The German 50 mm. Tank Gun and the Crusader Problems

[Michael Kenny]

Why am I being quoted here? I am not part of this discussion? I have Kenny on ignore and get 'Notifications' he is quoting me?

I can quote any other poster I like and as you failed to source the original I thought it best to keep you linked to it.

In any case, that quote is from a report..........,

......That you did not source.
I re-posted it because it shows all the hand-wringing about 'souperier' German guns needs a little perspective and : ' the final conclusion can be reached that 107 shots of Pak 38 have been required per tank destroyed' shows that everyone thought the other side had an unfair advantage.

[Yoozername]

Here is the full post.....

Report of the 2./Panzerjäger-Abteilung 128 in reference to the effects of the projectiles fired by the anti-tank gun of 5 cm Pak 38 on Soviet tanks during the operations of the so-called 'second battle of Kharkov'.

Note :
In the section of 'Beutepanzer' can be read another report of the 2./Panzerjäger-Abteilung 128 dated in June of 1944 in reference to the experiences lived with T-34 and SU-85 captured and in service within this unit.


2./Panz.Jäger.Abt.128

With reference to : Report on experiences

Directed to the Panzerjäger-Abteilung 128



Report on the penetration effects of Pak 38
during operations in Bereka and Dudkowka between 12 and 20.5.1942



During the battles in Berewka, partly against superheavy tanks, the 2./Panz.Jäger.Abt.128 practically lost its complete material, 8 cannons and 7 harmonics (transports?). The Company is of the opinion that the reason has been the insufficient effects of the 5 cm Pak 38 .

During the 13th and 15th of May, 1942, and in the course of repeated attacks by heavy and super-heavy tanks, more than 1500 projectiles were fired: 1280 projectiles Pz.Gr.38 and approximately 220 projectiles Pz.Gr.40. Of these projectiles a minimum of 1000 reached their objectives. The final result of these two days have been 14 tanks destroyed: 1 KW II, 5 T-34, 8 unidentified media models; 2 KW II were damaged.

The destroyed KW II was shot down under extraordinarily favorable circumstances as it was caught in its weakly armored lower chassis plate when the vehicle was passing through a small pothole. On the rest of the superheavy tanks no type of effect of the shots has been observed. In relation to the ammunition used, the final conclusion can be reached that 107 shots of Pak 38 have been required per tank destroyed.. In spite of the fact that this figure offers a distorted image, because in addition to the 14 destroyed tanks, many other tanks were also shot that were not damaged, it is a fact that a medium or heavy tank can only be destroyed by a very high consumption of ammunition.


The combats in Dudkowka offer a more positive image because here the Company faced lighter tanks (T-26, Mark II and T-34). The final result in relation to the ammunition consumed is here between 15 and 20 projectiles per tank destroyed.


This means that against the medium and heavy tanks that the enemy currently employs the penetration power of 5 cm Pak 38it is totally insufficient, since in most cases it is not possible to carry out such a high number of shots before the tank has reached the firing position.


Effects of the Panzer-Garnet 40 :
The effects of the Pz.Gr.40 at short distances on medium and heavy tanks have been satisfactory; On superheavy tanks, no type of effect could be observed. The Pz.Gr.40 has caused in many occasions faults in the loading system that could not be repaired by the servers of the cannon. These problems have led 3 times to the total loss of the cannon.

Effects of Panzergranate 38 :
Its use has not caused problems in the canyon, but its drilling effects on heavy and medium tanks do not satisfy. It has not been possible to perforate the frontal armor in any case.

Effects of Sprenggranate :
Satisfactory effects on non-armored targets.


Conclusion :
For the effective combat of armored attacks it is necessary either a 5 cm ammunition with a much greater penetration power, or the equipación of the companies cazacarro {stugs} with a heavy platoon armed with cannons of a greater caliber.

This is an example of a KV-1 with extra armor as a 'Super-Heavy' tank. Not sure if anything in the Africa area of operations is comparable? Or why this information was deemed useful to this thread? But, I like to share....

[Michael Kenny]

This is an example of a KV-1 with extra armor as a 'Super-Heavy' tank. Not sure if anything in the Africa area of operations is comparable?

Perhaps these tanks might be a better match?

here the Company faced lighter tanks (T-26, Mark II and T-34). The final result in relation to the ammunition consumed is here between 15 and 20 projectiles per tank destroyed.

[critical mass]

German 50mm full calibre AP ammunition.

I) 5cm Pzgr. Patr.38, AP-HE
Monobloc AP-design without AP-cap and windscreen. With small HE filler and delay action fuze. Standart AP projectile for all 50mm guns until spring 1942. Thereafter still used when MQ target plate was to be defeated by KWK38 (5cm L/42) guns.
This projectile was prone to break up when engaging 1.2 cal MQ/RHA (take into account the elevated hardness at this thickness range) at 30° obliquity, resulting in loss of penetration, despite increase in velocity.
This projectile was prone to shatter when engaging high hardness, homogenious armor of about cal/t or face hardened armor, particularely at close range.

II) 5cm Pzgr. 39, APC-HE
composite type (with welded on tip) with AP-cap but without windscreen. Same filler and fuze as I) above. While designed in 1939, the mass production only started late in 1941 with deliveries commencing in spring 1942 in quantity. This projectile had a slightly lower penetration than the AP mod.38 above under conditions where no projectile damage was occurring to both shells (the cap gets wasted). However, it was resistent to shatter at > muzzle velocity for the PAK38 and did not experience break up until >1.5cal face hardened or high hardened armor was attacked, which allowed increaed penetration at elevated velocities without the projectile to suffer break up. Later received improved heat treatment and fuze design.
This projectile sacrificed some long range for increased short range penetrative performance against MQ armor and was generally superior to the mod.38 AP against armor of elevated hardness (either HHA or FHA).

III) 5cm Pzgr. 42, APCBC-HE
composite type (with welded on tip), with AP-cap and ballistic windscreen. Received improved heat treatment and fuze design. Introduced for 5cm FLAK-41 guns as anti-tank ammunition 1942/3. Same as late model 5cm Pzgr39 but with added windscreen for better downrange velocity.


Notice that when full calibre AP attacks armor, cast armor is only slightly inferior at 0° and considerably inferior to RHA at higher obliquities. This is because it cannot suffer from laminations like RHA (gas bubbles stay circular cavities in the cast matrix and doesn´t get cross rolled out to areas of latent lminations) but also doesn´t allow grain orientation to be employed protectively at oblique impact by aligning trajectory with the higher directional strain rate strength of a good RHA plate (a cross rolled out plate has elevated strain strength at longitudinal and latitudinal direction but not sectionwise, of course).

[Peasant]

On the topic of superiority of AP shell vs AP shot in the context of this discussion: