Your favourite AT-guns of WWII

[Mark V]

Christian W,

It is just not the moving gun manually, but the very weight puts demands to pulling vehicles. During thaw even the most strongest halftracks had problems and it was not uncommon that guns were left to place even if there were vehicles available, so bog down to soil they could be.

Also, countless numbers of trucks were damaged and left abandoned because they were used to too hard pulling work, and broke down.

So shaving off ton or two from a weight of an gun also saves pulling vehicles, and the very number vehicles capable to pull that particular gun increases dramatically.

Mark V

[Christian W.]

Yes Mark.

Of course, it was no good to tow/pull really heavy artillery pieces/at-guns with yust anything. The engine might not agree with you.

Really, it was not that heavy as you think, and surely, five, lets say six mens could push one PAK 43, see the picture. There were lot more heavyer guns than PAK 43, 3700kg is " heavy " but there were far more heavyer at-guns.

[cbo]

Sorry, Cbo, but you made a little mistake, but so did I. I had PAK 43 mistaken with PAK/43/41. I meant PAK 43. I edited the post so that no one makes the same mistake again.

No mistake on my part, it was quite clear what you wrote. And the pictures are still wrong. They show the PaK 43/41.
And 5 men would of course be unable to move this gun in any meaningfull way (ie. turn it in firing position, for example). The picture doesn't prove anything, for all we know, they might have been pushing the gun for an hour to turn it 2 degrees to get it to fit on its limber for transport - unsuccesfully

And it is not 3000 kg for the PaK 43, it is 3700. And the gun in your pictures weighed closer to 4400.....

I dont think any other AT-gun had as high armor penetration power as PAK 43 had. Even if it was " Heavy AT-gun ". Being able to penetrate 241mm armor or possibly more from 1000 meters is wery good. So, I would say it was the best AT-gun in the war.
Cheers.

I dont know where you got the 241mm at 1000 meters from and what it actually represents (what is the angle? ammunition? target armour?), but using comparable German figures measured at 30 degrees, you get a somewhat different figure of 165mm at 1000 meters using PzGr 39 (APCBC) and 193mm using PzGr 40 (APCR). That is still very impressive and probably the most achieved by any AT-gun during WWII under the same test conditions.

I have to go with Tony though. In my view, you have to take other things into account was well. As heavy anti-tank guns go, they had a place on the battlefield in WWII, but they were typically corps assets that could be positioned on important locations as the back-bone of the defence. That is one role and one which I think the PaK 43 filled quite well (the PaK 43/41 even found its way into the Atlantic Wall bunkers btw.)
But you also need an AT-gun for use in the front line with divisions, regiments and battalions and here, the 3.7 ton PaK 43 was far too immobile.

So for a good balance between penetration and weight, I'd still go with the PaK 41, as it was a good deal lighter than the 17pdr, for example.

Claus B

[Christian W.]

Right. Now, sorry about the mistake i made when I mixed PAK 43 with PAK 43/41.

Yes, it depends from the angle, distance and what sort of ammunition was used. However, according to site where I got the info from, the 241mm penetration from 1000m was done with Tungsten cored shell.

Well, I say that I must agree with you. It would be wery useful on the defensive lines and where limited movement was required. A good German AT weapon after PAK 43 would be PAK 40 and 41. ( that wouldnt be as heavy as PAK 43 )

However, no one can deny that PAK 43 was clearly the most powerful AT-gun of the war.

Btw, are you absolutly sure that lets say six mens couldnt move PAK 43/41 at all. Conditions: Six normal soldiers pushing PAK 43/41 on a straight road. ect:

Yes, I know that 3700 is a lot of weight, but since I havent got a chance to try it out with five of my mates...

[Jari]

During WW2, the competition between armour and AT guns got out of hand, to the benefit of armour. While in 1939 the 37mm, 2pdr (40mm) or 45mm guns were sufficient, and even 25mm guns or 14-20mm ATR's could punch holes to the most usual tank models, by 1945 even 75mm guns had trouble defeating heavy tanks without Tungsten or HEAT ammunition. But going for bigger meant going for impractical, as they weren't as mobile as were the 37mm etc. guns, nor as small, making them harder to conceal (especially after having opened fire).

However, tanks had a new, greater threat in the form of Bazooka and its German derivatives, the Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust (and PIAT for Brits), and their bigger variants. They lacked the range of ATG's, but in most cases you couldn't utilize the maximum range of an ATG in Europe.

