.



> I would guess that If Germany had tried seriously; they would have obtained a smoothbore AT gun of medium size by late 1945.



What do you mean by medium size?



> Also, the only 128 mm FlaK 45 gun built (as prototype, with bigger chamber and extended barrel to 75 calibres) was allocated in firing trials with two barrels; one of them was rifled, and the other smoothbore gun (1500 m/s with APFSDS shots).



Smoothbore guns may have had problems firing HE at long ranges though? Still, I suppose they should be supported by Support Vehicles? - but these would then be of around the same calibre as the Battle vehicles... I'm not so sure about smoothbores practicality.



> From the 37 mm PPS shot. I was said that it made trials in late 1943 and/or early 1944 given the early design of the ring shape sabot.



Thanks. I wondered, because apparently the PzGr was only developed for the KwK 42 43 - which makes me wonder why bother with the 37mm. That draing seems to suggest that the penetrator was made of steel (unless theres a mistake, is there one available with a key?). Still, if you want to test the ammo - the obsolete easy to use 37mm is useful, and theres no point in using precious metals.



> Hardened steel cored PzGr 40 shots were fired in 1943 and 1944 so it wouldn’t have been very crazy providing the shots were impacting at less than 1250 m/s (as It was a limit to prevent the shot break upon impact determined in Germany tests in Meppen and other tests instalations).



I was thinking past the max range of the Pak 38, when vs the T-34 (likely above 1250 m/s?). What was the penetration figure @ 1250 m/s please? It may even have been useful on the PaK 40 KwK 40?


The Panther may have been intended as a Medium, but till that point, there were no mediums (PzIII was a Battle, PzIV was Support). I have heard the Panther called Battle Tank, it may have been Medium Battle Tank, I forget. It could probably have functioned in the support role too (75mm being enough - if using more complicated sights). So, I suppose it was Dual-Role. It was a confused design though IMO, when some call it a heavy tank, I can see why - not a true medium.



> Yes, it always used the KwK/StuK 40 gun, which was in full production (although It never carried the PaK 40 gun as far as I know).



I thought it was the PaK 39? (< to the KwK/Stuk 40). I think it preceded it though ( IIRC was also made in Italy). I thought the Stuk/KwK 40 ( PaK) didnt really get into widespread service untill 1942?


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi tomo,
> 
> Perhaps even better – IIRC it was sloped more, also it may have been thicker at the sides?



Dunno; if it was, the difference would've been minimal IIRC.


> I’ve heard accounts of captured T-34s being often targeted by their own sides PaK guns (despite the massive Swastikas crosses). Apparently, they fired on silhouette (fair enough), despite the cupola. I think the VK3002 would also have this problem – unless it could use some features from the MAN design (mid-mounted turret, rear plate etc).



Okay, then I'd add sheet metal around the turret (akin to what they did to Pz-IIIM, but there it was added to up the protection), so the turret would've looked as Tiger's, with sides back vertically aligned.



> As crazy as it sounds, I would have several designs:
> 
> Test the 2 Panther designs PROPERLY. End up having 3 (or more) Medium tank designs in simultaneous service:
> 
> ...



Ahem, it was NOT done - E series are more in realm of paper panzers (Panzer '46). There is no much of a point to develop a bunch of new designs in 1944 - German army needs thousands of AFVs, pronto, not bunch of projects.


> They had their points though: both tested several types of suspension, and torsion bars leafs both had their advantages *in their respective roles*.


 
In their respective roles? I respect you too much to say anything more about that...



> Also, the turret designs were very different.
> 
> Having a single design migh have helped production, but not development. Which do you choose? By the time they were in prduction though, switching say, the PzIII chassis’ production lines to the PzIV design would hurt, rather than help. Besides, those torsion bars were more useful to its intended application.



I'll admit that Germans were experimenting with different designs, but that's about it. If they went for turrets with different rings, each requiring a different hull, but with same weight, dimensions armor, they were not that savvy. 



