Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 4/10/2003 7:10:11 AM EDT
I am trying to put two and two together here. I know that the jagdTiger has a 128mm gun. I know that the heavy F.L.A.K. guns around Berlin were 128mm. Now, given the fact that the Germans used their PAK 38 (50mm) gun in air-defence, the 88mm was adopted to anti-tank, etc. Is the 128mm in the JagdTiger the same (modified at least) as the 128mm air-defence guns?
Link Posted: 4/11/2003 11:49:45 AM EDT
Looks like your assumption is correct, Ober. I found a site that says the "Rheinmetall 12.8cm K L/61," which was mounted in the VK3001 (H) was "based" on the 12.8cm Flak Gun. Check it out: [url]http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/1167/eemil.html[/url]
Link Posted: 4/11/2003 1:41:47 PM EDT
Clay-More, thanks for the link. My internet search skills are not that great as I like to do it the old fassion way. Look it up in books! I am looking at the "Encyclopedia of German Tanks of WWII" Revised Edition. So I have a good source infront of me. My book shows the same info on the VK3001 as the web site you show, but, when I look at the book, the Jagdtiger shows the use of a PAK44 L/55, 12.8cm. It goes on to say that the production version of the tank destroyer (Sd Kfz 186) had this gun, but a design called the (Sd Kfz 185) mounted the L/71 88mm, same as the King Tiger etc. never went into production. Now, flip to the back of the book where it shows just the guns, and it states along with the picture "Armarment of the Jagdtiger - 12.8cm PAK 80 L/55....." Is it a PAK 44 L/55, or a PAK 80 L/55, and are these a version of the 12.8cm L/61 Gerat 40 (as mounted on the VK3001) air -defence gun?? I still think the guns are all based on the same F.L.A.K. gun, but as you see I am going in circles! Sorry, but you will fing that those of us into the German stuff like this are way to far into the tecnical side of things. [whacko]
Link Posted: 4/16/2003 8:00:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/16/2003 8:01:21 PM EDT by Atencio]
Originally they wanted to use the longer PAK 128mm 80 L/66 but decided later to use the shorter PAK 128mm 44 L/55. Some also came equiped with 88mm guns which I believe was probably a better all around gun. Interesting question. I can see no reason why they would tool up a different barrel for AAA vs. AT guns other than barrel length. I do not have a good grasp of model variations for guns. As an example the AAA 128mm is a FLAK 40. This begs to ask how much different is it from a PAK 44?
Link Posted: 4/26/2003 4:10:17 PM EDT
I have found the answer............yes it is a version of the F.L.A.K. gun. Long story, long discussion with several people, but it turns out that it is the same gun. Many people admire the German army for its "effientcy". If you look at how they ran things, they were probably less so than any one else. Another example we ran into is that the Hetzer has the same gun as the late model long barrled Pz IV.The Hetzers gun is designated as PaK 39 L/48. The Pz IV is designated the KwK 40 L/48. I don't have the numbers handy, but they even had different gerat numbers.
Link Posted: 4/26/2003 7:18:02 PM EDT
The Hetzers were assigned to infantry units as antiank units. The KWK designation "meant" a panzer mounted tank gun, while PAK "meant" an infantry antitank gun. When Guderian was assigned inspector general of the Panzerwaffe, he did not have authority over tank destroyers. Just a minor clerical error, or it was symptomatic of a major faultline in the German military.
Link Posted: 4/27/2003 3:14:27 AM EDT
Hetzers were used in the tank destroyer role. There were a few all Hetzer "tank" units though. 1001 Arabian Knights is one that comes to mind.They were wiped out in minues in a poorly planned attack at the end of the war. A tank Destroyer is not a tank, therefore the one incharge of tanks and development of such did not have any say in the use, design, emploment of tank destroyers. Yet another flaw in the German command. Guderian did have some pull though, and was able to influence some tank destroyer design. Another example of this was Siegfried Knappe. He was Chief of Staff for all artillery, but some German artllery was designated as Infantry Support Cannons. The SiG 33 comes to mind here. This 150mm gun was crewed by infantry, not artillery men. Although trained on the gun, they were infantry men first. The gun was quite good, but too heavy for its role, and since it was not under the authority of artillery, Knappe could do nothing to make changes in the gun.
Link Posted: 4/27/2003 9:05:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2003 3:15:34 AM EDT by Atencio]
Regarding Hetzers: The Hetzer is the result of Guderians demands for a better tank destroyer. It was in my opinion the best all around tank destroyer the Germans had. Towards the end of the war many Hetzers were pushed into roles better suited to conventional tanks. I think that like the panzerfaust, the Hetzer was mass produced and expected to be a do it all. The sIG33 was the gun used atop a Panzer1B chassis making it the first self-propelled gun. It was later used on BisonII and even Hetzers. I am not sure about the Lynx.
Link Posted: 4/28/2003 6:41:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2003 6:43:16 AM EDT by obershutze916]
The Hetzer was a fine tank destroyer when used in its proper role. This was a problem with the Stug. series as well. The Hetzer has thin armor, but was well sloped. I have had the chance to ride on one. I'll just say that you better hold on. Its hard to stay on. I have read of their use in street fighting on the western front, and being sucessfull in this role. The main drawback is the lack of crew space, and the fact the the gun is mounted on the right side, and is also loaded from the right side. Its tough to load, especially on a quick shot off to the left. The SiG 33 was a good gun in its horse drawn role as well. Although admitedly much better on a mobil chassis. Take a look here [url]http://site27663.dellhost.com/wehrmacht[/url] Go past two pages of political disclaimers and the picture at the top has a great picture of the Sig in its non-mounted role. It is the only one known to exist in this form in the US.(If you know of another PLEASE let me know) Farther down the page the is an area titled Vehicles of the Wehrmacht. Click on that and see other pictures of the gun. This is the web site of the WWII re-enactment unit I belong to. In the main picture at the top of the page, I am the guy with the MG-34 on the left. BTW, the shot makes us look a little on the fat side. It is sort of a fish eye lens sort of thing. Those guys really are not that big.
Link Posted: 4/28/2003 7:01:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By obershutze916: BTW, the shot makes us look a little on the fat side. It is sort of a fish eye lens sort of thing. Those guys really are not that big.
View Quote
yeah sure, I'll have to remember to use that one [:)] I would have said it was the helmets that made me look bigger. There is a guy that lives near me that does Afrika Korps re-enactments. He has a Kubelwagon that sure looks real but I have never stopped to ask.
Link Posted: 4/28/2003 12:03:17 PM EDT
I have seen 400 pound paratroopers in this hobby, even SS that can not even fit into uniforms so they wear several Zelts togetther. This is why I have seen 3 people die from heart attacks just this year. One this weekend as a matter of fact. (Not sure if he died or not, but he looked bad) I have a problem with the helmet as my head takes the smallest size liner, and the shell to match is imposable to find. My helmet is a size to large for my head and I do look a little goofy. At least I'm thin enough to still look thin of camera. [;)] I forgot to mention earlier that my favorite tank destroyer is the JagdPanther. I read of an engagement where one was face to face with a JSU-152 at about 400 meters. Neither could penatrate the frontal armor of the other. On about the 4th shot, the Jagdpanther had the gun knocked loose from it mount so they had to back out of the fight. A second JagdPanther snuck up to the flank of the JSU-152 and took him out. Take a look at the book Panzer Aces. Its out in paperback now. Great book. The story I just told was about Herman Bix.
Link Posted: 4/28/2003 1:34:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By obershutze916: Take a look at the book Panzer Aces. Its out in paperback now. Great book. The story I just told was about Herman Bix.
View Quote
starting on page 79? I have had the book for a year or so but have not had a chance to read it yet for one reason or another.
Link Posted: 4/28/2003 2:00:40 PM EDT
Yup, thats it. My version of the story does not do it justice though. The guy really has a good run. There is a companion book called Infantry Aces (not to be confused with Infantry aces of the Reich wich is an equaly good book) Good books no matter who was the good guy or bad guy. I bet you have more DAK impressions where you live. Its just too hot for wool out there. We are the only regular army unit in Ohio. There is one Gebirg unit, but for the most part everyone else wants to be "elite" - Fallschirm or Waffen SS.
Link Posted: 5/11/2003 8:47:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/11/2003 8:51:41 PM EDT by Atencio]
Originally Posted By obershutze916: I am trying to put two and two together here. I know that the jagdTiger has a 128mm gun. I know that the heavy F.L.A.K. guns around Berlin were 128mm. Now, given the fact that the Germans used their PAK 38 (50mm) gun in air-defence, the 88mm was adopted to anti-tank, etc. Is the 128mm in the JagdTiger the same (modified at least) as the 128mm air-defence guns?
View Quote
Researching and researching while not getting anywhere, a co-enthusiast(Daveh) offered me this info when I asked about the 88mm found on the Tiger2 and the 128mm on the Jagdtiger being the same as the FLAK 41 and 40: The Flak 41 a was Rheinmettall- Borsig design which had a length of 6548mm (=L/74), a barrel length of 6293mm, shell weight 9.4 Kg., muzzle velocity (HE) 1000 m/s The Pak 43 was a Krupp design which had a length of 6610mm (=L/71), a barrel length of 6280mm (without muzzle brake), length of rifling 5125mm, shell weight (SprGr 43) 9.4 Kg. with muzzle velocity of 950 m/s The 12.8 cm Flak 40 was a Rheinmettall- Borsig design which had a length of 7835mm (=L/61), a barrel length of 7490mm, length of rifling 6477mm, shell weight 26 Kg., muzzle velocity (HE) 880 m/s The Pak 44 was a Krupp design which had a length of 7023mm (=L/55), a barrel length of 6623mm, length of rifling 5538mm, shell weight 28 Kg. with muzzle velocity of 950 m/s (AP) To add: It was further stated that the ammo was significantly different and not interchangeable between the two which makes sense in that FLAK ammo would be much different than armour pirecing ammo.
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 8:13:20 AM EDT
Thanks, that helps. I was reading a book this weekend - "With Our Backs to Berlin" by Tony Le Tissier. There was a short stroy in there about an auxillery gunner in the Berlin Zoo F.L.A.K. tower. He talked about the power of the 128mm guns. "Later when we fired the 128s at clusters of tanks a far out as Tegel, the barrels were down to zero degrees and the shock waves were enough to break the cement of the 70cm high and 50cm wide parapet of the gallery 5 meters below, exposing the steel rods beneath." !!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 4:52:25 PM EDT
I saw that book the other day. Is it any good?
Link Posted: 5/12/2003 5:16:40 PM EDT
Its decent, but I would wait for it to come out in paper back. It is a small collection of personal accounts from the last weeks of the war. How good they are depends on how well the person was able to tell it to the author. One story was a radio log of a battle. Interesting but dull at the same time. Really, only the last story of the Sgt. Major of the LAH in Berlin was any good, but for some reason I had my doubts about it. It was a good way to kill a rainy weekend at the in-laws house, but I have read better. It was good at showing the despiration and fighting spirit of the Germans at the end,but there are many other book that do the same.
Top Top