Mattias Posted February 24, 2002 Author Share Posted February 24, 2002 Thank you Claus. I think those figures go a long way in clarifying the situation! When seen in the light of what we know so far, from the anecdotes and the manual references, about the capability of the HL grenades I think there is red line of logic going through this. At least it is much clearer now how, when and to what effect they were used. Drawbacks or not, they were used in great numbers, for reasons of effectiveness and necessity, and should be included in the ammo load out of many, if not most, 7.5 cm AT and vehicular guns, subject to consideration such as time, place and unit type of course. -- Flischer also mentions "tanks, difficult to combat" with regards to the choice of ammunition. In that case he is referring to tanks types with armour configurations, such as thickness, angles and spacing, that make them especially difficult to defeat with HL ammunition. But, of course, the ability to hit in the first place is just as, if not more, vital than being able case to damage. M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by Claus B: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MajorBooBoo: An interesting thing from the website is: Sprgr. 34 HE 60/40 Amatol 0.454 kg. - Sprgr. Kw. K. (34) HE 60/40 Amatol 0.853 kg. - ?The answer is found if you scroll down a bit further on that page. The SprGr Kw.K. 34 with the large HE content was for the 7,5cm KwK 37 L/24 while the SprGr 34 with the low HE content was for the 7,5cm KwK 40 L/43-L/48. The former was fired at 420 m/s while the latter took off at 550 m/s through a longer barrel which probably required a shell with thicker walls (same discussion as with the US 75mm HE vs 76mm HE). Claus B</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 "I'd also like to discover your source for the claim that, "The troops didnt believe in it either". Perhaps you'd care to provide a reference?"-Brian My source is Panzertruppen 2. Other people also have stated sources. Maybe you can give a source that says it was accurate out to 1500 meters? If you are going to demand sources, then please supply your own. The rest of your post is full of conjecture and cant be commented on. My observation about the ratio of HE to AP was a generality and was meant to show that tanks and other armored vehicles were NOT just engaged in antitank work. This same unit also fired off 219,000+ machinegun rounds. Sorry it brought Bastables into this thread to nitpick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted February 24, 2002 Author Share Posted February 24, 2002 Hold your horses Major! No one is trying to pull any "wins" out of this discussion and the only threat to objectivity is us loosing our head. Your are absolutely correct that I pointed to the site that you had already mentioned before me. But that was because I reached it from a google search and it just didn't occur to me that it was the same place I had visited a day before, guided by your links. Oh, now I understand why you asked me where I found it. If you knew and felt I was cheating you somehow, why not just tell me? And, if so, since when is it a crime to misread a diagram? And the fact that others don't present their sources doesn't free you from doing so if you want to maintain the level of the debate. -- Look, just stop being emotional about it. Keep adding those interesting posts, and no there is no sarcasm there, and lets see if we can draw a complete picture of the question at hand. Its all in good humor and for furthering the knowledge of an interest we all share. M. [ February 24, 2002, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claus B Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Originally posted by MajorBooBoo: No, you are not reading the website correctly. Its getting very difficult to try to discuss anything objectively here. Mattais posts a website he "found" obviously disregarding that I posted it here twice in this same thread (making me wonder if he reads anyone else's posts)! You are now misreading the same website! Take it easy, I do it only to bug you Originally posted by MajorBooBoo: The need for thicker walls doesnt play out considering the big difference in filler. Its almost half the filler. In a 15 pound shell, one pound of filler is small. Do you have any other evidence that what you say is true? The website clearly contradicts you. I bow to the power of "The Website". I was in error and will go sit in a corner and repent Where did you find the information that the "SprGr. 34" weighed 15 pounds? The ratio between shell weight and filler weight does not seem that small considering the type of gun were talking about (KwK 40 L/48) - the US M42A1 (76mm/3 inch) weighed 12.87 lb with a filler of 0.86 lb. In fact, I would say that the 853 grams (1,88 lb) of filler in the "Sprgr. Kw. K. (34)" is quite a lot, more than any other German 7,5cm gun including the IG 18 and the various field guns and howitzers. Claus B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 Maybe I got out of hand. But it just seems that conversations here are characterized by people not paying attention top other peoples posts, people at BTS not commenting on issues, people butting in and nitpicking and a general lack of focus in threads. I think the "L48 issue" is a valid point that BTS should comment on. I think that people here have discussed it and made a good case. The thread started out with this issue and it is a big enough game concern that BTS might want to review it before the release of CMBB. The HC issue, its use and performance, is seperate and maybe Brian can step up and produce. People have cited reports that it was not accurate and when it did hit, was not as effective as regular AP. Fleicsher also states the case against the stug/105 HC shells. That is, limited in range (and also slow loading). Anyone know about russian HC? I only recall the ineffective 122mm HC produced. The HE filler issue is seperate still. The US 76 is an example of a very low fill. I think that a comparison of HE fillers from other 75/76 (including russian and field guns) would be intersting. I did a typo with the 15 pounds. A 75mm would be about 12 pounds generally. This is interesting stuff. I will try to dig up more info on the HE. I will try to keep my cool also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 This website shows a side by side of the Panther AP and HE. The AP rounds for this weapon are not the same as the L48s by the way. It is characterized by a pointier nose. It also has two bands and I read once that the other german shells only had one band. The AP round weighs 15 (6.8kg) nd the HE weighs 12.628 (5.74kg) be interested if anyone has filler weight for this HE round? This from the following website: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2930/pzpanther/pzpanther-Charakteristics.html [ February 24, 2002, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claus B Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 HE fillers in some 75mm gun shells: German 7,5cm le IG 18 = 570g 7,5cm Gebirgskanone 15 = 500g 7,5cm FK 16 = 520g, 370g 7,5cm le FK 18 = 520g 7,5cm PaK 40 = 640g 7,62cm PaK 36 = 550g US 75mm M3 = 667g (same for a lot of other 75mm guns and howitzers) 3" M7 = 390g (same for 76mm tank guns) Claus B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 24, 2002 Share Posted February 24, 2002 I see Fleischer also states the StuG L48 75mm HE as having 5.74Kg and 0.68Kg explosive in KWK 34. I wonder if that Panzer IV website has a typo? It reads 0.86-ish but should really be 0.68? 0.86 would be 15 percent by weight? "German 7,5cm le IG 18 = 570g 7,5cm Gebirgskanone 15 = 500g 7,5cm FK 16 = 520g, 370g 7,5cm le FK 18 = 520g 7,5cm PaK 40 = 640g 7,62cm PaK 36 = 550g US 75mm M3 = 667g (same for a lot of other 75mm guns and howitzers) 3" M7 = 390g (same for 76mm tank guns" The german PAK40 (I take this to be the ATG?) has a respectable payload and is high velocity? The US 3" is a very low fill projectile? It would be useful to examine the shell weights also. The composition of HE is also important. The 60/40 amatol of german shells would only be as effective as 5/6 TNT packed shells. The germans sometimes have FES on their shells. Is thisRDX type explosive? Thsi explosive is more powerful than Amatol? [ February 24, 2002, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MajorBooBoo Posted February 26, 2002 Share Posted February 26, 2002 75MM H.E., TNT/1.11 lb. HEAT Pentalite/1.1 lb. BD, PD *105MM H.E TNT/4.80 lb. Pentalite PD, BD, MT, TSQ *Mortar, 81MM H.E. TNT/1.22 lb. PD Mortar, 60MM H.E. TNT/0.34 lb. PD Rocket, 3.5 Inch H.E. Comp B/1.93 lb. BD, PIBD Heres some US weapons giving poundage of HE fillers. [ February 25, 2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: MajorBooBoo ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts