Anti-tank weapons

This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
The 128mm anti-tank cannon you showed a picture of, Kongo, is a PaK44 128mm not PaK43 - as there was no PaK43 128mm. PaK43 was an 88mm cannon.
 

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
:lol: I study tanks, and naturally come across the AT cannons. I like people to be correct. :lol:
 

DaveB.inVa

Airman 1st Class
225
5
Dec 20, 2004
Heres a Boys .55 caliber anti-tank rifle used in WWII. It wasn't really effective at all against German tanks but worked pretty well against Japanese tanks. It weighed 36lbs and fired a steel core armor piercing round at 3250 fps penetrating over 0.75" steel at over 300 yards.
 

Attachments

  • boys_.55_caliber_anti_tank_rifle.jpeg
    boys_.55_caliber_anti_tank_rifle.jpeg
    8.2 KB · Views: 925

trackend

Chief Master Sergeant
3,962
21
Dec 20, 2003
Ipswich, Suffolk
I thought I would include the sticky bomb after all as it was ment for use against armour although all the ex squaddies i've spoken to who used them said that no one told them that they contained nitro if they had none of them would have been so enthusiastic in whacking them on the sides on their intended targets .
Nº 74 ST Grenade
(Sticky Grenade)

Particulars:
Weight: 2 lbs. 4 ozs.
Fuze: Time
Delay: 5 sec.

The Nº 74 Grenade (Sticky Bomb) was designed as an anti-tank grenade and was disliked by everybody who ever came across it.

The grenade consisted of a glass ball on the end of a bakelite (plastic) handle. Inside the glass ball was an explosive filling whilst on the outside was a very sticky adhesive covering. Until used, this adhesive covering was encased in a metal outer casing.

Due to the use of glass in this grenade, they were fragile and travelled badly. Quite often the glass would crack in transit, causing the explosive to start leaking out. This explosive which leaked out was not very sensitive to friction but was very sensitive to impact and detonation could occur if the exposed explosive received a blow due to careless handling.

To use the grenade, you remove the case release pin (not the pin marked 'DANGER'). This allows the metal protective casing to fall free, exposing the adhesive coating. You then grip the handle and safety lever and remove the safety pin (marked 'DANGER'). The grenade is now ready to either throw or attach to the target.

This is where the sticky bomb is most dangerous! Whilst attempting to throw it, the grenade could stick to the wearers' clothing!

If the thrower has not let go of the safety lever, he has to try and remove the item of clothing without letting go of the lever.
If the thrower has let go of the lever, he has 5 second to remove the item of clothing and get a safe distance away from the bomb.
When this happened, it tended to end up stuck to the throwers' trousers - with the uniform which was worn at the time, to remove his trousers (which were held up by braces) the thrower would have to remove any equipment (belt, ammunition pouches, etc.) followed by his Battle Dress blouse (jacket). He would then have to try and take his trousers off over his boots - all in less than 5 seconds!
You may ask why the thrower could not just pull the grenade off of his clothing. They could try this but the adhesive coating was designed to allow the grenade, which weighed 2¼ lbs (1 Kg), to stick to the side of a tank.
 

Attachments

  • gren74.jpg
    gren74.jpg
    11.8 KB · Views: 910

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
22
Feb 6, 2005
plan_D said:
The 128mm anti-tank cannon you showed a picture of, Kongo, is a PaK44 128mm not PaK43 - as there was no PaK43 128mm. PaK43 was an 88mm cannon.

Hehe, no PD that is infact a 88mm Pak43 in that picture, located in Normandy france besides a Museum near the famous beaches.

Even touched that particular gun while visiting the place several years ago actually :)
 

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
How is it? Unless it's carrying a PaK43 carriage. Or the museum put the wrong information (which I've seen) infront of it.
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
22
Feb 6, 2005
plan_D said:
How is it? Unless it's carrying a PaK43 carriage. Or the museum put the wrong information (which I've seen) infront of it.

Well it is, as a matter of fact, sitting on its original Pak43 carriage.

Its quite easily recognized actually, as it has some rather distinctive dimensions and features.

For contrast I have a couple of wartime pictures of the Pak43, here you can quite easily see the resemblance:
 

Attachments

  • 88mm_pak43_117.jpg
    88mm_pak43_117.jpg
    9.6 KB · Views: 499
  • pak43_761.jpg
    pak43_761.jpg
    27.7 KB · Views: 523

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
I wasn't actually paying attention to what it looked like. I just corrected it from the 128mm PaK43 remark, as there was no such thing. Only a PaK44 128mm.
 

Soren

1st Lieutenant
6,457
22
Feb 6, 2005
Hey, no worries PD, we all make mistakes :)

Anyway here's my contribution to this thread; An Ardelt 88mm PaK 43/3 waffenträger, captured and being tested by the Russians: (Just look at the size of those rounds ! :shock: )
 

Attachments

  • waffentrager-shell_136.jpg
    waffentrager-shell_136.jpg
    60 KB · Views: 510

plan_D

Lieutenant Colonel
11,643
20
Apr 1, 2004
You wouldn't want to be in the way of that ... ;)
 

Vassili Zaitzev

Master Sergeant
2,953
95
Nov 25, 2005
Connecticut, United States
for antitank weapons, i dont have any pics. For handheld weapons there was the german Panzerschreck and the Panzerfaust. The American bazooka and the British PIAT. The Germans used the Flak 88mm to great use against the allied armor.
 

Users who are viewing this thread