All that having been said, I think for the low end my favourite is the Soviet 45mm M/42, because it's small and quite light, it had Tungsten and shrapnel ammunition, and the 45mm HE grenade packs a bit more punch against infantry than 37mm. For higher end, the Pak40 for being in service for so many years and still at the end of the war being capable of defeating most of the enemy tanks, and for not being way too heavy (an 88mm ATG would have been useless in Finland). I love it. The British 17pdr gets a special mention for its high performance.

[cbo]

Yes, it depends from the angle, distance and what sort of ammunition was used. However, according to site where I got the info from, the 241mm penetration from 1000m was done with Tungsten cored shell....

I found the source for your information. It is from Hogg: "German artillery of WWII" and it is for a 0 degree impact.

Btw, are you absolutly sure that lets say six mens couldnt move PAK 43 at all. Conditions: Six normal soldiers pushing PAK 43 on a straight road. ect:

Yes, I know that 3700 is a lot of weight, but since I havent got a chance to try it out with five of my mates...

I'm pretty sure, yes. I've tried moving a PaK 40 on a completely level concrete floor and that was not easy (basically my friend and I could just lift the limbers off the floor, but had a hard time moving the gun). But try this with your mates: Find a 3700 kg truck. Remove one set of the wheels wheels and dump it on the ground. Now try to move it around.

Another thing is, that you need to get to grips with the difference between the PaK 43 and the 43/41. The PaK 43 weighed 3700kg, had a cruciform carriage like the FlaK 18/36 and was mounted on two limbers to be moved by road. Once placed on the ground, it could not be moved by manpower, as it had no wheels. But it had 360 degree traverse so it wasn't necessary anyway.
This picture shows the remains of such a gun somewhere in the Ardennes:



The Pak 43/41 weighed 4400 kg and had two wheels and would've been quite a job to move around.

This picture shows another Ardennes relict, this time a PaK 43/41 in travelling position.



Claus B

[Christian W.]

Moving a car and PAK 43/41 are two difrent things, even if they have almost same weight. Im sure there a plenty of museums with PAK 43/41s but since I doubt they would let me move one :roll: .... Well, Im quite sure that me and six mates Ill select would be able to move PAK 43/41, of course, slowly.

[cbo]

Moving a car and PAK 43 are two difrent things, even if they have almost same weight. Im sure there a plenty of museums with PAK 43s but since I doubt they would let me move one :roll: .... Well, Im quite sure that me and six mates Ill select would be able to move PAK 43, of course, slowly.

No, you wouldn't be able to move a PaK 43, because it has no wheels once in place........ :roll:

But you may be able to move a PaK 43/41 if you could handle 4400 kg..... After all, you would only have to handle about 600 kg each.... But even if you could push it around on a flat, hard surface, it becomes impossible out there in reality where the ground is wet and uneven. Which is why we have pictures of 6 men working hard to push a 47mm PaK(f) along a dirt road etc.

Claus B

[Patrice]

Hello.
I found this photo on : http://iquebec.ifrance.com/2iemeguerre/ ... ak4341.htm.
Not a easy job,even on a hard surface.
Patrice

[Christian W.]

Want to try? I for sure would want to try. Not alone, of course, but with five mates of mine.

[Juha Tompuri]

It's not just pushing the gun...
I wonder how many men it takes to lift up "the rear end" of the gun...

The same pic cbo posted:


Regards, Juha

[Christian W.]

You got me on that.

[Uninen]

Aisa miehen parempi olla isoluinen ja ruista hihassa pare olla kans.

Anyways, why are we even arguing about the technical aspects about the guns? As the topic was your favorite AT-gun..

And matters of taste.. well you know..

And anyways, the gun is a immobile moster the others are right, just give it up. Not even 5 1st class Aryans could make it move..

[Christian W.]

Aryans... :roll:


You are right, and lets get back to the topic.

[cbo]

Anyways, why are we even arguing about the technical aspects about the guns? As the topic was your favorite AT-gun..

And matters of taste.. well you know..

Because it becomes a pointless and meaningless excercise talking about "best" unless you base it on an argument for your choice. And such an argument can of course be challenged.

That is who we can learn something from a "best x of WWII" type of thread. If it just becomes a list of things someone finds "cool" without having to argue the case, it is just a waste of bandwith and stoorage space.

Claus B