8,8 cm PzGr 39 Performance

[PanzerModeler]

From what I read in the sources, the Pzgr.42 was provided when the 50mm KWK39 was relegated to secondary use. It saw eventually service as AP-ammunition for the feww 50mm FLAK41 guns. It may also have seen service in Spähpanzer, but I am not certain in regard to the latter. I cannot comment on whether or not it saw service in PAK39 but I doubt it.

I'm curious if you can confirm that the Pzgr.42 was actually for the KwK39 and not just a round for Flak-41?

Its a round I've only heard just mentioned in passing once or twice before. Since the 50mm guns were sometimes forced into service much later than when they should have been withdrawn I have always wondered why they didn't try their best to stretch them, so to speak, but perhaps this was such an attempt?

Somewhere else on here I think somebody showed where production of almost all tungsten ammunition was dropped on a certain date with the exception of the 50mm rounds, just so that the 50mm Pak guns could still be of some use?

[Mobius]

I'm curious if you can confirm that the Pzgr.42 was actually for the KwK39 and not just a round for Flak-41?

You are talking about the 5cm Flak 41 not the 8,8 cm Flak 41 right? There is an illustration of the PzGr 42 in geschossringbuch German ammo PDF. I don't know if it was ever issued. It had a ballistic cap as well as an AP cap. Late in the war it wouldn't make much of an impact.

[PanzerModeler]

I'm curious if you can confirm that the Pzgr.42 was actually for the KwK39 and not just a round for Flak-41?

You are talking about the 5cm Flak 41 not the 8,8 cm Flak 41 right? There is an illustration of the PzGr 42 in geschossringbuch German ammo PDF. I don't know if it was ever issued. It had a ballistic cap as well as an AP cap. Late in the war it wouldn't make much of an impact.

Yes, correct, I mean the 5cm Flak-41.

I have read that the 5cm Pzgr.42 was an AP round for the 5cm Flak-41 to use in self defense against armor, and couldn't fit the L/60 Pak or KWK guns.

I have read it was for both the Flak-41 and for the L/60 KWK39 and Pak-38 guns.

I have read it was a prototype and never went anywhere.

Perhaps we'll never know the answer. I ask since I see depictions of the 50mm Pak-38 being used as an anti tank gun right up to 1945, but with no upgrades to the ammunition and the chronic tungsten shortage, I would expect it to rapidly become useless.

In the case of the 37mm guns that simply couldn't be replaced or withdrawn, at least there was the Stielgranate 41. I understand that it was bad for barrel life, but since the gun was otherwise useless at least it gave it a chance.

In fact I'm a little surprised they didn't develop something similar for the Pak-38.

[Mobius]

As for the ballistics you might get something like the 6 pdr APCBC 831 m/s shot. With less penetration.

[Contender]

[peeved]

I have read that the 5cm Pzgr.42 was an AP round for the 5cm Flak-41 to use in self defense against armor, and couldn't fit the L/60 Pak or KWK guns.

I have read it was for both the Flak-41 and for the L/60 KWK39 and Pak-38 guns.

I have read it was a prototype and never went anywhere.

Since the 5 cm Pzgr. 42 was the AP shell mentioned in L.Dv.4402/4 Die Munition der Flakartillerie. Beschreibung. Teil 4: Munition der 5 cm Flak 41 from 14 October 1942 https://pdfslide.net/documents/ldv44024 ... ition.html, it in all probability was produced for the 5 cm Flak 41. OTOH it is not mentioned in the Handbuch der Flugzeug Bordwaffenmunition for 5 cm KwK 39 derivatives and given the KwK 39's/Pak 39's significantly shorter projectile travel compared to the Flak 41, would likely have produced inferior ballistic performance.

Markus

[Mobius]

I have read it was for both the Flak-41 and for the L/60 KWK39 and Pak-38 guns.

I have read it was a prototype and never went anywhere.

