105mm KWK L/70 and derivates

[critical mass]

Data from Army prooving grounds (Unterlüss, Hillersleben,...)

[Tenkist]

Is 10.5cm Pzgr 43 official deisgnation ? Does it exist in any document ?

[critical mass]

I vaguely remember that there was no official production designation for the heavy 18.0kg Pzgr. That would only have been attributed only when mass production was authorized. Authorization was not pressed because the 105mm long PAK /KWK was strictly developmental. However, in connection with 128mm Pzgr43 documents, the 10.5cm 18.0kg AP is mentioned too, because they were related. As with the 128mm Pzgr L/4.3, the developmental designation of the scaled down 10.5cm Pzgr was 10.5cm Pzgr L/4.3. The 128mm was authorized for JAGDTIGER and thus required a production designation and the 12.8cm Pzgr L/4.3 became 12.8cm Pzgr 43. Back to the 10.5cm, there was a batch of 50 specimen of the 18.0kg heavy 10.5cm Pzgr L/4.3 projectile manufactured for HV trials in Hillersleben to compare them with the 15.6kg 10cm Pzgr rot.

[seppw]

Peter Samsonov´s Tank archives is selective and does not give a comprehensive view of information from the sources discussed, as well as almost always fails to differentiate between information coming from the sources and information coming from own interpretation.
F.e. the information that the 128mm gun allegedly originated from an AAA gun is a statement which is not rooted in the primary sources but comes from their own interpretation. I have not come across of a single mention of 128mm L/61 or 128mm K40/KM40 in regard to any of the LÖWE documents.
Also, their information of muzzle velocity is incomplete and will be misleading as it stands.
As my excerpt above in the initial post about the 105mm L/70 from primary sources testifies, the 965m/s muzzle velocity is for a heavy and experimental 18.0kg Pzgr projectile, not from the 15.6kg 10cm Pzgr rot service ammunition. Muzzle velocity for the 10cm Pzgr rot service AP bullet was 1025m/s (later changed to 1075m/s), a considerable difference to the 965m/s he attributes to the gun. To further augment his error, he does not even give a hint towards the fact that different projectiles were considered for this gun so that a less well informed reader almost always will make the mistake to consider the 965m/s figure as representative for actual service AP ammunition.
Further, the reference of 149mm calibre is a technical incorrectness. While german 15cm guns were 149.4mm calibre actual, in all these sources, the gun is always referred to as 150mm and never as 149mm.
Finally, what we miss completely in the blog are references to the 88mm L/71 armement in the LÖWE (which received serious consideration in a a particularely shallow, high oblique shaped turret).


I have examined some of Mr. Samsonov´s claims before. When he makes mistakes, he changed towards a preference not to post all of my comments on them. Often, I add source document links to prove his errors and these comments never appear on his blog commentary (such as the soviet 45mm Mz-2 armor penetration graphs vs german capped 50mm Pzgr39). His technical credentials in armor and projectile related issues are essentially zero, and his interpretations -at least in my opinion- tend to range between amateurish at best and ignorant of facts to outright misleading at worst. Somehow, the internet quotes him frequently, which has endowed him with what I would consider to be a somewhat unwarranted authority on these matters.

Well that's sad, but what's even more sad is how often I see his blog being used as if it was a proper source by people who lack the formal education to test his claims or by biased douche bags and how many people fall victim to his tricks. Thanks for the interesting read.

Here's another victim. I left a comment. It's not the best rebuttal you've ever read, because (I can't post links?) in youtube comments and I'm restricted by the character limit, but maybe leave a like nevertheless, so more people will see it. Perhaps I can be more conclusive with my next reply and explain the relationship between range estimation error, muzzle velocity and fineness.

[Michael Kenny]

Well that's sad, but what's even more sad is how often I see his blog being used as if it was a proper source by people who lack the formal education to test his claims or by biased douche bags and how many people fall victim to his tricks. Thanks for the interesting read.

The 'internet' is dominated by German-worshiping comment. By far the most mentioned tank is the Tiger. There has always been bias and distortion. Why the problem with another that has 'bias'? -oh wait, I see it now, is not a German weapon that is being praised.

This is recent comment from a current Tiger-worshiping Facebook site that puts things in perspective:

Note: one of the posters is a Mod.

[seppw]

Well that's sad, but what's even more sad is how often I see his blog being used as if it was a proper source by people who lack the formal education to test his claims or by biased douche bags and how many people fall victim to his tricks. Thanks for the interesting read.

The 'internet' is dominated by German-worshiping comment. By far the most mentioned tank is the Tiger. There has always been bias and distortion. Why the problem with another that has 'bias'?

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

site-oh wait, I see it now, is not a German weapon that is being praised.

Do you acutally have any evidence that I support these kind of comments?

[Michael Kenny]

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

Indeed.
Please link your online criticism of any German leaning Forum

[seppw]

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

Indeed.
Please link your online criticism of any German leaning Forum

How does "Because two wrongs don't make a right." imply "You are only allowed to criticise X, if you also criticise everything similar"?
Do you travel around the world and demand from owners of holocaust museums and memorials to tear down everything they build unless they also build museums/memorials for the Armenian genocide, the holodomor, Allied war crimes like the Dresden bombing, the war crimes of the Imperial Japanese Army, the war crimes of the Chinese in Tibet and the crimes of the state of Israel?
I didn't know this kind of behavior is acceptable or even necessary.

[Michael Kenny]

You mentioned 'biased douchebags'. I simply pointed out there is an overwhelming amount of biased douchbaggery on the net and it is 90% German worshipping.
This is my final post on the subject. Bye.

[critical mass]

I certainly agree that biased douchbaggery should be critisized whenever it is encountered. Most of the time, it´s not worth my time to read, let alone respond to these things. However, Peter Samsonov tried deliberately to do "pseudo-history" with his side. When pointing out errors of his interpretation, selective perception of sources and outright fabrication of information (a.k.a. "there were no IS-2 tanks at Bollersdorf at all"), complete incorrect interpretation of engeneering drawings (a.k.a. height of driver for T34 and LÖWE) and blocking away any memo´s with evidence contrary to his views in a systematic way (a.k.a the exceptionally poor results of Mz-2 armor against 5cm Pzgr39 from russian trials), while painting his "findings" as truth because that´s what the primary sources tell, then why shouldn´t a serious researcher not feel upset?

[Stiltzkin]

You mentioned 'biased douchebags'. I simply pointed out there is an overwhelming amount of biased douchbaggery on the net and it is 90% German worshipping.
This is my final post on the subject. Bye.

The quality of the above poster:

Meowwww......... hisss..................hiss................

26th Aug. 2016.

Remember: It is only bias if someone questions the performance of the Soviet or American/British soldier, but I have to agree, there is certainly too much Tiger fanboyism on the net (which is hilarious considering how little their impact or relevance was in the entire war), I had some disturbing discussions with some of my countrymen too.

Liedtke once put it succinctly, stating that online forums can be a double edged sword.
On the other hand, there is currently a massive revisionistic wave coming out of the Federation. Wikipedia and Russian literature are full of "Soviet technological superiority". Peter Samsonov's goal is not primarily to educate, but to reinterpret information and misinform in such a way to question any existing qualitative gap between Germany and the Soviet Union, which is rather hard to swallow in the face of the existing evidence. He even admitted in one forum, that he identifies as a Soviet revisionist. This results undoubtedly from nationalism and inferiority complexes.
I once stated that "T-34s were the most destroyed tanks in history", which is a testimony to their quality and can be hardly titled as "the best tank of WW2"(and there is no such thing as "the best", there are trade-offs) and was physically assaulted for this (Germany has about 3-4 million Russians who are nationalistic to the core, despite residing here), while the Sherman was called a cooker (I have to assume that American officers may have been bribed to badmouth their performance). American AFV combat capabilities actually far exceeded Soviet ones (a reason why Soviet guard units were outfitted with them). This emerged from democracies ability of auto-criticism, while socialist dictatorships were not allowed to show any weaknesses. They might even attack you for making fun of the NKVD or Stalin, it is insanity (a brawl occured between a pro Stalinist and anti Stalinist during a russian radio discussion).

American literature (and even academic work!) inherits the ever omnipresent "Aircraft superiority", while serious engineering analyzes do not depict anything like it at all. I see almost nobody complaining about that. The truth is that the Wehrmacht defended one of the most obnoxious regimes in history (and generated a cult) which may result in such reactions, but it is rather a question of how much error you can find regarding AFV/PzKpfwVI topics. They were just metal boxes, death traps for human beings (some Tiger crews even routed when their flanks were hit by small caliber fire). I think most of the posts simply reek from ignorance and that is often a direct result of a misunderstanding of how warfare was conducted.
With that said, we are still waiting for the Tiger book.
http://www.dupuyinstitute.org/ubb/Forum ... 050-3.html

Furthermore, I think that this forum lacks transparency to a certain degree as well, it is very Anglo-Saxon centric, with a few exceptions here and there and even some Russian nationalists who deny Soviet warcrimes have been elected to moderate. In fact, from my experience as a "historical advisor" (if you can call it that way) for certain software/mods/simulations I can safely say that most projects failed so far because it was either a Russian or American feeling offended when posting military studies, result: Disband.
Cold analysis and research should be free of emotions and I am glad that Critical is here, his profound knowledge is an enrichment to this forum.

[Michael Kenny]

I once stated that "T-34s were the most destroyed tanks in history",

In the same way Germany is the most comprehensively defeated major European Nation (twice) in the 20th Century.

[Michael Kenny]

With that said, we are still waiting for the Tiger book.

See https://www.editions-heimdal.fr/en/worl ... 83847.html

[seppw]

Liedtke once put it succinctly, stating that online forums can be a double edged sword.
On the other hand, there is currently a massive revisionistic wave coming out of the Federation. Wikipedia and Russian literature are full of "Soviet technological superiority". Peter Samsonov's goal is not primarily to educate, but to reinterpret information and misinform in such a way to question any existing qualitative gap between Germany and the Soviet Union, which is rather hard to swallow in the face of the existing evidence. He even admitted in one forum, that he identifies as a Soviet revisionist. This results undoubtedly from nationalism and inferiority complexes.
I once stated that "T-34s were the most destroyed tanks in history", which is a testimony to their quality and can be hardly titled as "the best tank of WW2"(and there is no such thing as "the best", there are trade-offs) and was physically assaulted for this (Germany has about 3-4 million Russians who are nationalistic to the core, despite residing here), while the Sherman was called a cooker (I have to assume that American officers may have been bribed to badmouth their performance). American AFV combat capabilities actually far exceeded Soviet ones (a reason why Soviet guard units were outfitted with them). This emerged from democracies ability of auto-criticism, while socialist dictatorships were not allowed to show any weaknesses. They might even attack you for making fun of the NKVD or Stalin, it is insanity (a brawl occured between a pro Stalinist and anti Stalinist during a russian radio discussion).

How is this even possible? Did you state that online or at a museum.

[Stiltzkin]

How is this even possible? Did you state that online or at a museum.

I could continue for hours, but this does not belong here.