Claus B

One of the best sources on this is Dick Harleys articles in AFV News Vol. 28/1, Vol. 29/2 and Vol. 27/3. Harley has done quite extensive research in the war diaries of different British A/Tk Regiments and batteries that served both in Italy and Normandy. As an example, "Y" Battery of 21st A/Tk embarked for Normandy on June 21st with six 3" M10 and six 17pdr M10. "Q" battery recieved their first three 17pdr M10s on May 19th and three more on May 21st. They went to Normandy on June 20th. The "Q" battery war diary even gives names and serial numbers of both their 3" M10 and 17pdr M10s and Harley quotes them all. Another source is Bastins "The Norfolk Yeomanry in Peace and War" which deals with the 65 A/Tk Regt. They served with the 7th Armoured Division. Bastin is also very precise about the issue of 3" M10s and the subsequent change to 17pdr M10. On May 9th 1944, 260th Battery moved to Brentwood where they changed their 3" M10s for 17pdr M10s. This resulted in a lot of work as the new vehicles had to be waterproofed, the guns zeroed etc. They landed in Normandy between June 7th and June 12th. Interestingly, 260th Battery was attached to Brigadier Hindes Brigade Group when it moved towards Villers-Bocage on June 12th and it seems likely that the "self propelled anti-tank guns" mentioned in both German and British sources about the battle for Villers-Bocage were indeed M10s, probably the 17pdr M10s of 260th Battery. There is even a picture of an abandoned 17pdr M10 with at least 4 penetrations being examined by a German tanker. The picture is allegedly taken on June 13th in the Villers-Bocage area in which case the 260th battery is the only possible owner. The vehicle has serial S2378? and is a late production M10. Claus B

I am with you - I just wanted to make the point stick Off my head, the British had recieved the SP 3" M10 back in 1943. 17pdr conversions began in February 1944 and first combat was on June 6th 1944. I am not shure when the 3" M10 first saw service with the British in Italy, but I am positive that some were around in early 1944. The 3" M10 continued in service with UK and Commonwealth troops well into 1945, probably to wars end. When the last Canadian troops relocated from Italy in February 1945, they took their 3" M10s with them to Holland. They were immidiatly turned in and replaced by the SP 17pdr M10. Claus B

Now, aint that sweet! So when the ballistic researches are testing what the users, the manuals and the textbooks describe as "Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped (APCBC)" they are referring to it as "Armour Piercing Ballistic Capped with Windscreen" (APBCWS That would certainly help screw up communications! Does this apply to modern terminology only or does the terminology (windscreen vs ballistic cap) go back to WWII? Anyway, neither cap is present on the 17pdr APDS Mk 2 round. Only the protective sheath and the nose pad holding the shot in place within the sheath. Claus B

I thought ballistic caps (as in apcBC) was there solely for the purpose of aerodynamics. Are you thinking of an armour piercing cap (apCbc)? I dont think the sheath would survive the impact long enough to have any effect, being of mild steel as it is. Claus B

Just to throw a spanner in the works. There was also a cannister round for the 7,5cm KwK 37 L/24 used in the Panzer IV, Panzer III, SdKfz 251/9, SdKfz 233 and SdKfz 234/3. Of availability I know nothing. Claus B

They look externally similar, including all the groves in the projectile. There is a cross-sectin drawing that shows the part of the projectile that travels to the target to consist of: 1. Shot. The actual tungsten penetrator 2. Front Sheath. A mild steel sheath covering the front part of the projectile and interlocks with the rear sheath about 1/3 from the bottom of the shot. Purpose is to function "as a shield or cover to protect the core." 3. Nose cap. A duralumin "spacer" that keeps the shot properly aligned within the front sheath. 4. Rear sheath. Covers the lower 1/3 of the shot and fits tightly to it. It interlocks with the front sheath. The tracer is fixed to the bottom of the rear sheath 5. Tracer. Fixed to the bottom of the rear sheath and protrudes into a cavity in the bottom of the sabot. What would the purpose be of a ballistic cap *under* the windscreen (front sheath)? Claus B

I dont know about the 6pdr. The "Extreme range (effective) for the 17pdr is given as 1000 yards in "Royal Armoured Corps Training, Vol. III - Armament, Pamphlet No. 7, SP 17-pr M10, 1952". As previously stated, the ammo looks for all intents and purposes to be similar to the WWII round. The same 1000 yards limitation is found in Fletchers book on the Firefly mentioned by Conall: "Unfortunately APDS...proved to be wildly inacurrate at anything over 1000 yards." If these are the tests found in Jentz: "Tiger I & II - Kampf und Taktik" (the english title eludes me at the moment), then you are correct that they concluded that 6pdr APDS and 17pdr APDS could penetrate various bits and pieces of the Tiger at impact velocities corresponding to ranges beyond 1000 yards. However, these tests were conducted at a range of 150 feet using different propelling charges to simulate different impact velocities corresponding with different ranges. At 150 feet, accuracy is not likely to have been an issue. However, in the real world, 17pdr APDS appears to have been so inaccurate that shooting at anything more than 1000 yards away would be a waste of ammo. I assume that this means that the chances of hitting any part of the tank was so small that it was an excercise in futility to try it. So, while the 17pdr APDS could certainly do damage above 1000 yards, that would be of little use if the shot would never hit the target. Claus B

It is not so much whether the counterweight on the SP 17pdr M10 had effects on muzzle jump or not. It was not put there with this in mind. The 17pdr AT-gun in its most common form (on the Mk 1 carriage) had no such counterweight, nor did the Firefly (except as a decoy). If the counterweight was used as means to eliminate barrel jump when firing APDS, then I would expect it to be found on all 17pdr guns. Another interesting thing about 17pdr muzzle weights are that they were round on some early 17pdr AT guns on the Mk 2 (25pdr)carriage long before the issue of APDS. In this case, it seems to be an attempt to balance the gun in a carriage it was not designed for. Any takes on this one? This I do not understand. Who could the turret balance the gun? Claus B

Remember that, as per the manual, 17pdr APDS was not to be used at ranges above 1000 yards (extreme engagement range). Claus B

You need that Jentz book The early Ausf. A had exactly the same hull as the Ausf. D. It is actually pointless to talk about an Ausf. A hull, since there was no such beast. The major change between the two Ausf. was the new turret on Ausf. A. The MG ballmount came later, after Ausf. A production had started. The slit was replaced by the ballmount and the hull gunnes forward facing periscope was deleted. Ausf. A production started in August 1943 and the last Ausf. D was produced in September. The MG ballmount came along in late November 1943. The confusion about this fact has lead to a lot of pictures being labelled as "Panther Ausf. D retrofitted with Ausf. A turret" indicating some kind of rebuild. As Jentz shows, these vehicles were in fact early Ausf. As. (See Jentz: "Germanys Panther Tank" p. 64) Claus B

You are actually spot on. In a 1952 training manual for the SP 17-pr M10 you find the following: --------- Order: "Sabot" The gunner will set false range on the APCBC scale, ie, he will set half the range ordered. --------- The sight in question is the Telescope No43 x 3 ML Mk 3, the round is Cartridge QF 17-pr AP/T/DS Mk 2. It seems similar to the WWII round and the projectile data are the same for the Mk IB and MkII. Based on data from Hunnicutt (who does not give the mark of round) these projectiles are are 2 ounces heavier at 7.11 than the round described by Hunnicutt (at 7.9). Muzzle velocity are the same at 3,950 fps and the operation of the rounds look similar. The training manual states that the AP/T/DS Mk II has been declared obsolete and are to be replaced by a pot-type sabot. This is in 1952. Claus B

Not necessarily. The only difference between the Panther Ausf. A and D was the turret. The early Ausf. A used exactly the same hull as the Ausf. D. The give-away is the commanders cupola. If it is the rounded cast cupola, the turret and hence the tank is an Ausf. A. If it is the old circular cupola with vertical sides, it is an Ausf. D. This seems to be an Ausf. A. Another way of making the early A and the D apart are the front turret assembly. The front turret plate is interlocked with the side armour. If the part of the front hull armour interlocking with the side armour has straight edges, it is an Ausf. A turret. If it is dove-tailed, it is an Ausf. D. Still, nice modelling regardless of Ausf. 8) Claus B

The barrel counterweight was only found on the 17pdr Mk V used in the SP 17pdr M10 (a.k.a. "Achilles"). The towed AT-guns did not have it, nor did the Firefly or the Challenger. The M10 had a massive weight on the rear of the turret in order to balance the original 3" gun. The 17pdr had a different weight distribution and the barrel weight was added to compensate for the turret weight. Compensating for the compensation! Claus B

Sorry to hear that. Even though production did stop in 1943, quanteties of PzGr40 were stocked for industrial use. I am not shure if this included 7,5cm PzGr40 (Hahn has the numbers somewhere), but if so, they could be been retrieved again later when the 7,5cm PaK/KwK proved inadequate in late 1944. As someone else pointed out, the Germans did have tungsten available to the end of the war and Hahns figures show that they had plenty of 3,7cm, 5cm and 7,62cm PzGr40 available even after 1943. So another possibility could be that 7,62cm ammo was re-worked to 7,5cm ammo. I have no data on this, it is just examples that just because production stopped in 1943, it does not mean that all available ammo was issued at the time and that German tank crews drove around for years with these rounds. As for US 76mm HVAP rounds, I recall a figure of a 1944 production of 10.000 rounds pr. month (from one of the Green Books I think). Most sources seems to agree that it was introduced in August 1944 but only became commonplace in 1945. I'll look it up one of these days. Claus B

The fact is that that Reynolds description of the Villers-Bocage battle is severely flawed because he did not consult all the relevant sources on the whereabouts of 2nd Panzer on June 13th. Instead of consulting the division history or the papers of the division commander, he choose to build his case exclusively on the statements of a staff officer with I. SS-Pz Korps. Whether Reynolds overall conclusions are right or wrong are immaterial here - the issue is that his research is flawed. If he omits to consult important and available material on one battle, then I start to wonder about his research. And if his research is flawed, then the conclusions based on this research may also be flawed. There are factual errors in Reynolds' book and people should be aware of that. Claus B

A review I made on Amazon.com: "After the first read-through, Reynolds book comes across as a well-researched and well-written account of the Battle for Normandy from the perspective of the I. SS-Panzer Korps. However, the author is clearly impressed with the fighting ability of the Waffen SS divisions in Normandy and less so when it comes to the performance of the British forces. It is perhaps this fascination with his subject that has clouded his judgement on several accounts. As an example, Reynolds conclusions on the battle for Villers-Bocage on 13.06.44 becomes distorted due to several glaring errors. 1. Reynolds claim that Brig. Hindes decision to halt his brigade group at Livry in the evening of 12/13 was "incomprehensible" and that Hinde instead of halting should have advanced "the mere 6km to Villers-Bocage". The distance is actually double that... 2. Reynolds scorns the British for using the arrival of 2. Panzerdivision on June 13th as their "excuse" for pulling out later that day: "the whole business of 2nd Panzer is a myth anyway..", "..only part of the reconnaissance and various advance parties arrived on the 13th.." and "a company of 1/7th Queesns ran into the enemy...these turned out to be a 2nd Panzer Division staff car and two motorcycle escorts - hardly the deployment of a Panzer Division advancing to contact.." The odd thing is that Reynolds is flat out ignoring the post-war papers prepared by 2nd Panzer commander von Lüttwitz and the history of 2nd Panzer by Strauss. Both clearly states that both the divisions Panzergrenadier regiments had arrived on June 13th and commenced the attack against Villers-Bocage, Amaye-sur-Seulles and Cahagnes. It is errors and distortions such as these that makes this reader doubt the general accuracy Reynolds account."

