88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 14 Oct 2018 20:06

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.
I CLEARLY explained why I did that with the 1943 data. It is just a few posts up. You are just throwing smoke and cherry pickling macro 'data' to save face.

The small table you latch onto was even questioned by Markus. I would welcome his input, especially given the physics aspect I addressed.

You posted that well-worn picture that shows a line-up of ammunition that has been brass'oded and painted in glossy paint. I had to point out to you that you were comparing an armor piercing round to a high explosive round. Actually helping you prove some point you thought you were making. I guess it has come to me enumerating other things...

1. The 8,8 cm KWK had a greater recoil throw than the 7,5 cm KWK 42.
2. The 8,8 cm KWK had greater Kinetic Energy with BOTH it's armor piercing AND high explosive rounds than a 7,5 cm KWK 42
3. Actual usage of the ratio of armor piercing (to include ALL types) follows a disproportionate amount of AP:HE in the AP favor
4. The Germans clearly learned their lessons in 1943 BEFORE producing JagdPanzer and went with the proven 7,5 cm 'L48' and 'L70' weapons along with the 8,8 cm L71 weapons. They even stopped producing the Tiger I about midway through 1944.
5. The 8,8 cm KWK 36 would not fit in a Panzer IV and it would beg reasoning why it would be put in a Panther. A StuK version was never produced and would equally beg reasoning why it would be created in the first place.
6. Jagdpanzers were based on armor defeating weapons. The 7,5 cm L70 was the natural choice. If a greater HE solution was needed, the 105 mm class with a 30 pound class projectile was the better way to go. Hence the StuH III. Also, see the sherman 105mm. HL or Hollow Charge projectiles from 4 inch diameter bore weapons were lethal enough even in WWII.

@TW
The onus is on you since you claim the 8,8 cm L56 weapon to have attributes that are not true. GL with that.

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 21:31

Yoozername wrote:
14 Oct 2018 20:06
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.
I CLEARLY explained why I did that with the 1943 data. It is just a few posts up. You are just throwing smoke and cherry pickling macro 'data' to save face.
So I pick overall figures while you pick one year, and you accuse me of cherry picking? Look in the mirror...
The small table you latch onto was even questioned by Markus. I would welcome his input, especially given the physics aspect I addressed.
He didn't question it - he merely commented: "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." There is no way of knowing which table is more accurate: quite possibly both contain errors. I took the second one simply because it provides the overall data on tank gun ammo I was looking for. I see no reason to change that.
You posted that well-worn picture that shows a line-up of ammunition that has been brass'oded and painted in glossy paint.
Just how is that relevant? They could be painted pink for all I care, I posted that photo because it showed the relative sizes of the ammunition.
I had to point out to you that you were comparing an armor piercing round to a high explosive round.
No you didn't. I am currently sitting in my study surrounded by a very large number of cannon rounds of all natures. I am well aware that HE shells tend to be longer than AP ones for those types of ammo at that time. The difference is not great and does not materially affect the argument.
1. The 8,8 cm KWK had a greater recoil throw than the 7,5 cm KWK 42.
What matters is the recoil force; and your simplistic calculations in post No.36 ignore an important element - the recoil force generated by the propellant gas as it leaves the muzzle. This is particularly significant with a high velocity gun like the 75mm L/70 which has a large quantity of propellant exiting the muzzle at high velocity. Look at the calculations Marcus did in post No.35 - he knows far more about this than you do. His conclusion is that even with the recoil length of the 88mm shortened to the same as the 75mm, the 88mm would have generated only 80% of the recoil force of the 75mm.
The onus is on you since you claim the 8,8 cm L56 weapon to have attributes that are not true. GL with that.
The attribute I claimed for it was greater usefulness as a general-purpose tank gun because of the larger HE shell.

I will leave the last word with Marcus, as I agree 100% with his summary of the comparison in post No.35:

"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."
Military Guns & Ammunition website http://quarryhs.co.uk

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 15 Oct 2018 05:07

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
Yes, I would call that 'small' table something. In any case, at least the year 1943 numbers can be discerned and compared.

I agree, the short 7,5 cm L24 was predominantly designed as a HE weapon. Note that in 1943, the L24 numbers are not rolled into KWK 40/StuK 40 numbers giving a clearer picture of the ammunition types for the AFV. I suppose that doesn't catch everyone's attention?

Edit: The 'small table' numbers are so off in some cases that I am actually wondering if they represent total ammunition produced.
Last edited by Yoozername on 15 Oct 2018 18:59, edited 2 times in total.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 15 Oct 2018 06:05

What matters is the recoil force; and your simplistic calculations in post No.36 ignore an important element - the recoil force generated by the propellant gas as it leaves the muzzle. This is particularly significant with a high velocity gun like the 75mm L/70 which has a large quantity of propellant exiting the muzzle at high velocity. Look at the calculations Marcus did in post No.35 - he knows far more about this than you do. His conclusion is that even with the recoil length of the 88mm shortened to the same as the 75mm, the 88mm would have generated only 80% of the recoil force of the 75mm.
Recoil force is not from gas escaping the barrel. I am trying to control myself from that one.

It is a simple action-reaction. The mass of the projectile being accelerated , and the reaction of the mass of the recoiling elements of the weapon. A major design consideration for AFV is the throw of the guns recoil. There is usually a sliding indicator for the loader to check after each firing. As I have said before, the Tiger I had a greater throw than the Panther. The design consideration is obvious...smaller throw is better...less internal space need, etc.. IF the Tiger I had it's throw reduced from 550mm to 400mm, as you say, that means the recoil mechanisms would have to accomplish that. Yes, they would be bigger. There is no free lunch. One can just look at momentum, or M*V=M*V. That is, the mass of the projectile times its velocity compared to the mass of the moving gun elements times its 'velocity'. So Panther is 6.8*935 compared to 10*810, so 6358 vs. 8100, IF the moving elements had the same mass, you get the picture. But, actually, the Panther might weigh more. Can you figure out what that means?

I am 'baffled' by what you think the gases are doing. Perhaps you are thinking about muzzle brakes? In which case, the Panther has a greater amount of propellant, ergo, a greater amount of gases are produced. Which impinge on the muzzle brake making a counter-recoil force. It 'pulls' the barrel forward as the projectile emerges out of the barrel and moves through the tubed section of the muzzle brake.

I find it laughable that you think you know what I know. Again, I have shown that the 88mm projectiles have a greater kinetic energy than the Panther. The HE round in the Tiger has a higher velocity and greater mass than the Panther, so factor that into the wear calculations.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 15 Oct 2018 06:26

Logistics is typically ignored in debates where people have a fancy about what a weapon system should be. If you look at the Tiger I in 1942 it introduced a new gun/ammo/engine/parts, etc. into the field. It would have been a nightmare to dole them out in any way. They needed to be in battalions, and initially they had a dissimilar vehicle, the Panzer III N, that did not work out.

Likewise, having a Panzer Division that had a battalion of Panthers with 88mm, battalion of Panzer IV with KWK 40, and battalion of Jagdpanzers IV with StuK 42 would be a nightmare.

Making decisions based on a HE shell size may not be the best logic.

Another aspect of these 'what ifs' is that when is the decision to do this thing going to happen? This is similar to the Marder/KWK 42 "what if" we had here. The Tiger I had the 88mm chosen as a gun as an expedient of sorts. The FlaK gun had shown performance against the Soviet tanks, and the use of common parts, and somewhat ammunition, seemed to make sense (at the time). Still, to get the gun to be a KWK took design time and had issues (ammunition), eventually near the end of 1942 Tigers started appearing in low numbers. The 7,5 cm KWK 42 gun was also being developed during this time period, and first delivered units were rolling out as the Tiger Is were being field tested. So, the question is "Should the Germans have never designed/tested the KWK 42 at all?" To reach production numbers for the KWK 36 to be in both the Tiger and the Panther would have to be decided very early also. The technical issue of how the KWK 36 would be mounted in a Panther would also have to be resolved. Ammunition would have to have been ramped up quickly for the electric firing systems in these AFV. It isn't as easy as some people's hind-sight allows. The use of a KWK 36 in a Panther would not have helped any with it's mechanical defects and other issues. An immobile AFV throwing a larger HE round doesn't win any wars.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 6368
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Michael Kenny » 31 Oct 2018 08:41

