What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#1

Post by stg 44 » 30 Jan 2015, 01:37

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600
The PAW 600 (Panzerabwehrwerfer 600, officially designated 8H63) was a lightweight anti-tank gun that used the high-low pressure system to fire hollow charge warheads. In 1945, it was used operationally by the Wehrmacht in small numbers.

Thus the barrel could be exceptionally light for a weapon that still had the advantages that accrue from a high pressure gun. The carriage too could be very light, although the initial prototype carriages proved to be too light and had to be redesigned. The resulting PAW 600 (later redesignated 8H63) gun weighed about 600 kg, less than half that of the 7,5 cm PaK 40, while having comparable armor penetration out to its full effective anti-tank range of 750 meters.

Because shaped charge warheads perform best when no spin is imparted on the projectile, the 8H63 was a smoothbore design. To simplify development and manufacture, the projectiles used were based on the widely used 8 cm Granatwerfer 34 mortar (actual caliber 81.4 mm). This allowed the use of existing tooling in the manufacture of the ammunition, which reduced the costs. The cartridge case was developed from the 10.5 cm leFH 18 howitzer.
The standard shaped charge projectile, which was designated 8 cm W Gr Patr H1 4462, weighed 2.70 kg. The propelling charge was 360 gm of Digl B1 P (compared to a 3.8 kg propelling charge in a PAK 40), which produced a muzzle velocity of 520 mps and provided an effective range of 750 meters against a tank-sized target. Armor penetration was 140mm of vertical armor, which was comparable to the 7.5 cm PAK 40 firing the rare and expensive tungsten-cored PzGr40 shot.

Because the ammunition was developed from the standard infantry mortar, any type of round developed for the mortar could have been readily adapted for the 8H63, including high-explosive (HE), smoke and illuminating rounds. The HE round, the 8 cm W Gr Patr 5071 with a 4.46 kg projectile and total round weight of 8.30 kg was developed. This could employ three different charge increments for maximum ranges of 3,400 meters @ 220 mps, 5,600 meters @ 320 mps or 6,200 meters at 420 mps - about three times the range of the mortar and with the possibility of direct or indirect fire. This performance brings up another interesting feature of this gun. Traditional high-velocity anti-tank guns were very inefficient when employed as field artillery firing explosive rounds in support of the infantry. The thick projectile walls necessary to withstand high velocities ensured a small explosive payload and the amount of propellent used was wasteful. The guns also fired at low trajectories (+22 degrees for a PAK 40), which limited their utility. For this reason, the German Army had always employed Infantry Guns, such as the 7.5 cm leichtes Infanteriegeschütz 18, at the regimental level to provide fire support under the direct and immediate control of the infantry. This meant that every infantry regiment had an infantry gun company for use against unarmored targets and a tank destroyer (anti-tank gun) company for use against armored targets. The 8H63, firing an explosive round that had a lethality almost comparable to the 7.5 cm infantry gun and had a greater range. The 8H63's multi-charge cartridge, 55 degree traverse (fine for anti-tank defence) and +32 degree maximum elevation could have allowed the merger of the infantry and anti-tank gun categories with resulting savings in production, logistics, and precious manpower. The 8H63 was to be organized under the new 1945 Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) in anti-tank companies of 12 guns with 104 men, replacing the anti-tank and infantry gun companies (300+ men) of previous organizations.

Some 260 guns and 34,800 rounds of ammunition were completed from December 1944, with 81 guns delivered to the troops in January 1945 and 155 listed on 1 March 1945. Plans had called for the production of 1,000 guns, 4,000,000 anti-tank and 800,000 explosive shells per month. Production models were fitted with PAK 40 muzzle brakes and had either the purpose-built light carriage or used redundant PAK 38 carriages, which were slightly heavier.
Historically the Germans started developing a cheap alternative to the existing PAK weapons based on the HEAT shells. What if they had started earlier so that the PAW 600 was ready in 1943, say before Kursk, and deployed en masse? It was obviously not a war winner at that point, really once the US is in the war there is nothing the Axis can do to win, but how would having a cheap, light, more effective PAK weapon affected the course of war, specifically the Eastern Front?

IMHO it would have enabled the Germans to achieve a lot more armor kills, especially against the Soviets, as the weapon was very cheap, so could be made in large numbers, used far less propellant, and had better armor penetration, while allowing men to be able to move it, unlike the 75mm PAK or heavier weapons. It also had even less back blast, so it was harder to spot when firing. The Soviets might not be able to advance nearly as quickly, while the Normandy situation could be worse. Also in terms of AFVs the Hetzer and other StuGs could fit a variant of this weapon, as it was lighter and had a significantly lower recoil than the 75mm L48, while having much better armor penetration.
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php ... m-paw-600/

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#2

Post by sitalkes » 03 Feb 2015, 03:35

Well I don't think it would make much difference in 1943, after all the Germans took a big toll of Russian armour with what they had. If it had been given to the Hungarians, Romanians, and Italians in 1942 then Uranus/Saturn wouldn't have been such a push-over for the Russians.


User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#3

Post by phylo_roadking » 04 Feb 2015, 00:37

That is of course the issue - "with what they had".

Here, STG, the issue is the Germans identifying the need in time for the PAW 600 to be brought in any earlier ;)
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Erwinn
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 17 Dec 2014, 10:53
Location: Istanbul

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#4

Post by Erwinn » 05 Feb 2015, 13:44

I can see it's making a huge difference on Western Front, since distances are relatively shorter than Eastern Front. Wehrmacht troops wouldn't have to leave their guns behind due to lack of motor vehicles or jammed up roads.

Svrclr
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Sep 2016, 15:43
Location: Aiken, SC USA

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#5

Post by Svrclr » 16 Sep 2016, 16:26

A big part of the role of the PAW 600 is that it is as much an infantry gun as it is an AT gun. The PAW 600 is to give infantry regiments a single AT/inf gun company. That would either free up infantry for the line companies or allow a heavy mortar company to add extra firepower to the regiment (an overall increase that is).

The 1944 pattern infantry divisions and Volksgrenadier divisions had replaced many of their Pak40 guns with hand-held, using the PAW600 would give them back a true AT gun. While Panzerscheck and Panzerfaust are good close range weapons, tanks and soviet SU's can just sit out of effective range of the hand-held AT weapons and establish fire superiority over the german infantry.

The really clever bit with PAW 600 (besides the high-low pressure part), is that the ammo is already in production, at least in terms of having factories already producing the pieces needed. The shell being an 8cm mortar round and the propellant being a charge from the LeFH18. To make the guns, you could take the light IG out of production for the guns and convert the infantry gun ammunition production to 8cm mortar and 105 mm propellant charges .

As far as making a difference, there are still plenty of cases where infantry units were still using obsolete/obsolescent weapons in 1943 and 1944. The goal of getting as many StuG and Pak 40 available wouldn't change, but the PAW 600 would be a better runner-up to units forced to keep using Pak36, 38 and Pak 97/38(40) were still in production into 1943. Given the overall shortages of AT guns by the Germans and their allies, I would see a PAW 600 type of weapon in large scale service. I would also imagine these are the types of guns that Italy, Hungary, and Romania could license produce without the need for the large-scale industry normally associated with the production of artillery.

User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3546
Joined: 02 Feb 2006, 01:23
Location: Arizona

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#6

Post by T. A. Gardner » 16 Sep 2016, 22:50

There are several problems in this scenario with the PAW 600...

First, it would make a terrible indirect fire weapon. The design doesn't lend itself to high angle fire. The carriage, as designed, was a low slung one for anti-tank work. You'd need to redesign that to allow for both low angle fire (antitank) and high angle fire (infantry gun). The second problem with using it as an infantry gun is the range is relatively limited. It realistically is about that of the 8.1 cm mortar. As the mortar is more portable it would make more sense to just deliver more of these to infantry units in lieu of the infantry gun along with the 12cm replacing the 15cm IG.

The next big problem is the PAW 600 does have more range than a panzerfaust or panzerschreck but doesn't come anywhere close to the firing range of a 7.5cm Pak 40. The maximum range as an antitank gun is usually quoted at around 750 meters. Realistically, the effective firing range versus a tank is probably a bit more than half that. That means it really isn't up to a kinetic energy antitank gun in capability. As already noted, it would have been a decent replacement for obsolete and obsolescent antitank guns in service and might have been a weapon to hand the design to Axis allied nations like Hungary and Romania to produce.

