Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7
Results 61 to 69 of 69
  1. #61
    Join Date
    02.08.2007
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Pzgr40, I cannot disagree with you. These are good resons to produce a cheap ammo like Pzgr 40W. But combat troops perhaps do not think about that, but usually just to survive. So that, if you were a Pak40 gunner or a tank commander, perhaps you would prefer to use the most effective ammo at hand first, producing a low use of the 40 W projectile. It is just one possibility.

    Also I agree that even when not penetrating, high hardness T-34 armour would spall a lot when hit by 40 W projectiles.

    Best regards

  2. #62
    Join Date
    24.05.2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Hi Stug III, I do not think it was a matter of choice. Lots of production capacity went lost, especially after 1943 when the USA started precision daylight bombing. In peacetime it is very easy to buy the best for your troops, like Pzgr39's and tungsten cored pzgr40's. However in wartime with your production and resuply capability stretched to the limit and the need for much ammo for many weapons and frontlines it becomes a matter of using what seems to work just good enough to do the job and to produce that type of projectile in an as large quantity as possible.
    To give you an impression: the price of a 8,8cm Pzgr39 was about ten times as high as a 8,8cm Sprgr. Therefore German tanks were allowed only to fire Pzgr. while standing still to avoid missing.

    Regards DJH

  3. #63
    LV's Avatar
    LV is offline Erfahrener Benutzer User
    Join Date
    14.11.2006
    Location
    Helsinki
    Posts
    288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PzGr40
    Hi Stug III, I do not think it was a matter of choice. Lots of production capacity went lost, especially after 1943 when the USA started precision daylight bombing. In peacetime it is very easy to buy the best for your troops, like Pzgr39's and tungsten cored pzgr40's. However in wartime with your production and resuply capability stretched to the limit and the need for much ammo for many weapons and frontlines it becomes a matter of using what seems to work just good enough to do the job and to produce that type of projectile in an as large quantity as possible.
    To give you an impression: the price of a 8,8cm Pzgr39 was about ten times as high as a 8,8cm Sprgr. Therefore German tanks were allowed only to fire Pzgr. while standing still to avoid missing.

    Regards DJH
    But didn't Rausch say that only less than 80 000 rounds were produced? That is very limited production in my opinion. In addition to this the production was running only from 1942 to 1943, which in my opinion rules out the American Bombing offensive as the initial reason for production.

    Firing on the move was as good as useless without stabilized guns. Do you think that HE shells were fired while on the move?

    Anyway, the Pzgr. 40 W clearly did not do the job.

    What were the unit costs for Pzgr. 39?



    Quote Originally Posted by PzGr40
    Hi Stug III, because:
    - the Pzgr39 had a more expensive base material (light alloy carbon steel that could be hardened) to be manufactured from compared to the W (that was soft steel, non hardable)
    - It was more machining work to manufacture a Pzgr.39 compared to the W
    - No hardening was required for the W, so one production phase less.
    - It was good enough, compared to the Pzgr.39 and it did the job. If it failed one could still fire an Pzgr39 to finnish the job.
    Surely the Pzgr. 40 W was easier to manufacture, but what's the point if the projectile can't do the job it's intended for? What do you mean by "good enough"? If it can't destroy a tank then it's just not good enough.
    "Finishing the job" with a Pzgr. 39 after realizing that the Pzgr 40 W isn't doing any damage is probably a pretty fatal approach, I mean the target returns fire. After scoring a hit with a Pzgr. 40 W without any serious damage, you're probably going to get a HE shell in your face. It's also hard to tell what kind of damge you have inflicted on the target, if no penetration is achieved and if the target is not set on fire.


    Quote Originally Posted by PzGr40
    ps; a full hit of a 75 mm W on the turret of a tank, -if not piercing- will probably severely damage the bearing for rotating the turret, another way of incapacitating a tank. There will also be the possibility of spalling, the schockwave of the impact may spall of pieces of steel from the inside through the tank.
    The least I can asshure you that the tankcrew inside will be deaf for the next few days as a result of the impact "boing"
    A single hit to an armor plate that can take the hit is not likely to cause any serious damge inside the tank. That's why the armor plates got thicker by the day. If a thick armor was of no use bacause of extensive spalling, what would have been the point of thickening the plates? Also damaging the turret traverse or gun elevation mechanisms is unlikely, but may occur even after a single lucky hit. Numerous hits to the turret on the other hand will probably affect the aforementioned mechanisms. The "deafening" effect of non-penetrating hits seems to be quite non-existent. Countless first hand accounts from the tankers of the Second World War mention non-penetrating hits. It is usually described as a loud "bang", probably including a bright flash-like phenomenon inside the vehicle, but usually combat activity may be continued and fire may be returned immediately after such hits. Take a look for example at the book "Panzerkampf" by Will Fey or "Tigers in the Mud" by Otto Carius.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    24.05.2003
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Reading your arguements I must admit that I really do not know and I can only suppose one found out these - in my opinion origialy meant as practice Pzgr40- rounds also did quite well against real tanks and were so pressed into service.

    But didn't Rausch say that only less than 80 000 rounds were produced? That is very limited production in my opinion. In addition to this the production was running only from 1942 to 1943, which in my opinion rules out the American Bombing offensive as the initial reason for production.
    Well, maybe after finding out they had only limited use one stopped producing them. Taking shells into battle that have to be sorted out on target in the heat of battle (W for a light tank /Pzgr39 or 40 for haevy tank) is not really a healthy option. Maybe that is the reason it stopped at a limited production of 80.000 pcs.

