Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
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.
(though not issue if you field 2 pieces of such an AFVs)
You were talking about 280mm gun - check your post...
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.
As an AA piece, it had merit.
As an AFV gun, or towed AT gun, it was waste of effort.
I don't know about this. I will check for info
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).
It was mass produced, but only in the form of FlaK gun. Which is very sad
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.
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.
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.
. I can't see the point in making bigger flak guns - if proximity fuses are poor (unless that is the exact reason why?...).
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.
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.
Sorry, I don't understand.
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.
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?
As an AA piece, it had merit.
As an AFV gun, or towed AT gun, it was waste of effort.
Well, there is big tank turret big and there is destroyer turret big
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)
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.
The 88mm required a plane to be hit in very close proximita and occassionally, very heavy bombers even survived a direct hit.
IIRC the right term is '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
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.
Guess anything above 155mm (with 'normal' barrel, length of 20 calibres more), for a fully protected still movable AFV is/was not practical.
7,5 cm was able to do 100 mm, Panzerfaust (140mm) 200mm, so I guess some 200-250mm (pure guesstimation ).
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.
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.
You're very welcome, credit where it's due. Thanks for being intelligent!
Very sorry, I'm afraid I STILL dont understand.Are we talking total production numbers, or numbers of seperate designs?
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?).
Thats a turret though - I'd just have the gun with a few sheets of armour.
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?
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'.
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.
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.
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?...
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
There are many more intelligent people in this forum; I like to learn from them
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
Tanks are fine IMO; converting obsolete hulls into decent SPGs makes sense though.
From what I've heard, Pz-IVJ was simplified version of the Ausf. H, with no issues worth mentioning
It combined components of both PzKpfw III (mainly Ausf J - driving and steering mechanism) and PzKpfw IV (mainly Ausf F - suspension, engine, cooling system).
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.
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.
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.
Given the length to width ratio of this thing I would guess it had steering problems also.
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.
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.
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.
I like the Brummbar, almost forgot about it!- though, as with many later PzIVs, it was probably a little nose-heavy?
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.
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!
That is long! The weight though could be remedied by removing the applique armour (didnt need it?).
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!
Better?? Why not fit one with a LFH18 for that? -
The Wespe was a similar vehicle, and apparently succesful(?).
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.
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?
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?
Was the Hetzer as early as that?I like your idea. The Bison was similar.
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).
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.
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.
Those 10 crew members were just mentioned to make my point in comparison
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.
Asking the Pz-IV chassis to have it all (armor, gun, maneuverability) in abundance is too much
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.
Guess it would've require the major modification
The Hummel-like vehicle was feasible though.
I'd say delete the armor from Ferdinand chassis - you have the gun that shoots 30km away.
I'll provide the drawings for both Pz-III -IV with KwK 36
You have the chassis, and you have the gun - in perhaps 100-200 km radius. Just bolt them together and your ready.
Perhaps the most balanced AFV (along with StuG-III) Germans have produced. I like it very much.
Valid points - but why would you want 5cm when you have 75-76,2mm captured waiting, with 7,5cm Pak in development?
Last phrase is what I agree with
Pz-IV have had no such limitations
Not "as early as that", but certainly feasible.
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.
I'm not thrilled about it myself, but apparently it worked, more than 700 times
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?
The decision to go with two very similar designs into production is one of bigger German mistakes IMO.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).
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?...
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!).
Funnily enough, the Egyptians put an 122mm in the T-34s turret.
There were also 2 SU-122s...
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'll draw the 'project', IIRC such things never existed.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!
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 inferior to the Hummel though? and the Brummbar?
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).
But it had much worse turret armour... (though admittedly no shot-trap)
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?).
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?
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?
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?