88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1432
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Paul Lakowski » 12 Oct 2018 07:39

There was a model of the Hetzer "D" that was widened to accept the 75L70 Pak-42/1 . It was to start production in April 1945 , reaching 1250 units per month later that year. It was due to replace all other assault guns and Jagd Panzers in production. It was to have front armor strengthened to 80mm/60o, while the side superstructure armor was to be 20mm/55o .

More importantly the Hetzer design finally appeared to solve the Waffentragger production and design limitations.


I don't think the D chassis could supply all needs as the FlaKPanzer 38 D was not achievable and only old Hetzer chassis were to be committed to it. I think the first 'D" was presented to Hitler on 4/20/1945.

https://topwar.ru/37553-istrebitel-tank ... r-38d.html


Hetzer D was different from earlier models with height of only 1.75m compared to 2.17m. D model was also wider at 2.81m compared to 2.63m. Sounds almost like the E-10 design.

Further a new chassis was designed on the Hetzer components building a lower wider longer platform in order to mount just about every artillery piece and do away with towed artillery. Since it paralleled the Hetzer D model , it would be 45/46.


It occurred to me they could have achieved similar results much earlier in the war, had they followed there own prewar ideas of the 'mechanized guns'. As far back as 1928-1930- the Reichswehr explored ways of improving there pitiful divisions. A line of half tracks were being design and where in steady production from 1933/34 on. With in reason most divisional/Korps artillery could find a suitable "Zugkraftwagen".

Since these Zugkraftwagen were already design for hauling big artillery they , these vehicles were longer than most tanks [6-8m]. It looks like the artillery could be matched and mounted on the next heavier "Zugkraftwagen" [and provided most of the gun carriage was removed], the heavier Zugkraftwagen could handle the stress of recoil...with SPADES & OUTRIGGER jacks.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 12 Oct 2018 19:01

I would assume one of these two design concepts were shown to Hitler 4/20/1945. That is, they are the only two using the 'Panther' gun. The weapon '7,5 cm KWK' is a misnomer...

https://henk.fox3000.com/38t.htm
Last edited by Yoozername on 13 Oct 2018 05:31, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
peeved
Member
Posts: 8783
Joined: 01 Jul 2007 07:15
Location: Finland

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by peeved » 12 Oct 2018 21:41

Tony Williams wrote:
11 Oct 2018 10:56
The point I was making was a general one: that taken across all armies, a tank has multiple duties of which knocking holes in other tanks is just one, and overall not the most common one. It is not a "theory" that the majority of ammunition fired by Allied tanks was HE - it's a fact. I'm not sure of the proportion of German tank ammo fired which was HE - do you know?
Here's a compilation of 7,5 cm and plus medium-to-high velocity ammunition consumption from "Waffen und Geheimwaffen des Deutschen Heeres 1933-1945, Band 1" by Fritz Hahn; Some low MV/medium MV and vehicular/towed gun overlap.
Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 23.31.43.png
From the same source the total consumption for some ammunition types of three major tank guns; For some reason some higher totals than from table above.
Screen Shot 2018-10-12 at 23.32.04.png
Markus
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 1342
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:31
Location: UK

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Tony Williams » 13 Oct 2018 11:32

Thank you Markus.

So even the Panther tanks fired considerably more HE than AP, and the 88 mm L/56 about three times as much.
Military Guns & Ammunition website http://quarryhs.co.uk

User avatar
peeved
Member
Posts: 8783
Joined: 01 Jul 2007 07:15
Location: Finland

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by peeved » 13 Oct 2018 18:37

BDV wrote:
03 Oct 2018 12:11
Are there any obvious reasons why the 88mm gun of Tiger I was not ported to tank destroyers?

It was shorter than the 75mm L70 by 32 cm, and that could've helped with the nose heavy problems of Jagdpanzer IV; while providing a bigger HE.
Excellent question,

One aspect of a KwK 36 superiority over KwK 42 was barrel life. Based on "Datenblätter für Heeres-Waffen, -Fahrzeuge und -Gerät" (1944) [Reprint] the 88 had a barrel life of ca. 6000 and the 75 ca. 2000 rounds; Probably on all-Pz.Gr.39 diet. Thus despite a RM 12 000 purchase cost against KwK 42’s RM 18 000, KwK 36’s lifetime costs could in fact have been lower. There would probably also have been scope for KwK 36 purchase cost reduction since e.g. according to Datenblätter, 8,8 cm KwK 43 (L/71) required 4421 kg steel in its manufacture as opposed to the 5550 kg for the lighter KwK 36.

There is an odd thing in the ”Merkblatt für das waffentechnische Personal der Panzer-Einheiten" considering the weights of the two guns. Although the KwK 42 had a considerably lower barrel and breech weight of 1000 kg against 1330; KwK 36 had the lower complete gun weight of 1760 kg against 1860 kg. This might mean that KwK 42 had higher recoil stresses than KwK 36 and required a sturdier mounting. Unfortunately good recoil/average braking force figures are hard to come by (e.g. Spielberger figures for KwK 43 and Pak 43/3 & 43/4 appear especially unbelievable). However according to p.110 of ”Germany's Panther Tank" by Thomas Jentz & Hilary Doyle, the recoil force of 7,5 cm KwK 44/1; a KwK 42 derivative; was 18 tons without and 12 tons with a muzzle brake.

Now in order to approximate KwK 36 recoil let us check KwK 42 recoil against the above figures using the recoil velocity formula V = ( b*v + c*p ) / W from http://kwk.us/recoil.html where b is the bullet's [projectile] weight, v the muzzle velocity, c the charge weight, p the average velocity of the escaping propellant gases, and W is the rifle's [gun’s recoiling parts’] weight, using 4700 fps or ca. 1433 m/s for p.

V,42 = (6,8 x 925 + 4,0 x 1433) / 1000 ≈ 12 m/s

Recoil force in kg: R = (1/2*W*V^2)/(g*s) where s = recoil length

R,42 = (0,5 x 1000 x 12^2)/(9,80655 x 0,4) ≈ 18 355 kg ≈ 18 tons; Seems like a good ballpark formula.

Checking against Rheinmetall-Borsig's BK 5 Datenblatt at http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv ... 5%20cm.pdf

V,BK5 = (1,52 x 965 + 0,83 x 1433) / 259 ≈ 10,3 m/s

R,BK5 = (0,5 x 259 x 10,3^2)/(9,80655 x 0,285) ≈ 4 916 kg.

Given the high mv and massive muzzle brake let us assume a 40% recoil reduction
R,BK5,MB = 0,6 * 4916 ≈ 2950 kg which is close to the 3000 kg RMB figure.
Even with 1/3 recoil reduction as with KwK 44 muzzle brake the figure would be ca. 3280 kg; The formula appears to again give adequate approximations.

Now for KwK 36:

V,36 = (10,2 x 773 + 2,5 x 1433) / 1330 ≈ 8,62 m/s

R,36 = (0,5 x 1330 x 8,62^2)/(9,80655 x 0,55) ≈ 9 160 kg; A figure appreciably lower than KwK 42 without (or with) muzzle brake.

How about with the same recoil length as KwK 42:

R,36,0,4 = (0,55/0,4) x 9160 kg ≈ 12 600 kg Thus a muzzle-brakeless KwK 36 with KwK 42 recoil length would have similar recoil force as KwK 42 with muzzle brake. Given the Tiger’s extra weight and large turret ring a muzzle brake appears to have been less vital.

Add a muzzle brake: Let us assume just a 25% recoil reduction due to the lower mv;

In a Tiger E:
R,36,MB = 0,75 x 9160 = 6 870 kg, ca. 58% of KwK 42 recoil.
With KwK 42 recoil length:
R,36,0,4,MB = 0,75 x 12 600 ≈ 9 450 kg, ca. 80% of KwK 42 recoil.

In short KwK 36 compared to a KwK 42 had an almost as good penetration, greater after armour effects, better HE performance, longer barrel life, lighter recoil and probably lower lifetime costs. Despite the KwK 36 being a better general purpose gun the Germans complicated logistics by using the KwK 42 in the Panther. Despite the heavy recoil they also tried to shoehorn KwK 42 in StuG III, Pz. & StuG IV etc. Still sane fringe occasionally prevailed and the Tiger with KwK 42 came to nothing much more than a mock-up.

