SWEDISH BOFORS GUN AND THE DREADED 88 CM CANON
SWEDISH BOFORS GUN AND THE DREADED 88 CM CANON
i read in Fw VON Melenthins book Panzer Battels that the Swedish 88 could have taken out tnaks like the german 88 cannon. why didnt the british use the bofors in this way against german armor?
The German 88 was developed with the help of Bofors as far as I know. The British ironically used the 40mm Bofors anti- aircraft gun. I don't know why the British didn't copy the bofors 88 design but they did have other tactical doctrines and never used anti- aircraft guns against armour.
Hitler once said that with the help of the British warfleet and the Swedish air defence he could conquer the World.
Best regards/ Daniel
Hitler once said that with the help of the British warfleet and the Swedish air defence he could conquer the World.
Best regards/ Daniel
- Csaba Becze
- Member
- Posts: 656
- Joined: 27 May 2002, 11:44
- Location: Hungary
- Contact:
- Robert Hurst
- Member
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: 04 Oct 2002, 16:11
- Location: Worksop, Notts, UK
Swedish Bofors Gun and the Dreaded 88 mm Cannon
Hi PZ VI
The weapon that you are thinking about is the Swedish 75 mm Bofors Model 29. The following text and photos were taken from 'WW2 Fact Files: Anti-Aircraft Guns', by Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander.
75 mm Bofors Model 29
The success of the 40 mm Bofors Model 36 has tended to overshadow the good sales record of the earlier and heavier 75 mm Model 29 produced in 1929 and usually referred to as the M29. It was a conventional gun with no frills that entered service in Sweden and thereafter was sold to Greece, Finland and China. Non-combatant nations that also bought the M29 were Argentina, Thailand and Iran. For Hungary a special 80 mm version was produced, still under the M29 label.
The M29 was an unspectacular performer that gave many years of service to its owners, but one of its few claims to fame is that it was produced at a time when German Krupp engineers were working with Bofors to perfect the design of what was to become the 8.8 cm Flak series. Thus the M29 provided a good trial gun for many features that were later modified for the '88'. Perhaps the most notable feature is the cruciform platform.
Data: (75/80 mm)
Calibre: 75/80 mm (2.95/3.15 in)
Barrel length (L/52, L/50): 3,900/4,000 mm (153.5/157.5 in)
Weight in action: 4,000/3,000 kg (8,820/6,615 lb)
Elevation: 75 mm -5 degrees to + 85 degrees
80 mm -3 degrees to + 85 degrees
Traverse: 360 degrees
Maximum ceiling: 11,200/9,700 m (36,750/31,825 ft)
Muzzle velocity: 840/750 m/sec (2,756/2,460 ft/sec
Shell weight: 6.3/8.0 kg (13.9/17.6 lb)
7.5 cm Flak L/60
During the 1920s the Germans were prevented by the Treaty of Versailles from producing new weapons. Krupps circumvented this difficulty by making an arrangement with the Swedish Bofors firm for a design team to work in Sweden to design new guns.
The first product of this arrangement was a 75 mm L/60 anti-aircraft gun with a semi-automatic breech and a cruciform platform. In 1930 the gun was turned down by the German War Office as it lacked the performance they desired but the gun was built by Krupps for export. Some were sold to Spain and Brazil but in 1939 undelivered guns were taken over by the German Navy and emplaced as coastal defence anti-aircraft guns. The Krupp 75 mm gun incorporated many design features that were later used on the famous 8.8 cm series, including the cruciform platform.
Rheinmetall-Borsig produced a very similar L/59 gun, but it was not introduced into service.
Data
Calibre: 75mm (2.95 in)
Length of piece (L/60): 4,500 mm (177 in)
Weight complete: 5,200 kg (11, 466 lb)
Weight in action: 3,140 kg (6,924 lb)
Elevation: -5 degrees to + 85 degrees
Traverse: 360 degrees
Maximum vertical range: 9,000 m (29,530 ft)
Muzzle velocity: 850 m/sec (2,789 ft/sec)
Shell weight: 6.35 kg (14 lb)
The weapon that you are thinking about is the Swedish 75 mm Bofors Model 29. The following text and photos were taken from 'WW2 Fact Files: Anti-Aircraft Guns', by Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander.
75 mm Bofors Model 29
The success of the 40 mm Bofors Model 36 has tended to overshadow the good sales record of the earlier and heavier 75 mm Model 29 produced in 1929 and usually referred to as the M29. It was a conventional gun with no frills that entered service in Sweden and thereafter was sold to Greece, Finland and China. Non-combatant nations that also bought the M29 were Argentina, Thailand and Iran. For Hungary a special 80 mm version was produced, still under the M29 label.
The M29 was an unspectacular performer that gave many years of service to its owners, but one of its few claims to fame is that it was produced at a time when German Krupp engineers were working with Bofors to perfect the design of what was to become the 8.8 cm Flak series. Thus the M29 provided a good trial gun for many features that were later modified for the '88'. Perhaps the most notable feature is the cruciform platform.
Data: (75/80 mm)
Calibre: 75/80 mm (2.95/3.15 in)
Barrel length (L/52, L/50): 3,900/4,000 mm (153.5/157.5 in)
Weight in action: 4,000/3,000 kg (8,820/6,615 lb)
Elevation: 75 mm -5 degrees to + 85 degrees
80 mm -3 degrees to + 85 degrees
Traverse: 360 degrees
Maximum ceiling: 11,200/9,700 m (36,750/31,825 ft)
Muzzle velocity: 840/750 m/sec (2,756/2,460 ft/sec
Shell weight: 6.3/8.0 kg (13.9/17.6 lb)
7.5 cm Flak L/60
During the 1920s the Germans were prevented by the Treaty of Versailles from producing new weapons. Krupps circumvented this difficulty by making an arrangement with the Swedish Bofors firm for a design team to work in Sweden to design new guns.
The first product of this arrangement was a 75 mm L/60 anti-aircraft gun with a semi-automatic breech and a cruciform platform. In 1930 the gun was turned down by the German War Office as it lacked the performance they desired but the gun was built by Krupps for export. Some were sold to Spain and Brazil but in 1939 undelivered guns were taken over by the German Navy and emplaced as coastal defence anti-aircraft guns. The Krupp 75 mm gun incorporated many design features that were later used on the famous 8.8 cm series, including the cruciform platform.
Rheinmetall-Borsig produced a very similar L/59 gun, but it was not introduced into service.
Data
Calibre: 75mm (2.95 in)
Length of piece (L/60): 4,500 mm (177 in)
Weight complete: 5,200 kg (11, 466 lb)
Weight in action: 3,140 kg (6,924 lb)
Elevation: -5 degrees to + 85 degrees
Traverse: 360 degrees
Maximum vertical range: 9,000 m (29,530 ft)
Muzzle velocity: 850 m/sec (2,789 ft/sec)
Shell weight: 6.35 kg (14 lb)
- Attachments
-
- 7.5 cm Flak Krupp.jpg (27.68 KiB) Viewed 7360 times
-
- 75 mm Bofors Model 29.jpg (34.84 KiB) Viewed 7358 times
I don't think so.Fred wrote:Yes, Bofors was working with the Krupp team in Sweden(to avoid the Versailles treaty)./Fred.The German 88 was developed with the help of Bofors as far as I know.
I never heard of a Krupp-team working in Sweden.
Bofors did manufacture some ordnance designed by Krupp, and they also used a few Krupp-features on thir own designs, but I have never seen any signs of joint-projects between Krupp and Bofors.
MAP
I don't think so.
I never heard of a Krupp-team working in Sweden.
Bofors did manufacture some ordnance designed by Krupp, and they also used a few Krupp-features on thir own designs, but I have never seen any signs of joint-projects between Krupp and Bofors.
Well Mr Map I suggest that you read Ian V. Hogg´s “German artillery of WW II” a very competent writer in this matter.
I have no doubts, whatsoever, that Ian Hogg had an immense knowledge about British ordnance, but I fail to see why he should have had any special insights in the co-operation between Krupp and Bofors.Fred wrote:
Well Mr Map I suggest that you read Ian V. Hogg´s “German artillery of WW II” a very competent writer in this matter.
I have not been able to obtain a copy of the book you mention.
However - I did find "Twentieth-century artillery" by the same author. On page 120 he claims that the 88mm Flak 18 had been "designed by Krupp engineers working in the Bofors factory in Sweden".
A somewhat surprising statement from a well respected man, since I have never seen any facts that would even remotely support such a theory.
If my memory serves me right records shows that only two German engineers, at a time, were assigned to Bofors (whereof one was an metallurgist). One might add that the main reason why Bofors entered this co-operation with Krupp was to get help to solve some rather severe problems with casting defects in large calibre naval and coast artillery guns.
May I suggest that you read "Bofors" by Birger Steckzén (Stockholm, 1946) or "Bofors 350 år" by Stig Fransson (Stockholm, 1996) - preferably both.
MAP
A krupp team spent almost 10 years in Sweden?Erik E wrote:The book "88mm Flak 18/36/37/41" also confirms that a krupp team spent allmost 10 years in Sweden........
Erik E
That is without doubt a very strange statement!
I would be interested to know more about this book.
Who is the author? When and where was it printed?
MAP
map358 wrote:I have no doubts, whatsoever, that Ian Hogg had an immense knowledge about British ordnance, but I fail to see why he should have had any special insights in the co-operation between Krupp and Bofors.Fred wrote:
Well Mr Map I suggest that you read Ian V. Hogg´s “German artillery of WW II” a very competent writer in this matter.
I have not been able to obtain a copy of the book you mention.
However - I did find "Twentieth-century artillery" by the same author. On page 120 he claims that the 88mm Flak 18 had been "designed by Krupp engineers working in the Bofors factory in Sweden".
A somewhat surprising statement from a well respected man, since I have never seen any facts that would even remotely support such a theory.
If my memory serves me right records shows that only two German engineers, at a time, were assigned to Bofors (whereof one was an metallurgist). One might add that the main reason why Bofors entered this co-operation with Krupp was to get help to solve some rather severe problems with casting defects in large calibre naval and coast artillery guns.
May I suggest that you read "Bofors" by Birger Steckzén (Stockholm, 1946) or "Bofors 350 år" by Stig Fransson (Stockholm, 1996) - preferably both.
MAP
Hi MAP
First I must ask you to remember that Steckzén was paid to write corporate histories (I 'm reading his book on SKF right now) and Stig Fransson is a retired salesperson from AB Bofors.
I do not suggest that they explicitly lies, but they do not spend too much time on less plesant facts.
Esp if you read Steckzén p.330-336 description of the cooperation was described is such almost political phrases that it could imply all or nothing.
There are some independent researched books on Krupp I'd like to read some day when I have plenty of time.
Cheers
/John T.
Hi John
Steckzén, Ph.D. and lt. in the army reserve, was the director of the royal War-archives in Stockholm when he wrote the history of Bofors.
In the preface he writes that he had full access to all Bofors documents and that he had been granted the freedom to write about any mathers, even delicate ones. He also says that he had the opportunity to interview several persons working in leading positions at Bofors.
I can see no reasons to believe that Steckzén would lie about a this and I find it more than unlikely that he could be bought.
If Bofors had something to conceal they would surely have chosen someone with less integrity to write the companys history - or simply not written it at all.
I think the relationship with Krupp and the three contracts between Krupp and Bofors are fairly well described. I don't remember the text to be vague or that it implied anything, and Steckzén clearly states that there were no secret clauses in the agreements between Bofors and Krupp.
I'm not saying that Steckzén's book is immaculate but I have not yet spotted any errors at all. Hogg, on the other hand, does not seem to have a very clear picture of Bofors. "Twentieth-century artillery" contains a number of severe errors concerning ordnance manufactured by Bofors.
Steckzén had access to files and persons Hogg could not even dream of, he is also caught making much less errors than Hogg. If Steckzén says that there were no secret co-operations between Krupp and Bofors and Hogg says that there was, I, for one, have to believe Steckzén.
Writers who claims that the German 8,8 cm Flak 18 was designed by a team of German engineers working in Sweden will have to present some kind of evidence to support this theory before they can be taken seriously.
MAP
Steckzén, Ph.D. and lt. in the army reserve, was the director of the royal War-archives in Stockholm when he wrote the history of Bofors.
In the preface he writes that he had full access to all Bofors documents and that he had been granted the freedom to write about any mathers, even delicate ones. He also says that he had the opportunity to interview several persons working in leading positions at Bofors.
I can see no reasons to believe that Steckzén would lie about a this and I find it more than unlikely that he could be bought.
If Bofors had something to conceal they would surely have chosen someone with less integrity to write the companys history - or simply not written it at all.
I think the relationship with Krupp and the three contracts between Krupp and Bofors are fairly well described. I don't remember the text to be vague or that it implied anything, and Steckzén clearly states that there were no secret clauses in the agreements between Bofors and Krupp.
I'm not saying that Steckzén's book is immaculate but I have not yet spotted any errors at all. Hogg, on the other hand, does not seem to have a very clear picture of Bofors. "Twentieth-century artillery" contains a number of severe errors concerning ordnance manufactured by Bofors.
Steckzén had access to files and persons Hogg could not even dream of, he is also caught making much less errors than Hogg. If Steckzén says that there were no secret co-operations between Krupp and Bofors and Hogg says that there was, I, for one, have to believe Steckzén.
Writers who claims that the German 8,8 cm Flak 18 was designed by a team of German engineers working in Sweden will have to present some kind of evidence to support this theory before they can be taken seriously.
MAP