Did the US test the 88/L71?

[AdmiralB]

( Pr.Gr 41 , which is s strange round BTW ).

 

Pak 41 is the 75mm Gerlich, right? 300 rounds was probably all that were ever produced!

[Martin M]

Pak 41 is the 75mm Gerlich, right? 300 rounds was probably all that were ever produced!

 

 

"Pak 41 is the 75mm Gerlich, right?"

Yes. They Pak people seem to have been very satisfied with the weapon, from what I have read. Very accurate and very good penetration.

 

 

 

" 300 rounds was probably all that were ever produced! "

Well, probably a few more.

Anyway, due to shortage of tungsten, a new round was developed which was called Pzgr.Patr.41(W), which did not have a core of tungsten (misleading "W" is not for Wolfram ! ), but had a core of "Weicheisen" , which would be "soft" steel. (Why "soft" instead of at least hardened I do not know. This round has far poorer penetration compared to (HK) , "Hartkern" , which is tungsten.

It could be all the fabricated rounds either never got a tungsten core or these were replaced by the Weichkern variant.

 

I assume in the encounter of Mr. Warvel he was using the poorer type.

[hartmann]

"Weicheisen" stands for "soft iron" in German, not for "soft steel", probably because the used the special ellastic properties of the soft iron, which only deformates but doesn´t break up, so the kinetic energy was dissipated primary as shockwaves (something alike the HESH shells).

 

Best regards ¡¡

[FormerBlue]

While I have little doubt that the HAA regts of the BA, some of the bns of the US army itched to get into the fight at times, the technical merits of chamber pressure and range have little bearing on the tactical situation. Logistics dominates war, as well as the battle. Lugging around oversize and unwieldy carriages across varied terrain with roadbound transport plus adding their peculiar ammo requirements does not conform well to the tactical requirements and conditions. The infantry had their handy AT guns, and the armored units had tank destroyers and tanks, all at the battalion level. For the divisional AT regts and bns, the 6pdr/57mm was killing any tank of 1942-43 OK, and the 17 pdr in both towed and mobile carriages ditto for 44-45; a bit less so for the US 3-in gun, not discovered until ashore at Normandy. After Alam Halfa, the British were usually on the offensive, as were the US after Kasserine Pass, The difficulties of hauling HAA forward to contribute to the fight far outweighed any advantage [increasingly marginal] they might have posed. In a nutshell, this probably is why so little use was made of them and why they did not need any conversion to make them more capable as AT weapons. They remained single-use guns, pressed into duty as ordinary arty when idle and a need could be found for them.

 

Had these armies fought for any long period on the defensive and failed to hold the ground, any number of factors might have caused them to employ HAA, as did the Germans, in dedicated AT roles. It is easy to speculate that many more drastic modifications would have been called for [with the shaking out that sustained combat would have provided] than the rudimentary ones that improved 90mm and 3.7in 'direct fire' employment. In any event, such was not the case, and the guns remained well to the rear except for unusual cases, that we can call 'exceptions.' It may seem real neat to put a HAA into action against a tank or two, but ideas of sweeping the Panzerwaffen away with overwhelmingly rapid , heavy, accurate, LR HAA fire just were not going to happen. The war and its combats were not like that.

 

Strangely I finished reading a Leavenworth paper the other day: "Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army tank destroyer doctrine in World War 2" by Dr. Christopher R. Gabel, September 1985.

 

He somewhat covers the strange addition of the towed "tank destroyers" to the self-propelled ones; along with some observations on those towed ones. They couldn't even haul those around effectively - heavier stuff would be more problematic.

 

The paper was a good read. Quite informative. It's up at google.

 

He does mention towing the towed ones with tanks and that seemed to work better than what was intended. Still not optimal.

[Bob_Mackenzie]

As you are discussing ammunition expenditure the following tidbit I came by might be interesting.

 

(I was trying to find some other information in a book on a Berliner Divsion. )

 

Therein is an account of Stfeldw. Warvel earning himself a Knights Cross in August 1943.

 

10 T-34 and 2 KW 1 were observed preparing to attack. Warvel sent one Pak 41 to a deversionary position and placed his Pak 41 in another. In the encounter the 2 KW1 and 8 of the 10 T-34 were knocked out, of which 7 burned and 1 lost its turret.

 

 

Ammunition fired were 300 rounds (in 20 minutes) ! ( Pr.Gr 41 , which is s strange round BTW ).

 

Hi Martin

 

Does it say which division Stfeldw. Warvel server in. I'm always interested in which units actually received the PaK-41

 

Cheers

 

Bob

[Hittite Under The Bridge]

Bob, wiki gives his unit as 14./Grenadier-Regiment 477.

[alejandro_]

British also tested 88L71 ammo* amongst other German and British types at high oblique angles. Targets were 50 to 80mm plates set at 55°. German ammunition stood very well the stresses generated by oblique impacts, and would remain whole if they scooped off the plate and fail to perforate it. This was the case for both monobloc and two piece welded rounds. British rounds (6 and 17lb) did break extensively break up.

 

On the other hand, if the German shell would bit into the plate, the plate would be holed and the shell would break as the British model. For practical purposes, German and British ammo would be the same if round does not penetrate. More performance was expected from 88mm Flak 41 gun, which should have been 6mm more than 17lb APCBC. 88mm Flak 36 APCBC would be expected 3mm more. At around 2200fps 88mm APCBC shell penetrates about the same thickness at 55 than 17lb. At higher velocities, the performance falls below. This could be due to being softer or to the cavity in the base.

 

* WO 194/749 German 75mm and 88mm APCBC ammunition at oblique impact