Markus

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 13 Oct 2018 20:18

8.8 cm HE weight 9 Kg, muzzle velocity 810 M/s

7,5 cm HE weight 5.72 Kg muzzle velocity 700 M/s

Well, if we look at barrel wear, and the majority of the projectiles fired are (supposedly) HE, then a simple 1/2M*V^2 comparison can be made.

Tiger I 2,952 x 10^3

Panther 1,403 x 10^3

Kg*M^2

So, a factor of 2.1:1

Comparing PzGr
8.8 cm AP weight 10 Kg muzzle velocity 810 M/s

7,5 cm AP weight 6.8 Kg muzzle velocity 935 M/s

Tiger I 3,280 (recoil normal 550mm)

Panther 2,972 (recoil normal is 400 mm)


The Tiger I, like the FlaK weapon, had a two part barrel so that it could be changed when worn out. The Tiger I used progressive twist like the 88mm FlaK, but since the Tiger I had a muzzle brake, it could not share this replaceable barrel with the FlaK guns. The progressive twist, and the early Pzgr projectile with a large HE cavity, probably made hitting the inside of the muzzle brake by the projectile an issue. I believe I have read that the Tiger I recoil length is half that of the 88mm FlaK.
Last edited by Yoozername on 13 Oct 2018 21:11, edited 5 times in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 13 Oct 2018 20:38

The ammo consumption data seems to only be partially filled in. Some weapons, like the L24 75mm, had to have been used in 1943.

Anyway, if looking at the most dominant weapons in the German army in 1943, that is, the KWK 40 and StuK 40 we have:

anti armor 1,276,200
HE 891,230
(1.43:1)

The Panther
anti-armor 122,820
HE 71,330
(1.722:1)

Tiger
antiarmor 128540
HE 135280 (0.95:1)

So, looking at these numbers, for the German Tank and StuG, we see that only in the exception of the Tiger I (admittedly a 'break-through' AFV),that antiarmor ammunition is actually above the 50/50 level most AFV bombed up with. 1943 did not really have dedicated JagdPanzer like the 'Hetzer' or Jagdpanzer IV. The StuG was sort of the defacto Jagdpanzer even though most were in the sturmartillerie.

User avatar
peeved
Member
Posts: 8783
Joined: 01 Jul 2007 07:15
Location: Finland

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by peeved » 13 Oct 2018 21:04

Yoozername wrote:
13 Oct 2018 20:38
The ammo consumption data seems to only be partially filled in. Some weapons, like the L24 75mm, had to have been used in 1943.
Well I did call the table
peeved wrote:
12 Oct 2018 21:41
a compilation of 7,5 cm and plus medium-to-high velocity ammunition consumption
IMO low-velocity gun ammunition consumption, where separable from higher mv guns, would have biased the data towards HE use; Much like the 7,5 cm KwK figures for 1942.

Markus

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 13 Oct 2018 21:18

peeved wrote:
13 Oct 2018 21:04
Yoozername wrote:
13 Oct 2018 20:38
The ammo consumption data seems to only be partially filled in. Some weapons, like the L24 75mm, had to have been used in 1943.
Well I did call the table
peeved wrote:
12 Oct 2018 21:41
a compilation of 7,5 cm and plus medium-to-high velocity ammunition consumption
IMO low-velocity gun ammunition consumption, where separable from higher mv guns, would have biased the data towards HE use; Much like the 7,5 cm KwK figures for 1942.

Markus
I chose to look at 1943 for a number of reasons. First because it had the most data, secondly it had the primary AFV the Germans had 'fleets' for (Panzer IV, StuG, Tiger Panther), thirdly it broke out the ammunition by antiarmor (PzGr 40, HL, PzGr 39) and HE. It would actually be interesting if there were claim numbers to correspond with this consumption along with fleet sizes. Lastly, IF the Germans were going to make some change towards a jagdpanzer mit 8,8 cm L56, this would be the jump off point. Clearly they decided against it.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6365
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Michael Kenny » 13 Oct 2018 21:32

There are a few ammo expenditure counts in Szamveber's 12th SS book.
June 7th was the actions around Authie/Buron and was a very 'tank heavy 'engagement.
There are 2 counts that day (1st 300 HE-235 AP)
and the largest records the replenishment of 944 HE and 721 AP rounds for the Pz IV regiment and the total of Canadian tanks claimed as kills was 29.

This German film records the results

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pSew20 ... u.be&t=323

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 14 Oct 2018 00:10

Tony Williams wrote:
13 Oct 2018 11:32
Thank you Markus.

So even the Panther tanks fired considerably more HE than AP, and the 88 mm L/56 about three times as much.
No, see the 1943 data. I factor in all the antiarmor rounds.

Also, see my data regarding the energy and recoil. The 88mm recoiled more.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 14 Oct 2018 02:57

An interesting stat...HE shells were used against tanks...SOP was usually with them set on delay. HL rounds seemed to be used in great numbers.
Combat of tanks by the Sturmartillerie
(23 brigades on the Eastern Front between 1.12.1943 and 31.5.1944)

Out of a total of 51,600 shells fired at tanks:

High explosive projectiles ( Sprg.Gr. ) 8.3%
Hollow load projectiles ( Hl.Gr. ) 21.2%
Piercing projectiles ( Pz.Gr. ) 70.5%

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 1342
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:31
Location: UK

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Tony Williams » 14 Oct 2018 04:47

Yoozername wrote:
14 Oct 2018 00:10
Tony Williams wrote:
13 Oct 2018 11:32
Thank you Markus.

So even the Panther tanks fired considerably more HE than AP, and the 88 mm L/56 about three times as much.
No, see the 1943 data. I factor in all the antiarmor rounds.

Also, see my data regarding the energy and recoil. The 88mm recoiled more.
"All of the anti-armour rounds" in the large table includes a lot more than just tanks - there are anti-tank Pak rounds too. This particular argument is about whether or not tanks fired more HE or AP, and the small table focuses just on that, with clear results.
Military Guns & Ammunition website http://quarryhs.co.uk

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2111
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 14 Oct 2018 05:33

What can one say? The topic is about a JagdPanzer being created. Some say a 8,8 cm StuK version would be a great idea. I have shown, in many ways, why it wasn't. My 'small-table' destroyed that argument. Maybe you know more about 22 longs than me.
This particular argument is about whether or not tanks fired more HE or AP, and the small table focuses just on that, with clear results.
I would say it is YOUR particular off-topic argument. And, I have shown that you are not correct in 1943.

The 88mm has been misrepresented physically, and I have used math to prove otherwise.

Markus commented about how that 'small table' does not seem to correspond to the detailed data.

Tony Williams
Member
Posts: 1342
Joined: 18 Feb 2004 04:31
Location: UK

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Tony Williams » 14 Oct 2018 12:16

Yoozername wrote:
14 Oct 2018 05:33
What can one say? The topic is about a JagdPanzer being created. Some say a 8,8 cm StuK version would be a great idea. I have shown, in many ways, why it wasn't. My 'small-table' destroyed that argument. Maybe you know more about 22 longs than me.
This particular argument is about whether or not tanks fired more HE or AP, and the small table focuses just on that, with clear results.
I would say it is YOUR particular off-topic argument. And, I have shown that you are not correct in 1943.

The 88mm has been misrepresented physically, and I have used math to prove otherwise.

Markus commented about how that 'small table' does not seem to correspond to the detailed data.
This topic legitimately covers the characteristics and performance of the 88 mm L/56 and its ammunition, and compares these with the most obvious alternative choice of armament available to the Germans, the 75 mm L/70 and its ammunition.

We agree that purely as an anti-tank gun, the 75 mm was the better choice. The 88 mm was a good and effective gun, but its characteristics (particularly its bigger HE shell) made it more effective as a general-purpose tank gun rather than an anti-tank one.

Incidentally, why just pick 1943 from that table? That obviously excludes all of the fighting in NW Europe. The small table of numbers of ammo type across the board is more representative. The numbers may not add up to the same, but that's no great surprise with such data culled from various sources. If such numbers did add up perfectly, that's usually an indication that the figures have been fudged to fit. :D
Military Guns & Ammunition website http://quarryhs.co.uk

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