Cone Bore AT Weapons

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Cone Bore AT Weapons

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Cone Bore AT Weapons

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/23/2006 8:58:30 AM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

While this is purely hypothetical, the Germans did develop a family of Taper or Cone Bore AT Weapons. The FJ-28 is an example included in the game and I believe the 42cm version is also included. Little known fact the Germans produced 150 Pak-41 7.5/5.5 cm AT Guns and used them for a short time, but retired them because ammo (Tungsten Carbide) was in very short supply. In this weapon the Shell started out as a 75mm diameter but emerged from the bore at 55mm in diameter with an extremely high muzzle velocity approaching 4000 fps. From what I have been able to find out, its penetration ability was a little bit better than the L71 8.8cm KWK. The VK3501 (forerunner of the Tiger) was to be equipped with this gun, also the Panther was orginally envisioned as having this gun also. Two prototypes, one based on the MK-III and one on the MK-IV, were built but never used in combat as far as I can tell.

It appears that development work was done pre-war and that the guns could have been in service by summer of 41 at the latest. Imagine if you will two MK-III's in each platoon with this gun, KV's and T-34's would not have stood a chance.

The Official reason the guns were not used was a shortage of tungsten carbide to make the shells out of. But later in the war the PzGr 40 shells had a tungsten carbide core (APCR). Therefore I don't know how much stock to put into the reason for not adopting this family of guns.

To me this seems to be another example of Germany squandering an advantage early in the war. Your thoughts, please.

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

Post #: 1

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/23/2006 4:14:44 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

The restrictions on tungsten use is a pretty convincing argument, when you consider that the cone-bore types of guns (of which numerous designs were in development) were still considered by many in the high command to be "new-fangled" and untested. Use of tungsten in projectiles for standard rifled PaK guns was probably more important; also, its need for airplane manufacture played a part.

Another factor to consider is the short lifespan of the barrels of these guns in this era; with barrels wearing out faster, barrels needed to be replaced more often, and this placed an additional strain on the manufacturing capabilities of the German industry. Supply and logistics most likely played a large part in the decisions to not field these weapons in great quantities.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 2

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/23/2006 5:36:30 PM

Orzel Bialy

Posts: 2664
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Wisconsin USA
Status: offline

Interesting reading on this gun here:

http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt/75mm-tapered-bore-antitank-pak-41.html

_____________________________

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 3

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/23/2006 6:07:20 PM

264rifle

Posts: 168
Joined: 12/5/2004
Status: offline

Another problem for general tank use was that the HE round would have been rather ineffective. Not only would it only be 55mm in diameter but after space was allowed for the forward flange to fold into the shell side The space for HH would be even less than for the regualar 50mm shells. The Germans for some reason used the same muzzle velocity for the HE and AP rounds on the smaller guns if not the 75/55 which means the same bore wear for each shot. This means that the tanks so equipt would be rather specialized anti-tank units. Russian experiment with high-velocity 57mm armed T-34s didn't seem to go very far.

Tungsten carbide was used (usually) not as a material in types of war material but as the edge in machine cutting tools. Lathe bits, boring bar tips, drill points and broach cutters are just some of the tools that can be carbide tipped. Tungsten carbide lasts much longer than tool steel cutters Meaning fewer tool changes and less sharping of cutters. It also allows for both higher speeds and higher feeds (depth of cut in one pass). This allows for much higher production rates per hour of machine time. Some alloys are almost uncutable without it.

The pictures of the tank version/type don't quite line up with the towed gun. Different muzzle brakes for one thing and although it is hard to judge the barrel length and contour don't seem to match. My imagination or diferent guns with perhaps different performance.

Dragoon, it might be one thing to supply each tank in a company with 2 to 6 rounds of special ammunition (14 tank company means 28-84 rounds) vrs having tanks that carried 40 to 50 rounds apeice. Numbers are for illiastration of talking point and are not ment to be taken as actual ammo loads.

< Message edited by 264rifle -- 11/23/2006 6:27:12 PM >

(in reply to FlashfyreSP)

Post #: 4

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 2:17:27 AM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

I agree that HE ammo could be an issue, but there was an HE round available for it. Yes it probably was not that effective, but still any type of bang will make you bring your head down. In regards to barrel wear, as I understand it the barrel was a three piece design that could have the sections changed out in the field, similar to the system used with the 8.8cm Flak 41. The tapered portion of the barrel was the one the wore the quickest. Other German high velocity weapons had problems with barrel erosion also: Flak-18/36/37, Flak-41, 8.8cm KWK L71, 7.5cm KWK L70, and others.

The point I was making is that these weapons could have been in production at the start of the invasion of Russia along with their ammo. If the Germans had organized their Tank Platoons with lets say two vehicles equipped with this gun and the other three with the standard gun, they would have been much more effective. 6 inches penetration at 1000 yards means that the Soviets didn't have a tank that could stand up to it. The example of a single KV holding up a Panzer Division for three or four days might not have happened. Most important of all, the Germans did not really have an effective main gun for their tanks until mid-late 42 vs Soviet armor.

In regards to the Tungsten Carbide supply, I agree that it would have been essential for industrial uses. But I have never seen anything to back up the shortage of tungsten carbide in Germany. All I have seen is statements saying it was so, with no figures to back it up. Then also in 41/42 the German economy was still not on a war footing, lots of consumer goods were still being made at this time. At least part of the consumer goods being produced required tungsten carbide in the manufacturing process.

Ian Hogg called the called the FJ-28, the German's first secret weapon to be used in the war. I tend to agree with that statement. I do also believe that the Germans missed out when they did not develop these weapons further.

Admittedly this is all pure conjecture, as the Germans did not field these weapons in mass. But I do wonder what would have happened if this weapon had been available in the early years of the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 264rifle

Another problem for general tank use was that the HE round would have been rather ineffective. Not only would it only be 55mm in diameter but after space was allowed for the forward flange to fold into the shell side The space for HH would be even less than for the regualar 50mm shells. The Germans for some reason used the same muzzle velocity for the HE and AP rounds on the smaller guns if not the 75/55 which means the same bore wear for each shot. This means that the tanks so equipt would be rather specialized anti-tank units. Russian experiment with high-velocity 57mm armed T-34s didn't seem to go very far.

Tungsten carbide was used (usually) not as a material in types of war material but as the edge in machine cutting tools. Lathe bits, boring bar tips, drill points and broach cutters are just some of the tools that can be carbide tipped. Tungsten carbide lasts much longer than tool steel cutters Meaning fewer tool changes and less sharping of cutters. It also allows for both higher speeds and higher feeds (depth of cut in one pass). This allows for much higher production rates per hour of machine time. Some alloys are almost uncutable without it.

The pictures of the tank version/type don't quite line up with the towed gun. Different muzzle brakes for one thing and although it is hard to judge the barrel length and contour don't seem to match. My imagination or diferent guns with perhaps different performance.

Dragoon, it might be one thing to supply each tank in a company with 2 to 6 rounds of special ammunition (14 tank company means 28-84 rounds) vrs having tanks that carried 40 to 50 rounds apeice. Numbers are for illiastration of talking point and are not ment to be taken as actual ammo loads.

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

(in reply to 264rifle)

Post #: 5

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 3:40:07 AM

Orzel Bialy

Posts: 2664
Joined: 4/4/2002
From: Wisconsin USA
Status: offline

excellent economic insight that figures indirectly into this topic:

http://www.questia.com/PM.qst;jsessionid=FttY2bJfBGkFx4SptzVBJvh1GJgBQnnqHLv1cG9NnDwFypBKdMYB!48714160?a=o&d=5001286099

_____________________________

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 6

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 5:46:22 AM

sabrejack

Posts: 158
Joined: 9/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45

The example of a single KV holding up a Panzer Division for three or four days might not have happened.

Do you have any references for this sort of event, Dragoon? Not doubting you, just interested to read about that sort of situation.

_____________________________

SPWAWWiki: http://spwawwiki.eltacodiablos.com

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 7

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 6:15:33 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

Jack, you astound me. You're trying to find ways for the Germans to win the war? Yeah, they had cool weapons and great uniforms, but they were DEFEATED .

No matter what they did, they will lose. I fail to understand this fascination with them. Can you explain it to me?

_____________________________

(in reply to sabrejack)

Post #: 8

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 6:48:42 AM

sabrejack

Posts: 158
Joined: 9/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Jack, you astound me. You're trying to find ways for the Germans to win the war?� Yeah, they had cool weapons and great uniforms, but they�were DEFEATED .�

No matter what they did, they will lose.�� I fail to understand this fascination with them.� Can you explain it to me? �

I'm sorry KG - could you please explain what you're talking about?

I very clearly said that I didn't doubt Dragoon's comment about a single KV tank holding up a Panzer division, but that I would be interested to read about such an event. I don't understand how you could read that as 'trying to find ways for the Germans to win the war'?

_____________________________

SPWAWWiki: http://spwawwiki.eltacodiablos.com

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 9

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 8:14:00 AM

KG Erwin

Posts: 8981
Joined: 7/25/2000
From: Cross Lanes WV USA
Status: offline

I misread the idea, and just flew in the wrong direction. I apologize for that.

(in reply to sabrejack)

Post #: 10

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 8:18:21 AM

sabrejack

Posts: 158
Joined: 9/9/2005
Status: offline

Glad we're all clear on that KG - thanks.

Although I'm currently playing in a German division in the Depot Academy Combat League, I'm not fascinated by the German armed forces in WW2 (or any other period) - if anything, I tend to use US or Allied troops more than anything.

