Panzerabwehrwerfer 600 - Any info?!?

[leakyD]

Hi y'alls,

just did a search, and no dice, so i'ma asking if anyone has the skinny on these little babies.

specifically:

are they any good at killing armor? the HC round looks impressive, but is it worth a damn?

are they high velocity (ie- no "lobbing" of round to target)?

anyone used them and have any advice?

thanks!

:cool:

[Moriarty]

They're great when you can get 'em.

8cm round can punch a Churchill at 700m-plus and they have a good ammo loadout ... about equal HE and AP so they're good against soft targets, too. These are most definitely guns, not howitzers.

But like all onboard arty, they are susceptible to bad placement, low LOS, enemy artillery fire, infantry fire, machine gun fire, flamethrowers, mortar fire, AFV fire, rockets and the occasional grenade.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]</p>

[Col Deadmarsh]

What are we talking about here? I've never heard of such a thing.

[Moriarty]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

What are we talking about here? I've never heard of such a thing.<hr></blockquote>

The PAW is available as a German support gun from Jan 1945 on. It's at the bottom of the list with the Puppchen.

[ 12-07-2001: Message edited by: Moriarty ]</p>

[leakyD]

Moriarty-

thanks for the inf-

ya, i figured it'd be just as vunerable as any other gun...my curiosity is whether they are any better than any other guns for axis. the 88's got a punch, but are pricy. puppchen are cheap, but w/ a low AT ammo load.

this looks like a good middle ground between the puppchen and the 88's. perhaps that's why they were made?

[PJungnitsch]

I remember Ian Hogg talking about them, but the book's at home. A quick search turned up this roughly translated account from Lexicon der Wehrmacht:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>According to the principle of the high and low pressure the 8-cm PAW (antitank defense thrower) was developed 600 at the company Rheinmetall. With this weapon a control unit-stabilized 2.75 kg heavy projectile was fired by 81,4-mm-Kaliber. The 0.36 kg heavy propellant the throw garnet was at the tail. With the firing a printing was achieved by approximately 1100 RKS. This printing was reduced by a perforated tile, and if about 550 RKS had accumulated behind the throw garnet, a safety lock pin broke, and the garnet left the pipe. The all resulted in a light pipe and thus a light carriage. From this mentioned weapon heavy at the troop tank throw cannon (PWK) 8 H 63, 610 kg became from that 2980 mm is enough for pipe the 620 mm for a long time and 7 kg heavy Wgr.Patr. 4462 fired. The 2.7 kg weighing HL projectile achieved thereby a V0 of 520 m/s and pierced 145-mm-Panzerungen.

In January 1945 the first 81 weapons were supplied to the front, which originated almost all from the production of the company Wolf- Magdeburg. With end of war only the armored infantry regiments ordered 30 and 31 over altogether 105 these weapons.<hr></blockquote>

And from Achtung Panzer:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> Krupp also proposed to mount Hetzer with modified PzKpfw IV turret armed with 80mm PAW (Panzerabwehrwerfer - smoothbore anti-tank gun) 600 gun, but it was also not realized. First examples of the gun were made in December of 1944 and till March of 1945 only 20 pieces were made. It was an advanced design anti-tank gun. The gun was light 640kg piece and could penetrate up 140mm at 750m.<hr></blockquote>

[leakyD]

MM-

great stuff...

just played small QB (700 axis defense) and had two PAW's w/ crack crews. took out the 2 ami tanks in the first turn, and then shelled up the attacking troops pretty well. great gun. fast ROF, great targeting (then again, it may have been the crews), and they seem hard to hit (they survived all kinds of fire, xcept about 100rnds of 81mm- that'll ruin anyone's day- and a zook rnd).

had these things been made sooner, allied tankers would not be having fun...turreted hetzers w/ these things? ugh....

[Bad Monkey!]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by leakyD:

MM-

great stuff...

just played small QB (700 axis defense) and had two PAW's w/ crack crews. took out the 2 ami tanks in the first turn, and then shelled up the attacking troops pretty well. great gun. fast ROF, great targeting (then again, it may have been the crews), and they seem hard to hit (they survived all kinds of fire, xcept about 100rnds of 81mm- that'll ruin anyone's day- and a zook rnd).

<hr></blockquote>

Heh. Lest anyone think I was somehow super careless with my tanks... The map had about zero useful cover for tanks, so I just set them up behind a convinient wall out in the open, hoping that they could drill any armour or guns they spotted before they got drilled themselves. Was a crack Hellcat and a vet M4A3. If there had been better cover, I would've hidden them until the infantry had sussed out the guns. Woulda, coulda, shoulda...

[Andrew H.]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>From this mentioned weapon heavy at the troop tank throw cannon (PWK)<hr></blockquote>

Why doesn't CMBO model the Heavy at the Troop (HTTTC) Tank Throw Cannon? This is just another example of BTS's pro-commonwealth bias, as the HTTTC was particularly effective against tanks organized in troops. I believe US forces located a prototype of a Heavy at the Platoon Tank Throw Cannon near the end of the war, but there is no evidence that a HPTTC actually saw combat.

I hope the Heavy at the Troop Tank Throw Cannon is modelled in CMBB

[Moriarty]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Why doesn't CMBO model the Heavy at the Troop (HTTTC) Tank Throw Cannon? This is just another example of BTS's pro-commonwealth bias, as the HTTTC was particularly effective against tanks organized in troops. I believe US forces located a prototype of a Heavy at the Platoon Tank Throw Cannon near the end of the war, but there is no evidence that a HPTTC actually saw combat.

I hope the Heavy at the Troop Tank Throw Cannon is modelled in CMBB<hr></blockquote>

Yes, quite. BTS we simply must have the HTTTC ... please fix or do somfink!

[109 Gustav]

I think they cost more than the pak40 though, so the added HE and penetration might not always be worth it. Mileage may vary.

[leakyD]

ya, more pricy, and the HE doesn't quite have the kick either (14 compared to 34 of the PaK40).

i guess it's up to what they are being put up against. the PaK40 is well rounded, but if you only want to kill armor (and make sure whatever is hit, dies) the -600 might be the ticket.

:cool:

[Brian]

8cm Panzerabwehrwerfer 600

8cm PAW 600(Elfenbein) later known as the 8cm PWK 8H63 The German Army was less than completely satisfied. with the various recoilless guns that had been developed, owing to their relative inaccuracy as anti-tank guns, the problems raised by the back-blast, and their appetite for propellant. An infantry anti-tank gun was still needed--in spite of the rapid development of a variety of shoulder-fired weapons and in 1943 the gun designers were approached with a specification demanding a lightweight weapon that used less propellant than a recoilless gun or a rocket, yet with sufficient accuracy to hit a Im(3.28ft) square target at 750m(820yd).

Rheinmetall-Borsig decided to apply a new ballistic idea to this weapon, one that they had been developing for some time. This was the Hoch-Niederdruck-System (high-low pressure system) in which the high pressure caused by the propellant combustion was confined in a relatively heavy breech section; it was then allowed to bleed gradually into the lightweight barrel to provide a lower pressure to propel the projectile. In this way the ballistic advantages of regularity and controllable burning, which accrue from high pressure, were available and the gun barrel could also be exceptionally light. In order to relieve the system of further stress, the barrel was smooth-bored and the projectiles were fin stabilised.

The carriage, as first designed, was exceptionally light; indeed, it was soon found to be too light for the job and had to be redesigned. It was an interesting concept though, with a torsion bar of laminated steel plates carried on the cradle trunnion and acting as the balancing-press to compensate for the muzzle weight. A similar torsion bar in the axle housing gave spring suspension to the wheels. The cradle was little more than a cage containing separate recoil and recuperator cylinders, much lighter than the usual design of a bored-out steel block. The improved carriage was more robust and orthodox, but a large number of PAW 600 weapons were also mounted on old PAK 38 carriages as a stop-gap expedient; a PAK 40 muzzlebrake was fitted to the gun when so mounted.

In all, some 260 guns were built between December 1944 and the end of March 1945, when production stopped. Krupp was also developing a 10.Scm version at the war's end: this, the 10cm PAW 1000 (later renamed 10cm PWK 10H64), never reached the prototype stage.

Data

Calibre: 81.4mm/3.20in.

Length of gun: 2951mm/l16.18in.

Length of bore: not known.

Rifling: smoothbore.

Breech mechanism: vertical sliding block, electrically fired.

Traverse: 55ø

Elevation: --6ø to + 32ø.

Weight in action: 600kg/13231b.

Performance

Firing standard hollow charge projectile weighing

2.70kg(5.951blb).

Muzzle velocity: 520mps/1706fps.

Maximum range: 750m/820yd.

Penetration at 750m: 0ø 140mm/5.51in.

Ammunition

Fixed rounds; cartridge case length 158ram (6.22in).

8cm FF Gr Parr HI 4462: fuzed AZ 5075, projectile weight 2.70kg(5.951b), complete round weight not known.

This was a modified 8.lcm mortar bomb carrying a hollow charge liner. The end of the tail boom was attached by a spigot and shear-pin to a heavy iron plate pierced with eight venturi-like holes. The plate was crimped into the mouth of a 10.5cm le FH 18 cartridge case that carried the primer and the charge. On firing, a pressure of about l100kg/cm2(135851b/in~ or 6.06ton/in~) was generated in the case and this then passed through the holes to expand in the chamber space behind the projectile. When the pressure reached about 550kg/cm2(78251bin2or 3.49ton/in2) the shear-pin gave way and released the bomb from the plate and spigot, allowing it to be propelled from the bore. The propelling charge was 360gm(12.70oz/ 0.791b) of Digl B1 P.

8cm tF Gr Patr 5071: fuzed AZ 5075, projectile weight 4.46kg(9.831b), complete round weight 8.30kg(18.301b).

This was of similar design to the foregoing round, but the projectile was filled as an anti-personnel high explosive bomb. Three charge combinations were available, giving the following performance:

Kleine Ladung: velocity 220mps/722fps, maximum range 3400/3718yd.

Mittlere Ladung: velocity 320mps/1050fps, maximum range 5600m/6124yd.

Grosse Ladung: velocity 420mps/1378fps, maximum range 6200m/6780yd.

The case and the iron plate were separable and the propelling charge comprised two bags, one large and one small. The small bag used alone gave the Kleine Ladung, the large bag used alone was the Mittlere Ladung, and the two bags together formed the Grosse Ladung. The small bag contained 80gm(2.82oz) of Digl B1 P and the large bag 1.31kg(2.891b) of Digl BI P.

Primer

The electric primer C/22 was standard.

Case Identification Number

6342/65D; the case was always a built-up steel type of 1944 manufacture.

[p.208-211, Hogg, I.V., German Artillery of WWII, Arms and Armour Press, London, 1975]

[ 12-08-2001: Message edited by: Brian ]</p>

[109 Gustav]

While trying two out in a QB against the AI, I found that these things have a big advantage over the pak40- they rotate twice as fast. You can make kills sooner and react to new targets much better.

[leakyD]

hey G-

what qualilty crews did you have? just curious if my results were crew induced or actual gun characteristics.

thanks!