    Regards DJH

  5. #65
    Join Date
    27.04.2006
    Location
    amsterdam
    Posts
    102

    Default

    Hey All,

    I guess new post this finally solves the above discussion about the PzGr 40 W being service ammo or not !!!!!!!!! :

    http://wk2ammo.com/attachment.php?at...0&d=1290855435

    greetz,

    Menno
    Flogging will continue untill morale improves

  6. #66
    Join Date
    26.12.2001
    Posts
    2,197

    Default

    New info:

    today i got a few new files, and on 1 of them, the 7,5 cm Pzgr.Patr. 40(w) Kw.K. 40 is mentioned, penetration (Angle 60 °) 100 M: 80 mm, 500 m: 75 mm, 1000 m: 63 mm.
    Produced on request, as replacement for 7,5 cm Pzgr.Patr. 40 Kw.K. 40 u. St.K. 40.

    Pzgr 40 W.jpg
    Zünder





    Suche ständig Versuchs-, Röchling- und Treibspiegelgranaten, Einzelteile sowie Information.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    16.08.2012
    Posts
    27

    Default

    First of all, I want to say good job to all others in this thread. Working on Pzgr. 40 W case is a hard job and this discussion really influenced me to make my own thoughts.

    Zunder mentioned a document, where Pzgr. 40 W is described as a projectile for KwK 40 cannon. I worked with EOD and we found a 7,5cm PaK 40 shooting position. For a more than ten rounds, one of them was a Pzgr. 40 W (rest of them was a regular pzgr. 39 and one HEAT). Im sure this was not a traning field, place suggest it was a firing position to defend aganist approaching enemy.

    This find forced me to make some questions:

    - Maybe Pzgr.40 W were produced as a solution? Due to lack of tungsten, im sure there was a lot of Pzgr.40 bodies. Maybe pzgr.40 W is just a unfinished base for pzgr.40, capped for ballistic reasons and sent to the field?
    - I think service ammo cant be deployed to a firing position.

    Ballistic cap for Pzgr.40 W is not screwed, as in normal Pzgr.40, and a bit thinner. So why Pzgr.40 W has a thread to insert a Pzgr.40 thicker cap? This suggest one of my theories about genesis of the 40 W as a replacement for 40 due to lack of tungsten. Also low numer of produced projectiles is interesting - maybe it wasnt a regular production, but only "cleanin the warehouse" from unfinished pzgr.40's?

    Pictures show live ammo (only live thing here's a L'spur nr.4), photographed at EOD work.

    1.jpg2.jpg

  8. #68
    Join Date
    12.07.2007
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    733

    Default

    Hallo,
    the 7,5cm Pzgr 40 (W) is mentioned in the firing tables HDv 119/324 from October 1943
    The projectile was fitted to both KwK and Pak cases making it
    7,5cm Pzgr Patr 40 (W) KwK 40 or 7,5cm Pzgr Patr 40 (W) Pak 40
    Since training ammunition is not covered in any firing tables it is without a doubt a regular service (fighting) ammunition.
    In Paragraph 2 is written:
    "Zum Bekämpfung von Kampfwagen (Kampfentfernung bis 1500m) dienen die 7,5cm Pzgr Patr 39 KwK 40 und Pak 40 sowie die 7,5 cm Pzgr Patr 40 und 40 (W) KwK 40 und Pak 40. Die beiden letzten Patronen sind ballistisch gleich. Bei der 7,5cm Pzgr Patr 40 (W) ist jedoch zu beachten das gute Durchschlagsleistung nur auf Zielentfernungen bis zu 1000m zu erwarten sind"
    The Amendment from October 1944 adds the 7,5cm Pzgr Patr 39 Al KwK 40 und Pak 40 but changes nothing about 40(W).

    Cheers, Bob.

    „A mind needs books like sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge“
    Tyrion Lannister

  9. #69
    Join Date
    02.11.2015
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zünder View Post
    New info:

    today i got a few new files, and on 1 of them, the 7,5 cm Pzgr.Patr. 40(w) Kw.K. 40 is mentioned, penetration (Angle 60 °) 100 M: 80 mm, 500 m: 75 mm, 1000 m: 63 mm.
    Produced on request, as replacement for 7,5 cm Pzgr.Patr. 40 Kw.K. 40 u. St.K. 40.

    Excuse me, could you please tell me what this file it is ?

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7

Similar Threads

  1. 7,5cm PzGr.40 & PzGr.40 W fur KwK.40
    By PzGr40 in forum (1918-1945) Schnittmodelle / Cutaways
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 09.02.2016, 22:54
  2. 8,8cm PzGr. ; 8,8cm PzGr.39 ; PzGr.39-1 ; PzGr39/43
    By PzGr40 in forum (1918-1945) Schnittmodelle / Cutaways
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 16.02.2012, 21:38
  3. 3,7 cm Pzgr. 40 Üb/3,7 cm M42 ?
    By zünder in forum Fakes & Brüller / Fakes & Fun
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 15.12.2004, 09:32
  4. 3,7cm Pzgr Üb
    By rigby in forum (1918-1945) Schnittmodelle / Cutaways
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01.05.2004, 23:30
  5. 3,7cm Pzgr 18
    By rigby in forum (1918-1945) Schnittmodelle / Cutaways
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01.05.2004, 23:27

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •