The Panther's H.Dv.119/325 "Firing Table"

[Miles Krogfus]

It lacks the normal detailed FT for the tank's Pz.Gr. and HE. The Panther Fibel issued July 1944 helps a bit . . .

[Miles Krogfus]

H.Dv.119/325 next pages:

[Miles Krogfus]

Panther gun next pages:

[Miles Krogfus]

The official MV for the gun of 935 m/s poses problems. Here are the official 100 meters penetration from two German documents at this MV versus armor plate: 138 mm . . . At 1000 meters 110/111 mm. What Tom Jentz told me and my own further remarks will follow any thoughtful, lucid replies to my original post.

[Mobius]

Here are the sight pictures through the two sights used by different vehicles mounting this weapon.
Which one appears to be better?

[Yoozername]

That document, given the date, would probably be the preliminary data for the guns. The Stu K 42 was later renamed to a PAK 42 when used in the JagdPanzer IV chassis. Interesting that the document dated late 1944 still says StuK 42? It would be great to have the height and width accuracy data.

The first sight, the TZF 12, was only 2.5X magnification but was a binocular design. The dual magnification, TZF 12a, was both 2.5X and 5X and monocular. These articulated sights were Panther only systems. The Sfl. Z.F.1a was more of a generic periscopic sight used on Stug and Hetzer, etc. and had a fixed 5X magnification. Anecdotal evidence is that they were very good systems. As with most systems, they have good points and bad points.

I suppose my question is "better at what?". I have not read how the large angular lines are used in these gunsights. The 88mm FlaK had a similar sight I believe as far as the sight picture. the Germans developed gunsights that would allow the gunner to estimate range, compare with the TC's estimation (using binoculars), and then dialing in the range and then readjusting the aiming mark (triangle). As far as 'Better at what', the mission of the Panther and jagdpanzers was different.

The telescopic sights, while apparently better protected, are susceptible to shock from hits on the wide Panther mantlet. The articulated front piece is attached to the mantlet and moves with it. The dual magnification gives the gunner excellent awareness compared to a single magnification. The 2.5X had a wider field of view. The Panther gunner, controlling the turret traverse, is then tactically aware and perhaps more so than a jagdpanzer gunner.

[Yoozername]

http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Heer/H ... Deckbl.htm

translation

[Miles Krogfus]

Here are the other H.Dv.119/325 "Deckblatter":

[Miles Krogfus]

A July 1943 Wehrmacht Panther course gave these official Pzgr.39 armor plate penetration figures at 30 degrees deflection: 100 meters 138 mm, 400 m 127 mm, 500 meters 124 mm, 900 m 113 mm, 1300 m 104 mm, 1400 m 101 mm, 1800 m 93 mm, 2000 meters 88 mm.
Using all the various German FT and other primary data that I have here are Pzgr.39 velocities: 925 m/s muzzle velocity. 100 meters 910 m/s, 200/896, 300/882, 400/868, 500 meters 855 m/s, 600/843, 700/831, 800/819, 900/807, 1000 meters 795 m/s, 1100/783, 1200/771, 1300/760, 1400/749, 1500 meters 738 m/s, 1600/727, 1700/716, 1800/705, 1900/694, 2000 meters 684 m/s.
Here are 30 degrees deflection figures using Krupp data for its best projectiles versus armor plate:
100 meters 138 mm, 200 m 134 mm, 300 m 130 mm, 400 m 127 mm, 500 meters m 124 mm, 600 m 121 mm, 700 m 118 mm, 800 m 115 mm, 900 m 112 mm, 1000 meters 110 mm, 1100 m 108 mm, 1200 m 106 mm, 1300 m 104 mm, 1400 m 101 mm, 1500 meters 99 mm, 1600 m 97 mm, 1700 m 95 mm, 1800 m 93 mm, 1900 m 91 mm, 2000 meters 89 mm.
Why a 3 mm difference not 2 mm from 1300 to 1400 meters? Rounding off . . . For example, If an APCBC projectile has a 2.5 mm perforation difference from one distance to the next, does one write down 2 or 3 mm?

