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

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#16

Post by Svrclr » 25 Sep 2016, 16:37

Graniterail wrote:
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.
No one is suggesting elbow grease up the side of a mountain. Those are your words, not mine.

The point is that a PAW600 has some mobility. Maybe not much mobility, but some. The bigger guns have none unless the rare motor transport is allocated to tow them.

Again, the overall point of the PAW600 is not that it is a better gun than what the Germans had historically. Pak40 and larger AT guns are better guns from most ways of viewing performance.

Even though the PAW 600 it is NOT as good as the other, historical guns, it is still a useful weapon, that fills a valuable role. The point of the PAW600 is:
1). It allows a certain savings of manpower due to it's ability to take over the role of the light infantry gun, while adding a useful AT capability.
2). It is cheap and easy to produce. While the cost itself is not that important, that indicates that only a minimal amount of machining, so lighter industry can be used, and they can be produced more quickly than conventional AT guns.
3). The PAW600 is far more effective (140mm penetration) than a Pak 36, 38 and even more effective than the Pak97 (although the Pak 97 can barely penetrate a t34).

Stovepipe
Member
Posts: 85
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 17:51
Location: near Dublin.

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#17

Post by Stovepipe » 27 Oct 2016, 22:43

any links to film of the gun firing?


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

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#18

Post by stg 44 » 27 Oct 2016, 23:06

Stovepipe wrote:any links to film of the gun firing?
None that I ever found.

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?

#19

Post by T. A. Gardner » 27 Oct 2016, 23:18

Svrclr wrote:[3). The PAW600 is far more effective (140mm penetration) than a Pak 36, 38 and even more effective than the Pak97 (although the Pak 97 can barely penetrate a t34).
This isn't entirely true. HEAT rounds at that time were often indifferent in performance and had many issues with things like angle of impact, stand off distance, etc. Optimally, it might have had 14 cm penetration on paper, but I'd say it was more like 7 to 14 cm depending on all sorts of factors that can't be fully controlled. That's still pretty good performance however.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#20

Post by Paul Lakowski » 28 Oct 2016, 02:35

ANY GUN OVER 700KG IS TOO DIFFICULT TO USE with DISMOUNTED INFANTRY. So they can't advance with the ground troops. If it can't advance with the troops the gun can't provide the protection the ground troops need.

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

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#21

Post by stg 44 » 28 Oct 2016, 03:17

Paul Lakowski wrote:ANY GUN OVER 700KG IS TOO DIFFICULT TO USE with DISMOUNTED INFANTRY. So they can't advance with the ground troops. If it can't advance with the troops the gun can't provide the protection the ground troops need.
Good thing the PAW600 is under 700kg and could be horse drawn.

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

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#22

Post by Svrclr » 28 Oct 2016, 04:24

T. A. Gardner wrote:
Svrclr wrote:[3). The PAW600 is far more effective (140mm penetration) than a Pak 36, 38 and even more effective than the Pak97 (although the Pak 97 can barely penetrate a t34).
This isn't entirely true. HEAT rounds at that time were often indifferent in performance and had many issues with things like angle of impact, stand off distance, etc. Optimally, it might have had 14 cm penetration on paper, but I'd say it was more like 7 to 14 cm depending on all sorts of factors that can't be fully controlled. That's still pretty good performance however.
I never thought of it as an absolute. But as a guide, a gun with better penetration is still more effective than another heat round with less penetration. WHich is why I compared it to other guns, like the Pak97, which has all the same sort of liabilities with it's heat round and nominal penetration.

Like I said before, the importance would not have been it's overall effectiveness. It is not as good a gun as any of the Pak40's on Stug, jadpanzer or Marder like vehicles. It is not as good as towed Pak 40. The point would NOT be to use PAW to replace them.

By not using a lot of material, and using lower grade materials because of the lower stress, you get a lot more guns to the troops in the field, and potential to other areas like field fortifications, and add to the AT defense. They don't have to be great guns, just adequate, and I think the 14cm, along with the light weight (relatively) makes them an effective weapon.

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?

#23

Post by T. A. Gardner » 28 Oct 2016, 04:56

I'm not dissing the PAW at all. I think it was a brilliant idea. I also think the Germans, given they had them in 1939, should have given more attention to developing recoilless weapons. As a battalion / regimental antitank gun it would have been excellent. But, then too, a 7.5cm to 10.5 cm recoilless gun would have been just as useful. And, the later being very light would have been man portable.

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

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#24

Post by stg 44 » 28 Oct 2016, 11:43

T. A. Gardner wrote:I'm not dissing the PAW at all. I think it was a brilliant idea. I also think the Germans, given they had them in 1939, should have given more attention to developing recoilless weapons. As a battalion / regimental antitank gun it would have been excellent. But, then too, a 7.5cm to 10.5 cm recoilless gun would have been just as useful. And, the later being very light would have been man portable.
They explored that option, but found they simply could not produce propellants on the scale necessary to make that an option outside of specialized units. Part of the reason why they opted to develop the PAW600 and other such weapons was the very limited propellant needed to make it work.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#25

Post by Sheldrake » 28 Oct 2016, 14:17

stg 44 wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600
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/
#1 A range of 750 was too short to be effective in open terrain of South Russia and the Ukraine. After the first round it would be suppressed by HE and MG fire from ranges.

#2 An anti tank gun may be easy to man handle, but it still needs to be towed to have tactical or operational mobility. The wehrmacht was short of motorised transport and the fife expectancy of horse drawn anti tank gun detatchments seems short?