The third problem is production numbers. The ones in the OP above are fantasy. I could see eventual production reaching maybe 4 - 500 a month. Ammunition would always be an issue. Using 8.1cm mortar bombs means fewer rounds for mortars unless you cut other production in favor of more 8.1cm production. It's clear Germany can't magically produce more total rounds than they already are. That is, their ammunition production is at or near capacity. Producing PAW 600 rounds means not producing some other round.
At 400 - 500 a month the Germans likely could have gotten the weapon into service in fair numbers but ones where it is still likely 3 to 6 per infantry regiment at most and maybe 12 to 24 in divisional panzerjäger abt. If you factor in operational losses, with that production rate 5 to 8 divisions a month get the weapon. That would mean by late 1944 maybe 200 infantry formations have it in their inventory as a primary antitank weapon, probably less.

So, while it would be a useful addition to infantry formations, it isn't some panacea that will turn the tide of events for the Wehrmacht. What they need to win by the beginning of 1943 isn't a simple evolution in technology but rather a revolution in it, or tactics. A revolution isn't in the cards.

Svrclr
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Sep 2016, 15:43
Location: Aiken, SC USA

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#7

Post by Svrclr » 21 Sep 2016, 15:23

If the point is to use the PAW 600 in place of existing AT guns, then I agree that it is a waste.

However, the way to think of it is as an addition to the AT gun inventory, rather than a replacement for the Pak 40 and larger guns. And by addition to the AT guns, I mean a replacement for the infantry guns. An infantry gun that has a useful AT capability. It is NOT a replacement for the Pak40 (or larger) AT guns. It wouldn't take the place of StuG either. It would be to provide AT guns to units who have to rely on hand held AT or grenades. Even then, I don't see it replacing Panzerfaust or Panzerschreck in the infantry platoons.

The other thing to note is that a Pak 40 is way too heavy for most of the Whermacht to use as an AT gun. You can tow them with horses, but not over rough ground and poor roads. With the increasing shortages of motor transport, it becomes increasingly difficult for a retreating army to keep stock of AT guns. Spikes in Pak 40 losses (and other types too) are due to guns being abandoned in retreats as much as destroyed in action. AS long as the ground is somewhat solid, Paw 600 has some tactical mobility from it's crew, and is more easily transported by horse or towed.

Infantry guns are intended as direct fire weapons, not so much indirect fire, although they have that capability. They are intended for high-value targets, that you can see. The capability for indirect fire should not be that important, at least not any more so than to the existing infantry guns units. And again, this can't be stressed enough, the point is to add a useful AT capability to guns that had little AT capability.

As far as production, since it never went into production who can say for sure. As a quick approximation, there were 6400+ infantry guns built in 1944, which comes out to over 500 a month (roughly), and the PAW 600 is a simpler gun to build. The thing that is sure, PAW 600 is far easier to produce than conventional AT guns. The barrel is basically a piece of pipe. It is not like a regular artillery barrel that has to be machined. The breech still does, since it faces very high pressure, but that is a small piece of the overall gun. Additionally, a lot off factories and shops that would have been unable to machine regular artillery would be able to build at least components for the PAW 600, since they are less demanding to produce. However, like most artillery of all types, the limiting factor would be the carriage, which always seems to lag tube production (regardless of country).

I know the listing of ammunition types lists armored piercing round (separate from a hollow charge), but in all honesty, if the hollow charge round is ineffective, then the guns are of no use in the AT role. It just doesn't have enough kinetic energy to take out any useful tank without it. However, AT guns like the Pak 97 used hollow charge AT rounds, as did conventional artillery units in direct fire vs tanks. Given the larger diameter and the smooth bore, the 81 mm bomb should be fairly effective. If there is an issue, it is that a low velocity gun would have trouble vs tanks attacking across the gunners point of view, requiring more of a lead. But large numbers of German guns already have lower velocity then the

As far as production of the gun and the ammunition, it would need to be in place of the existing infantry guns and their ammunition supply. I agree, production would need to be adjusted or there is a shortage, but the point is to get the existing infantry guns out of service and replace them with a hybrid infantry/AT gun, so there is no point in leaving them in production. They could be used as fortress guns and in rear areas.

The one thing to keep in mind about mortars, they are not nearly as accurate as direct fire artillery. They aren't as accurate as indirect fire artillery either, but they don't fill the same need. Adding the additional mortars (12 cm) would be additional firepower added. Maybe since Germany is on the defensive at that stage, maybe the need to eliminate suppressing heavy weapons during Allied attacks is limited.

