8,8 cm Flak and Tiger APCBC

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Post Reply
Miles Krogfus
Member
Posts: 474
Joined: 08 May 2015, 20:54
Location: San Diego, CA

8,8 cm Flak and Tiger APCBC

#1

Post by Miles Krogfus » 10 May 2015, 23:55

The first APCBC used was 8,8 PzGr of C .55-.65, Mn and Si .7-1.0, Cr 1.1-1.3, P and S < .03 %. Weight 9.5 kg. Specified hardness at least 59 RC. it had a large capacity HE cavity with a 160 gram bursting charge. In 1940 for Flak, Rheinmetall Borsig produced 8,8 cm PzGr with C .57, Mn. 65, Si .39, Cr 1.83, Mo .29, P and S .02 % with an ogive RC 57.3 and through the shoulder RC 55.3.
This projectile was replaced by 8,8 PzGr 39 with C .5-.6, Mn .5-.8, Si .7-1.0, Cr 1.4-1.7, P and S .035 with a small capacity HE cavity and 59+ or - 2 grams bursting charge. In the spring of 1944, the Hermann Göring Werke produced PzGr 39 with added nickel obtained from scrap. For example, heat 4900 K had a tested 60 RC nose hardness.
The PzGr 39/43 of the Tiger II had a specified 10.16 Kg weight. The MV of "old" 810 meters/second 8,8 PzGr was officially rated as having 29.5% less armor plate perforation than PzGr 39/43 at 100 meters range and 30 degrees deflection, but Allied plate firing tests revealed less difference between the two.
Ammunition usage of the 503rd Tiger Abt. during July 5-22,1943 shows these figures: in 11 days of combat, 2770 APCBC and 2896 HE rounds fired by 283 aggregate combat fit Tigers. Thus each panzer averaged 9.79 PzGr 39 and 10.23 HE fired per day.
The quality of German APCBC differed from company to company, with early war captured Eastern European factories mostly producing less effective AP. (R-B and Krupp produced excellent APCBC.) This difference in quality I have found in AP from US, British, and Russian factories as well, so tank men loading an AP projectile sometimes were in for quite a surprise . . .

Miles Krogfus
Member
Posts: 474
Joined: 08 May 2015, 20:54
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: 8,8 cm Flak and Tiger APCBC

#2

Post by Miles Krogfus » 12 May 2015, 20:37

8,8 cm PzGr 39 had a base weight of 10 Kg, but the weight of the HE charge caused actual variations, as did slight differences in projectile body weight.


User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 88 MM Flak and Tiger APCBC

#3

Post by Sheldrake » 12 May 2015, 22:11

Miles Krogfus wrote:The quality of German APCBC differed from company to company, with early war captured Eastern European factories mostly producing less effective AP. (R-B and Krupp produced excellent APCBC.) This difference in quality I have found in AP from US, British, and Russian factories as well, so tank men loading an AP projectile sometimes were in for quite a surprise . . .
In the First World War there was sometimes 4" difference in length between 6" shells delivered to the Royal Artillery. (Farndale's Western Front)

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 8,8 cm Flak and Tiger APCBC

#4

Post by Yoozername » 18 May 2015, 21:01

The early tests of the KWK Tiger 88mm revealed that the existing 'Flak' ammunition was actually striking the muzzle brake. The investigation showed that these rounds would often emerge at slight angles. The ammunition for the Tiger I gun was then developed and was probably the most specialized in that no other AFV used the weapon/ammunition besides the Tiger units. The ammunition was electrically fired also, while the Flak guns were mechanically fired.

WWII seems to be the advent of Quality Control. The sheer numbers of rounds produced is staggering. The Germans actually put a weight class marking on HE rounds even for tank guns. This is the Roman numerals (I, II, III) printed on the projectile. I would suppose that would mean that tankers could sort these together so as to maximize commonality. I do not think other nations did this.

The number of Flak rounds must have been tremendous. I have read that the Germans produced 100 million 105mm projectiles (artillery) alone.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 8,8 cm Flak and Tiger APCBC

#5

Post by Yoozername » 18 May 2015, 21:15

Miles Krogfus wrote: Ammunition usage of the 503rd Tiger Abt. during July 5-22,1943 shows these figures: in 11 days of combat, 2770 APCBC and 2896 HE rounds fired by 283 aggregate combat fit Tigers. Thus each panzer averaged 9.79 PzGr 39 and 10.23 HE fired per day.


Do you have claim numbers for this time period? From the numbers, it would seem that the average combat daily strength is ~25 Tigers? It seems the ammunition consumption is somewhat low considering it is an attack. Basically, it would be rare for a Tiger to go through it's whole combat load in a battle day.

Miles Krogfus
Member
Posts: 474
Joined: 08 May 2015, 20:54
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: 8,8 cm Flak and Tiger APCBC

#6

Post by Miles Krogfus » 20 May 2015, 22:00

For July 5th through the 22nd the III Panzerkorps Ic reports that the 503rd claimed 405 tanks, 105 artillery, 451 Pak and lost 7 Tigers. The rest of III Korps claimed 355 tanks,101 artillery, 431 pak and 17 Flak. Losses: 6 Pz.Div. 16 Pz III, 10 Pz. IV. 7 Pz.Div. 16 III and 3 IV. 19 Pz.Div. 3 III, 6 IV. Total Panzer Division tanks lost: 54. Their ammo use: aggregate of 346 combat fit Pz.III L60 panzers in 10 combat days fired 2446 APCBC, 4098 HE and 254 PzGr 40. (7.1, 11.8 and .7 per panzer daily). 387 aggregate PzIV L 43/48 and Sturmgz. fired 3013 APCBC, 5769 HE, 225 PzGr 40 and 771 HL/B hollow charge rounds (7.8, 14.9, .6 and 2 per day). Note that the claim for Pak are reduced by a later September report on the 503 Abt. I also have posted.
(No figures given in the referenced III PZ Korps HQ documents for Sturmgeschutz losses.)

critical mass
Member
Posts: 740
Joined: 13 Jun 2017, 15:53
Location: central Europe

Re: 8,8 cm Flak and Tiger APCBC

#7

Post by critical mass » 12 Oct 2017, 19:30

1942 and early, TIGER units used sometimes exclusively the lighter Flak AP ammunition:

15253/43
"Tiger Abt. 502 hat nur Flak-Mun. für Kw.K. verwandt (einges. elektr. Zünder) (...)"

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”