Jump to content

Rausch

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Rausch's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. the scaling was like a clock divided in 12 parts and also numered 1-12 (12 was as on a clock at the top, 3 at the right and so on). The pointer was connected with the traverse mechanism of the turret and so the gunner and commander knew just by a quick look where the turret pointed to. When the commander told a new direction he wanted the turret pointed to he gave the direction by using the scale. The original name was "12-Uhr-Zeiger" not "Richtungsanzeiger", I mixed the names up, sorry. The manuals I have tell the installation for the Pz-III E-J, Pz-IV B-F2, Tiger B and E, all Panthers. The Pz-III and Pz-IV variants missing are doing that, because I have no manuals for them till now. With a good probability they had it also. Hope this helps Michael
  2. "I read that British sights had the range scale outside the sight itself." That's incorrect. The range scale was included in the optic, but it had not the range eastimation help like the German guns. Interestingly the early 2-pdr/Besa-MG sights had no illumination, so British crews had been more or less lost in night fights. You can buy for a few dollar from the Bovington museum a copy of the British and US sights used in tanks during WW2. The collection includes the reticule plates.
  3. Since the standard infantry binoc had such a scaling, I see no reason why the tank commanders binocs should have lacked it. Especially since such a "Striche" scaling is also existing in the gunner optics in the form of the little triangles. For big direction changes the German tanks had for a long time the "Richtungsanzeiger" as a base for the commander to let the gunner know where he should roughly traverse the turret to.
  4. No. It's an optical device to measure e.g. directions. When the commander of the gun tells "Aim 2 Striche left of the church tower", then the gunner knew exactly where to aim. The "Striche"-scaling of the binocs was the same as for the aiming optic. (Explanation for "Striche": A full circle was divided in 6400 "Striche". "Striche" was the unit all German ballistic manuals used to tell the elevation and side corrections for the guns).
  5. I have looked over the list of optics I have and the only part coming close is the "Richtaufsatz 38". But this was normally used for mortars to adjust elevation and traverse so I am not sure if they are the same.
  6. The Krupp penetration trials show identical penetration values for both guns. The 7.5 cm Kw.K. 40 was used with the TZF 5f. The 7.5 cm Stu.K. 40 was used with the 37 Sf.ZF 1a and Rblf. 36. The 7.5 cm Pak 40 was used with the ZF 3x8° and Aushilfsrichtmittel 38. Michael
  7. Lorrin, the ballistic manual as well as the source No. 1 from my source list tell 750 m/s for both guns for the 7.5 cm Pzgr. 39. Additional to that the muzzle velocities measured between 1942 and 1945 by Krupp during their penetration firing trials was for both guns between 750 and 770 m/s. And finally also the data sheet collection of the OKH from January 1944 tells 750 m/s for both guns.
  8. Lorrin, the ballistic manual tell that the rounds fired by the 7.5 cm Pak 40 and 7.5 cm Kw.K. 40 had the same muzzle velocities. The shorter barrel of the Pak was compensated by more propellant and a resulting higher gas pressure in the barrel. Jeff, the source you are looking for is the No. 1 of my source list. For the 39-1 I have the ballistic tables for the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 36 and the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43. Missing is the table for the 8.8 cm Flak 41.