> *Why the PzIV Specials turret wasn’t developed* was a mystery to me though – but (so far as I can think of) *all mass-produced German WW2 turret designs were terrible*.



Care to elaborate the bolded part?



> Still, who says you need turrets…



Pretty much everyone...



> I don’t know the Marders crew (?), but as I see it, it was the standard 5-man crew, add an extra loader, then subtract the radio operator ( give his job to the Commander /or one of the loaders). Why this was never done eludes me, anyone know? (German radios too big/complex? – or a 4-man crew too small for effective maintenance?).



No point to go to the reduction of crew of AFV produced in 2 copies...


> Tiger II mechanicals were more costly, but still easy enough to mass-produce, I think?



I've read something similar.



> I think the Panther was too Schitzo – cheap transmission, but complex suspension. I can see the advantages of the overlapping wheels on a Medium design now though.



I see (more times than not) the benefits of KISS - keep it simple, stupid (not aimed at anybody  ) philosophy. 



> In short, I don’t think KT mechanicals would hurt such an already expensive design? – infact, not having to make a few more (for spares) would probably save in the long run (about a week, at the Panthers breakdown rate! lol).



KISS is applicabe anywhere - if you have something in production, the mass usage makes that cheaper, more reliable, less maintenance intensive... than a new system that serves the same purpose.


> Thanks. Here it is:
> 
> - the SU-122P. In searching for this, I found there was also an SU-122M SU-122-III. Here is a good link:
> 
> SOVIET SPs 1941-1945, Medium SPs, M.Svirin



And one thinks he's seen anything 


> So I suppose it was a good compromise? Still, the range of the ML-20 wouldve been useful, the lightness of the D-1?…



Only 1 km greater range vs. D-1, but 4 km less than ML-20, not to mention the Russian 76,2mm guns have had the same range, and it was over 100 000 (hundred thousand) of those produced from 1942-45 only. So not that good compromise...


> Yes, a captured ML-20 on an old chassis would’ve been good. No armour necessary – getting enough of them for a whole battery might be though? The Italians also mounted their 90mm AA gun onto an M13/40 chassis – very similar to ‘our’ idea. Any more info on that Italian gun?



The Italian 90mm (in AT guise) was about as good as german 8,8L56 = very useful, and shows that somewhat larger Pz-III would have no problems with 8,8.




> I suppose it would have been better if the Italians had just built ad crewed SPGs, leaving all the closer range fighting to the Germans?



Their SPGs were pretty decent, tanks less so.



> Yes, I’ve seen it. I will add comments later. Did you draw it from scratch?



No...


> Good point, I thought you meant the 88mm Flak though? Using Czech guns is a good idea – but *could they be trusted*? Still, as they weren’t intended for frontline use (well they were, but you know what I mean? – long-distance work), this would be OK?



Trusted - do you mean Czechs or their guns? Their guns were intended for all the purposes ordinary arty was required to do, and no one complained about quality.



> Hate to do this, but could you? Was the 105mm pointless when the 150mm was available? (for indirect fire). I know the Wespe would be much cheaper than the Hummel, but… I can see the point in having it for the StuH though – and developing it further as a next-gen DP weapon, as discussed here previously.



I guess you could have 2 Wespes for each Hummel built, while 105mm is considered valuable asset even today. Since the SP solved the main issue of 105mm (motor transport requirement), that was one good AFV.


> Yes, a good design IMO. – but yet another one which required the PzIVs chassis…



There is nothing great in Pz-IV chassis - not as good as M3/M4, or T-34...


> I meant using only what was available in Germany – new builds. Still, the 50mm would probably be best sent to NA – where it could cope (still in a Stug though?…). The captured 75mms weren’t that good, I heard? Also, were there enough of them?



There was nothing wrong with 75mm guns Germans captured, and were captured in thousands.



> I meant put the best gun on the thinnest-armoured chassis (the Hetzer can afford to get a bit closer). Of course, you could use the one with the worst gun armour purely for HE fire? - the other as a Stug?



The best gun best chassis are ones which are available, that's what I think 


> Excellent bit of info! Any pics?



Attached...


> The PaK 39? I thought it was only available in ’41? (really ’42) – but that’s also true of the KwK 40, so I may be confused.



The captured 75-77mm guns, from early 1939....


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 24, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi tomo (Part 2),
> 
> Good point, I think? Do you have any more info on the last 2?



Polish field piece was same as French ( US), while Czech was 76,5mm IIRC - the same muzzle energy as 75mm of M3/M4 medium tanks. Plus there was a nice number of captured AAA pieces in such calibers, but with greater muzzle velocity - totally comparable with 7,5cm Pak. 



> Great bit of info! An interesting vehicle, but I assumed it to be a Hetzer ripoff – not its inspiration.
> 
> Here is a link to it:
> 
> WorldWar2.ro - Maresal



Development started in 1942, so Hetzer was ripoff.


> Whatever it was firing at (wafer thin armour). I don’t know attrition rates. Were you meaning the Nashorn/Hornisse, Hummel, or both sorry? - against what targets?
> 
> I don’t think the Hummel needed thick armour? – it was mainly used for indirect fire? If it had to attack a troublesome bunker, then maybe – but it could rely on out-ranging it? – or if no other vehicle was able, then it would be well protected against attack by these? It may still need heavy frontal armour though? This situation is a very good argument for a Durchbruchwagen with a Support gun?



Okay, do you want or do you don't want Hummel with plenty of armor?? 



> Yes, an old French gun on an old tank (if you can call it that?) chassis – yet it was pretty good. Shows that SPGs can successfully use sub-standard pieces.



What would be the 'sub-standard' pieces here?



> I think it was < the Brummbar in some respects though.



What does that mean? Why would you want to compare Brummbar with M-12?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 24, 2010)

Hi tomo,



> Dunno; if it was, the difference would've been minimal IIRC.



If armour is sloped @ 60 degrees, ricocheting is apparently more likely to happen - it is a 'magic angle'. The Soviet designs had 60 degree angles, but this lesson seems to have passed MAN by - the Panthers armour is often referred to as 'angled' rather than 'soped' - to differentiate it from 'properly' sloped armour. 

The Panthers side armour was just thin enogh to let in Soviet shells @ combat ranges  - just a little more wouldve saved it IMO.



> Okay, then I'd add sheet metal around the turret (akin to what they did to Pz-IIIM, but there it was added to up the protection), so the turret would've looked as Tiger's, with sides back vertically aligned.



Excellent idea!8) - but was Schurzen available then? I wouldve kept the sides as is though, the back could have been reverse-sloped, like the Panthers? Care to do a drawing of this vehicle?...8)



> Ahem, it was NOT done - E series are more in realm of paper panzers (Panzer '46). There is no much of a point to develop a bunch of new designs in 1944 - German army needs thousands of AFVs, pronto, not bunch of projects.



I suppose for pure defense, Stugs Jagdpanzers wouldve done the job - but for attack, I think you would need a Myriad of designs. The E-Series was flawed, but about right IMO. I think the time would have been better spent making a reliable (DB) tank engine though, then an improved medium-heavy (E75) - NOT the E-100. Though the E-100 had certain advantages over the Maus, I think even the Maus was a better design! (actually had potential IMO).

Still, most of my ideas are easily-built SPGs...



> In their respective roles? I respect you too much to say anything more about that...



Thanks. Admittedly the PzIV ended up as a Battle tank - but this role was forced on it, and it was never designed for that. Leaf springs were useful on a vehicle that recieved onstant damge though (like a Battle tank). Please feel free to say what you were going to, I'd be interested to hear it.



> I'll admit that Germans were experimenting with different designs, but that's about it. If they went for turrets with different rings, each requiring a different hull, but with same weight, dimensions armor, they were not that savvy.



