German 128mm - any good?

[vanir]

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

 

[schwarzpanzer]

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]

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

I agree.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

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]

. 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[tomo pauk]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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