Since the 5 cm Pzgr. 42 was the AP shell mentioned in L.Dv.4402/4 Die Munition der Flakartillerie. Beschreibung. Teil 4: Munition der 5 cm Flak 41 from 14 October 1942 https://pdfslide.net/documents/ldv44024 ... ition.html, it in all probability was produced for the 5 cm Flak 41. OTOH it is not mentioned in the Handbuch der Flugzeug Bordwaffenmunition for 5 cm KwK 39 derivatives and given the KwK 39's/Pak 39's significantly shorter projectile travel compared to the Flak 41, would likely have produced inferior ballistic performance.

Markus
[/quote] Actually, Panzerworld, associated with this site has MV and penetration for the AP round.
MV=830 m/s. And penetration of 65mm @ 100m and 50mm @ 1000m. The projectile weighs 2.23 kg compared to the 2.06 kg of the Pzgr 39.

[peeved]

Since the 5 cm Pzgr. 42 was the AP shell mentioned in L.Dv.4402/4 Die Munition der Flakartillerie. Beschreibung. Teil 4: Munition der 5 cm Flak 41 from 14 October 1942 https://pdfslide.net/documents/ldv44024 ... ition.html, it in all probability was produced for the 5 cm Flak 41. OTOH it is not mentioned in the Handbuch der Flugzeug Bordwaffenmunition for 5 cm KwK 39 derivatives and given the KwK 39's/Pak 39's significantly shorter projectile travel compared to the Flak 41, would likely have produced inferior ballistic performance.

Actually, Panzerworld, associated with this site has MV and penetration for the AP round.
MV=830 m/s. And penetration of 65mm @ 100m and 50mm @ 1000m. The projectile weighs 2.23 kg compared to the 2.06 kg of the Pzgr 39.

Based on "Datenblätter für Heeres-Waffen, -Fahrzeuge und -Gerät" (1944) [Reprint] (another source which mentions the 5 cm PzGr. 42 in use with the Flak 41) that would be PzGr. 42 performance at firing table MV from a Flak 41 with 2800 mm rifling length; From a KwK 39 with 2211 mm rifling length or a Pak 38 with 2381 mm one might expect somewhat lower performance if the Pzgr. 42 was ever tried on those.

Markus

[Tenkist]

Here is an interesting simulation of the 88mm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVvA6TYXMLI

Some people use professional software like a toy. This simulation has nothing to do with reality and the creator has no basic knowledge in this area. If you want to find simulations that have something to do with reality, only here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76IBfPHFtUU

[Peasant]

Some people use professional software like a toy. This simulation has nothing to do with reality and the creator has no basic knowledge in this area. If you want to find simulations that have something to do with reality, only here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76IBfPHFtUU

I second this. But at the same time, I must point out that even the content from Dejmian XYZ can disagree with reality, sometimes quite drastically, as you can see in this simulation. the 5cm PzGr. was supposed to be able to penetrate this target pretty much every time, in a condition fit to burst, as it was the acceptance conditions for this shell.

[Thoddy]

There is also a "Simulation" of a 8,8 ? cm Pzgr 39 behaving like a eroding rod.

[Tenkist]

It would be nice if such things could be reproduced with 99% accuracy. I am familiar with numerical simulations and here I judged the behaviour of the simulation. By the way, I'm sure that it would be incomparably easier to model an indestructible projectile than a breakable one.

[Mobius]

Some people use professional software like a toy. This simulation has nothing to do with reality and the creator has no basic knowledge in this area. If you want to find simulations that have something to do with reality, only here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76IBfPHFtUU

I have not found a 5 cm KwK 38 firing table so I don't have an exact match for the firing ballistics of that gun. The ballistics of the PaK 39 are used to model the KwK 38. So it is close but not an exact match.

[Peasant]

I have not found a 5 cm KwK 38 firing table so I don't have an exact match for the firing ballistics of that gun. The ballistics of the PaK 39 are used to model the KwK 38. So it is close but not an exact match.

Why would the external ballistics be different between these two guns? I thought they were pretty much identical in these matters?

[Mobius]

I have not found a 5 cm KwK 38 firing table so I don't have an exact match for the firing ballistics of that gun. The ballistics of the PaK 39 are used to model the KwK 38. So it is close but not an exact match.

Why would the external ballistics be different between these two guns? I thought they were pretty much identical in these matters?

Yes, but because they have different muzzle velocities their starting Ballistic Coefficient would be slightly different.