Apache Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 How does availability and use of this weapon compare to the PAK 36/30/40 etc? Also, which units would have been more likely to use it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Apache: How does availability and use of this weapon compare to the PAK 36/30/40 etc? Also, which units would have been more likely to use it? I've look through everything I can to try and find production figures for this gun but came up empty. I know they were common in North Africa (where they were introduced) and many where given to the Italians. By '41, they seem to be only used by the Luftwaffe and, according to CM, the few Light Infantry division. By the time the 5cm PAK became availiable, I guess the infantry's 2.8cm gun would be religated to rear-echelon troops as the 5cm was superior in every way. The lightweight Luftwaffe version was used throughout the war. The small number of tiny shells needed to support this version wasn't much of a drain on the tungsten supply. Some were used instead of 3.7cm PAKs on 251/10 halftracks and a few were mounted on 221 Armored Cars. Neither of these vehicles IFAICT are supported by CMBB. Because it was classified as a heavy anti-tank rifle, I'm not sure if it was used as a replacement for the normal PzB39 in the infantry companies or if it was used in AT companies. Sorry I couldn't be more help. Aaron 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Aaron, unfortunately your post is quite incorrect in a number of points. The following data from www.lexikonderwehrmacht.de: sPzB41 (taper-bore 28/20mm) tungsten-core ammo using ATR Production: 1940 94 1941 349 1942 1030 1943 1324 Ammunition production (AT) in thousands: 1940 156.2 1941 889.5 1942 270.0 1943 287.1 Ammunition production (HE) in thousands: 1940 0 1941 9.2 1942 373.3 1943 130.1 I am not quite clear from the way the info is written whether the sPzB41 could fire the ammunition of the PzB38, in which case it would have a lot more ammo available: Production of Patr 318: 1939 780,0 1940 1864,1 1941 4726,9 1942 2046,4 Both the PSW221 and the SPW250/11 which are armed with the sPzB41 are in the game. Shortage of Tungsten became a problem in 1942. The following info from v.Senger und Etterlin: Introduced in 1941 with the infantry and pioneer battalions. Also on PSW222 and l.SPW 250/11 Platoons and Trupps with three guns each. At the time of introduction very good (ausgezeichnete) weapon with good penetrating capabilities and high ROF. High wear of conical barrel. Life of barrel 500 rounds. I have a TO&E of 7.PD for December 1942 in which the AT platoons of the PzGren Rgts have sPzB instead of other ATGs. Finally, the idea that the PAK38 is better in any respect is quite simply not so. The sPzB41 is much easier to conceal, and in all likelyhood beats the PAK38 in ROF hands-down. The penetration of PAK38 is a quite a bit better (12mm more at 500m @ 90°; 9mm more at 457m @ 60°), and the HE load of the rounds is better. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: Production: 1940 94 1941 349 1942 1030 1943 1324 Ammunition production (AT) in thousands: 1940 156.2 1941 889.5 1942 270.0 1943 287.1 Ammunition production (HE) in thousands: 1940 0 1941 9.2 1942 373.3 1943 130.1 Great link, I missed that one before. So we have 5,339 sPzB versus around 20,000* 3.7 PAK and 1.6 million rounds for the sPzB vs 10 million for the PAK. I stand corrected, that's far more common that I thought. Both the PSW221 and the SPW250/11 which are armed with the sPzB41 are in the game. Can't believe I missed both of those. Was the 221 a field conversion? Finally, the idea that the PAK38 is better in any respect is quite simply not so.Did you mean "in any respect" or "in all respects"? Aaron *I've seen number between 5,300 and 40,000 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: [snips] I am not quite clear from the way the info is written whether the sPzB41 could fire the ammunition of the PzB38, in which case it would have a lot more ammo available It should be obvious that the sPzB41 cannot fire the ammunition of the PzB38. Their calibres are not remotely similar. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Originally posted by Aaron: Did you mean "in any respect" or "in all respects"?Aaron, I meant 'in every way', which is what you said. One advantage I forgot was mobility. The sPzB41 weighed 229kg (standard) or 114kg (airborne version) vs 986kg for the PAK38. Most importantly about the gun - they continued producing it through 1943 (by which time it was probably way past its sell-by date). First combat use according to my source was the east (178 guns and 532,700 rounds ammo), and by the end of the war there were still 775 guns with the troops and 68 in depots. Surprising longevity. Edit: reason you probably don't know about the site is that it is in German John, I am a bit flummoxed by it. Probably a mistake, or reference to a design model. [ February 13, 2003, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Andreas ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 If you use the gun in the game you'll see why it stuck around. I had one repeatedly pierce the front of a Valentine from over 300m! Considering that it's as invisible as a Russian anti-tank rifle but packs as much (more?) punch than a 37mm Pak this may prove to be a popular little gun. I heard the 28mm gun 'disappeared' mostly because they didn't have the tungsten to produce the special ammo in quantity after '43. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Posted February 14, 2003 Author Share Posted February 14, 2003 Thanks for the help guys. Given the numbers it looks like it would be fair to say that it should not be used as much as the PAK 38 and 38. Presumably it would mainly be the infantry who had this as opposed to the armoured units? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted February 15, 2003 Share Posted February 15, 2003 Originally posted by Apache: Presumably it would mainly be the infantry who had this as opposed to the armoured units? Standard issue for the Jäger (=Light infantry) divisions, as mentioned above. Non-standard for just about anybody else. Cheers Olle 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.