Jump to content

Was The 88Mm Gun An Overkill For The Tiger Tank?


On the way

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics? They were relativily normal shells (artillery and tank shells). Only the hollow charge effect was likely to have been quite moderate. Because of the spin.

They were pretty low velocity shells (450 m/s). The first in the series seems to be converted HE shells without a tracer. HL/A and later did have tracers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 450 m / s alone does not justify the assessment "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristic", i think.

It does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that considering both HEAT and APDS were new technologies with thier share of issues you might be able to hit with the HEAT but will the fuzzing work as advertized or the APDS shell would easily penetrate most armour due to the difference trajectory than the tank gunners were not used to and problems with petal seperation accuracly hitting a tank was hard at a decent range.

Leaving the most effective way of pentrating armour or even hitting anything at a decent range with the optics and lack of accurate range finders of the time was to fire a very fast moving solid large projectile which the 88mm excelled at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought that considering both HEAT and APDS were new technologies with thier share of issues you might be able to hit with the HEAT but will the fuzzing work as advertized or the APDS shell would easily penetrate most armour due to the difference trajectory than the tank gunners were not used to and problems with petal seperation accuracly hitting a tank was hard at a decent range.

Leaving the most effective way of pentrating armour or even hitting anything at a decent range with the optics and lack of accurate range finders of the time was to fire a very fast moving solid large projectile which the 88mm excelled at.

 

That is my understanding as well. From what I remember reading, the fuzing on HEAT projectiles in that period was not good enough to work properly in high velocity guns, limiting the use of HEAT to howiters and short barreled guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is my understanding as well. From what I remember reading, the fuzing on HEAT projectiles in that period was not good enough to work properly in high velocity guns, limiting the use of HEAT to howiters and short barreled guns.

 

 

The Germans made hollow charge ammunition for the Pak40 and Pak43, presumably because they were much cheaper, and at least somewhat more versatile, than AP. These were, to your point, low velocity rounds (about 450 m/s for the Pak40) though I had assumed this was because higher velocity would have meant thicker shell walls and greater spin rate, both bad for HEAT penetration.

 

Interestingly, the Germans tried to improve HEAT for the Pak40 late war using an early attempt to fire fin stabilized ammunition from a rifled tube. Details of this round are scarce but it appears they were trying to get MV up from 450 m/s to at least 520 m/s, with a goal of going to 700 m/s (see translated document at axis history here). Development of the 7.5cm sprgr 38 h1/c klappleitwerk was slow, due to accuracy problems, and was never fully completed.

 

That same document says they were working on (relatively) high velocity, sub-caliber round (10.5cm to 7.5cm) for the PAW 1000, high/low pressure gun for use out to 2000m range. All this would seem to imply they were more worried about spin effects than about fuzing, at least late war.

Edited by CaptLuke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the shaped charge works with well shaped inverted cone or cupped liner. Just the manufacture of the liner was difficult. even the slightest spin will throw off the jet stream formation , from "stream" to "spray", thus reducing accumulated penetration. First gen 75mm shells got 45mm @ 30o ,but steadily increased each year to 70mm , then 75mm and 100mm by the end. The low muzzle velocity meant shorter flat trajectory compared to AP shells etc, thus shorter effective range.

 

Good enough if your building a shorter range infantry AT weapon like 75L24, but no good for major AT weapon or tank combat were the usual range is 1000m or more, like in East. That needs a higher velocity round. Since 88 was in widespread production it seemed ideal.

 

In 1942 maybe 300 75L70 guns were built, while 3052 Flak-88 were also built [176+2876] . In 1943 the figures were 1768 75L70 vs 5359 88L56 [647+296+4416] . Yes they also built 1616 x 88L-71 [90+368+1158], but they need bigger chassis entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In German Artillery of WW2, (1997) Hogg notes:

 

7.5cm Sprgr 38 H1/C Klappleiterk: fuzed AZ 385, projectile weight 6.80kg (14.99lb)

 

This fin stabilized hollow charge projectile was developed towards the end of the war; as with others of its type it was an attempt to produce an unspun projectile that could be fired from a rifled gun. The sealing ring at the rear was free to rotate with the rifling, and the rear portion of the projectile carried six fins connected to a plunger that fitted tightly into a cylinder in the body. A fine hole was drilled through the plunger to give access to the cylinder. When fired, propellant gas passed through the hole and filled the cylinder's free space with gas at chamber pressure - about 3150kg/sq cm. Nothing happened in the bore (since the same pressure existed outside the piston), but when the shell left the muzzle and entered an area of atmospheric pressure - about 7.03kg/sq cm - the gas in the cylinder, unable to escape quickly through the small hole, expanded and forced the plunger out: this, by means of a connection swung the fins out into the airstream. A spring catch on the plunger ensure that, when the gas pressure was exhausted, the fins were locked in the open position.

 

Further

 

No details of performance are known. A report of the Waffen-Entwicklungsburo (Weapons Development Bureau) noted in October 1944 that development was slow owing to difficulty of getting accurate results in trails. This was largely on account of the poor fit of the blades and the fact that they tended to open prematurely, thus fouling the muzzlebrake.

 

Hitler authorised manufacture of 4000 rounds but development was never successfully completed.

Edited by DougRichards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The low muzzle velocity meant shorter flat trajectory compared to AP shells etc, thus shorter effective range.

 

In terms of wartime shooting distances, it should be noted that the HEATs of World War II with 450 m/s are not unusually slow in the relatively short shooting distances, in reference to the then AP (in the present, the muzzle velocity of APFSDS is often twice that of HEAT). And the flatness of the trajectory is advantageous when shooting without a rangefinder. But it is not drama if the trajectory is not flat.

I think the ballistics of the HEAT are rated too negative. Even today, the HEAT is usually not used for the really long distances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To deviate a bit from this topic.

 

The 88 mm Flak 18 was the backbone of the German home defense (at least in heavy AA gun department).

 

It was originally developed as a (for that time) highly mobile gun to accompany the troops as a heavy AA gun and a secondary role as a bunker buster (which later developed in the AT role). And because of this requirement it was a highly complex and expensive gun system to use in a static role.

I have also the impression that the gun was really too light for the home defence role. It had a light shell and altough the ceiling was - on paper - sufficient, it turned out that the rather limited ceiling did severly shorten the time that a high altitude target was in range.

 

The Germans were dissatisfied with the Flak 18 for this reason as and asked for a gun with higher ceiling but it had to be a mobile gun again and on top of that better suited for the anti tank role, I.e. the 88 mm Flak 41, which was never really succesful for a number of reasons, very expensive and just tried to get too much velocity out of the calibre for high intensity barrages. On top of that it still had the relatively light shell. Meanwhile they had a perfectly servicable 105 mm gun for the (semi-) static role with a heavier shell, much less barrel wear and less issues, but it seems that the Germans had a blind spot for the "do all" 88 mm calibre.

 

Also, unitl late in the ware almost all Flack 18's were build in the complicated mobile version, while a much simpler static mount (as in the 105 again) would have been sufficient for the large majority of the guns build.

 

just some ramblings of something that has been in the back of my mind for a long time.

 

Maybe i should elaborate a bit more on this and repost it in the WOTT forum ?

 

any feedback is very welcome !

Edited by Inhapi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, it's Gr. 38 HL/A.

 

Here is a comparison of 2 second ballistic paths.

The left axis label should be meters above firing height. (Still working on this)

Edited by Mobius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not very meaningful in terms of "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics".

_______________

 

The diagram for the 120 mm DM13 and the 120 mm HEAT show us roughly the same diagram curves.

APFSDS -- 2 sec at 3000 m distance -- maximum trajectory height=4,55 m

HEAT -- 2 sec at 1800 m distance -- maximum trajectory height=4,94 m

 

or for the 125 mm 2A46 BM-9 and OF-19 ... ditto the same diagram curves

BM-9 -- 2 sec at 3200 m distance -- maximum trajectory height=4,90 m

OF-19 -- 2 sec at 1500 m distance -- maximum trajectory height=4,70 m

 

______

This is not very meaningful in terms of "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics".

Edited by Stefan Kotsch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not very meaningful in terms of "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics".

_______________

 

The diagram for the 120 mm DM13 and the 120 mm HEAT show us roughly the same diagram curves.

 

APFSDS -- 2 sec at 3000 m distance -- maximum trajectory height=4,55 m

HEAT -- 2 sec at 1800 m distance -- maximum trajectory height=4,94 m

 

or for the 125 mm 2A46 BM-9 and OF-19 ... ditto the same diagram curves

 

BM-9 -- 2 sec at 3200 m distance -- maximum trajectory height=4,90 m

OF-19 -- 2 sec at 1500 m distance -- maximum trajectory height=4,70 m

 

______

This is not very meaningful in terms of "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics".

The 2 second time data is not a usual metric. Is that from a firing table or did you calculate it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This is not very meaningful in terms of "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics

I guess the question of abysmal is "compared to what?"

Compared to Napoleonic cannon for 2 seconds.

(Taken from official firing tables)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that leads to nothing. Such curves are still suitable for war games. But the ballistics of tank guns is a bit more expensive to rate regarding "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the ballistics of tank guns is a bit more expensive to rate regarding "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics".

Opinions vary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mostly, the low velocity of the early HEAT ammo did not give confidence in the US forces in engaging moving targets. The difficulties in stopping NKPA T-34/85s with Infantry AT and 105mm howitzer munitions, even when hit, gave a certain pause for thought as well.

 

A USMC tank officer, who commanded 1st Tk Bn in WWII, gave this opinion in the USMC Staff after the USMC brigade commander reported engagements at 1st Naktong:

 

[bGen Craig:] During the tank attack 75mm recoilless rifles and 3.5” rocket launchers successfully damaged the enemy’s tanks. The first enemy tank was hit by four rounds of recoilless rifle fire and halted; the right track of the second enemy tanks was hit and blown off by 3.5” rocket fire at a range of 75 yards and set on fire. As a result the second enemy tank ran into a ditch. The recoilless rifles fired four rounds of ammunition at the first tank; one round each at the second and third enemy tanks all at ranges of 100 yards. Rocket 3.5” [sic] hit all enemy tanks.

Although hit by 75mm recoilless rifles and 3.5’ rockets the enemy tanks continued firing and only one was completely immobilized. One enemy crewman attempted escape from enemy tank No. 2; and three crewmen from No. 3; all were killed by small arms fire.

No Marine aircraft participated in the attack on the enemy tanks since the Tactical Air Coordinator (airborne) called planes off to prevent endangering our troops.

 

LtCol Stuart laconically remarked on the copy of Craig’s letter that he routed throughout headquarters:

 

 

Apparently 75 recoilless & 3.5 bazookas took hostile tanks under fire first, followed by our own tanks.

It is significant that hostile tanks were “hit by 6 rds of 75 recoilless & all hit by 3.5” without stopping fire from any hostile tanks (para 7) The efficiency of HEAT type “penetration” has often been questioned & this tends to prove that such penetrations cannot be counted upon to positively put a tank out of action. This is not meant to infer that HEAT AT weapons are of no value or should be eliminated.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Mostly, the low velocity of the early HEAT ammo did not give confidence in the US forces in engaging moving targets. The difficulties in stopping NKPA T-34/85s with Infantry AT and 105mm howitzer munitions, even when hit, gave a certain pause for thought as well.

 

A USMC tank officer, who commanded 1st Tk Bn in WWII, gave this opinion in the USMC Staff after the USMC brigade commander reported engagements at 1st Naktong:

 

[bGen Craig:] During the tank attack 75mm recoilless rifles and 3.5” rocket launchers successfully damaged the enemy’s tanks. The first enemy tank was hit by four rounds of recoilless rifle fire and halted; the right track of the second enemy tanks was hit and blown off by 3.5” rocket fire at a range of 75 yards and set on fire. As a result the second enemy tank ran into a ditch. The recoilless rifles fired four rounds of ammunition at the first tank; one round each at the second and third enemy tanks all at ranges of 100 yards. Rocket 3.5” [sic] hit all enemy tanks.

Although hit by 75mm recoilless rifles and 3.5’ rockets the enemy tanks continued firing and only one was completely immobilized. One enemy crewman attempted escape from enemy tank No. 2; and three crewmen from No. 3; all were killed by small arms fire.

No Marine aircraft participated in the attack on the enemy tanks since the Tactical Air Coordinator (airborne) called planes off to prevent endangering our troops.

 

LtCol Stuart laconically remarked on the copy of Craig’s letter that he routed throughout headquarters:

 

 

Apparently 75 recoilless & 3.5 bazookas took hostile tanks under fire first, followed by our own tanks.

It is significant that hostile tanks were “hit by 6 rds of 75 recoilless & all hit by 3.5” without stopping fire from any hostile tanks (para 7) The efficiency of HEAT type “penetration” has often been questioned & this tends to prove that such penetrations cannot be counted upon to positively put a tank out of action. This is not meant to infer that HEAT AT weapons are of no value or should be eliminated.

 

 

 

 

IIRC there was a Churchill hit and penetrated by a Panzerfaust, the effect of which blew all hatches open. The crew promptly closed the hatches and kept on fighting the tank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This is not very meaningful in terms of "Pretty abysmal ballistic characteristics

I guess the question of abysmal is "compared to what?"

Compared to Napoleonic cannon for 2 seconds.

(Taken from official firing tables)

 

 

 

Looking at that graph, the French better had stored their 12 pdr "Napoleons" and used them with HEAT as AT weapons in 1940 :-) (on top of that.....they were smooth bores !!!!)

Edited by Inhapi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that would make a great difference. The 75mm HEAT had a dispersion greater than the APCBC shell. For cannons they had wndage and I have no idea what the dispersion is. But I consider dispersion in the camp of accuracy not ballistics.

Edited by Mobius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...