  9. "Would like to see 100% if you have it." Sorry, but the 100% data I have so far is for plane guns and so of no help on this matter. "Do you have the ballistic table for 88L56 Pzgr 39 fired at 800 m/s?" I have only the ballistic manual from 1944 and the table there is for sure for the 39-1. The "Geschoßblätter" only contains the penetration and dispersion data for some distances. I am sure there was a 1942/43 manual holding the data for the Pzgr. 39, but I couldn't find anyone till now. "Actually I just read that German manufacturing of the guns led to very similar performance between guns of the same type. There would not be such a wide performance between guns of the same type as you claim." As Lorrin wrote, these are no claims but citations of the original German charts I read in original at the BAMA Freiburg and obtained a copy to work with at home. The different dispersions could have a reason in the different recoil mechanism or loading chamber (or an unknown factor). The mounting is unprobably the reason, since this would be the first German gun where different mountings resulted in different dispersions. E.g. the 5 cm Pak 38 and 5 cm Kw.K. 39 had listed the same dispersion values, the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 and 43-1/-2/-3 had all different mountings but used the same ballistic manual, and also the 7.5 cm Kw.K. 40 and the 7.5 cm Pak 40 used again the same ballistic manual. Regards, Michael
  10. Lorrin, I told the lateral and vertical dispersion as they are given in the original sources, but they could of course have mixed up the order in the sources themselves I have simply no data till now to make a final decision if they mixed up the order. The diameter of the round at the driving bands was 90.7 mm for the 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39 and 91.7 mm for the 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39-1 (Al). The 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39-1 was only allowed to be fired out of the 8.8 cm Kw.K./Pak 41 if the barrel had not fired more than 500 shots. The final 39/43 had a diameter of 92 (perhaps 92.6, hard to read due to source quality) mm at the driving bands. The difference between the 39-1 and the 39-1 Al types seems to have been, that the ballistic cap was made out of aluminium for the second variant. This way a hit could be better observed since on impact the cap produced a bright white flash. I have never seen German data for a 95% hit area. The ballistic tables were always telling the 50% area and the additional data I have (not for this but other guns) is for a 100% hit area. Regards, Michael [ September 09, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Rausch ]
  11. I took a look on the gun descriptions as they were presented in the ballistic manuals and I could identify two differences between the 8.8 cm Flak and the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 1. The recoil of the Kw.K. variant was about half of the Flak variant. 2. The loading chamber was longer and had more volume in the Kw.K. variant. Rifling, barrel length and the other attributes were listed with same values. Regarding amo production I have not seen till now a detailed breakdown of the 8.8 Pzgr. 39 rounds in the subvariants. When I look on the anual ammo production summaries (which break the production numbers down to single months) I notice that the headers changed from "8,8 cm Pzgr." at the beginning, in 1942 to "8,8 cm Pzgr. u. 39" and again in 1943 to "8,8 cm Pzgr. 39 u. 39-1". This is true for the Kw.K. and the Flak production numbers, so the Flak could and did also fire the 39-1 variant. It looks to me that the 39-1 variant was introduced in 1943 while the 8.8 cm Pzgr production ceased in 1942, but the percentage of whole production was not pointed out. And the production numbers tell of course nothing about the percentages in storage. We should not forget that the 39-1 variant was the intermediate solution to give the new introduced 8.8 cm Kw.K. 43 (also -1/2/3 variants) till the 39/43 design was finalized for mass production. I have about 40 microfilm reels about German equipment production and equipment data, but I will need years to scan them all and look what deta they contain in detail. So perhaps one day I can tell more. Till now I have not read anything about the use of a sort of battlesight aim, but I also never looked much for crew reports (the mass of papers to look through is too huge). A look in the war diaries of Tiger equipped units could be of help, but at the moment I cannot do more than to point where you can find them in the BAMA Freiburg. Looking in the ballistic table a range of 900 m had been more appropriated, since with a selection of 1000 m distance a 2 m high target would have been only hit in the range 650-1000 m. The Tiger Fibel indicates that the range triangles were actively used. For range eastimation the commander, driver (if possible) and the gunner gave all a range eastimation with the gunner having the most weight, since he had the best chance to get the distance right. In the few battle reports I could read the driver made never an eastimation and for experienced crews the commander made only the target selection and let the range eastimation full in the hands of the gunner. Regards, Michael [ September 09, 2004, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Rausch ]