[Miles Krogfus]

Thomas Jentz in "Germany's Panther Tank . . ." page 126 gives some accuracy figures for the Panther gun. Using German data that I have, here are some of my Pzgr.39 figures to meditate about concerning 50% Breite/Hohe scatter: 100 meters 0/.1, 500 meters .1/.2, 1000 meters .2/.315, 1500 meters .45/.55, 2000 meters .6/.8, 2500 meters .9/.11, 3000 meters 1.1/1.5.
Jentz gives these %, and my B/H figures yield:
500 meters Jentz 100/100% (me 100/100), 1000 meters 100/97 (100/97), 1500 meters 100/72 (98/73), 2000 meters 92/49 (91/50), 2500 meters 73/29 (73/30), 3000 meters 55/18 (56/19). Remember that the people doing the "Tafel der Wahrscheinlichkeitsfaktoren" for German firing tables rounded off figures, and the "Tafel" itself gives only to 2 decimal place partial figures. As I have stated before, German FT's give approximate data for artillery, Pak and panzer crews in order to help guide them in combat.

[critical mass]

I have never seen an authentic firing table listing the range, downrange velocity, dispersion for the KWK42. It´s possible with knowledge of the german method and the hitting % ages to deduce the original dispersions within a very narrow error margin (I have done this for a naval gun in the past), though I for sure would deeply appreciate the original firing tables instead.

Pzgr.39 velocities: 925 m/s muzzle velocity. 100 meters 910 m/s, 200/896, 300/882, 400/868, 500 meters 855 m/s, 600/843, 700/831, 800/819, 900/807, 1000 meters 795 m/s, 1100/783, 1200/771, 1300/760, 1400/749, 1500 meters 738 m/s, 1600/727, 1700/716, 1800/705, 1900/694, 2000 meters 684 m/s.

[sidenote] Notice that Pz IVl recorded disabling IS2 front at 600m by two clean penetrations using similar 75mm Pzgr39 ammunition, each through the hull front and mantlet (Pzgr39 striking at <650m/s (?) with 704m/s muzzle velocity) is fairly interesting as the reference (reliable) penetration at 650m/s would be only about 100mm RHA at vertical and ~80mm RHA at 30°, thus providing support for the OKH´s judgement that the thick, cast armor elements of the IS2 provided significantly less ballistic protection than their thickness indicates. While this statement is wrong as a general one, it is believable in the specific case vs 75mm Pzgr39 AP bullets, which do not deform or break up at such low velocities. The cast armor should have been softer to offer adaequate resistence vs these non-deformable projectiles (to avoid plugging by adiabtic shear failure), though it might well have offered high levels of protection vs deformable, soviet AP bullets in the same time.

[Mobius]

Thanks Miles,
The 75mm KwK 42 FT has been the most important missing data for those compiling WWII gun ballistics for some time. I had to grasp at straws of scraps of British source data, which now appears incorrect, to fill the void. (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=228421)

[side note] A 75mm Pzgr39 with a MV of 704 m/s will not have an impact velocity of 650m/s at 600m. More like 638m/s.

[Miles Krogfus]

Here is a page from the 75 mm Sherman tank firing table with less rounded off figures that yield more precise % figures. When Germans made down range % data, they may have employed similar more detailed tables, then published rounded off figures for gun crews to check . . . As regards German 75 mm velocities the KwK 40, 750 m/s MV had these FT down range velocities:100 m 738 m/s, 400 m 703 m/s, 500 m 691 m/s, 600 m 681 m/s, 700 m 670 m/s, 800 m 659 m/s, 900 m 648 m/s, 1000 meters 637 m/s. Note the (rounded off?) change at 600 meters: a loss of 10 m/s from 500 m, then up to a drop of 11 m/s per each 100 meters distance. Krupp 30 degrees deflection pen. of 88 mm at 600 m, 86.5 mm at 700 meters.

[Yoozername]

side note] A 75mm Pzgr39 with a MV of 704 m/s will not have an impact velocity of 650m/s at 600m. More like 638m/s.

Perhaps he means 740 M/s?

[Mobius]

side note] A 75mm Pzgr39 with a MV of 704 m/s will not have an impact velocity of 650m/s at 600m. More like 638m/s.

Perhaps he means 740 M/s?

In that case it is more like 670 m/s.