As far as a revolution, if there is one, it would be in production. Rationalizing production and eliminating obsolescent designs and capacity. 7.5 cm infantry guns are expensive and limited in capability. The PAW 600 allows the Germans to introduce a simple, effective AT gun in large numbers to add additional firepower to the infantry, whose combat power is shrinking, while giving it a useful role as an infantry gun in offensive missions.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#8

Post by stg 44 » 22 Sep 2016, 00:11

The PAW 600 was intended to replace all the AT guns in the infantry regiments of infantry divisions. Divisional AT assets were meant to be Hetzers. Of course that was the plan for 1945, which clearly never happened. An earlier switch means the infantry guns and light AT guns of the infantry regiment (37mm and 50mm PAK) which weren't able to penetrate Soviet tanks anyway, at least not beyond 300-500m, the max effective range of the PAW 600 being 600 or so meters, are combined into one weapon and unit, IIRC saving over 250k men from TOE, plus simplifying production by having one weapon system for the IG 75mm, 37mm PAK, and 50mm PAK which used the 50mm PAK carriage. Plus it is a simply recoil system with a smoothbore barrel. It simplifies logistics and production, doesn't degrade the performance of infantry regiment AT assets, and saves manpower by combining the IG and PAK roles at the lowest level crew served AT weapon in an infantry regiment. PAK40s would still be for divisional AT companies (or Marders) with this early introduction of the PAW.

The other nice benefit is that it can penetrate any Soviet AFV of WW2, unlike the lighter AT guns they are replacing.

Graniterail
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 11 Oct 2015, 10:00
Location: NZ

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#9

Post by Graniterail » 23 Sep 2016, 17:43

1943.
Weight: 640kg
Effective Firing Range: 750M
Decent Elevation, Good traverse
Smaller than a Pak 38
'Armor penetration was 140mm of vertical armor'.


Sounds like something you'd want on the tracks of the hills & mountains of Italy behind every shrub, around every corner just waiting to pop Shermans. there or in the Carpathians & the Hedgerows of Normandy in 44, not the flat Steppe of Russia.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#10

Post by stg 44 » 23 Sep 2016, 23:53

Graniterail wrote:1943.
Weight: 640kg
Effective Firing Range: 750M
Decent Elevation, Good traverse
Smaller than a Pak 38
'Armor penetration was 140mm of vertical armor'.


Sounds like something you'd want on the tracks of the hills & mountains of Italy behind every shrub, around every corner just waiting to pop Shermans. there or in the Carpathians & the Hedgerows of Normandy in 44, not the flat Steppe of Russia.
The PAK50 that the Germans were still using could only take out Soviet tanks at 500 meters with rare tungsten core ammo. It's not the ideal weapon, but given resource constraints its better than what they were using historically.
Also don't forget the indirect firing range/function.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600
Maximum firing range 6,200 m (6,800 yd) (high explosive)
Also quite a bit better than the infantry guns it would replace:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_le ... C3%BCtz_18
Maximum firing range 3,550 m (3,880 yd)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_In ... C3%BCtz_37
Maximum firing range 5,150 m (5,630 yd)

Svrclr
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Sep 2016, 15:43
Location: Aiken, SC USA

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#11

Post by Svrclr » 24 Sep 2016, 00:46

Graniterail wrote:1943.
Weight: 640kg
Effective Firing Range: 750M
Decent Elevation, Good traverse
Smaller than a Pak 38
'Armor penetration was 140mm of vertical armor'.


Sounds like something you'd want on the tracks of the hills & mountains of Italy behind every shrub, around every corner just waiting to pop Shermans. there or in the Carpathians & the Hedgerows of Normandy in 44, not the flat Steppe of Russia.
Remember that a large part of European Russia is covered with trees and brush. And even in steppes, you can conceal the guns until they fire, allowing them to fire first.

Even using larger, heavier AT guns, the crews would not necessarily want to open fire at longer ranges. You would let the targets get much closer to ensure a first hit kill.

Even if the Germans had sufficient production capacity to build as many Pak 40 or even Pak 43 for that matter, the lack of motor transport to tow the guns is a significant liability for the infantry. The PAW600 can be towed by lighter vehicles or horses for longer distances. For purely tactical redeployments, the crews can move them, something that the Pak40 can barely do under ideal conditions, and the Pak43 cannot due at all.

No one (or at least I am not) is suggesting that a PAW600 is as good an AT gun as a Pak40. In some ideal conditions it might be somewhat better, but generally, the PAW 600 would not be as good as the Pak 40, and cannot hold a candle to the Pak43. This isn't a case of suggesting to replace one with the other. The idea is to use the high-low pressure system to make the regimental infantry guns a true dual-purpose weapon and to deploy them where the Germans didn't have AT guns, or had obsolete/obsolescent guns.