#3 The Germans were short of infantry. They were not going to conquer the USSR by turning every grenadier into an anti tank gunner. At Kursk the Germnas were on the attack in a gamble to win the war before the Western allies invaded Europe.

There isn't a single technological magic weapon that would compensate for economic and strategic follies ;)

#3

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

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#26

Post by stg 44 » 28 Oct 2016, 14:55

Sheldrake wrote: #1 A range of 750 was too short to be effective in open terrain of South Russia and the Ukraine. After the first round it would be suppressed by HE and MG fire from ranges.
Not all of Ukraine/Southern Russia is entirely flat, devoid of terrain or cover, while it is only 1/3rd of the front in the East. PAK38s with shorter effective range were still in use in 1944, so they were still viable with at most 500m kill range. But keep in mind that this was meant to be a longer range, dual purpose infantry gun with longer AT capabilities than existing IGs. It was also only meant to be used at the infantry regiment level and below due to the shortage of longer range AT weapons, allowing the heavier PAK40s and SP guns to be concentrated at the division level. Clearly having enough PAK40s at all levels and with the capacity to move them around would be ideal, but wasn't possible. The PAW guns were a compromise and material/manpower saving.
Sheldrake wrote: #2 An anti tank gun may be easy to man handle, but it still needs to be towed to have tactical or operational mobility. The wehrmacht was short of motorised transport and the fife expectancy of horse drawn anti tank gun detatchments seems short?
Horses aren't any less surviveable than an unarmored truck moving a gun around. 2-3 horses could move the gun and then the gunner team could manhandle it into position. Otherwise a car should even be enough to tow the PAW.
Sheldrake wrote: #3 The Germans were short of infantry. They were not going to conquer the USSR by turning every grenadier into an anti tank gunner. At Kursk the Germnas were on the attack in a gamble to win the war before the Western allies invaded Europe.
No one asserted that either. Saving manpower by merging the infantry gun and regimental AT capabilities into one unit with a piece of equipment that was longer range than the existing PAK38 and 75mm IG seems like a good idea to free up critical manpower and get greater use out of what they had. The PAW600 could be used on the attack as an infantry gun with longer range than existing 75mm models and offer economies of scale savings by using existing 8cm mortar rounds adapted to the PAW. It doubled as a HEAT shell launcher too.
Sheldrake wrote: There isn't a single technological magic weapon that would compensate for economic and strategic follies ;)
No one asserted there was and the above really isn't helpful to the discussion, just yet another cliched attempt to shut down discussions on limited topics because the one technical topic isn't a war winner.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1441
Joined: 30 Apr 2003, 06:16
Location: Canada

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#27

Post by Paul Lakowski » 28 Oct 2016, 20:19

Mass production for total war would dictate streamlining of as many guns to ramp up production. HEER could ill afford German Infantry Regiments with separate gun batteries for heavy & light infantry guns plus PAK plus heavy MG troops. ....as well as divisional artillery.


In fact all regular infantry Regiments should be stream lined in to horse/wagon/bicycle units....concentrating all vehicles at divisional level. So all regimental weapons have to be wagon drawn, thus limiting the size of guns.

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

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#28

Post by stg 44 » 28 Oct 2016, 22:10

Paul Lakowski wrote:Mass production for total war would dictate streamlining of as many guns to ramp up production. HEER could ill afford German Infantry Regiments with separate gun batteries for heavy & light infantry guns plus PAK plus heavy MG troops. ....as well as divisional artillery.

In fact all regular infantry Regiments should be stream lined in to horse/wagon/bicycle units....concentrating all vehicles at divisional level. So all regimental weapons have to be wagon drawn, thus limiting the size of guns.
Agreed, combining the the infantry guns and PAK at the regimental level is the way to go, plus it even saves on towing vehicles/horses. Perhaps they could then motorize artillery with the saved towing assets? The savings in horses would be pretty substantial; for quiet sectors they could probably demotorize entire divisions to make specific infantry divisions fully motorized in artillery at the divisional level the divisional AT battalion. Using vehicles for any regimental assets is probably a waste.

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

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#29

Post by stg 44 » 31 Oct 2016, 17:10

Oh and it wouldn't just end with the PAW600:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzerwurfkanone_10H64

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: What if the PAW 600 introduced in 1943?

#30

Post by Sheldrake » 01 Nov 2016, 00:59

stg 44 wrote:
Paul Lakowski wrote:Mass production for total war would dictate streamlining of as many guns to ramp up production. HEER could ill afford German Infantry Regiments with separate gun batteries for heavy & light infantry guns plus PAK plus heavy MG troops. ....as well as divisional artillery.

In fact all regular infantry Regiments should be stream lined in to horse/wagon/bicycle units....concentrating all vehicles at divisional level. So all regimental weapons have to be wagon drawn, thus limiting the size of guns.
Agreed, combining the the infantry guns and PAK at the regimental level is the way to go, plus it even saves on towing vehicles/horses. Perhaps they could then motorize artillery with the saved towing assets? The savings in horses would be pretty substantial; for quiet sectors they could probably demotorize entire divisions to make specific infantry divisions fully motorized in artillery at the divisional level the divisional AT battalion. Using vehicles for any regimental assets is probably a waste.
Fantasy. Show me how these numbers add up! It isn' enough to motorise gun tractors you need to motorise artillery ammunition supply.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”