Did/why didn't Germany deployed 75mm APDS rounds in WW2?

[stg 44]

I found and english language manual section on Germany sabot developments and they depict a 75mm APDS round that was very similar looking to the British 77mm APDS round of 1944-45. Did the Germans ever use it and why not if they did not?
http://s57.photobucket.com/user/Mathos/ ... w.jpg.html

[Richard Anderson]

I found and english language manual section on Germany sabot developments and they depict a 75mm APDS round that was very similar looking to the British 77mm APDS round of 1944-45. Did the Germans ever use it and why not if they did not?
http://s57.photobucket.com/user/Mathos/ ... w.jpg.html

Because it was a prewar French development...note who developed that round and for which guns. The developers fled to England where they were instrumental in the British 6-pdr and 17-pdr sabot development. The Germans showed some interest and tested captured samples of the Brandt sabot at Hillersleben, along with some they produced themselves. However, like every other developer of sabot, including the British and Americans, they found the problem of incomplete sabot separation causing extreme inaccuracy to be nearly insurmountable. Thus, like the Americans, they elected to go with the simpler APCR, until lack of tungsten carbide forced them to drop most production of that as well. The British essentially accepted the inaccuracy and fielded their immature sabot anyway, but it was postwar before such rounds were truly perfected.

[stg 44]

I found and english language manual section on Germany sabot developments and they depict a 75mm APDS round that was very similar looking to the British 77mm APDS round of 1944-45. Did the Germans ever use it and why not if they did not?
http://s57.photobucket.com/user/Mathos/ ... w.jpg.html

Because it was a prewar French development...note who developed that round and for which guns. The developers fled to England where they were instrumental in the British 6-pdr and 17-pdr sabot development. The Germans showed some interest and tested captured samples of the Brandt sabot at Hillersleben, along with some they produced themselves. However, like every other developer of sabot, including the British and Americans, they found the problem of incomplete sabot separation causing extreme inaccuracy to be nearly insurmountable. Thus, like the Americans, they elected to go with the simpler APCR, until lack of tungsten carbide forced them to drop most production of that as well. The British essentially accepted the inaccuracy and fielded their immature sabot anyway, but it was postwar before such rounds were truly perfected.

What allowed it to finally separate properly?

[Stiltzkin]

Because of a decrease in internal ballistic efficiency (at higher muzzle velocities), accuracy and material issues. They did in fact notice a penetration increase because of a lesser retardation of the projectile.
If I recall correctly the tests were conducted in 10.5 and 12.8 with 7.5 and 8.8cm proj.

[Sheldrake]

I found and english language manual section on Germany sabot developments and they depict a 75mm APDS round that was very similar looking to the British 77mm APDS round of 1944-45. Did the Germans ever use it and why not if they did not?
http://s57.photobucket.com/user/Mathos/ ... w.jpg.html

Off the top of the head.

1. The Germans didn't have the same need to defeat heavy armour. The British chose to invest in complicated ammunition because there was no suitable tank on which to mount a bigger calibre gun. The Americans had a 90mm gun platform in the M36 and M26 in the pipeline. Most of the tanks the Gerrmans faced could be penetrated by the 75mm pak 40 and Pz IV with the kwk 75mm 48. The Panther's 75mm L70 and 88 cannon could deal with anything bigger and soviet.

2. Despite the Nazi perchant for investing in odd technology, the industrial expansion of war effort of 1944-45 was about mass production of a simplified range of equipment. Sabot rounds would make a marginal difference. Large numbers of panzerfausts and fighter jets would make a big difference.

[stg 44]

So what allowed sabot rounds to properly separate post-war that they didn't figure out during the war?

[Yoozername]

The Germans did have a 105mm round that was a discarding sabot. The actual projectile was the 7,5 cm Pzgr 39 as used in Pak 40/KWK 40/etc. This was on the books in April 1944 and was a separately loaded projectile to be used in all 105mm weapons. Certainly a good application would be the StuH or Wespe but also artillery weapons too. Here is a bad picture of one...I have posted a better drawing on this website before. I will have to look for it.

http://s57.photobucket.com/user/Mathos/ ... l.jpg.html

[famo]

Not to negate previous comments but add to them.
A minor factor also is the German preference for muzzle brakes especially on high velocity anti tank weapons etc. Muzzle brakes produce additional difficulties for sabot rounds as the sabot or petals tend to foul the baffles of a muzzle brake on projectile departure from the barrel with catastrophic consequences.

[Paul Lakowski]

So what allowed sabot rounds to properly separate post-war that they didn't figure out during the war?

Development of the pot sabot which only worked for short L/D projectiles. The long L/D arrow projectiles required a different sabot design. Besides such HV projectiles needed tungsten carbide ,..... a material that was in short supply in the Reich. Tungsten Carbide was more valuable in machine tools to stamp out mass produced 'cookie cutter weapons'.

[stg 44]

So what allowed sabot rounds to properly separate post-war that they didn't figure out during the war?

Development of the pot sabot which only worked for short L/D projectiles. The long L/D arrow projectiles required a different sabot design. Besides such HV projectiles needed tungsten carbide ,..... a material that was in short supply in the Reich. Tungsten Carbide was more valuable in machine tools to stamp out mass produced 'cookie cutter weapons'.

The Soviet used hardened steel for their early APFSDS rounds. But there are separation issues with pot type sabot for short rounds. The Brits had that issue with their 77mm tank gun.

[Mobius]

The British found that firing 17 pdr APDS left an aluminum residue in the barrel. This caused inaccuracy when firing regular rounds afterwards.

[Paul Lakowski]

Yeah took years/decades to work out APDS and the later APFSDS TECH.

the German Röchling shells were low velocity artillery projectiles to penetrate thick concrete bunkers. The actual rods were cast steel and did not penetrate armor very well. So there 'Sabot' did not have the same problems like the allied APDS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%B6chling_shell

[Yoozername]

I suppose the British had abundant Tungsten also. In fact, in England, the Germans were 'owners' of a significant Tungsten mine. Obviously, they were not allowed onsite with the war and all.

Tungsten tools are actually used to manufacture regular WWII AP. That is, it is needed to finish the hardened outside to a specification. It is actually consumed by doing this and wears away.

The US was actually very close to having APDS towards the end of WWII. They had working prototypes.

The US HVAP was one of the most accurate projectiles BTW, sort of dismissing the oft-claimed inaccuracy against this type of projectile. I would bet they had very precise specifications and centering of the bolt inside the carrier.