12,8 cm Pak

Kugelblitz · #1

I had a little book about artillery pieces. One that impress me a lot (along with the 128mm flak) was the Pak 44. There was two versions, one using a 4 wheeled trailer (in the image it looks very heavy, I´m sure that a Opel Blitz can´t tow it) and one with a carriage like the "long tom".
They was used in battle?, any info about like photos, measures of the gun&carriage (*) or drawings?

(*) it looks very big

Robert Hurst · #2

Hi Kugelblitz

There were two versions of the 12.8 cm K 44 tested by the Germans durng the Second World War, differing only on the type of carriage used.

Version one: The Krupp model had a cruciform platform with outriggers, carried on two two-wheel axles that could be swung from the ground as the platform was lowered by a simple hand-operated arc and pinion mechanism. The top carriage revolved on four rollers running around a racer plate on the lower carriage and was centred o by a simple pivot.

Version two: The Rheinemetall-Borsig model also used a carriage of the cruciform type, carried on a two-wheel bogie at the front and a four-wheel bogie at the rear. The front bogie was removed completely on coming into action, while the rear bogie was raised from the ground but remained on the carriage to form part of the traversing mass and to add to the gun's stability.

It was generally agreed that the Krupp design was the cleaner and better of the two, though critical examination showed that certain parts of the carriage - especially the wheel-raising gear and the traversing arangements - were somewhat underweight for their tasks and might not have lasted long in service.

Although prototypes were made, no complete weapons entered service though a number of gun barrels (51 according to some reports) were made and fitted to extemporised carriages.

These being as follows:

12.8 cm Kanone 81/1: This was the K 44 ordnance mounted on the ex-French 155 mm Mle GPF-T carriage.

12.8 cm Kanone 81/2: This was the K 44 ordnance mounted on the ex-Russian 152 mm Model 1937 howitzer carriage.

The above text and photos were taken from "German Artillery of World War Two", by Ian V Hogg.

Regards

Bob

Gen. Erwin Rommel · #3

This weapon was Anti-Tank, or Normal Artillery?

Christian Ankerstjerne · #4

Gen. Erwin Rommel wrote:This weapon was Anti-Tank, or Normal Artillery?

It was an anti-tank gun. The 8.8cm Pa.K. 43 L/71 was better as an anti-tank gun than the 12.8cm Pa.K. 44/80 L/55, but I suspect the 12.8cm would have been able to work better than the 8.8cm against infantry...

The 12.8cm also had the problem that its ammunition was two-piece, which gave a low ROF.

Christian

Eightball · #5

I'm not expert at AT guns. But was this gun really a necessity? I mean, was there any Allied tank the 88 couldn't handle?

Christian Ankerstjerne · #6

Eightball wrote:I'm not expert at AT guns. But was this gun really a necessity? I mean, was there any Allied tank the 88 couldn't handle?

No - on both counts...

Christian

Redbaron1908 · #7

intresting anti tank gun was it used in large numbers was it used only in the eastern front? I have never heard of this gun.

Korbius · #8

redbaron1908 wrote:intresting anti tank gun was it used in large numbers was it used only in the eastern front? I have never heard of this gun.

From what I've heard, this gun wasn't produced in large numbers, and its production started in late '44, which would have made it impossible to produce a considerable amount of such AT guns.

Eduard Chivu · #9

redbaron wrote

intresting anti tank gun was it used in large numbers was it used only in the eastern front? I have never heard of this gun.

this gun wasn't produced in large numbers. i don't even think it saw action during the war. i know one of the versions(with french carriage) didn't really see any action at all, or maybe a little bit. the other version i think was produced in larger numbers and maybe might of seen some action, most likely on eastern front
eduard

Kugelblitz · #10

Interesting info. The last one in the foto is the same as I saw in the draw on my book, it looks very big. There is any foto with a person near or one of the front in the last gun?
It was fair to be manhandled in battle?, I ask because the Pak 43 was a little heavy for its task

Eduard Chivu · #11

kugelblitz wrote

It was fair to be manhandled in battle?, I ask because the Pak 43 was a little heavy for its task

i doubt it was easy to handle this gun in battle. remember that even the barn door(long 88) was very heavy and was very hard to be towed and moved around. many of them got stuck in the russian mud, while others were abandoned because it took too long to tow them, and by the time the crew could tow it, the enemy would reach them. the 128 was probably no exception. but i would say that the one with a 4 wheeled carriage was probably easier to tow.
eduard

daveh · #12

The 12.8cm Pak 44/ K44 was designed as a dual purpose anti tank and field gun. Protypes only were built. However the barrel was produced. A version , the K81, was intended for use in AFV. 50 barrels were converted and fitted to a carriage from the French Canon de 155 GPF-T. These were issued as 12.8cm Kanone 81/1.
A small number of barrels were fitted to the Soviet 152mm Gun howitzer carriage obr,. 1937 and used as the 12.8cm Kanone 81/2.
Both of these were intended to be field and anti tank guns.

p120 Small Arms Artillery and Special Weapons of the Third Reich Gander and Chamberlain ISBN 0 354 01108 1 has a pic of US troops and a captured 12.8cm Kanone 81/1

The 12.8cm weapons weighed in at well over twice the weight of the 8.8cm Pak and were beyond the ability of crews to shift far without the aid of vehicles. This and their massive bulk limited their effectiveness as a wheeled anti tank gun although its ability to pentrate armour is beyond question eg 148mm at 30 degrees from vertical at 2000 m with Pzgr43

Christian Ankerstjerne · #13

The 12.8cm Pa.K. 44/80 was used on the Jagdtiger, which means that at least 85 were used, of which the majority saw action...

The problem was, that the gun mount production was limited by the Allied ari raids, and so it was not possible to continue the use. Therefore, it was autorized to use the 8.8cm Pa.K. 43, however it is uncertain if this was in fact carried out...

Christian

Second try · #14

Eightball wrote:I'm not expert at AT guns. But was this gun really a necessity? I mean, was there any Allied tank the 88 couldn't handle?

ISII(m)front upper hull and maybe the IS III

Christian Ankerstjerne · #15

As far as I know, the 8.8cm Pa.K. 43 was capable f penetrating this armour too. The maximum calculated penetration was 304mm using APCR grenades...

Christian