Ferdinand 88mm vs Sturer Emil 128 mm

[AikinutNY]

I am trying to get some information on the rates or fire, penetration and accuracy of the Ferdinand, Nashorn, Tiger, Tiger B, and Sturer Emil guns.

[LV]

I am trying to get some information on the rates or fire, penetration and accuracy of the Ferdinand, Nashorn, Tiger, Tiger B, and Sturer Emil guns.

The Nashorn, Elefant (Ferdinand), Jagdpanther and Tiger B shared ballistically identical guns, designated 8,8 cm Pak 43/1, 8,8 cm Pak 43/2, 8,8 cm Pak 43/3 and 8,8 cm KwK 43 respectively.

According to the weapons' Datenblatts and Spielberger's Der Pzkpfw Panther und ... they had the following penetrative capabilities:

Values against a plate at 0 and 30 deg. from vertical, firing 8,8 cm Panzergranatpatrone 39/43 (APCBC-HE-T) @ 1000 m/s (V0).

100m: 220/203 mm
500m: 205/182 mm
1000m: 186/167 mm
1500m: 170/150 mm
2000m: 154/135 mm

The Datenblatts claim a rate of fire of 6-10 rounds a minute, which seems quite reasonable to me.

The Sturer Emil (12.8cm Selbstfahrlafette L/61) had a gun that was (most likely) developed from the 12,8 cm Flak 40 L/61 AA gun. The propelling charge of the 12,8 cm Pzgr. shell (APC-HE-T) weighed 10,9 kg and enabled a V0 of 880 m/s. I don't know the penetration data for this weapon but comparing this to the Jagdtiger's penetration data might give some lead.

The Jagdtiger fired a 12,8 cm Pzgr. 43 shell (APCBC-HE-T) @ a V0 of 950m/s leading to the following penetrative capabilities:

Data only @ 30 deg. from vertical, data for 0 deg. unknown to me

500 m: 219 mm
1 000 m: 200 mm
1 500 m: 187 mm

(Datenblatt, 12,8 cm Pak 80)

Since the 12,8 cm Pzgr. of the Sturer Emil lacked the ballistic cap and had a smaller V0 than the Jagdtiger I'd assume that the Penetration was some 10% less, just a guess though.

As for the accuracy, I've no data.

Hope this was helpful.

--LV

[Brettina]

Panzer Tracks No.7-3 has the following figures for the 105mm and 128mm guns.
10cm K. 12.8cm K.40
range:
100m 173mm 200mm
500m 155mm 175mm
1000m 138mm 150mm
1500m 124mm 132mm
2000m 111mm 130mm
Vo 822m/s 880m/s
at 30 degrees

[Loïc Charpentier]

Panzer Tracks No.7-3 has the following figures for the 105mm and 128mm guns.
10cm K. 12.8cm K.40
range:
100m 173mm 200mm
500m 155mm 175mm
1000m 138mm 150mm
1500m 124mm 132mm
2000m 111mm 130mm
Vo 822m/s 880m/s
at 30 degrees

Hi,

Yes, but the 10.5cm K was the weapon of the "Dicker Max", a "rare bird" too!
Previously, appointed to destroy blockhaus as part of capture of Gibraltar (never executed). Nevertheless, a good weapon Pak but 2 vehicles are not a true serial production...but with german military industry, during WWII, why not?

[Lkefct]

the 10cm K18 was not that rare a weapon. It was the "standard" heavy field gun in the German army. There where almost 1400 produced in WW2. What it lacks in muzzle velocity, it makes up for in throw weight. Along with the 88 mm Flak, many of these guns where lost when employed as At guns to stop the KV and T-34 when they appeared in Russia.

I always found it curious when they where faced with serious shortages of AT weapons vs the KV and T-34 (1942 or so) why more Dicker Max type arrangements where not improvised in a PanzerJager. I guess they had the Nashorn and Elefant in the works, so they didn't feel the need.

[Loïc Charpentier]

the 10cm K18 was not that rare a weapon. It was the "standard" heavy field gun in the German army. There where almost 1400 produced in WW2. What it lacks in muzzle velocity, it makes up for in throw weight. Along with the 88 mm Flak, many of these guns where lost when employed as At guns to stop the KV and T-34 when they appeared in Russia.

I always found it curious when they where faced with serious shortages of AT weapons vs the KV and T-34 (1942 or so) why more Dicker Max type arrangements where not improvised in a PanzerJager. I guess they had the Nashorn and Elefant in the works, so they didn't feel the need.

Yes and no...

The 10cm K18 for the "Dicker Max" was a special adjustment develloped from 10cm s.K18 L\52 (brake recoil different and muzzle brake added)...also, two Dicker Max, two 10cmK18...no one more in action.

The 10cm s.K 18- s.K 18/40 - s.K 18/42 :

It was not a very good weapon, too much heavy and not very efficient for an Infantry weapon. 1200 guns for five years of war are not very representative.
The attempts to improve this gun, models s.K 18/40 and s.K 18/42 were producted in few quantities and, probably, the last one has never seen the front line.
The 8.8 Flak 18/36/37 used in infantry role, even its ammunition was not so efficient,was avantaged by the number and its multi-purpose.
Generally speaking, 10 cm and 15 cm german Kanonen were not very efficient weapons.
On the other hand, many hundred thousands of the 10.5cm le.FH 18 (Howitzer) were producted during WW2 but, of course it is not exactly the same weapon.

Fews photos of the 10cm s.K.18 (from Lemaire Soft - Encyclopedia of the Guns of World War II)





And a "Dicker Max" for the fun... (sorry, for the exact origin of this vew...probably the Web )



Loïc

[Lkefct]

the 10cm K18 was not that rare a weapon. It was the "standard" heavy field gun in the German army. There where almost 1400 produced in WW2. What it lacks in muzzle velocity, it makes up for in throw weight. Along with the 88 mm Flak, many of these guns where lost when employed as At guns to stop the KV and T-34 when they appeared in Russia.

I always found it curious when they where faced with serious shortages of AT weapons vs the KV and T-34 (1942 or so) why more Dicker Max type arrangements where not improvised in a PanzerJager. I guess they had the Nashorn and Elefant in the works, so they didn't feel the need.

Yes and no...

The 10cm K18 for the "Dicker Max" was a special adjustment develloped from 10cm s.K18 L\52 (brake recoil different and muzzle brake added)...also, two Dicker Max, two 10cmK18...no one more in action.

The 10cm s.K 18- s.K 18/40 - s.K 18/42 :

It was not a very good weapon, too much heavy and not very efficient for an Infantry weapon. 1200 guns for five years of war are not very representative.
The attempts to improve this gun, models s.K 18/40 and s.K 18/42 were producted in few quantities and, probably, the last one has never seen the front line.
The 8.8 Flak 18/36/37 used in infantry role, even its ammunition was not so efficient,was avantaged by the number and its multi-purpose.
Generally speaking, 10 cm and 15 cm german Kanonen were not very efficient weapons.
On the other hand, many hundred thousands of the 10.5cm le.FH 18 (Howitzer) were producted during WW2 but, of course it is not exactly the same weapon.

I am aware of the limitation with the gun. But thinking back to the situation in 1942, there are really only a couple of guns that can penetrate the T-34 and KV effectively. The K18 and the Flak series represent the large end of the spectrum and the only really long range weapons. Both are difficult to tow and would benefit the most form the mobility of self propelling. Given that as you point out they are not very good artillery pieces, their overall war effort would benefit most by using them to stand off and kill tanks. A few hundred weapons converted to be used as Panzerjager is going to make a bigger impact then the few guns used for artillery.

My understanding of the differences in the 2 wepaons is that the recoil is modified to fit the tank chassis. Considering the number of artillery weapons also undergo som modifications, I don't consider this a truly new weapon, just a sub variant.

[Loïc Charpentier]

I am aware of the limitation with the gun. But thinking back to the situation in 1942, there are really only a couple of guns that can penetrate the T-34 and KV effectively. The K18 and the Flak series represent the large end of the spectrum and the only really long range weapons. Both are difficult to tow and would benefit the most form the mobility of self propelling. Given that as you point out they are not very good artillery pieces, their overall war effort would benefit most by using them to stand off and kill tanks. A few hundred weapons converted to be used as Panzerjager is going to make a bigger impact then the few guns used for artillery.

My understanding of the differences in the 2 wepaons is that the recoil is modified to fit the tank chassis. Considering the number of artillery weapons also undergo som modifications, I don't consider this a truly new weapon, just a sub variant.

1942 was the beginning of the balance for the efficiency of germans AFV guns...The Pz.IV Ausf.F2/G and the Stug III were now gradually equiped with the 7.5cm "Lang" L\43 . Order taken in November 41, the first weapons were installed during Februar 1942. Nethertheless, if the 7.5cm L\24 was, of course, not as performant as the 7.5cm Lang, it was not totally ineffective against russian tanks. Firstly, because all the russian tanks are not T-34 (what for a chance! ). Secondly, the tactical employement of Panzers had been quickly adapted to the situation...avoid frontal attacks, prefer side attacks (the ammunition K.Gr.Patr.rot.Pz for 7.5cm L\24 was quite able to stop a T-34 with a shot in the rear or in the side), attract russian tanks near Pak position (an antitank gun is always more dangereous for a tank than another tank), etc..
The situation was difficult but not really as desperate as explained today by some authors. The biggest problem, at this time, for the german army was already the lack of materials, ammunitions, gasoline... weather, lack of correct roads and distances from the factories.
Concerning KV1, their own mechanical problems were sufficient to limite their real impact.

Cheers
Loïc

[Lkefct]

I am aware of the time line for the Pak 40 ( and variants on tanks) going into commission. I am also aware of the performance of the 50 mm L60, and the 75 L24, but those are not what I would consider really effective. More importantly, since the Germans where not capable of matching soviet production, just being able to engage the soviet 76 mm on roughly even terms (the soviet gun has worse penetration, but the german tanks are not as well protected), so the Germans are fighting roughly even. I don't know about you but fair fights are a losing proposition for the Germans. Having a few vehicles with a long arm that the soviets cannot match gives the Germans a additional capability that they where lacking at that time. Some of that is certainly the offensive mentality that Hitler and company had at the time. But the Germans had 3 heavy guns (the flak 105 mm (38 &39), the 12.8 cm Flak and the 10 cm K18 in production and ready to be employed.

I would also not qualify the At situation as being all that good. Initially, many of the AT guns in the east are the French 75 mm Pak 97/38 & 40, another gun which is not all that effective. The pak 38 is only effective using the tungsten ammo. And almost every division is well understrength in terms of the AT guns. Infantry division don't have anywhere near the # of guns needed to stop mass tank attacks.

[Loïc Charpentier]

Hi,
Sorry for this late answer.

You are quite right with your answer but to resume only the problem with technical performances of guns is perhaps a little restrictive.

On the paper, already in 1940 during the Campaign of France, german Panzers were less efficient than the French ones. For all, French Army was the most powerful of Europe. Panzer I and II were armored scooters, Pz IV were in too few quantities, only Pz.III (3.7cm L/45 and 5cm L/42) and Czech 35 & 38(t) could be considered as sufficient in number and correctly gunned (for the time). On the over side, there were B1bis, S35, plenty of infantry tanks like R35/40, H35/39, FCM36, D1/D2, often down-gunned (no AT weapon) but generally more armored…and, of course, the Maginot Line, considered as impassable (surrender in July 1940 for a lot of “ouvrages”)! Nevertheless, six weeks after, the campaign was ended! Principally with the use of a pertinent and audacious tactic, first, attract French and british armies in Belgium and Nederland, two, cross the Ardennes and the Meuse river, an operation considered as impossible! We will not forget, of course, the right employment of the Luftwaffe and obsolete tactics of the French Head-Quarter. But this quick campaign was not really a simple walk and the german tanks paid a heavy tribute to it.

Always on the paper, the war to the East was a total non-sense.
See after, the tables of AFV for the german and soviet armies, some days before Barbarossa.

German AFV



Russian AFV



(from Frontline Illustration 2001-04 – “Preparations for Barbarossa”)

Sorry for cyrillic characters but I think that the designations of tanks models and quantities are quite legible.

Well, for german AFV, we had 5801 vehicles (5204 tanks), in first line included more 2 000 Pz.I and Pz.II, always beautiful armored scooters!
In front, the Soviet forces had aligned almost 14 000 AFV on the first line and near 26000, if the second line is included! Of course, Russian tanks were not all up-to-date models, i.e. T-28 and T35 were totally obsolete ones, but, nevertheless, you have KV (469), T-34 (already 832) and 2800 BT-7, not really a “shit” for this time.
Also, on paper and numbers considered, the Germans had gone to their death…That’s right but a little few later… end of 1942 and during 1943, for my opinion. Another example, the battle of Kharkov, March-April 1942, here, too, it was not the powerful of the german guns who won the battle – many Pz.III and Pz.IV Ausf.F1- but the intelligence of tactic operations.

