Hans Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 Was this type of round ever produced for the gun, if so when was it available? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattias Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 From: Lexikon der Wehrmacht "Verschossen werden konnte außerdem die 0,37 kg schwere Panzergranate 40 mit Wolframkern" Pz. granate 40 with tungsten core... "Von der wirkungsvollen Pzgr. 40 sind die ersten 59 700 Stück erst im Juli 1940 geliefert worden. Obwohl dieser Bestand bis zum 1. Juli 1941 auf 982.300 angestiegen war, wurde auch diese Waffen/Munition-Kombination mit Beginn des Ostfeldzuges bei der Truppe zum »Heeresanklopfgerät« degradiert." The first 59.700 rounds were delivered by July 1940. In June the number of rounds produced had increased to 982.300 but by that time the gun was already insufficient for the task assigned to it. M. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted May 12, 2003 Author Share Posted May 12, 2003 Anyone know why in CM the 37mm doesn't come with the possibility of T shells then? In Bildermann's book he talks of using them with success against T-34s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Been a while that I read it, but ISTR he was talking about the 5cm PAK38 (if it is the Sevastopol quote) and KV1 tanks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Past a certain date (don't know exactly when) 37mm ATGs are issued with a limited number of tungsten (T) shells, although you're more likely to be issued the Steilgranate rounds. I don't think I've ever seen tungsten in the tank guns though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Are they the same guns? I think the Panzer III 37mm gun is the same, but that did not hang around in numbers for long following the start of Barbarossa. 327 on 1st July 1941, and 131 on 1st April 1942. Compared to 1,174 and 1,893 with 5cm guns. The Czech 37mm gun is different (caliber length 40, instead of 45, for instance), and my limited knowledge would lead me to believe that they would not be able to interchange ammunition between them. Although a few of the late 38(t) apparently got the 37L45 German gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishu Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 38t has 37L47.8 It has heavier shell than III / Pak 36 and little less velocity, however penetrates more due to higher mass of the projectile. [ May 12, 2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: Fishu ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Originally posted by Fishu: 38t has 37L47.8 It has heavier shell than III / Pak 36 and little less velocity, however penetrates more due to higher mass of the projectile. v. Senger & Etterlin says that both the A3 in the 35(t) and the A7 variant in the 38(t) are 40 calibre length. Lexikon der Wehrmacht agrees with you. Interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted May 12, 2003 Author Share Posted May 12, 2003 In his book I take it to be a 37mm and the tanks are T-34, they could be KV-1's too. Interestingly enough you can get 37mm Tungsten in January 1942 but not prior to that! However the gunner are very reluctant to fire it! I'll try the scenario set for January (actually 29 December) This battle comes from pages 76-78, I'd appreciate an independent read on to answer these questions: 37mm vs 50mm, which ATG does he have? Is the round he is talking about Tungsten? Is he fighting T-34s (certainly not T26s!) or KVs? Thanks for your assistance 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Definitely 3,7cm, he mentions the calibre. Almost certainly Tungsten, from the narrative He mentions 'special armour-piercing', and previously AP had failed. He also says the loader slammed the breech shut, which he presumably would not have to do with the Stielgranate? Difficult to say about the tank. He says 'heavy', and the official nomenclature for the heavy was KV1, the T34 was medium. I would probably go with that. The whole narrative just sounds like KV, not T34, to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted May 12, 2003 Author Share Posted May 12, 2003 yes I would agree, I had designed the scenario based on notes. I re-read it a few minutes ago. Yep smells like KV to me. But can a 37mm tungsten penetrate a KV at point blank range from the front?? (Grogs?) Will make a few changes tomorrow and try it as KV vs a 37mm (vet) under command of an elite Plt leader and see how that goes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 I'd hazard that the Stielgranate requires some kind of special charge to propel it, unless it's a bullet catcher type, which I doubt. So the loader would still have to load a special round (gas cartridge/blank/whatever the proper nomencleture (sp?) is) and close the breach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishu Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fishu: 38t has 37L47.8 It has heavier shell than III / Pak 36 and little less velocity, however penetrates more due to higher mass of the projectile. v. Senger & Etterlin says that both the A3 in the 35(t) and the A7 variant in the 38(t) are 40 calibre length. Lexikon der Wehrmacht agrees with you. Interesting. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tabpub Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: Difficult to say about the tank. He says 'heavy', and the official nomenclature for the heavy was KV1, the T34 was medium. I would probably go with that. The whole narrative just sounds like KV, not T34, to me. Offically the T34 was medium, but many of the contemporary statements call it heavy, notably Halder and I believe Guderian referred to it in this manner during the first year. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 I think you will find references to the 34 as a heavy tank scattered about. It seems to be in reference to its comparison to other Soviet tanks as well as its thick hide. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted May 12, 2003 Share Posted May 12, 2003 I agree that it is not straightforward, and the nomenclature did not bother soldiers too much. The whole passage just 'sounds' like he is describing a KV, not a T34. Not just that he calls it heavy, but all the other narrative as well. Just my impression though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted May 13, 2003 Author Share Posted May 13, 2003 We shall see, I'll run a test of whether 37mm tungsten can get thru the frontal armour of a KV at point blank-if not, those tanks become 34s 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: I'd hazard that the Stielgranate requires some kind of special charge to propel it, unless it's a bullet catcher type, which I doubt. So the loader would still have to load a special round (gas cartridge/blank/whatever the proper nomencleture (sp?) is) and close the breach. Good point. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rexford Posted May 13, 2003 Share Posted May 13, 2003 If a slope effect is applied to the 37mm L45 APCR penetration data at 30 degrees from vertical presented in Jentz, Encycl. of German Tanks of WW II and other publications, one obtains: 100m, 90mm vertical 500m, 48mm vertical The driver plate (75mm at 30 degrees from vertical) on KV-I would present about 105mm vertical resistance to 37mm APCR, although the tanks' nose and mantlet armor would be vulnerable at close range. If the 37mm APCR was used at about 10m it could probably defeat 75mm at 30 degrees. The turret side on KV-1, 75mm at about 15 degrees, could be wasted at about 200 meters when there was no side angle from firer to side armor facing.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted May 13, 2003 Author Share Posted May 13, 2003 Test 3 elite 37mm in a trench with 15 round tungsten vs 1 KV-1 (immoblized on rough terrain) 30-34 meters: no effect 14-16 meters, one partial penetration, one gun shows "rare" for kill 8 meters two show "low" for kill, "ok" for one best case: Tank knocked out after 22 rounds and three partial penetrations. Ran the rest 9 times, the above is the best that occur on average the KV tended to knock out the 37mm with MG fire before they could hurt it. normally 45 rounds fired no effect, under 10 Meters 45 rounds fired 2 take effect but only one 1 KV knocked out Under the CMBB simulation, Bildermann's was one lucky bastard. Conclusion See above, I think for survivability I will use t-34s, as the KVs are virtually immune except under 10 meters and the 37mm will never survive a gun armed KV with non conscript MG! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hans Posted May 14, 2003 Author Share Posted May 14, 2003 small battles, Bidermann's Gun is now up at scenario depot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.