King Tiger

[Guest machineman]

From what I can see combatboy is a TROLL, probably some bored guy at work who gets his kicks out of p****** off the people who take these topics seriously. Don't feed the troll and usually they get bored and go away.

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Combatboy:

Dude! The moment you start threatening people's grandfathers is when you are definately going overboard. You are saying here if I mention you in a post anymore you will come after me. As I explained to Phil that is not much of a problem, but you may want to stop and think before you threaten. I could be like 7 feet tall (I am not) and my Grand could be the meanest 70 year old geezer on the block. So, no threats of violence huh? Words only is cool by me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh boy, Markus is correct I haven't threatened anyone, I was thinking since CB apperently lived here, maybe we could meet & discuss this, at my home, the campus or at the benches.

This thread has contributed nothing to the topic or the forum in general, ppl ask for it to remain open as their 'cesspool' the diference between the other cesspools & this one is ppl are not makeing personel attacks, and they stay somewhat on topic, unlike this one, anthing of relevance to the KwK.43 can be posted where it belongs on the 88 Lacking punch thread.

This discussion would have lasted a whole 10 secs on serious forums, Ie, AFV news, Tanknet, etc, the moderators would have issued warnings & locked it. The usernet provides many racism, cesspool, & humor newsgroups that you can subscribe to, I sugest perusing them to find the groups that interest you.

This thread realy has gone to hell in a handbasket, We had it back on topic after 1 individual borderline troll, who had also contributed nothing, wisely voluntarily removed himself, then were immidiatly saddled another troll, and sent back into trollspin, & should have been locked the minute the raceism trolls, started fireing accusations, that or one could get the impression that BTS condones personel attacks on its forums, or matbe allows esceptions concerning the maligned 88 group.

And CB is right in one area ppl can hide in animinity on the internet, they have no fear of accountability etc, and can spew what they wish,problem is sooner or later the tables turn & no one listens anymore.

Regards, John Waters

------------------

Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-01-2000).]

[Slapdragon]

Come on John -- this thread went down hill the moment Paul decided to flame. Combatboy just has eyes that are better than yours is all and is very postmodern in his outlook -- he is reflexive and he did help a lot -- you all cleaned up your act significantly in the "88 sucks" thread after his points to you. Combatboy basically said you never read anyones posts and Paul does not either -- well he succeeded because right after he said it you began to take Hofbauer and Vanir's posts into consideration and even replied to danielh with a short synopsis of BTS's argument, the first time it was apparent that you had read BTS posts.

I think instead of calling him a troll you should be thanking him! He helped turn the other thread back useful.

As for me leaving John, everytime you make a silly assumption I will be right here to counter it. Now, like you said, this is more a match of opinions than a stab at science -- but who knows! You might adopt science yet, you seem to be making a much better stab at constructive discussion.

Thank god for the Combatboys of the world.

[The DesertFox]

Markus,

Nice graphicwork, but check Fritz Hahn "Waffen und Geheimwaffen..."

Page 55 for the 88L56: He gives the PzGr39 9kg

Page 61 for the 88L71: He gives the PzGr39/43 10,2 kg

As you easily can see if you consult further sources as Senger und Etterlin, Hogg, Spielberger etc...the projectiles didn´t have the same weight.

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[Ron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From what I can see combatboy is a TROLL, probably some bored guy at work who gets his kicks out of p****** off the people who take these topics seriously. Don't feed the troll and usually they get bored and go away.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree 100%. It's unfortunate because while I have nothing to contribute technically I am still interested in following the discussion of those that do.

Cheers,

Ron

[This message has been edited by Ron (edited 10-01-2000).]

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon:

Come on John -- this thread went down hill the moment Paul decided to flame. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 10-01-2000).]

[The DesertFox]

John,

Don´t feed the Trolls

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[M Hofbauer]

Helge you genius , that is exactly what I was saying, if you had read my original posts when entering this thread (page 4), Hahn's book is exactly what I was quoting and thereby challenging everyone's view that both guns used projectiles of the same weight. Go a few pages back in this thread and you will see!

Besides, if you check page 207 of Vol. I on Flugabwehrwaffen, you will find that he mentions the FlaK 36 using an AP projectile of 10.2kg (auch das habe ich eingangs schon erwähnt), so he isn't really consistent.

I would be interested however in the other sources you mentioned which say the L56 uses a 9kg Panzergranate (unfortunately I cannot "easily see§ because I don't have the works you mention). Charles suggested some sources point to a 9.6kg projectile. It would be nice if you could relate what these other sources are saying.