From 1943, all the german tanks and self-propelled weapons were now equipped with 7.5 cm “lang” and 8.8 cm. The Panther’s 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 was able to destroy a T-34 at 800 m, a KV1 or later a JS2 at 600 m and a Sherman up to 1000 m. Of course, the 8.8cm KwK 36 L\56 (Tiger I) and KwK 43 L\71 (Ferdinand/Elefant & KT) were still more powerful…but, in the same time, the teams of russian tanks were now well trained, their tactical employment with the infantry was more judicious than during the previous years.

Also, your approach concerning the powerful of the guns is quite correct but the right use of well trained men and tanks is, in my opinion, often more decisive. Another thing, 10cm K18, Flak 10.5 & 12.8cm were bulky guns, totally inadequate to installation in a turret (Sturer Emile and Dicker Max were only self-propelled weapons with open compartment).

Cheers.

Loïc


[/img]

[Lkefct]

1941, the Germans have a substantial edge of firepower over "most" Soviet tanks. Only the KV and T-34, which are fairly few in numbers really stress the current german AT guns. However, given the massive tank losses the Soviets suffered, those losses would have to be made up in new production. This certainly implies that the Soviets would be making good their losses with the best models. Since the majority of the German tank defense falls on SP AT, StuG and Pak units, just looking at tank armament doesn't tell much of the story. There was always a severe shortage in terms of number of guns and quality that even in 1944, many infantry divisions are very short of AT weapons. This implies that the Germans need to retain the initiative when the Panzer divisions are employed, so they can counter and destroy superior numbers of soviet tanks. Since the tanks of the day did not represent a significant improvement over the t-34/KV, the obvious place to improve the "Long arm" over the Soviet tanks is by adding a long range killer to the AT. While I have never seen it in writing, Sturer Emil strikes me as a proof of concept vehicle only. There was never any intention of mass producing the vehicle, so more of them is out of the question. It does allow them to test the feasibility of using massive guns as long range sniper types to kill Soviet armor at very long ranges. The Dicker Max, on the other hand is based on the Pz IV chassis, which means that all K18 guns could be dedicated to using them as AT guns. So the question that begs to be asked is whether the weapons system as a whole was not effective enough, or is there not a perceived need?

The Germans always relied very heavily on recovering and fixing the damaged tanks. They also had the short barreled guns in production while getting the new guns and jigs at the factories up to speed. Even as late as Kursk, the Pz III makes up a sizable fraction of German tank strength, even though at that point their importance in terms of what was being built was decreasing. Furthermore, not all Pz III are of the most modern types, of which similar can be said of the Pz IV. Furthermore, even if one considers the penetration of the gun, that doesn't tell the whole story. The flatter trajectory of the newer guns (due to high muzzle velocity) makes it easier to estimate the range to the target, as well as hit a moving target. Not until the Panther comes out with teh long 75 mm L70 gun can German tanks in the panzer divisions really kill Soveits at long range ( I am not sure where you are quoting the 800m, as the Pnather can kill T-34 much further away then that).

[Entschuldigung]

What I find most intriguing is that both the 'Dicker Max' and 'Sturer Emil' appeared to be, at least on paper excellent AFV's for refinement and ultimately mass production.

They were lightweight vehicles considering the massive guns they sported, and I am baffled as to why the designs weren't developed more in line or similarity to the Jagdpanther.

Or, if designed as Tanks, the Jadtiger was unnecessarily over-armoured and suffered from the same 45-degree angle from the side viewpoint focusing on the forward front top hull to the gun mounting.

Why wasn't the Jagdtiger designed similarly to the Jagdpanther? There would have been no need for the stupendous amount of thickness in the front glacis and frontal armour plate @ 250mm, because if it were sloped, 100mm would have been adequate, with 80mm on the sides and rear, much like the IS2.

Essentially what I am saying is the Germans IMO threw away a great chance earlier in the war to develop an excellent mass-produced vehicle from proven battle experienced prototypes - again - enabling the 10.5cm field kanone (a rival for the later SU-100's and 12.8cm Sf. L/61 ( a slightly superior rival to the 122mm gun mounted on the IS2.

Of course, both prototypes were insufficient in armour protection but superlative in mobility and firepower. And all this at a time when both vehicles if available even if only in Schwere Pz Abteilungs would have made quite a statement - not to mention possibly being available in small but desperately needed numbers.

Let me explain what I believe to be a serious error in cancelling these projects in favour of the Nashorn, Ferdinand and Jagdpanther.

The Nashorn was a formidable vehicle as it carried the true and unmolested 8.8cm Pak 43/1 - yet still an open-topped vehicle with poor protection, but good mobility and firepower.
The Ferdinand was almost a complete waste of resources, proving a disaster at Kursk, with the Jagdpanther (as usual) an excellent SPAAG that came too little too late.

Firstly the Sturer Emil and Dicker Max weighed in at around 36 tonnes and 26 tonnes respectively.

What was needed was to convert both these vehicles into 'SPATG's' in the mould of the Jagdpanther, Hetzer and even the Stug.

The first salient point is that the Jagdpanther weighed only 45.5 tonnes, yet mounted a true, unmodified 88mm gun.

A program should have been immediately set up to redesign both the Sturer and Dicker into a fixed superstructure mounted on a hull with sloping armour at the front requiring no more than 100mm at the front, 50-80 at the sides, and rear.

In fact, the Dicker Max was already perhaps readier to be redesigned into a multirole self-propelled gun than the Sturer.

Additionally, because these prototypes were already in service in 1941-1942, it is possible that by the time of Unternehmen Citadelle, instead of Nashorns and Flunkdernands, considerable numbers of SPATG, more mobile, greater firepower, and adequate armour protection may have been available in large enough quantities.
The Achilles heel of all the mid-to-late war AFV's was always atrocious Hp/weight ratio. Tigers I & II, Ferdinand, Jagtiger, Sturmtiger and others were getting heavier and thus not able to execute their dual role of being 'break-through' tanks, but only successful at hitting targets from ranges well beyond the capabilities of the ranges of their enemies.

Many people say that the Panther, Jagdpanther, Hetzer, Stugs, Pz IV's were adequate enough to meet the coming threats, yet Germany opted to waste valuable, irreplaceable time on developing 70+ tonne heavy tanks that either broke down, were irretrievable, unable to be serviced, etc, at a time when THERE WERE Self Propelled Guns available in 1942 that would eventually mount the same, if not similar guns on behemoths that weren't ready until late 44, early '45.

I firmly believe these two vehicles, tweaked and refined into SPATG, would have enabled Germany to produce large quantities of them, and these vehicles would have been mobile enough to counter the ever-increasing defensive mindset post-Kursk.

[Denniss]

Bot Max and Emil were dead ends, one using a prototype chassis and the other a chassis at its weight limit. Both had no option for more armor or production.
StuG III was more than sufficient for the tank hunter task but then there was the fighting over controlling this weapon between artillery and tank branch of the Wehrmacht which may have inspired the development of true TDs like Jagdpanzer IV and 38.

[critical mass]

Neither the Stuhrer Emil nor the Dicker Max were highly mobile. Also, both were open topped self propelled AT guns. If You add armor required to provide protection of the fighting compartment and frontal protection, the chassis will be pushed past it’s limits and thus, overtaxed. It’s squarification of the circle.

[Sheldrake]

A few hundred weapons converted to be used as Panzerjager is going to make a bigger impact then the few guns used for artillery.

Whoa.... This statement cannot go unchallenged.

Yes, a long ranged field gun (cannon for you colonials) could deal with heavy tanks. But their value to the army is far greater as long range heavy guns in an indirect role.

Long range artillery is also really useful for

- Counter battery fire, without which friendly infantry is pinned in their trenches or separated from the tanks they are accompanying.
- Counter flak missions to suppress enemy AA defences before an air strike
- Suppressing targets, such as anti tank guns in the depth of an enemy position, allowing tanks to break through.
- Harassing the enemy and lowering their morale.
- Destroying hardened targets such as bunkers, deep dugouts, fortified buildings

The Germans fired around three times as many artillery projectiles as tank and anti tank rounds over 75mm calibre in 1943 According to the figures on this thread. viewtopic.php?t=236220 Field artillery was used far far more than anti-tank guns.

As Stalin is reputed to say...
Artillery is the god of war