Graniterail
Member
Posts: 73
Joined: 11 Oct 2015, 10:00
Location: NZ

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#12

Post by Graniterail » 24 Sep 2016, 07:57

Svrclr wrote:
Even if the Germans had sufficient production capacity to build as many Pak 40 or even Pak 43 for that matter, the lack of motor transport to tow the guns is a significant liability for the infantry. The PAW600 can be towed by lighter vehicles or horses for longer distances. For purely tactical redeployments, the crews can move them, something that the Pak40 can barely do under ideal conditions, and the Pak43 cannot due at all.
Lack of motor transport is going to be a pain when siting guns on rougher terrain.

Ask the gun crew to haul a 640Kg PAW 600 up the Mountainside with nothing but rope & elbow grease? Yeah, maybe.
Ask them to haul a 4,380Kg Pak 43 the same way? Pervitin or not, Fughettaboutit.

ThreadCutter
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 03 Sep 2016, 20:55
Location: Murica

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#13

Post by ThreadCutter » 24 Sep 2016, 16:31

What about putting the PAW 600 in an aircraft mounting? I think a few panzerknackers flew with a version of the Pak 40 and were quite effective. With the PAW 600 (assuming it could be fitted with an autoloader) you save so much weight that it might even be able to fit in a conformal pod on the Ju-87g. That would be, I presume, an improvement over their 12 shot 37mm gun pods. If the stukas could be fitted with the PAW-600 they could engage tanks horizontally, instead of having to make a diving attack onto the top armor every time, which might let them fit in more tank-engagements per sortie and also keep up their energy throughout the flight instead of having a vulnerable climb out after every attack. In the panzerknacker, you would get a lot more ammunition capacity from the saved weight, and much better handling from the reduced recoil. Having a more effective anti-tank aircraft might help a lot on the Eastern Front.

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#14

Post by stg 44 » 24 Sep 2016, 17:14

ThreadCutter wrote:What about putting the PAW 600 in an aircraft mounting? I think a few panzerknackers flew with a version of the Pak 40 and were quite effective. With the PAW 600 (assuming it could be fitted with an autoloader) you save so much weight that it might even be able to fit in a conformal pod on the Ju-87g. That would be, I presume, an improvement over their 12 shot 37mm gun pods. If the stukas could be fitted with the PAW-600 they could engage tanks horizontally, instead of having to make a diving attack onto the top armor every time, which might let them fit in more tank-engagements per sortie and also keep up their energy throughout the flight instead of having a vulnerable climb out after every attack. In the panzerknacker, you would get a lot more ammunition capacity from the saved weight, and much better handling from the reduced recoil. Having a more effective anti-tank aircraft might help a lot on the Eastern Front.
The muzzle velocity was WAY too low, lower than the MK108 and several times the weight. Even the 50mm autocannon was an insane project. Rockets for tank busting were the way to go before ultra high velocity 30mm cannons with DU shells were available.

Svrclr
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 16 Sep 2016, 15:43
Location: Aiken, SC USA

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#15

Post by Svrclr » 25 Sep 2016, 15:39

I'm not sure it is the weight that is the problem as much as the pure bulk of the weapon. One of the big difficulties with the airborne guns is that they still have to be fitted into the plane, so in that sense, a Paw600 is not that much better than a Pak 40. Plus, while the recoil is certainly less than another gun of comparable size, it is not negligible (or it would have been put on a 37 mm carriage).

The other issue is that the ammunition is somewhat more complicated. You have the 105 mm base charge, followed by a plate that allows the pressure to bleed through, along with the sheer bolt and then finally the 81 mm round. If nothing else, it is a very long, unwieldy arrangement to clear from the breech, that I can't imagine would be easy to make into an autoloader. Historically, the larger airborne guns always had issues with extracting the round, I can't imagine the more complicated ammunition would make that easier in an aircraft.

If anything, if the Germans had more anti-tank capability organically, and were able to use motorized divisional and non-divisional AT units to stop larger tank attacks, maybe the Germans could devote fewer sorties to tank busting missions, and attack easier targets like conventional artillery and trucks. Boring kills, but the Russian (vast) superiority in the amount of artillery and the mobility added by lend-lease vehicles were also major problems that the Germans historically had no answer for. The jabo's and stukas would only need their regular loadout of bombs and regular airborne cannons for those missions.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”