Kong Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Can someone tell me if this is on purpose or just a simple error. When I bring up the Detailed Unit Information Window for the 28mm Heavy AT Rifle it says it's "Main Weapon:" is 20mm?!?! Which is it?!? It seems the same thing occurs for the 42mm LePAK41 ATG as it is listed as having a 29.4mm Main Weapon. I did not do an exhaustive search on this but it is also possible this in NOT an error. Anyone shed some light on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxbat Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Squeeze bore weapons. Thread on them: Taper-bore weapons and everything you wanted to know about them [ October 01, 2002, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Foxbat ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Ever hear of a squeeze bore? Tapered bore? It was one of those ingeniously difficult to manufacture ideas that the Germans came up with. The idea was to have a shot with a lot of base area for the propellant gasses to act on, but small frontal area to confront aerodynamic resistance. It also had a tungsten core. The British solved the same problem with discarding sabot, which worked well enough and was much easier to produce. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kong Posted October 2, 2002 Author Share Posted October 2, 2002 Thanks gentlemen, I had a sneakin suspicion there was some logical (or illogical as the case may be) explanation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: [snip] It was one of those ingeniously difficult to manufacture ideas that the Germans came up with. Ja, mein Fuehrer, it would be simple to produce thousands of 50mm L/60 guns. But at only three times the cost, and one year's delay, we can use our superior know-how to produce a really cool taper bore weapon that would be almost as good as the 50mm gun (except against infantry). PLUS, we can use it to get rid of all that surplus tungsten we have taking up space in our warehouses! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 2, 2002 Share Posted October 2, 2002 Ah... you guys are missing the point of the taperbore AT gun. It was designed for use with para, mountain, and other light troops. The gun is 1/2 as heavy as the Pak36, shorter in length, with far less heavy rounds. Yet its penetration abilities was something like 20% greater than the Pak36. There was even a lighter version which weight in at roughly 1/3rd that of the Pak36. And at the time the Pak38 was only starting to be produced. The sPzB41 could also be mounted on trucks, light ACs, light HCs, etc. which the Pak38 could not. While I agree that the Germans wasted a lot of effort and expense on weapons that were redundant or over engineered, but had their Tungsten supply been better this weapon would have been worth the cost (at least until mid 1942 when it became outmatched). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: The sPzB41 could also be mounted on trucks, light ACs, light HCs, etc. which the Pak38 could not.Both the PaK38 and Pak40 were eventually mounted in armored cars. Unless I am misremembering, at least the PaK40 was also mounted on half tracks. P.S. I am still trying to figure out what HC refers to in your post, Steve. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 Michael, Both the PaK38 and Pak40 were eventually mounted in armored cars. Unless I am misremembering, at least the PaK40 was also mounted on half tracks.I should have been more specific. When I said "light" I meant 4x4 ACs and the SPW 250 HTs. Small and nimble gun mounted on a small and nimble platform. The Pak38 and Pak40s had to be mounted on much more substantial vehicles. Remember, the standard gun at the time the sPzB41 was introduced was the Pak36. It had a lot of benefits vs. this gun, namely gun size/weight, ammo size/weight, and better penetration. The Pak38 was just coming into production and was even heavier than the Pak36, although its performance was overall much better. Still, there was an active need for this weapon up until it was outclassed. I also suspect that if Tungsten had not been in short supply the Germans probably would have fielded a bigger taperbore gun that could retain its relative benefits vs. conventional AT guns. P.S. I am still trying to figure out what HC refers to in your post, Steve.Er... try "HT" and everything should work out fine Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2002 Share Posted October 3, 2002 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: I should have been more specific. When I said "light" I meant 4x4 ACs and the SPW 250 HTs. Small and nimble gun mounted on a small and nimble platform. The Pak38 and Pak40s had to be mounted on much more substantial vehicles.Okay. We're on the same wavelength. P.S. I am still trying to figure out what HC refers to in your post, Steve. Er... try "HT" and everything should work out fine Roger that. Michael [ October 03, 2002, 05:02 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts