SWEDISH BOFORS GUN AND THE DREADED 88 CM CANON

Discussions on the fortifications, artillery, & rockets used by the Axis forces.
User avatar
Fred
Member
Posts: 335
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:13
Location: Sweden

Post by Fred » 14 May 2003 20:06

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.


Well Mr Map I`m just curious but what is your evidence to support your
therory? :|

User avatar
Harri
Member
Posts: 4205
Joined: 24 Jun 2002 11:46
Location: Suomi - Finland

Post by Harri » 14 May 2003 20:26

It is a known fact that German arms experts worked all around the world in developing modern military weapons and equipment. I don't know about this particular "88 case" but I have been in an impression that Germans worked also for Bofors.

What kind of co-operation Bofors had with Krupp during WW I? Did Bofors make guns for Germany during WW I? Did they build German (Krupp's) guns in licence? What kind of co-operation was in ammunition technology?

----

How many know that also Junkers Ju 87 Stuka was originally developed in Sweden? AB Flygindustri at Linhamn produced Junkers aircraft there. It is not difficult to guess why Sweden ordered Junkers Ju 86 bombers in the late 1930's. How many Germans worked for these projects in Sweden?

User avatar
Erik E
Financial supporter
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 22:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Post by Erik E » 14 May 2003 20:34

Also found this on a web-page of a museum:

Interesting fact:
The AB Bofors company worked in conjuction with Germany's Krupp Armament Works following World War I. Since Germany was prohibited by the Versaille Treaty from producing arms, they had AB Bofors (and other firms) build these weapons for them. Any similarities between the Bofors and the famous German 37mm FLAK (Flugabwehrkanone) can be explained because they were designed by the same people.

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 14 May 2003 21:26

Erik E wrote:
before they can be taken seriously.


Well, I have no hard evidence, but it`s written in most books concerning the 88 Flak I have seen. (Not only by Hogg)
Since you don`t take all these books seriously, I won`t bother writing their names.

Erik


Erik -Please don't jump conclusions.
I have some reasons to belive that mr MAP is a highly esteemed gentleman with great knowledge about Bofors and Swedish ordnance.

And I do agree with MAP that some "facts" are no more facts just because they have been quoted in many books.
Not least the kind of encyclopedia-style books that Hogg excels in.
Simply too many facts to be able to check every source and since Hogg are correct in most cases those errors are circulated until someone gets deep into the details and find evidence.

Cheers
/John T.

User avatar
Erik E
Financial supporter
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 22:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Post by Erik E » 14 May 2003 21:47

I have some reasons to belive that mr MAP is a highly esteemed gentleman with great knowledge about Bofors and Swedish ordnance.


I am allways open for new info :D

But i think the sentence
before they can be taken seriously.

Needs a better explanation than the one posted here.

Atleast "I think" in front, would have sounded better...........

Erik E

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 14 May 2003 22:11

map358 wrote: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'm A bit more cynical I suppose
I am always catious with sources and Steckzén did spend the period 1948-57 writing the SKF history.
So I see a possibility of mixed loyalties.
I do not now when Steckzén left the archives , Furstbach decame director in oct. 1950. Do not know if it was someone in between.

map358 wrote: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.
...
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.


I'm hoping someone got William Manchester book on Krupp
(It is even translated to Swedish!! Krupp : en vapendynasti 1587-1968 )

Or other research that does looks deep into this Issue.

Next post soon
/John T.

User avatar
Erik E
Financial supporter
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 22:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Post by Erik E » 14 May 2003 22:26

Hallo John!

It would be very interesting to figure out this once and for all......
This question shows up here from time to time, but this is the first time I actually see a source which claims the opposite!

You know, if this is true, some 100 web-pages and a unknown amounts of books has to be re-written......

I`ve even heard that the "Bofors incident" is mentioned in the after-war trials agains Krupp himself. But again, no hard evidence.......

Erik E

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 14 May 2003 22:28

map358 wrote: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.
MAP


OK lets see what facts we have,
Steckzéns book covers this deal in a number of pages and what he says in brief:
(Disregarding the economical side.)

Krupp and Bofors have a mutual exchange of information and use of each others patents.
(But Krupp can't produce weapons in Germany, so they just gains the information)

One "liason-person" is stationed at Bofors from Krupp.

And that's it.

That Bofors could test Krupps Ideas are without doubt.
But any fact's that supports the view about "German design teams" working in Sweden are welcome.

Cheers
/John T.

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 14 May 2003 22:39

Erik E wrote:Hallo John!

It would be very interesting to figure out this once and for all......
This question shows up here from time to time, but this is the first time I actually see a source which claims the opposite!

You know, if this is true, some 100 web-pages and a unknown amounts of books has to be re-written......

I`ve even heard that the "Bofors incident" is mentioned in the after-war trials agains Krupp himself. But again, no hard evidence.......

Erik E


I do not think we are that far from each other,
the cooperation was there, but it might Very well been more commercial than technical.
Just some English writer who slipped a bit of the mark and added "teams working in Sweden", the rest is obviously correct.

IMHO It is at least as interesting why Swedish strv m/38 used Ferdinand Porches Torrision bar suspension. (I'm no expert of German tanks but the saying goes that Sweden was first to use it in a operational tanks)

And regarding the quantity of web-pages providing less than totaly accurate information ... :P :P

Cheers
/John T.

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 14 May 2003 22:46

Erik E wrote:Also found this on a web-page of a museum:

Interesting fact:
The AB Bofors company worked in conjuction with Germany's Krupp Armament Works following World War I. Since Germany was prohibited by the Versaille Treaty from producing arms, they had AB Bofors (and other firms) build these weapons for them. Any similarities between the Bofors and the famous German 37mm FLAK (Flugabwehrkanone) can be explained because they were designed by the same people.


Yes, but note that no reference is made to Germans.
So if this is true then a few men at Bofors where parents to
German, Soviet, UK and US 37-40 AA guns of WW2.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Bofors.htm


Cheers
/John T.

User avatar
Erik E
Financial supporter
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 22:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Post by Erik E » 14 May 2003 23:09

Just some English writer who slipped a bit of the mark and added "teams working in Sweden", the rest is obviously correct.


Well, it`s a little more than just these words but I know what you`re meaning......

I have choosed to never believe a web-page fully before I see some written sources.
I think it is too easy to say that every web-page and book are using Hogg or each other as sources. There are books made about the 88 alone, even those claim that a team went to Sweden. I do not want to believe that their "research" was reading Hogg`s book, or the internet!

When speaking of Sweden, I once heard that vital compononents for the V-2 was made in Sweden too, but we`ll save that for later :wink:

Erik

User avatar
Erik E
Financial supporter
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 22:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Post by Erik E » 14 May 2003 23:17

I'm hoping someone got William Manchester book on Krupp


OK, I just ordered this book. Hopefully we will find something there, but it will take just over a week befor it arrives........

Erik

John T
Member
Posts: 1153
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Post by John T » 28 May 2003 22:03

Erik E wrote:
Just some English writer who slipped a bit of the mark and added "teams working in Sweden", the rest is obviously correct.


Well, it`s a little more than just these words but I know what you`re meaning......

I have choosed to never believe a web-page fully before I see some written sources.
I think it is too easy to say that every web-page and book are using Hogg or each other as sources. There are books made about the 88 alone, even those claim that a team went to Sweden. I do not want to believe that their "research" was reading Hogg`s book, or the internet!

Then I am more cynical than you are :)
Could you find any references to their sources?
The Bofors archives where never public, Believe you have to look at what US forces found in Krupps archives.


I have searched Internet and I must say that most sites got a lot of things wrong, to some degrees.
Example: A lot of sites infers that the 40mm Bofors where based on the German 37mm m/18 . But if you start to look for details you'll find that they differs even in the basic mechanism. It's like saying that my old Ford Sierra actually is based on Ferrari technology - Both are red...

So what I have found so far:

AAlders and Wiebes "the art of cloaking" (Affärer till varje pris")
states that Krupp bought 30% of Bofors and did swap Patent rights and research material.
Basically the same as MAP's sources.
And the authors can't possibly be considered pro-Swedish in any way :D
They do also stress the importance of patent rights in general and to what degree German firms manipulated the US market before Pearl Harbour.
A interesting book to read but do not believe every conclusion they make.


And this is the only first hand source I have found at
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Holocaust/Krupp.html
Can probably not be considered as apologetic:
In a memorandum of a conference held on 9 December 1942, concerning the proposed publication of a book dealing with Krupp's armament activities, Von Bulow, confidential secretary Krupp, wrote:
"For the period of transition from 1919 up to rearmament, A. K. [Krupp] had undertaken various tasks in order to keep up the Company's activity in the field of artillery, in the sense of observing activities in that field in the rest of the world (relation: BOFORS) and then also for the production of artillery material, within and to a certain extent also beyond, the limitation established by the peace dictate' (D-249 ) .




Erik E wrote:When speaking of Sweden, I once heard that vital compononents for the V-2 was made in Sweden too, but we`ll save that for later :wink:
Erik

I do not at all try to lie about facts. (My word not your! :D )
There is already sooo many nationalistic jerks trying to improve their country's reputation.
But it is nice if you could find facts, and I like to scratch on unfounded myths.

I have not dug into ASEA and V2 technology but maybe some day..


BTW
Nice link but with outdated sources:
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%20Notes/Inspection%20For%20Disarmament.html

Cheerioo
/John T.

User avatar
Erik E
Financial supporter
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 22:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Post by Erik E » 28 May 2003 22:19

Could you find any references to their sources?


simple answer......No :| There are never mentioned sources for spesific information, only a "general" in the end.

And btw,
Then I am more cynical than you are
I`m not trying to be cynical, I`m just challenging you :wink:

It will surely take time to solve this, but I guess at some stage, we will agree on how Krupp and Bofors were related.

My copy of the William Manchester book will arrive early next week, so until then, I haven`t got so much more........

Anyway, it was nice hearing from you again!

PS: I never believed that V-2 story!

Regards
Erik E

User avatar
Erik E
Financial supporter
Posts: 4517
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 22:26
Location: Stavanger, Norway

Post by Erik E » 07 Jun 2003 12:35

Hello John!

I have been reading a few pages from "Krupp: en vapendynasti 1587-1968". As far as I can see, William Manchester has a different view on this, than Steckzén.

Here is some info from page 267 in the book:

Allready in 1921 Gustav Krupp took his first shot at the Versailles-agreement. He had traded licences and patents for stocks in the Swedish company Bofors. By the end of the year, he had enough stocks to get control of the company.
In April 1921, chiefengineer Daur went to Sweden, he was to stay there for 10 years. Daur was no regular "office-guy", he was one of the best constructors in the Krupp system. By the end of the year, Bofors made their first "75mm Bergkanon L/20" This gun was designed in Essen in ww1.
The first contracts for the new weapons, was Denmark and Netherlands.

A few years later, the progress in Bofors is so good that Krupp decides to send one of his most trusted men to Sweden, Karl Pfirch. In 1927, he has the title "Chief of Krupp`s weapon industries", while working at Bofors!

(There are no numbers on how many Germans actually worked there, but this could give a clue)

The swedish socialists didn`t like to see all the Germans running around in Bofors. By 1929, the Swedish government decided a new law which forbid foreginers to own stocks in Swedish weapon factories.
With help of the krupp lawyer-team, they managed to hide all traces of connection between Bofors and Krupp. By 1935, the German precence at Bofors was stopped, as normal production began in Germany


Another interesting quote, this time from the wartrials agains Krupp:

German officers were allowed to visit Bofors to see and try the latest modern artillery. In this way, the connection Krupp-Bofors became very useful for the forming of a new wehrmacht artillery force


More interesting info, from Krupps memoars:
For 14 years, this Swedish factory produced our heavy artillery, tanks, machineguns, gasbombs and much more........



Hope this was of interest :wink:
Erik E

Return to “Fortifications, Artillery, & Rockets”