And probably never will. The fact that there were a PzGr 40/44 and 40/45 may only mean that they were designed, perhaps built and tested. It does not mean that these PzGr 40 variants were available at the front in numbers. The fact that we have combat reports from 1945 mentioning PzGr 40 (for what gun?) only shows that someone, somewhere had stashed away a few rounds. That does not translate to every German gun in every theater at any time having them (what are the source for these reports?) Hahns figures are the only ones I've ever seen that put numbers on production and expenditure through most of the war for most guns. It is old data and it is incomplete (the numbers does not always add up) but it is the only reliable source I know that has such figures. By the way, the US 57mm AT-gun is generally recognized to have had only plain AP ammo (AP and APC IIRC). We also have combat reports from US units in the Ardennes firing both sabot and HE from the 57mm guns, the ammo most likely comming from British sources. Does this mean that a wargame should have the US 57mm AT-gun with sabot and HE as a rule? Claus B [This message has been edited by Claus B (edited 03-02-2001).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: From everything I have read, the German use of skirts worked well. The only variable that would make them less effective (or perhaps even harmful) is the standoff range. My understanding is that it was greater than optimal and, because of the air gap and armor, sufficient to defeat something like a bazooka/PIAT round. However, I am not so sure about it being able to defeat all direct fire hollow/shaped charged rounds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> They apparently worked well against the missiles they were designed to counter - AT-rifles and HE. It seems reasonable that they would be effective against the comparatively un-sophisticated HEAT-type weapons of WWII. But what about the claim that they had effect against ordinary AP rounds(APCBC)? Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: The information comes from a certain Mr. Kelly who wishes to maintain a low profile. Those who know who I am talking about (have a look in the CM manual) will know why you'd really have to know your stuff to conduct an argument with him.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Doesn't really change the fact that the claim: > The types of schuerzen in use in Northern Europe 1944 were far tougher than the extempore wire mesh types used to stop AT rifle rounds in early 1943. is nonsense. I dont know what "extempore wire mesh types" he is talking about in 1943 but it is plainly evident that the tanks that had Schürzen in 1943 used the solid plate type. Source: a gazillion pictures of German AFVs in 1943 Wire mesh Schürzen was introduced for the Panzer IV in September 1944. Source: Speilberger & Jentz: "Begleitwagen..." I was not aware that Mr. Kelly was keeping a low profile - I thought he had been kicked off the board? Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: > The types of schuerzen in use in Northern Europe 1944 were far tougher than the extempore wire mesh types used to stop AT rifle rounds in early 1943.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Huh? I am not shure who you are quoting here, but he better hit the books again.... A: In February 1943 tests where conducted against both wire-mesh AND 5mm plate. B: After the tests where conducted, Schürzen made of 5mm plate was adopted for use as is plainly evident from photos of StuGs, PzIVs etc. in the summer of 1943. C: In 1944, wire-mesh Schürzen was put in production to save material and was found on some late production Panzer IV and Panzer IV/70(A) D: There is no special "1944 Northern Europe" version of Schürzen. They were the same 5mm plates used from 1943 onwards, the only difference being in the shape of the plates and the brackets on which they were hung. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: > As for schuerzen making HEAT rounds more effective.... That ONLY applies if you increase standoff range WHILST preventing bleed-off and especially off-axis bleed. That's why sandbags were not very much use against HEAT BUT is why schuerzen were very effective. a 15cm or 30cm air-filled gap could cause massive bleed-offs of HEAT jets such that their effectiveness was massively reduced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It would be interesting to see a source for this type of information (sandbags being ineffective against HEAT, Schürzen being effective). It is true, however, that WWII HEAT was not really designed to form a thin,long stream or jet. In case of the Gr.38 HL fired from rifled guns, the design was actually changed to form a thicker jet to withstand the gravitational effects of the spinning projectile (see Hogg: "German Artillery of WWII"). Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KingMikeH: It's funny this comes up one day after I read something that flew in the face of my perception and what I had heard on this subject. In the Osprey books Campaign series, the Lorraine '44 issue, it clearly states that skirts were initially deployed on the Eastern front to defeat Russian anti-tank rifles AND made the HEAT warheads of zooks more lethal against armor plate because they would detonate in a standoff manner. I don't have the book in front of me, but I will tomorrow, and will have a better quote. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Schürzen was never intended to protect against HEAT. They were designed to protect the vulnerable side armour of Panzer III, IV and StuGs against Soviet anti-tank rifles and high-explosive ammunition. Tests were conducted in February 1943 against Schürzen made of 5mm plate and wire-mesh. Both types succeded in protecting the tanks against HE and 14,5mm AT-rifle fire. The Schürzen on the Panther also served as protection against the Soviet 14,5mm AT-rifle and HE. I've never seen or heard of any German tests conducted with HEAT against Schürzen but US/UK tests allegedly showed Schürzen to have effect against these weapon types as well. I seriously doubt that Schürzen would have any noticable effect against APCBC. The spaced armour on the front of Panzer III and IV did damage piercing caps, but they were made of 20mm thick armour, not 5mm soft steel or wire mesh. Source: Jentz, Spielberger: "Panzer III...", "Panzer IV...", "Sturmgeschütze..", "Panther.." Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Xavier: Hi, I just read a few german veteran story about their combat in Normandy in 1944... It seems the Panzer V burned easily. In a memo (Nr.052/44 g.K.) he sent to Hitler the June 28th 1944, Guderian made the same constatation:"...Panther amazingly burns easily..." According to the vet' the main reason of this was the lack of fuel. The fuel tank of the panzers were never full-filled. So the vapours(Air + fuel) in the tank were very highly explosive... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Panthers tendency to turn crematorium when penetrated is well documented from Kursk onwards. The problem was the unprotected ammunition racks combined with the large amount of propellant in the shells. When penetrated, the Panther burned just as fast and well as the early Shermans. Then why is this not so widely publicisized as the Flamin' Shermans? I would suggest the following: A: The Panther was better protected than that Sherman, so it could take more damage before blowing up. B: Germany did not have journalists writing in a realtively free press about how bad the Panther burned. Nor did Germany have politicians trying to topple the goverment by criticizing their tank-policy. (Those who tried got piano-wire neckties C: German tank crews had more confidence in their ability to fight back (big, bad guns) and get a second chance if hit (comparatively thick armour) Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by machineman: That and some official and/or field operational procedures dealing with engagement ranges from both the German and Allied sides.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have some scans from firing manuals for the Nashorn and Hetzer and info on expected gun performance in manuals for Jagdpanther and Tiger. I dont have available just now, but basically they operate with a maximum range for the various types of ammunition (PzGr 39, PzGr 40, Gr. 38 Hl and SprGr), a range for immidiate fire (point the gun at the target and fire) and a range where bracketing (Gabel) or approaching fire (Heranschiessen) is to be used. If I recall correctly, firing PzGr 39 bracketing is recommended for the PaK 39 (Hetzer) from 1200 meters, for the KwK 36 and PaK 43 form 2000 meters. Manuals for the Tiger emphasises that fact that one of its advantages is range and this should be exploited. If CM is going to be able to handle long range fire, it needs a system for simulating bracketing fire where the first and second rounds are deliberately fired long and short where after the 3rd round has a much higher chance of hitting. At longer ranges, it may be round 1 - 4 that are used for ranging with round 5 getting the higher hit probability. ....and then users will complain that their Tigers cannot hit squat at 3000 meters anyway Claus B

We seem to be going in all directions here A: Smokeless propellant. Old invention, probably used by all combattants in WWII (except perhaps certain African tribes using Napoleonic-age rifles B: Flashless propellant. Chemicals added to prevent muzzle flash. Would prevent you from being spotted by the enemy (and yourself from being temporarily blinded by the flash?) C: Muzzle blast. Regardless of propellant, when the projectile leaves the barrel, the gasses driving it will follow, creating a blast that can stir up dirt and dust. If the gun has a muzzle brake, the blast will be directed to the side and rear, throwing a cloud of dust and dirt up just in front of the vehicle/gun. Furthermore, anyone standing too close to the muzzle will be knocked silly and probably toasted as well (the temparature of the muzzle blast from the 7,5cm PaK 40 was 2100 degrees celsius). The primary problem effecting ROF seems to be C: Muzzle blast as it could completely obscure the target until the dust had settled, as well as giving away the position of the gun firing. Claus B

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: Although the reliability of their stories has already been questioned in other thread, I still wanted to show these again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I dont think these are any less reliable than other 1st person accounts but they may include a fair degree of rumour and hearsay as such accounts tends to do. You will find many US veterans accounts which claims the Panther and Tiger had only manual turret traverse... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ari Maenpaa: In any case it seems that at least the Panther was remarkably better at rotating it's hull when compared to the Sherman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The minumum turning radius for the Panther in 1st gear or reverse was 5 meters while it was nearly 10 meters for the Sherman, so even if we disregard the ability of the Panther to do a neutral turn, it could turn much tighter than the Sherman. In fact, the Panther driver had three different means to turn his vehicle in tight corners: A: Doing a 1st gear or reverse gear turn using the fixed (single-)radius steering. B: Do a clutch/brake turn either exclusively or as a follow up for A, tightening the last part of the turn. C: Stop the vehicle and perform a neutral turn. The problem was that the Panthers final drives would not tolerate any hard handling, so using the clutch/brake option could easily rip the final drive apart. The Tiger, on the other hand, benefitted from a fixed radius steering with two-radii and could thus used its geared system to do very tight turns without using the clutch/brake. The Tigers minumum turning radius using its geared system was 3.44 meters (Tiger I, 2.08 meters in Tiger II). But all in all, the steering system of Panther and Tiger was technically superior to that of the Sherman. The Sherman could not pivot at all as it had no means of disengaging the inner track completely, so turning in tight spots had to be done by a lot of inching back and forth. Claus B [This message has been edited by Claus B (edited 10-17-2000).]