True, perhaps the designs should have been melded more (but please, not like the Geschutzwagen III/IV!). It makes sense to have 2 designs IMO (the M60 is infact apparently still serving as a Support tank to the Abrams Battle Tank):



> The M60 series' L68A1 105mm main gun fires a much wider variety of ammunition than the currently used 120 mm smoothbore on the M1 series, including a dedicated HE (High Explosive) round, and a White Phosphorus smoke round, among others.
> The M60 series includes instrumentation enabling indirect fire as ad-hoc artillery if needed.



- from Wikipedia, unsourced, I'm afraid.

Ironically, the PzIV was probably always a better Battle tank than the PzIII, but still had limitations - due to being designed as a Support tank. Apparently in the Battle of France this was also a problem. Im tempted to think that the PzII was better than the PzIII too! (seriously!).

Yes, a merge of both features in a single vehicle might have been good - but maybe still having differing suspensions?



> Care to elaborate the bolded part?



Sure!

Pz IV turret: 

1. Delete the side hatches, have 3 single-piece round hatches on the top. 

2. Have 2 'Rommelkisten' on either side of the turrets - and have the rear plate have an emergency/reloading hatch (or left bare). - this would also act as Schurzen.

3. Have a giant fume extractor on the turret roof (like the T-54) - allowing the deletion of the gaping hole in the turret front and allow thickening of the turret front armour.

4. While you're there, might as well upgrade the cupola!

German Turrets:

PzIII - vulnerable side hatches, possible shot-trap @ certain traverse angles. 
PzIV - holey thin front, side hatches. 
PzV: Shot-trap, heavy mantlet (schmallturm doesn't count? - but that was vulnerable to 2-3 o'clock attacks). Tiger: Almost vertical sides (though probably the best of the bunch). - but sloow traverse.
KT: Very long, so a massive target ( mounted on a tall base!), poor quality, poorly sloped armour very vulnerable to Soviet 85mm US 76mm.



> Pretty much everyone...



SPGs rule! (IMO). I don't think turrets are all that necessary, infact, I think they're like the T-34s 'tracks wheels' - ditching them will add benefits. Some will use them wrongly though (as happened to Stugs Jagdtigers) - but I think the situation would have been no different with tanks here. The question I ask is, why are turrets so necessary??

TDs seem to have bit the dust - though admittedly the Centurion T-54 changed everytthing (they can go hull-down well). The question I give above should therefore only really be for WW2 designs.



> No point to go to the reduction of crew of AFV produced in 2 copies...



I meant for the Jagtiger onwards, sorry - not the Sturer Emil (which I've still to research!).



> I've read something similar.



The Panther was too mass-produced in some areas (read: scrimped on), whereas it was never really going to fool anyone into thinking it was an easily mass-produced vehicle, was it? I think that KT mechanicals might not have hurt production at all, maybe even improved it (less going back to factories for repairs).

The later German designs copied a British one - but they over-complicated it /9needlessly, apparently). Still, if the KTs was OK...(could be re-simplified for the Panther?).



> I see (more times than not) the benefits of KISS - keep it simple, stupid (not aimed at anybody ) philosophy.



True, but that too can be taken too far. I can see how overlapping wheels could help a fast-moving gun platform... Funny enough, I dont think theyre that vital for a heavy tank (our KV-based idea probably being better - though hurting initial following shot times...). Maybe better transmissions may have solved this?



> KISS is applicabe anywhere - if you have something in production, the mass usage makes that cheaper, more reliable, less maintenance intensive... than a new system that serves the same purpose.



I suppose its similar to the Flak 36 vs PaK 40 debate - I can see both sides of the arguement. Which is right, I dont know. KT mechanicals were dearer, more labour ( IIRC) maintenance intensive - but worth it for the added reliability (anti-KISS I know, sorry!). Hollow spur gears do sound more labour-intensive 'fancy' to me though...



> Only 1 km greater range vs. D-1, but 4 km less than ML-20, not to mention the Russian 76,2mm guns have had the same range, and it was over 100 000 (hundred thousand) of those produced from 1942-45 only. So not that good compromise...



Dare I say it - bad design?



> The Italian 90mm (in AT guise) was about as good as german 8,8L56 = very useful, and shows that somewhat larger Pz-III would have no problems with 8,8.



That it does! Any info on my questions? 



> Their SPGs were pretty decent, tanks less so.



True, thats one WW2 'myth' that I dont think I'll be able to bust!



> No...



Ah well, still impressive!8)



> Trusted - do you mean Czechs or their guns? Their guns were intended for all the purposes ordinary arty was required to do, and no one complained about quality.



I mean, built without sabotage? (so both). AT arty needs to be top-notch IMO.



> I guess you could have 2 Wespes for each Hummel built, while 105mm is considered valuable asset even today. Since the SP solved the main issue of 105mm (motor transport requirement), that was one good AFV.



Yes, I suppose for light support - but on the Steppes?... Still, I researched the SU-76 'myth' - actually found it could be quite useful! (very mobile for one).



> There is nothing great in Pz-IV chassis - not as good as M3/M4, or T-34...



I meant it was needed for allsorts of vehicles (Flakpanzers, Stugs, Jagdpanzers, Schleppers etc, etc). Not a great chassis though, true. Perhaps the Germans should have just copied a T-34 alike chassis - for making Stugs etc with? (still with the PzIII/IV HL120 engine).



> There was nothing wrong with 75mm guns Germans captured, and were captured in thousands.



True, though I would still be looking to replace them (with the PaK 40).



> The best gun best chassis are ones which are available, that's what I think



 I think the best are possibly those on the drawing board - which could end in tears! You know what I mean? - I have no probs with stop-gaps (they're often the best anyway).



> Attached...



Brilliant!8) Thank you! - That is one teeny Tank-destroyer!8) Any on the AA version? How thick was the armour - it looks well-sloped!8) (though not 60 degrees).



> The captured 75-77mm guns, from early 1939....



Sorry, thanks. What was the 77mm? - or are you just meaning 76.2mm?


----------



## schwarzpanzer (Apr 24, 2010)

Hi tomo (Part 2),



> Polish field piece was same as French ( US), while Czech was 76,5mm IIRC - the same muzzle energy as 75mm of M3/M4 medium tanks. Plus there was a nice number of captured AAA pieces in such calibers, but with greater muzzle velocity - totally comparable with 7,5cm Pak.



I dont think the M2 75mm was capable of dealing with the T-34 KV? - the M1897 too for that matter (used by both Germans Americans). The AA sounds good - but would they have been nicked by Luftwaffe crews? I heard the Soviet 85mms were (now that was n awesome ATG, come to think...8)). Thanks for jogging the old memory again!



> Development started in 1942, so Hetzer was ripoff.



Thats true. German designers seemed to copy 'inferiors' a lot - but they did invent the whole Stug thing (though Brits invented the SPG in WW1).



> Okay, do you want or do you don't want Hummel with plenty of armor??



Not sure! Maybe a little more on front - but rely on its long range. I'm thinking that bunkers are a lot easier to 'snipe' than tanks? (limited arcs of fire, cant move!).

The Nashorn/Hornisse is a dfifferent story (more armour, please!).



> What would be the 'sub-standard' pieces here?



Now you make me think about it, the 155mm was an 'oldie, but a goodie'? The M3 tank chassis was poor though - even when introduced (but the M4s was not much different!).



> What does that mean? Why would you want to compare Brummbar with M-12?



I suppose they were meant for similar jobs? (demolition) - only approached it from different angles. I suppose they were in different classes though - but IIRC the M12 was used in the role the Brummbar was intended for (though admittedly not by design). Dont forget - I'm prone to getting confused with non-TD SPGs! ( the guns they carried).


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 25, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi tomo,
> 
> If armour is sloped @ 60 degrees, ricocheting is apparently more likely to happen - it is a 'magic angle'. The Soviet designs had 60 degree angles, but this lesson seems to have passed MAN by - the Panthers armour is often referred to as 'angled' rather than 'soped' - to differentiate it from 'properly' sloped armour.



If those 60 deg are from vertical, then I agree that richochet was likely to happen. Even more likely if the 
AFV is hit from angles different from 12, 3, 6 9 o'clock.



> The Panthers side armour was just thin enogh to let in Soviet shells @ combat ranges  - just a little more wouldve saved it IMO.



Agree 



> Excellent idea!8) - but was Schurzen available then? I wouldve kept the sides as is though, the back could have been reverse-sloped, like the Panthers? Care to do a drawing of this vehicle?...8)



Nothing that special about mounting sheet metal to tank...
I'll draw it, hopefully 


> I suppose for pure defense, Stugs Jagdpanzers wouldve done the job - but for attack, I think you would need a Myriad of designs. *The E-Series was flawed, but about right IMO*. I think the time would have been better spent making a reliable (DB) tank engine though, then an improved medium-heavy (E75) - NOT the E-100. Though the E-100 had certain advantages over the Maus, I think even the Maus was a better design! (actually had potential IMO).



I'm not that well versed about E-series, though the bolded part is killing me...



> Still, most of my ideas are easily-built SPGs...



Mine too 



> Thanks. Admittedly the PzIV ended up as a Battle tank - but this role was forced on it, and it was never designed for that. Leaf springs were useful on a vehicle that recieved onstant damge though (like a Battle tank). Please feel free to say what you were going to, I'd be interested to hear it.



I don't think your reason about usefulness of leaf spring suspension is valid, and torsion bar suspension proved any bit as good in battle conditions.



> True, perhaps the designs should have been melded more (but please, not like the Geschutzwagen III/IV!). It makes sense to have 2 designs IMO (the M60 is infact apparently still serving as a Support tank to the Abrams Battle Tank):



The main quality of M-60 is that it costs Uncle sam zero dolars to buy it, so they make a good use of it. Sure enough, in M-60 you're more likely to get killed in battle zone...


> Ironically, the PzIV was probably always a better Battle tank than the PzIII, but still had limitations - due to being designed as a Support tank. Apparently in the Battle of France this was also a problem. Im tempted to think that the PzII was better than the PzIII too! (seriously!).
> 
> Yes, a merge of both features in a single vehicle might have been good - but maybe still having differing suspensions?



The division between Battle tank Support tank is pretty curious in my eyes, so I won't go into that. Pz-IV benefited from being slightly larger, and that's about that. Pz-III was good, but too small for substantial upgrade.



> Sure!
> 
> Pz IV turret:
> 
> ...



Good overviev 



> SPGs rule! (IMO). I don't think turrets are all that necessary, infact, I think they're like the T-34s 'tracks wheels' - ditching them will add benefits. Some will use them wrongly though (as happened to Stugs Jagdtigers) - but I think the situation would have been no different with tanks here. The question I ask is, why are turrets so necessary??
> 
> TDs seem to have bit the dust - though admittedly the Centurion T-54 changed everytthing (they can go hull-down well). The question I give above should therefore only really be for WW2 designs.



Turret adds flexibility, to begin with. The US tanks (M5, M4) have had stabilization - not very applicable for StuGs co. Yo can move along a ditch, while pointing your gun broadside.



> True, but that too can be taken too far. I can see how overlapping wheels could help a fast-moving gun platform... Funny enough, I dont think theyre that vital for a heavy tank (our KV-based idea probably being better - though hurting initial following shot times...). Maybe better transmissions may have solved this?



The simpler suspensions allowed for non-problematic ride, too. The better transmission the better, but without going to extremis.


> I suppose its similar to the Flak 36 vs PaK 40 debate - I can see both sides of the arguement. Which is right, I dont know. KT mechanicals were dearer, more labour ( IIRC) maintenance intensive - but worth it for the added reliability (anti-KISS I know, sorry!). Hollow spur gears do sound more labour-intensive 'fancy' to me though...



