Panther 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

Panther APCBC

#1

Post by Miles Krogfus » 11 May 2015, 22:00

The two piece welded F 206 analysis ogive C .95-1.05, Mn .4-.6, Si .25-.45, Cr 1.25-1.5, P and S .03 and FM 651 body C .27-.32, Mn .5-.8, Si .25-.45, Cr 1.2-1.5, P and S .02 PzGr 39 was standard for the Panther and Jagd Panzer IV L/70. Because of the greater need to produce AP for the Pak 40 and KwK 40 guns, sub contractors made the cheaper FM 1161 monobloc version for them (when the Pak 40 was introduced it originally used the better welded AP). However firing tests showed that at over 45 degrees deflection, the monobloc held its own.
Rheinmetall Borsig tests revealed that when a muzzle velocity of 800 m/s was passed, the wear on a gun barrel dramatically increased so that a velocity of 1000 m/s gave a gun tube circa 27.5 % the life of one at 800 m/s muzzle velocity. The Panther firing PzGr 39 at 925/935 m/s had a 2500 round gun tube life, and the Tiger II at 1000 m/s mv a gun tube 1500 round life, and with iron FES driving band 900 rounds.
1943 75 and 88 mm gun barrels had the 3 R St Ni V 82 analysis of C .25-.45, max Mn .80, max Si .45, max P and S .045, Cr 1-2.2, Ni 1.1-1.7, V .1-.2. In 1944 the nickel became .8-1.1. Minimum required figures for the following: elastic limit 82 Kg/qmm, hardness of 92 Kg/qmm (circa 267 HB), elongation of 10%, reduction in area of 25%, shock resistance of 5 mkg/qcm.

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

Re: Panther APCBC

#2

Post by Yoozername » 16 May 2015, 19:37

Interesting, is there any nomenclature difference for the monoblock? Did these rounds have the same velocities? Most sources claim the actual PzGr 39 projectile for the PAK 40, KWK 40 (L43 and L48) were the same. There are great cutaways at the ammunition collector sites.

The Germans were certainly 7,5 cm champions and much testing seemed to center about this projectile size. The Panther clearly was different in having two bands for the rifling.


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

Re: Panther APCBC

#3

Post by Miles Krogfus » 20 May 2015, 22:38

A September 1,1939 Hillersleben test of large HE capacity 75 PzGr versus 60 mm of 84/Kg/qmm plate at 20 degrees deflection produced a partial perforation of 395 m/s and a complete perforation at 485 m/s. In late 1941 75 PzGr Rot could completely perforate 70 mm of 110 Kg/qmm plate at 30 degrees at 634 m/s. The new PzGr 39 got complete perforation at 576/ms and at 634 m/s it perforated 80 mm of this plate. The monobloc 75 PzGr was different from and less efficient than the two parts welded together PzGr 39. Yes, the nomenclature for different 75 mm armor piercing rounds were different . . .

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

Re: Panther APCBC

#4

Post by Yoozername » 21 May 2015, 16:08

Just to clarify...

Right: The large capacity HE 7,5 cm is actually from the early KWK 37 and StuK 37 L24 weapons? The K. Gr. Pz. on the right?

The one on the left is the KWK 40 (L43 and L48)and PAK 40 (L46) projectile.

These both are single driving band projectiles while the Panther had two driving bands.

The K. Gr. Pz. is a monobloc. The drawing shows the welded PzGr 39 on the left as a two part (denoted by the angled lines) design. Other differences are the cap design. The KWK 37 had a velocity of only 385 m/s, so I suppose it was tested at higher velocities. Some claim this K. Gr. Pz. was also used as a substitute in the long case guns (L43/L48 and L46) but I have not seen any source. You are saying that the two part welded design had another substitute? Specifically a small HE design but with a monobloc construction?

The Panther always had a welded construction?

Thanks and enjoy the information.

Image

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

Re: Panther APCBC

#5

Post by Yoozername » 21 May 2015, 16:54

Image

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

Re: Panther APCBC

#6

Post by Yoozername » 13 Jun 2015, 05:02

I have not seen a Zeichnung number or a Ausfuhrung that shows a PzGr 39 having a small HE cavity and a one part non-welded body?

Post Reply

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