50mm Flak???

Discussions on the fortifications, artillery, & rockets used by the Axis forces.
User avatar
Aufklarung
Financial supporter
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 04:27
Location: Canada

50mm Flak???

Post by Aufklarung » 06 Oct 2002 15:31

I have seen a ref to a 50mm Flak gun(on a SdKfz 7) and do not know what that gun is. Was it captured kit or what. Who can show me a picture of this. All I find is text ref. Thanx.

A :D

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 5875
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Post by Michael Kenny » 06 Oct 2002 16:31

Not my field so I quoting from a book and it seems the 5cm flak41 was not a succes and less than 200 were made. It was unstable, centre of gravity too high, difficult to conceal, couldn't track fast enough and sight was too complicated with a poor calculator. Experimental mount on sdkfz 7 only.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Aufklarung
Financial supporter
Posts: 5128
Joined: 17 Mar 2002 04:27
Location: Canada

Post by Aufklarung » 06 Oct 2002 22:09

Thank you, Michael.

Did the book say the production years. Looks like a big Bofors.

Regards
A :D

Logan Hartke
Member
Posts: 1226
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 18:30
Location: Illinois, USA

Post by Logan Hartke » 06 Oct 2002 22:33

The Germans looked at their AA situation in the early 40s (or late 30s) and saw that they had MGs (very low altitude), 2cm cannons (low altitude), 3.7cm cannons (low altitude), 8.8cm cannons (high altitude), and 12.8cm cannons (very high altitude). They decided that they were missing their gun in-between to cover the mid-range. They began to build a 5.5cm AA gun. This was very promising, but VERY complicated and had many prod. difficulties. They decided to make a 5cm gun as a stop-gap measure (utilising parts and design elements from the 5cm PaK). It had all of the fore-mentioned problems and neither gun was a true success. The 5.5cm gun, however was used by the Russians to make the 57mm AA gun which is still in sevice today.

Logan Hartke

aardvark
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: 03 Jun 2002 01:17
Location: Waco, TX

the Flak 41

Post by aardvark » 07 Oct 2002 17:32

was developed begining in 1936 byRhinemettal.It was introduced for troop trials in 1940.The gun based on the Pak 38 was just a idea that was never produced.The 55 mm gun was to have it's own radar and fire control system,desgins were finished in mid 43 but , development was still under way when the war ended.Like many other German weapons it found a home in the Soviet army.

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11422
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 07 Oct 2002 20:09

Hi!
What about the german aircraft cannon BK5. Was it developed from PaK or FlaK?

JT

User avatar
Erich
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 23:28
Location: OR

Post by Erich » 07 Oct 2002 23:00

Juha :

As far as I know Rheinmetall just upgraded their 3.7 cm weapon. since the Luftwaffe wanted something bigger to bring down Allied heavy bombers. The 7.5cm BK 75 was a copy of the Pak 40 though.

E

aardvark
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: 03 Jun 2002 01:17
Location: Waco, TX

bk5 or m214

Post by aardvark » 08 Oct 2002 01:41

8O The history of this cannon is a little confused.Some call it theBK5 while others call it the M214,the maker was either Mauser or Rhinemettal and some say that it was based on a 50mm tank gun.The number of ME262 fitted with this weapon is also disputed ,some list 1 others 4.What ever the case the gun had an auto loader and carried 22 rounds.Muzzel flash and recoil are said to have made the weapon unuseable in any case.

User avatar
Erich
Member
Posts: 2728
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 23:28
Location: OR

Post by Erich » 08 Oct 2002 01:45

The guns you just mentioned were both different. The cannon used by 1 Me 262 in ops was flown by Willi Herget with JV 44. The cannon was proned to jamming and all he did was scare the heck out of the bomber crews as he flew through the bomber formations on two seperate occassions.

E

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11422
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 08 Oct 2002 21:22

Vielen Danke Erich and aardvark,
Wonder why the BK cannons were not fitted to any land vehicles, sure the rate of fire would have been higher. Perhaps the electro- pneumatic loading system would have caused trouble.

JT

aardvark
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: 03 Jun 2002 01:17
Location: Waco, TX

Semi-Auto Tank Guns

Post by aardvark » 09 Oct 2002 22:19

:) Howdy, Juha. The BK 5 would have made an interesting weapon for a vehicle but as you point out such a complicated system would have been difficult to fit in the vehicle. Also remember that 50mm guns had been obsolete against most tanks by 1941 (KV and T-34's) Also remember that semi automatic rifles were just becoming reliable at this point. Auto loading guns on vehicles weren't available til the late 50's AMX 13 for example. In fact most Western countries have maintained manual loading for their tank guns. The Soviets have used auto loaders since the early '60's (T-64, I think) These systems have proved problematic at times (occassionally eating crew members). How are things in Finland?

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11422
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

Post by Juha Tompuri » 09 Oct 2002 22:58

aardvark,
How about the BK7,5? I agree, the same problems, but a bit more effective weapon. Did it actually use the same ammo as the PaK version?
Here it`s "a bit " colder than there, but perhaps not so windy... 8)

Juha

aardvark
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: 03 Jun 2002 01:17
Location: Waco, TX

Post by aardvark » 10 Oct 2002 20:38

:lol: Hello from near frozen(!) 20 degrees C. Texas.The BK 7.5 was a modified pak 40 mounted on the H 129. It replaced a Pak 40 which proved too heavy in its original configuration. The BK is listed as having an electric pneumatic loading system. I believe that it used standard Pak ammunition. You might be interested in a Swedish coastal defense system. It used an automatic loading 75 mm cannon in a turret on top of a bunker. I do not know if it is still in use (maybe some of our Swedish friends can tell us). Also Yugoslavia modified some 88's with automatic loaders for their coastal defenses. I doubt if they still exist but it must have been an interesting sight. The biggest argument against auto load systems in a fighting vehicle is what do you do with a stuck round? A tank with a jammed main gun on a battlefield has big problems. The Germans deserve some credit for being excessively inventive at times.

Hector
Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 15 Oct 2002 13:44
Location: Norway

Post by Hector » 18 Oct 2002 12:25

As to autoloading guns, the Swedes have been successfully in both AAA, fieldguns and naval artillery. They range from 75 mm , 120 mm and 150 (155 ?) mm, and they work!
I dont see any problem mounting a relatively small-calibre gun as a 50 mm automatic in a proper mount on av vehicle, the vehicle is mor stabil and less voulnerable to take up the recoilforces.
After all, the famous Bofors L 60 40mm is the Mother of all auto AAA, and it came way long before the war and was used on all sides - both on land , sea and in the air.

aardvark
Member
Posts: 116
Joined: 03 Jun 2002 01:17
Location: Waco, TX

Autoloaders

Post by aardvark » 18 Oct 2002 22:32

I am aware that technical advances now allow even large caliber guns to function with autoloaders. Yet they remain relatively rare on vehicles. Ships have always enjoyed the space and power requirements that an auto load system still requires. Even the venerable Bofors gun was never used as a main armament for a tank (there were several self propelled versions of it). With modern metallurgy and hydralics it would be possible to develop a 50 mm auto load. I note that some modern AFV's mount 25-35 mm main guns. In future such a gun as 50 mm may become desirable, but at present large caliber auto loaders remain relatively rare. :)

Return to “Fortifications, Artillery, & Rockets”