_____________________________

SPWAWWiki: http://spwawwiki.eltacodiablos.com

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 11

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 8:47:52 AM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

General Raus mentions in his book, "Panzer Operations" how a single KV-1 straddled the only road in the area for three days and blocked it to all German traffic. This road was the only supply line for the 6th Panzer Division. So for three days a single KV-1 Tank halted the advance of an entire Panzer Division by cutting off its supplies. The Germans finally destroyed it by using an 8.8cm Flak-18, which set up while the KV was distracted by German Tanks. In the process the Germans lost quite a few tanks and 5cm AT guns over the three days it took to destroy it.

The 5cm KWK L-42 was not effective against either the KV or T-34 at ranges much over a couple of hundred yards. There are numerous first hand reports of how the 5cm shells bounced off the Soviet tanks. The 7.5cm KWK L-24 had very poor penetrative abilities until an effective hollow charge round was fielded. Even the 5cm KWK L-60 was not that useful against Soviet armor. Until the 7.5cm KWK L-43/48 was introduced in mid 42, the only weapon the Germans had that could kill a KV or T-34 at a distance over a couple of hundred yards was the Flak-18.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sabrejack

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45

The example of a single KV holding up a Panzer Division for three or four days might not have happened.

Do you have any references for this sort of event, Dragoon? Not doubting you, just interested to read about that sort of situation.

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

(in reply to sabrejack)

Post #: 12

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 8:58:28 AM

sabrejack

Posts: 158
Joined: 9/9/2005
Status: offline

Thanks Dragoon - interesting story. I guess it's hard to imagine something like that happening, I tend to just think of possible solutions (arty barrages, infantry attacks etc), whereas the reality is often so different.

_____________________________

SPWAWWiki: http://spwawwiki.eltacodiablos.com

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 13

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 9:13:08 AM

Dragoon 45

Posts: 435
Joined: 8/10/2004
Status: offline

Not fascinated with them, but learning from the mistakes of others. In June 41, the Germans had the most effective Army on the Planet. The US Military is greatly influenced by the German Army of WW II. Our staff system was modelled on the German General Staff System. The flexibility and initiative that is taken for granted in the current US Army's junior leaders is a direct result of adopting training methods from the German Army. Admittedly the US started adopting German methods prior to WW I, but it has always been on the look out for new methods and tactical doctrines it could adapt for its own use.

The cone bore weapons were one method of defeating heavy armor that worked well. The Western Allies, US and Britain, all turned down the ideas behind this type of weapon pre-war. Gerlich, the inventor, peddled the idea to a number of governments and only Germany choose to try it. If these weapons had been fielded and used to their capability, there might not be such a thing as a Discarding Sabot round today. Success in war, brings many copy cats. You could almost say that with the decision not to develop these weapons, a turning point in the development of Tank Main Guns was reached. Instead of very high velocity small bore weapons, high velocity very large bore weapons were developed instead. Most modern MBT's only carry 30-40 rounds of main gun ammo because of the size of each round. Fuel and ammo are the two Achielles Heels of the modern tank. A much smaller bore gun equally effective in penetrating power means smaller size for the ammo. Smaller ammo means more rounds carried in the tank and also less trouble resupplying them with ammo in the future. Part of the problem with modern logisitics is not the weight of the supplies needed, but the sheer size. Cubic volumne of the supplies needed is much more important today than the weight of the supplies. Modern military logistics vehicles can carry very heavy loads, but the volumne they can carry is restricted by their size.

The German defeat was inevitable when Hitler declared war on the United States. Contrary to Soviet Histories of the Great Patriotic War, I do not believe the Soviets could have won without the supplies furnished by Lend Lease and also the Actions the US and Britian undertook in NA, Italy, and NW Europe. A full third of the German Army was tied up in garrisions or fighting the Western Allies for most of the war.

As I stated earlier this is all conjecture concerning the use of these cone bore weapons. While I personnally loath what the Nazi's stood for, Russia under Stalin was not any better. If the Germans had managed to knock the Soviet Union out of the war how changed would the world we know today be? While I don't have an answer to that, I do find the question most interesting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: KG Erwin

Jack, you astound me. You're trying to find ways for the Germans to win the war?� Yeah, they had cool weapons and great uniforms, but they�were DEFEATED .�

No matter what they did, they will lose.�� I fail to understand this fascination with them.� Can you explain it to me? �

< Message edited by Dragoon 45 -- 11/24/2006 9:20:08 AM >

_____________________________

Artillery always has the Right of Way

(in reply to KG Erwin)

Post #: 14

RE: Cone Bore AT Weapons - 11/24/2006 6:20:39 PM

FlashfyreSP

Posts: 1193
Joined: 7/6/2002
From: Combat Information Center
Status: offline

Another factor to consider in the discussion about the taper- and squeeze-bore weapons is the difficulty in manufacturing the taper-bore barrels. It was much harder to bore out a tapered bore through a long barrel than it was to build a squeeze-bore weapon (which only required a short tapered connector section between the two parallel barrels), and there was much more waste of materials in machining the taper-bore weapons.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dragoon 45)

Post #: 15