Nice to see you join the fray of this thread. Pretty soon all the guys will be here and we'll have a real party going here

Do you think I should pay a return visit to the "Long 88 lacking punch thread" ? I still haven't been there.

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[Slapdragon]

Then I would have to equate Paul and John which is silly, but a funny thought if it were not easy enough to check IP addresses. Since I am not on a dial up my IP address is always the same with each post -- very easy to check.

As for bigotry John -- when it raises its head I refuse to poke my head in the sand. I was hit with a brick in a counterprotest against a Klu Klux Klan march in Tampa in 1986 and I am willing to get hit with virtual bricks. Someone cannot trot out a little sliver of bigotry and then say, "Oh My, how did we get away from the discussion" when it is pointed out. I am sure the arrival of the Klan proclaiming the correctness of your view would also gather them into your camp with a pat on the back, but I cannot make my morals bend that way.

We represent two different cultures -- the culture of science versus the culture of rhetoric. As the defender of science on this board I will point out where your rhetoric does not meet scientific standards. If you do not believe in science -- great, no way I can make you believe in it now. I will go to my Doctor and you will go to your faith healer, I will use my computer, and you will consult with your crystals, I will build evidence and you will pull tarot cards.

However -- like I said, your argument has considerably improved from its initial repeating of the same 11 words, so good has been done even if you do not see it.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I have a new question...

How do people know that there will be a lack of oversight on the BBS before they start in on some flame war? Sheesh... never fails...

Look. No more posting about stuff unrelated to the debate about the 88 in this thread. Otherwise it gets locked up.

Steve

[The DesertFox]

Marcus,

Whoops... I really should have read all posts in the thread and not only the last 2 pages <G> My bad.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would be interested however in the other sources you mentioned which say the L56 uses a 9kg Panzergranate (unfortunately I cannot "easily see§ because I don't have the works you mention). Charles suggested some sources point to a 9.6kg projectile. It would be nice if you could relate what these other sources are saying.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will check my library and put the stuff together and post it in the still ON TOPIC 88 lacking punch thread. 9,6kg ? I can´t remember a source which mentioned 9,6 kg. Are you sure, or Charles, that it isn´t by chance the PzGr-39 or PzGr-39-1 of the FLAK 41 ? BTW: Any pen data available for the FLAK 41 except Piekalkiewicz ?

See you in the 88 thread and leave the TROLLS alone

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[The DesertFox]

Marcus,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Besides, if you check page 207 of Vol. I on Flugabwehrwaffen, you will find that he mentions the FlaK 36 using an AP projectile of 10.2kg (auch das habe ich eingangs schon erwähnt), so he isn't really consistent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I know, but he mentiones "von denen die bessere...." so there were 2 different PzGr which is consistant with Hogg.

Quote:

8.8cm Pzgr Patr: fuzed Bd Z f 8.8cm Pzgr, projectile weight 9.50kg(20.951b), complete round weight 15.40kg(33.961b).

This was an anti-tank projectile of the usual type with penetrating and ballistic caps, a bursting charge of 155grn(5.47oz) of PETN/wax and a base fuze. The propelling charge was 2.52kg(5.561b) of DigI R P. The penetration was claimed as 105mm at 1000m at 30o(4.13in at 1095yd).

8.8cm Pzgr Patr 39: fuzed Bd Z f 8.8cm, Pzgr.

This differed very little from the previous round except that the projectile had two soft-iron driving bands instead of two copper ones, and the ballistic cap was slightly more pointed.

Only problem is that there is no other source which gives the projectile more than 9,5kg (at least I don´t know any). So I suspect a typo or something at Fritz Hahn´s page 207.

Cheers

Helge

[Simon Fox]

"For Australians do love to party hard and deflate the pomposity of the self-righteous." (Reuters)

That Combatboy (shakes head) he's almost an aussie

Gee Steve you're getting confused the 88 thread is another thread, this is the Olympics discussion thread.

------------------

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[Kanonier Reichmann]

[This message has been edited by Kanonier Reichmann (edited 10-02-2000).]

[Phil the Dill]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

That Combatboy (shakes head) he's almost an aussie

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was unfortunate he was born just those few thousand kilometers away - he would have made a great addition to our country

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Gee Steve you're getting confused the 88 thread is another thread, this is the Olympics discussion thread.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange, I was under the same impression.