  12. Perhaps I can help. The 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39 was interchangeable between the 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 and the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 36, when the primer was changed. The projectile and shell were the same. Dimensions, explosive weight and type, propellant weight and type, base fuze type and all other attributes were the same. The only difference was that the Flak round used the C/12 n.A. or C/12 n.A. St. primer (ignited by percussion) and the Kw.K. used the primer C/22 or C/22 St. primer (eletrically ignited). The weight for the 8.8 cm Pzgr. was 9.5 kg and the muzzle velocity when fired out of a 8.8 cm Flak 810 m/s. The weight for the 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39 was 10.2 kg and it had the muzzle velocity of 800 m/s when fired from the 8.8 cm Flak or 8.8 cm Kw.K. 36. 780 m/s was not the muzzle velocity of the 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39 but the 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39-1 when fired out of the 8.8 cm Kw.K. 36. Here are the values for a 50% dispersion zone. Format is distance - width x height (all in m). 8.8 cm Pzgr. fired from 8.8 cm Flak: 100 - ? x ? 500 - 0,3 x 0,2 1000 - 0,7 x 0,4 1500 - 1,1 x 0,6 2000 - 1,6 x 0,8 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39 fired from 8.8 cm Flak: 100 - 0,1 x 0,1 500 - 0,3 x 0,2 1000 - 0,5 x 0,7 1500 - 0,8 x 1,1 2000 - 1,0 x 1,6 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39 fired from 8.8 cm Kw.K. 36: 100 - 0,1 x 0,1 500 - 0,2 x 0,2 1000 - 0,2 x 0,4 1500 - 0,3 x 0,6 2000 - 0,5 x 0,9 The production numbers told in this thread were exlusively for tank guns, the ammo used by Flak guns were taken from the Luftwaffe production. Regards, Michael Sources are: 1) Geschoßblätter von Wa.Prüf. Amt 1, no date, but regarding the ammo described late 1943 or 1944. 2) H.Dv. 119/328 – Schußtafel für die 8,8 cm Kampfwagenkanone 36 (L/56) (8,8 cm Kw.K. 36), Februar 1944. 3) H.Dv. 119/763, L.Dv. 500/763 – Erdschußtafel für die 8,8 cm Flak 18 mit 8,8 cm Sprgr. L/4,5 (Kz) mit Zt.Z. S/30 oder A.Z. 23/28 und 8,8 cm Pzgr. mit Bd.Z. der 8,8 cm Pzgr, September 1938, Nachdruck von April 1940. 4) H.Dv. 481/60 – Merkblatt für die Munition der 8,8 cm Kampfwagenkanone 36, 8.1.1943. 5) H.Dv. 481/541 – Merkblatt für die Munition der 8,8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 18 (8,8 cm Flak 18) und der der 8,8 cm Flugabwehrkanone 36 (8,8 cm Flak 36), 20.5.1942. 6) L.Dv. 4402/5 – Die Munition der Flakartillerie, Beschreibung, Teil 5, Munition der 8,8 cm Flak 18, 36 und 37, Juli 1942. [ September 09, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Rausch ]
  13. You can of course question all you want, basing on "your" "production" tank located in Bovington, which was a training tank upgraded to a hybrid of several variants. The "production" tank in the collection of the WTS Koblenz has thicker viewport covers than your claimed 30 mm. The value of the data of the original manual for the Pz-III H can imho be judged by the readers of this forum quite well.
  14. "That and the Viewport covers are 25mm-30 mm and vulnerable as well." This is wrong. The original drawings of the Pz-III H viewport claps show a thickness of about 48 mm. Since it was measured on a curved screen, perhaps 3 or 4 mm less.
  15. Perhaps I can add some helpfull comments. "I believe that the usual British penetration proof criterion early in the war was to have the complete projectile length pass through the target plate on 80% of proof shots fired." Maybe I understand Jentz wrong, but he tells that at least for the 2-pdr the criterium was that not the full projectile, but only at least 20% of the projectile had to penetrate in 80% of the hits. German had a more stringent definition: 5 to 10 (depending on calibre) consecutive shots had to penetrate the plate with 100% of the projectile, without any failure was permitted. There were two different 8.8 cm APHE rounds. The early design of the 8.8 cm Pzgr with a weight of 9.5 kg and the 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39 with a weight of 10.2 kg. the later round was fired by the 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37 and the 8.8 cm Kw.K 36. While the 8.8 cm Pzgr. 39 had less explosive filling, it was more potent than that of the old round, since a new explosive mixture with Hexogen was used. The German penetration data are for an impact angle of 30° (English notation): 8.8 cm Pzgr.: 98 mm on 100 m and 78 mm on 1500 m. 8.8 cm Pzgr. with v0 = 780 m/s: 120 mm on 100 m and 91 mm on 1500 m. 8.8 cm Pzgr. with v0 = 800 m/s: 128 mm on 100 m distance and 97 mm on 1500 m distance. In 1942 a muzzle velocity of 780 m/s was told for the 8.8 cm Kw.K.36, 800 m/s for the 8.8 cm Flak. In 1944 the "Geschoßblätter"-collection of the OKW listed both guns with 800 m/s. That's about the same what the Krupp penetration tests from 1942-1944 told, since both guns had a range of muzzle velocities between 780 m/s and 815 m/s. A last remark on the 5 cm ammo. The cap of the 5 cm Kw.K. and 5 cm Kw.K. 39 5 cm Pzgr.39 ammo is listed as ballistic cap in German sources like the original ammo service manuals, the ballistic manuals and the writings of the "boss" of the German tank development department from 1935-1945, Mr. Rau.
×
×
  • Create New...