For each Flak 36 it was possible to build perhaps 3 Pak 40, each being a very effective in At role, so that was good decision IMO.


> Dare I say it - bad design?



It would be fair to say field artillery was never regarded as priority from top brass - we can read many times about Hitler himself interfering into planes tanks, but rarely into artillery design usage. So the sFH soldiered on, without any straightforward upgrade. 
Check out about Russian artillery - they hardly regarded any design as definitive, while being determined to really produce thousands of it...



> That it does! Any info on my questions?



Sorry, I've got lost in this quotes 
Please, repeat the question(s).



> I mean, built without sabotage? (so both). AT arty needs to be top-notch IMO.



No sabotage by Czechs...



> Yes, I suppose for light support - but on the Steppes?... Still, I researched the SU-76 'myth' - actually found it could be quite useful! (very mobile for one).



For light support? Back in Croatian war of independence we (my unit) were shelled by 76mm mountain cannon (6 kg HE shell) among other stuff, and never regarded that as too light.
What myth about SU-76 was that? 



> I meant it was needed for allsorts of vehicles (Flakpanzers, Stugs, Jagdpanzers, Schleppers etc, etc). Not a great chassis though, true. Perhaps the Germans should have just copied a T-34 alike chassis - for making Stugs etc with? (still with the PzIII/IV HL120 engine).



We agree about suitability of Pz-IV chassis 
Something like SU-88 would've been nice...



> True, though I would still be looking to replace them (with the PaK 40).



War attrition would've took care that thousands of guns captured prior Op Barbarossa would've been destroyed prior 1942, so the Pak 40 would've arrived just in the nick of time 


> Brilliant!8) Thank you! - That is one teeny Tank-destroyer!8) Any on the AA version? How thick was the armour - it looks well-sloped!8) (though not 60 degrees).



Something like Marder, with better hull armor (perhaps up to 50mm @ 45deg?.
I've attached the Stuart Flak (20mm Flakvierling) model.



> Sorry, thanks. What was the 77mm? - or are you just meaning 76.2mm?



Whatever fits between 75-77mm, being captured


----------



## tomo pauk (Apr 25, 2010)

schwarzpanzer said:


> Hi tomo (Part 2),
> 
> I dont think the M2 75mm was capable of dealing with the T-34 KV? - the M1897 too for that matter (used by both Germans Americans). The AA sounds good - but would they have been nicked by Luftwaffe crews? I heard the Soviet 85mms were (now that was n awesome ATG, come to think...8)). Thanks for jogging the old memory again!



95% of Russian tanks prior 1942 were NOT T-34s KVs - 'we' have 8,8s at Pz-III chassis for those... 
AAA weaponry of 3in class would've been much better used as AT weapons than in AA role - perhaps to convert them into proper AFV weaponry? Stug-IIIF Pz-IVG a full year before they historically appeared...



> Not sure! Maybe a little more on front - but rely on its long range. I'm thinking that bunkers are a lot easier to 'snipe' than tanks? (limited arcs of fire, cant move!).



Still vulnerable to planes with MGs, not to say proper stuff. We disagree here 


> The Nashorn/Hornisse is a dfifferent story (more armour, please!).



Not untill we have proper AFV version of 8,8L71 



> Now you make me think about it, the 155mm was an 'oldie, but a goodie'? The M3 tank chassis was poor though - even when introduced (but the M4s was not much different!).



If anything was good about M3, it was chassis. Ditto for M4.


> I suppose they were meant for similar jobs? (demolition) - only approached it from different angles. I suppose they were in different classes though - but IIRC the M12 was used in the role the Brummbar was intended for (though admittedly not by design). Dont forget - I'm prone to getting confused with non-TD SPGs! ( the guns they carried).



They were ment for different tasks - perhaps we could picture M-12 as an field gun that happened to receive lavette with engine, transmission, tracks etc, while Brummbar was StuG on steroids; one firing indirectly, other for direct fire.


----------