BTW. love your sig - Do you know how much the 'big fella' got sold for in the end?

[Simon Fox]

Kerry Stokes bought him for $80,000

------------------

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[Paul Lakowski]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The DesertFox:

Marcus,

Yeah I know, but he mentiones "von denen die bessere...." so there were 2 different PzGr which is consistant with Hogg.

Quote:

8.8cm Pzgr Patr: fuzed Bd Z f 8.8cm Pzgr, projectile weight 9.50kg(20.951b), complete round weight 15.40kg(33.961b).

This was an anti-tank projectile of the usual type with penetrating and ballistic caps, a bursting charge of 155grn(5.47oz) of PETN/wax and a base fuze. The propelling charge was 2.52kg(5.561b) of DigI R P. The penetration was claimed as 105mm at 1000m at 30o(4.13in at 1095yd).

8.8cm Pzgr Patr 39: fuzed Bd Z f 8.8cm, Pzgr.

This differed very little from the previous round except that the projectile had two soft-iron driving bands instead of two copper ones, and the ballistic cap was slightly more pointed.

Only problem is that there is no other source which gives the projectile more than 9,5kg (at least I don´t know any). So I suspect a typo or something at Fritz Hahn´s page 207.

Cheers

Helge<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Helge do you or Markus know what the hardness level is on the ballistic cap of these rounds as it may have a bearing on the discussion?

Rgds Paul.

[Guest rune]

From another source:

http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/

As we mentioned in Part 1, the 88mm PaK 43 L/71 was originally designed by Krupp as an anti-tank weapon to counter improved armor of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. It was an immediate success when introduced in late 1943, and from that point on, the need to place the PaK 43 in a self-propelled mount became high priority for the Germans. With the recoil cylinders moved around to other positions, and a few other modifications, the new gun was mounted in the open topped Nashorn (PaK 43/1 L/71), the Elefant (PaK 43/2 L/71), and in the Tiger II turret as well as our Jagdpanther (PaK 43/3 L/71). The high velocity fire of this weapon could easily defeat ANY enemy armor on the battle field, often from as far away as 2000 meters. This was an awesome weapon, not only because it was powerful, but because the PaK 43 was extremely well made and accurate as well. Although it could fire a number of different munitions, the most deadly to the tankers on the other end of the flat trajectory were probably the Pzgr.Patr.39/43 and 40/43. These projectiles are said to have been able to penetrate over 150mm and 200mm armor, respectively, at 30 degrees obliquity at 1000 meters, and 140mm and 160mm at 2000 meters, at the same angle of attack. This photo shows a test firing of the Jagdpanther version of the PaK 43, perhaps at Meppen after the war. As in the Jagdpanther, the elevation gear is covered in a black, accordion-folded protective rubber boot to the right of the barrel, and the recoil bar shield that was normally attached behind the breech (and was missing in our earlier picture), is now visible and includes the small angled deflector shield/pad for spent shell casings. Notice that the Jagdpanther mantlet has been re-mounted to balance the gun on its temporary cruciform mount, but the mantlet has been placed up-side-down. Other details on this side of the breech include the breech activating handle for loading the first round and the electric safety switch used by the loader after a round was loaded to free the weapon for firing. This is one of the later two-piece PaK 43 barrels- both one and two-piece types were seen on the Jagdpanther. Generally, the two-piece barrels were used on later vehicles that mounted the PaK 43 in order to decrease the time required to change worn barrels.

[Berkut]

The King Tigers main gun used the same ammunition as the Flak 43/1 and the 43/41.

These AP shells weighed around the same, 7.3 kilograms. All german ap shells of 5cm or more had piercing caps, and a 8.8cm shell would also require a ballistic cap.

It's HE rounds would weigh in at 9.5kilograms.

The muzzle velocity of the ap round was around 1,130 metres per second and would penetrate 153mm of homogeneous armour at 30 degrees from vertical at a range of 2,000 metres. Which was well within the limitations of it's monocular gun sight.

sources

The 88, chris ellis with peter chamberlain

Encyclopedia of German tanks, Peter chamberlain and hilary doyle.

Tank killing, Ian V Hogg

------------------

BERKUT

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As always feel free to query, deride, or just nod knowingly<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest rune]

from:

http://www.kithobbyist.com/AFVInteriors/

Note the figures on penetration, and ammo types:

As we mentioned in Part 1, the 88mm PaK 43 L/71 was originally designed by Krupp as an anti-tank weapon to counter improved armor of Soviet T-34 and KV tanks. It was an immediate success when introduced in late 1943, and from that point on, the need to place the PaK 43 in a self-propelled mount became high priority for the Germans. With the recoil cylinders moved around to other positions, and a few other modifications, the new gun was mounted in the open topped Nashorn (PaK 43/1 L/71), the Elefant (PaK 43/2 L/71), and in the Tiger II turret as well as our Jagdpanther (PaK 43/3 L/71). The high velocity fire of this weapon could easily defeat ANY enemy armor on the battle field, often from as far away as 2000 meters. This was an awesome weapon, not only because it was powerful, but because the PaK 43 was extremely well made and accurate as well. Although it could fire a number of different munitions, the most deadly to the tankers on the other end of the flat trajectory were probably the Pzgr.Patr.39/43 and 40/43. These projectiles are said to have been able to penetrate over 150mm and 200mm armor, respectively, at 30 degrees obliquity at 1000 meters, and 140mm and 160mm at 2000 meters, at the same angle of attack. This photo shows a test firing of the Jagdpanther version of the PaK 43, perhaps at Meppen after the war. As in the Jagdpanther, the elevation gear is covered in a black, accordion-folded protective rubber boot to the right of the barrel, and the recoil bar shield that was normally attached behind the breech (and was missing in our earlier picture), is now visible and includes the small angled deflector shield/pad for spent shell casings. Notice that the Jagdpanther mantlet has been re-mounted to balance the gun on its temporary cruciform mount, but the mantlet has been placed up-side-down. Other details on this side of the breech include the breech activating handle for loading the first round and the electric safety switch used by the loader after a round was loaded to free the weapon for firing. This is one of the later two-piece PaK 43 barrels- both one and two-piece types were seen on the Jagdpanther. Generally, the two-piece barrels were used on later vehicles that mounted the PaK 43 in order to decrease the time required to change worn barrels.

Rune

DOUBLE POST....Forum was hiccupping earlier...my first post did not show up until later...strange...

[This message has been edited by rune (edited 10-02-2000).]

[The DesertFox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Helge do you or Markus know what the hardness level is on the ballistic cap of these rounds as it may have a bearing on the discussion?

Rgds Paul.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Paul,

Nope, sorry but I don´t recall to have a single source at hand which describes in any detail the hardness of the ballistic and/or armour piercing cap.

I´ll let you know if I find something.

Marcus,

On the 9,6kg projectile: I finally managed to dig out a source. It´s Chamberlain, Doyle, Gander "Deutsche Panzerabwehr 1916-1918&1930-1945" There you can read at page 101...Flak 18/36...shot weight 9,6kgs.

Something perhaps even more interesting:

Jentz "Tank Combat in NA" Page 48 ...8,8cm Flak L/56 PzGr. 9,5kg 810 m/s Penetration@30deg: 98@100, 93@500, 87@1000, 80@1500, 72@2000

This would coincide with the table in "Encyclopedia ..." Chamberlain, Doyle page 245 where you can read of 2 projectiles for the 88-Flak, the earlier with lower pen values and 9,5 kg and the later with higher values and 10,2 kg.

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[This message has been edited by The DesertFox (edited 10-02-2000).]

[The DesertFox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>These projectiles are said to have been able to penetrate over 150mm and 200mm armor, respectively, at 30 degrees obliquity at 1000 meters, and 140mm and 160mm at 2000 meters, at the same angle of attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rune,

These figures are even higher than the WaPruef data (PzGr39-1 165@30@1000 and PzGr40/43 193@30@1000 and PzGr39-1 132@30@2000 and PzGr40/43 152@30@2000)

and of course much higher than the CM dataset (PzGr39 151@30@1000 and 121@30@2000)

Makes me wonder where he got the figures from ?

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891

[M Hofbauer]

rune: interesting read, but what exactly is your point?

Berkut, Helge was inquiring about he FlaK 41. I am not so sure about the ammunitions being the same for thatone. That is, I am tending definitely more towards saying that the FlaK 41 used a different ammunition than the KwK 43. They were completely different gun designs, and the little data I *do* see here indicates the FlaK 41 used a different ammunition, with different projectile weights, than the KwK 43 / PaK 43 group. Besides, the data you show IMHO surely looks to be that of the tungsten ammo (Pzgr.40/43). While of course it was the prime AP ammo for these guns with the best AP performance, it wasn't supplied in combat and it's data is only good for "what if" - speculation.

The FlaK 41 and the KwK 43 were competing designs for a new 88 gun. This included the design of a new shell (which resulted in the Pzgr. 39/43 for the KwK 43, see my comparing image between L56 and L71 cartridges above). Since the FlaK 41 design was designed with a caliber length of L74 it is not unlikely that it had it's own cartridge design as well. At least the Handbook on German Military forces gives the FlaK 41 ammunition differing in weight from the PaK 43 ammo.

just MHO, of course.

Helge,

you seem to have much more and better sources than I do, it's amazing with what you can come up, certainly anything I could add you could add, too. Therefore, I will just sit back and watch you duke it out with BTS over whether the KwK 36 and KwK 43 AP projectiles were of the same weight.

just two more general observations on this issue.

one is the theory I have stated before that maybe there was some kind of evolution in the 8,8cm L/56 Pzgr. 39 projectile, with the earlier version weighing 9 or 9.5 kg, and a later, improved version weighing 10.2 kg. You can take this speculation even further saying that the reason the early one is cited in the test reports is that such tests are likely to have been done during weapon development, and since this was early, it would be with the early 9 / 9.5kg type (hence Hahn cites the 9kg when giving test data). It would also explain his mysterious phrase of "von denen die bessere...." in regard to the FlaK 36, which would make sense, since the old one is the 9 / 9.6kg version, and the bessere, the improved new one is the 10.2kg (he can't be comparing an AP and a tungsten round since the Wolframgeschoss would be the bessere, but weigh much les than 10.2kg (more like 7-8kg), so he must be talking two non-tungsten rounds). And since this 10.2kg type was the new standard for 8,8 cm projectiles, it was then also used for the Pzgr. 39/43 for the new 88L71 gun design, this would explain why the cross-sections of both projectiles I presented above are identical. Again, just my personal black-CIA-helicopters/world-government theory.

the other, more important observation I would like to add - again -, is that this (weight of the Pzgr. 39) - while undoubtedly interesting - does not help clear up the issue of the whole 88 Tohuwabohu we got here covering two threads (one of which i still don't dare to enter, the first page scared me away with all that math *g*).

let me explain:

a) The original problem was that the 88L71 data differed from AP data given in various sources, and BTS said that this was because they did not use tables but used their own formula and the projectile data (incl. weight and speed etc.) to calculate AP. And the results from using this formula matched all the data published, EXCEPT the 88L71.

the 88L71 seemed offf especially when the Vo - AP increase was established vs the 88L56 as a comparison, and when this increase of AP was compared to the Vo - AP increase for the 7.5cm from L48 to L70.

c) BTS stuck to their formula instead of changing it/manipulating results exclusively for the 88L71. BTS used a value of 10.2kg for both the L56 and the L71 AP projectiles.

d) now along come Markus and Helge, saying that hey the L56 and the L71 use different projectiles, namely that the L56 does NOT use a shell of 10.2kg but of 9 / 9.5 kg.

e) HOWEVER that would not explain why the formula data for the L71 is off. It would only explain why the L56 would be off, since if Helge and Markus are right, it is the L56 which used a wrong projectile weight for BTS' calculation. However, it is the L71 and not the L56 which is off and is being discussed about.

looking forward to what other Bonbons we will see from you,

mfG

Markus

------------------

"Say i think u all need to chill out." (GAZ_NZ)

[This message has not been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 10-02-2000).]

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 10-02-2000).]

[Guest rune]

I am confused...he says:

These projectiles are said to have been able to penetrate over 150mm and 200mm armor, respectively, at 30 degrees obliquity at 1000 meters.

That is 150mm at 30 degrees at 1000 meters. That is for the 39-1. How are those figures higher then 165mm at 30 degrees at 1000, or do I have the shells mixed up?

Rune

[The DesertFox]

Rune,

Yeah, only problem is the APCBC@30@1000 metres value is the only one wich is lower in the bunch of data out of your source. Look at them. All other values are significant higher than the WaPruef data.

Interesting is that in this dataset the decrease in penetration with increase of range is significant lower (10mm at a range of 1000m between 1000-2000m) than some well known datasets wants us make to believe (33mm at a range of 1000m between 1000-2000m WaPruef or 30mm at a range of 1000m between 1000-2000m CM-data).

You seem to have focussed on the 150@30@1000 value only eh ? and disregarded the @2000 values and the APCR values.

Cheers

Helge

------------------

Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate!

- The DesertFox -

Email: desertfox1891@hotmail.com

WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891