There is a June 1945 Canadian Report on the Tigers that list the standard ammo load for a Tiger II
r8KGbNE GH.jpg
EbripghCCC.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Jan-Hendrik
Member
Posts: 8232
Joined: 11 Nov 2004 12:53
Location: Hohnhorst / Deutschland

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Jan-Hendrik » 31 Oct 2018 09:03

Normally there were stored some extra rounds in the area of the radio operator....

Jan-Hendrik

Lars Bertelsen
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 16 Apr 2006 09:02
Location: Denmark

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Lars Bertelsen » 04 Nov 2018 21:57

Hello

This discussion reminds me of a couple of 8,8 cm KwK 36 L/56 guns, which were installed in the “Festung Pressburg” (Bratislava) in March 1945 (see attached NARA copies).
The guns were installed in pedestal mounts with a maximum traverse of 45 degrees. The Festungskommandant of Pressburg was not satisfied about this and therefore requested, that the guns were modified for a full 360 degrees traverse.

This must indicate that the three 45 degree gun mounts were not originally designed for fixed installation in an open gun pit. But what purpose were they intended for then?
There may be two possibilities: An embrasured gun bunker – or an AFV without turret.
No other information about the three 8,8 cm KwK 36 guns L/56 in Pressburg is known.

A total of 1528 88L/56 guns were produced, but only 1359 Tigers with L/56 guns were build. There may have been some never realized plans for using the remaining 169 guns.

greetings
Lars
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Paul Lakowski
Member
Posts: 1432
Joined: 30 Apr 2003 05:16
Location: Canada

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Paul Lakowski » 05 Nov 2018 03:01

Lars Bertelsen wrote:
04 Nov 2018 21:57
Hello

This discussion reminds me of a couple of 8,8 cm KwK 36 L/56 guns, which were installed in the “Festung Pressburg” (Bratislava) in March 1945 (see attached NARA copies).
The guns were installed in pedestal mounts with a maximum traverse of 45 degrees. The Festungskommandant of Pressburg was not satisfied about this and therefore requested, that the guns were modified for a full 360 degrees traverse.

This must indicate that the three 45 degree gun mounts were not originally designed for fixed installation in an open gun pit. But what purpose were they intended for then?
There may be two possibilities: An embrasured gun bunker – or an AFV without turret.
No other information about the three 8,8 cm KwK 36 guns L/56 in Pressburg is known.

A total of 1528 88L/56 guns were produced, but only 1359 Tigers with L/56 guns were build. There may have been some never realized plans for using the remaining 169 guns.

greetings
Lars
Seeing the 88mm flak mounted on the 12 ton Zugkraftwagen in 1939/40 It looked like it took only 12-18 months to order; design and build these 25 guns. I wondered why not more?

Reportedly another 112 x 12t &18t Zug tractor mounts WHERE ordered- but those were to be delayed until mid 1943 and subsequently canceled. Given the hysteria over the British & French tanks in 1940 plus the T-34 in Russia 1941/42, its hard to believe such an improvisation was never taken up again.

If even a obsolete Panzerjäger-I conversion [47mm] - can be a big hit in Russia 1941- again why not more? The need was clearly there and by mid war still 700 Panzer I in the inventory plus thousands of 50mm PaK-38 available.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 05 Nov 2018 18:53

ImageBuilding a KWK 36 L/56 into one of those light mounts would be interesting to see. I imagine that most tank guns were built in greater numbers than completed tanks. If for no other reason than for repairs as tank guns are vulnerable.

Putting a KWK 36 into one of these configurations would require a more substantial arrangement... It would be interesting what gun sight would be used. The 50mm weapon above appears to use a Pak type sight. Note the gunner is moved to the right of the weapon, and the chain system provides the traverse.

Lars Bertelsen
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 16 Apr 2006 09:02
Location: Denmark

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Lars Bertelsen » 05 Nov 2018 22:33

Hello Yoozername
It may have been possible to install a 8,8 cm KwK L/56 gun in a pedestal mount like shown on your photo (Behelfssockellafette für 5 cm KwK), but the interesting thing about the Pressburg pedestal mount is, that it was designed for a very limited arc of fire only (45 degrees). Pedestal mounts for fixed installation in open emplacements normally were designed for a full 360 degree traverse.
Some pedestal mounts were designed for a limited arc of fire, e.g. the Sockellafette I (for installation in Regelbau 704 casemate) and the gun mounts used in StuG III and Jagdpanther. But in these cases, a full 360 degree traverse was not necessary. Therefore, I think that the Pressburg pedestal mount must have been originally designed for either a gun bunker or a turretless AFV.
Lars

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 06 Nov 2018 00:38

Therefore, I think that the Pressburg pedestal mount must have been originally designed for either a gun bunker or a turretless AFV.
'Must'? If you think so. I would venture that is wildly optimistic, given the amount of design and effort needed to create such things. You suspect these to be prototypes?

Lars Bertelsen
Member
Posts: 373
Joined: 16 Apr 2006 09:02
Location: Denmark

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Lars Bertelsen » 06 Nov 2018 21:49

Hello
I think that the Pressburg pedestal mount must have been designed for installation in either a bunker or an AFV without turret, because it seems unlikely that this 45 degree gun mount was designed for an open gut pit. But the proof is missing.
But on the other hand, there may be thing we just don’t know. My favourite suggestion about the Pressburg pedestal mount is that it was originally designed for the Hungarian 44M TAS tankhunter. I am not an expert about this, but I read somewhere, that production of this AFV was cancelled, because the production plant was air raided in mid-1944.
The main gun of the TAS tankhunter was a German one, but the exact type is not sure because different sources mention different guns (7,5 cm KwK 42 L/70, 8,8 cm KwK 36 L/56 or 8,8 cm KwK L/71). The model AFV on the attached photo seems to be armed with an 8,8 cm L/56.
But there may be other possibilities.
Lars
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2115
Joined: 25 Apr 2006 15:58
Location: Colorado

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by Yoozername » 07 Nov 2018 16:01

Given the greater recoil the 8,8 cm KWK would have had, it is certainly feasible that the ground mount was designed for a limited traverse. Again, it would probably use a chain type system to achieve the traverse. Clearly these type of mounts were expedients and vulnerable in a 360 degree installation. By Spring '45, any weapon system was being pressed into use.

David Hume
Member
Posts: 7
Joined: 20 Apr 2020 03:58
Location: Los Angeles

Re: 88 L56 as Jagdpanzer weapon

Post by David Hume » 30 Apr 2020 22:02

critical mass wrote:
11 Oct 2018 18:28
I have objections with the contention that the KWK42 made the Panther not good in the fire support role.

The 75mm Spgr.42 fired a 635g HE charge at a V0=700 (rated, range table) to V0= 724 m/s (average new gun velocity).

The 75mm M3/M5 with M48 fired a 667g HE charge at a V0= 463m/s (normal charge) to V0= 604m/s (supercharge)

Arguably, I would rate the 75mm Spgr42 as superior owing to the noticably higher initial velocity which gives shorter time of flight and longer range.

The M48 has a 5% larger HE charge than the 75mm Spgr.42

The 76mm M42 has aprox. 100m/s higher V0 (820m/s) than the Spgr42 but also a 401g HE charge, which is genuinely inferior to the 1/2 larger HE burster charge of the Spgr42.
The Spgr42 also has a 100m/s higher V0 than the supercharged M48 but it does not have a noticably smaller HE charge than the M48. So if You consider it ineffective what ois the 75mm M48 then?
And extending this argument, what are the the two 17pdr HE projectiles then, in light of the fact that neither of them has as much HE charge (490g and 580g) as the Spgr42 (635g).
can you share your source of 635g HE? Wikipedia says 650g.

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