military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (05/25/89)
From: uunet.uu.net!bywater!archet!wlm (William L. Moran Jr.) Despite the subject, I actually have several questions about German weapons in WW2. Why did earlier Pz Kw IVs have a short 75mm gun? They later switched to the long version; was there a good reason? I guess what I'm wondering is why they would ever have used a short barrel gun? (Especially since the Pz Kw III had a longish gun). How many Ta 152s (the fw 190 follow-on :) saw service? I recall reading that it was clearly superior to any other non jet fighter in the war (although I don't remember where I read this). Can anyone recommend a good book on Luftwaffe planes (something along the lines of ``German Tanks of World War 2'' by Dr. F.M. von Senger und Etterlin)? Bill Moran arpa: moran-william@cs.yale.edu or wlm@ibm.com uucp: uunet!bywater!acheron!archet!wlm or decvax!yale!moran-william ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To keep on running, try with all our might, But in the midst of effort faint and fail;
military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (05/25/89)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) uunet.uu.net!bywater!archet!wlm (William L. Moran Jr.) writes: > >Why did earlier Pz Kw IVs have a short 75mm gun? They later switched >to the long version; was there a good reason? I guess what I'm >wondering is why they would ever have used a short barrel gun? >(Especially since the Pz Kw III had a longish gun). The prewar Panzerkampfwagen panzers were all designed with specific roles in mind. PzKw I was to be a training vehicle; the PzKw II was for recon. The PzKw III was to be the "main battle" tank, for tank-to-tank combat; recall that in the mid-39's, most tanks were still lightly armored, and a 37mm was thought sufficient (though room was left to upgun to a 50mm). Finally, the PzKw IV was to be the heavy support tank, to deal with enemy infantry and guns using HE and smoke. For this mission, the low-velocity gun was sufficient, and represented a weight savings over longer pieces; long guns weigh a lot, have greater recoil (requiring heavier recoil mechanisms and more turret room), and need longer ammunition, decreasing ammo storage. This scheme had parallels in most other armies. The British, for example, produced most cruiser tanks with a 2-pounder, which had no HE or smoke ammo, and then produced a variant of each model with a 3" mortar or somesuch, to provide that capability; they called these "CS" (close support) tanks. The French, in their Char B, had a short 75mm howitzer in the hull for HE and smoke, while the turret-mounted 47mm was to deal with enemy armor. The Soviets had the T-26 and BT series armed with 45mm antitank pieces, while the T28's carried 75mm howitzers. The famous T-35 mounted a 75mm in the main turret, with 45mm's in two auxiliary turrets, and two more aux turrets with machineguns. In fact, this concept continued throughout the war. When the PzIV was upgunned to a long 75mm, the PzIII, now nearly useless, was upgunned to take the short 75, taking over that close support role (its principle use was to escort Tiger tanks). The US Army produced the Sherman as an offensive vehicle, whose expected opponents were most likely to be infantry and antitank guns, rather than enemy armor; thus, it carred a fairly short 75mm. To combat enemy tanks, we had the Tank Destroyer units, armed with 3" and 90mm guns (the British army used 17-pounders for this role, either in the Achilles TD or the Sherman Firefly). As the war progressed, Shermans were upgunned to 76mm's, greatly improving their AT capability. Even then, though, the best antitank ammo available, HVAP, was reserved for the tank destroyers (though 76mm Sherman crews managed to obtain them in a variety of "free enterprise" operations 8-) >How many Ta 152s (the fw 190 follow-on :) saw service? I recall >reading that it was clearly superior to any other non jet fighter in >the war (although I don't remember where I read this). Can anyone >recommend a good book on Luftwaffe planes (something along the lines >of ``German Tanks of World War 2'' by Dr. F.M. von Senger und Etterlin)? I recommend _Warplanes of the Third Reich_ by William Green (pub'd 1986 by Galahad Books, New York. Library of Congress # 86-80568, ISBN 88365-666-3) Green states that 150 Ta-152H-1's were produced, and they were apparently the only version to reach production. Most were destroyed on the ground while awaiting acceptance; those that saw service flew alongside FW-190D-9's, or provided top cover for returning Me262's. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu
dee@linus.UUCP (David E. Emery) (05/26/89)
From: dee@linus.UUCP (David E. Emery) >From: uunet.uu.net!bywater!archet!wlm (William L. Moran Jr.) >Why did earlier Pz Kw IVs have a short 75mm gun? They later switched >to the long version; was there a good reason? I guess what I'm >wondering is why they would ever have used a short barrel gun? >(Especially since the Pz Kw III had a longish gun). The reason is that the PzKw III was the Anti-Tank tank, and the PzKw IV was the Anti-Infantry tank. For a while the Germans supported a doctrine somewhat similar to the British, of distinguishing between a tank designed to fight other tanks, and a tank designed to engage soft targets. However, unlike the British, the two tanks were supposed to fight together, i.e. the Pz III would attack other tanks while the Pz IV would attack infantry, AT guns, etc. Therefore, unlike the British Cruiser and Infantry (e.g. Matilda) tanks, these were designed to work together, and they both could travel fast. Later on, as the Germans saw the need for higher velocity, larger caliber guns, they upgraded the Pz IV, and it became a single, general purpose tank. The Pz IV generally fired HE, while the Pz III fired AP. However, both tanks could fire both kinds of ammunition (I think). This again was not true of the British tanks, where their Crusiers could fire only AP, and could not engage AT guns with any degree of effectiveness. By the way, to contrast philosophies, the U.S. did not have a similar approach. Instead, they had light and heavy tanks. The Light tanks (e.g. M-3/M-5 Stuarts) would perform the traditional duties of Light Cavalry, and the Medium (M-3 Lee/M-4 Sherman) would be the primary "attack" tanks. In retrospect, this was probably the right approach. dave emery emery@mitre.org
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (05/27/89)
From: cs.yale.edu!spock!soup (Constantin von Wentzel) The guns on the Tanks were lenghtened to ensure a better hit ratio.. (Which is quite obvious - a pistol will never be as accurate as a rifle) Those planes might never have gotten proper use for several reasons: 1) The entered late in the war therefore there were not many resources readied for them. 2) The Me109 was the preferred fighter of the German Air Force and already long in production. 3) The shortage of fuel (due to the many bombings of Oil refineries) made flying very difficult. Many of the Jet planes were not used later in the war and had to be blown up due to this shortage and the oncoming Allied forces. Constantin von Wentzel.
adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK (Adrian Hurt) (05/31/89)
From: Adrian Hurt <adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK> In article <6864@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes: >uunet.uu.net!bywater!archet!wlm (William L. Moran Jr.) writes: >> >>Why did earlier Pz Kw IVs have a short 75mm gun? They later switched >>to the long version; was there a good reason? I guess what I'm >>wondering is why they would ever have used a short barrel gun? >>(Especially since the Pz Kw III had a longish gun). When was the long-barrel 75mm gun first available? (Maybe that should be "medium-barrel" - an even longer version was fitted to the Panther, and some tank destroyers.) > The PzKw III was to be the "main battle" >tank, for tank-to-tank combat; recall that in the mid-39's, most >tanks were still lightly armored, and a 37mm was thought sufficient >(though room was left to upgun to a 50mm). I thought the front of the turret got redesigned, with one of the two MG's being deleted to make room for the 50mm gun. Later, a longer barrel version of that came out too, and went into the PzKw III; it also went into the Puma armoured car, as well as being used as an anti-tank gun. > The French, in their Char B, had a short >75mm howitzer in the hull for HE and smoke, while the turret-mounted >47mm was to deal with enemy armor... >The famous T-35 mounted a 75mm in the main turret, with 45mm's in two >auxiliary turrets, and two more aux turrets with machineguns. Don't forget the US Lee tank, with a 75mm gun in the hull, a 37mm gun in a turret, and a machinegun in a cupola on top of the turret. >In fact, this concept continued throughout the war. When the PzIV >was upgunned to a long 75mm, the PzIII, now nearly useless, was upgunned to >take the short 75... Is that the StuG series? These were SPG's, featuring a PzKw III hull with a fixed gun mount on top. The first had the short 75, but later versions had the same longer 75 as the PzKw IV, and some had 105mm guns. The PzKw IV also had such variants; as well as a StuG IV, there was the Jagdpanzer IV, with an even longer 75mm gun. Such tank destroyers were also developed from other chassis. The Jagdpanther had a long 88mm gun, like the one in the King Tiger; and the Jagdtiger had a 128mm gun, the most powerful tank gun of the war. >>How many Ta 152s (the fw 190 follow-on :) saw service? I recall >>reading that it was clearly superior to any other non jet fighter in >>the war (although I don't remember where I read this). Can anyone >>recommend a good book on Luftwaffe planes (something along the lines >>of ``German Tanks of World War 2'' by Dr. F.M. von Senger und Etterlin)? > >Green states that 150 Ta-152H-1's were produced, and they were apparently >the only version to reach production. I believe the Ta-152C-1 also reached production; it was the fighter. The H variant had longer wings, and was intended as a high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. Incidentally, the "Ta" designation stands for "Tank", as in Kurt Tank, its designer. He was getting annoyed that Willi Messerschmidt was being honoured by his aircraft being called Me---, while Tank's planes were named for their producer, Focke-Wulf - FW. "Keyboard? How quaint!" - M. Scott Adrian Hurt | JANET: adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian | ARPA: adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (05/31/89)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) Adrian Hurt writes: >In article <6864@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes: >>uunet.uu.net!bywater!archet!wlm (William L. Moran Jr.) writes: >>> >>>Why did earlier Pz Kw IVs have a short 75mm gun? They later switched >>>to the long version; was there a good reason? > >When was the long-barrel 75mm gun first available? (Maybe that should be >"medium-barrel" - an even longer version was fitted to the Panther, and >some tank destroyers.) The PzKw IV Ausf. F2 carried the first long-barrelled 75mm, an L/43 (compared to the earlier L/24). [note that L/43 means that the barrel length is 43 calibers, i.e., 43 x 75mm or 3.23 meters]. It entered service in spring, 1942, and saw service in Russia and North Africa, where the British dubbed it the Mark IV Special. Soon after, in the PzKw IV Ausf. G, an even longer L/48 gun was fitted. The Panther carried a 75mm L/70; it was issued to the troops in February, 1943 (but did not see combat until July of that year, at Kursk). The designations for these weapons were: 7.5cm KwK 37 L/24 ( 75mm tank cannon, model 1937, 24 caliber length) 7.5cm KwK 40 L/43 7.5cm KwK 40 L/48 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 Armor penetration at 100m, 30 degree slope went from 41mm for the L/24 to 98mm, 106mm, and finally 138mm for the L/70 (note that the 75 L/70 actually penetrated better than the 88 L/56 of the Tiger I). >> The PzKw III was to be the "main battle" >>tank, for tank-to-tank combat; recall that in the mid-39's, most >>tanks were still lightly armored, and a 37mm was thought sufficient >>(though room was left to upgun to a 50mm). > >I thought the front of the turret got redesigned, with one of the two MG's >being deleted to make room for the 50mm gun. Later, a longer barrel version >of that came out too, and went into the PzKw III; it also went into the Puma >armoured car, as well as being used as an anti-tank gun. The PzIII also went through a multi-stage upgrade. All versions prior to Ausf. F carried a 37mm; the F went to a 50mm L/42 (Hitler had ordered upgunning to 50mm L/60, but a bureaucratic foulup resulted in the fitting of the L/42, instead.) Later models of the Ausf J series increased this to 50mm L/60, which was essentially identical to the 50mm PAK 38 antitank gun, which had already been in service for some time. This same gun was used in the Puma. The Ausf F's entered service in late 1940, and the J's came online in early '42. The PAK 38 had been in service since April, 1940. My point was that upgrading to a 50mm had been considered during the PzKw III's early design, so that a sufficiently large turret (and, moreover, wide enough turret ring) was provided to take the increased length of the 50mm gun. Contrast this to the British Matilda, which was unable to mount anything larger than a 2-pounder because of its small turret ring. >>In fact, this concept continued throughout the war. When the PzIV >>was upgunned to a long 75mm, the PzIII, now nearly useless, was upgunned to >>take the short 75... > >Is that the StuG series? No, I refer the the PzKw III Ausf N, mounting the 75mm L/24 in a rotating turret. They saw service from late 1942. References: Chamberlain and Doyle, _Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War II_ Gander and Chamberlain, _Weapons of the Third Reich_ but this same information is available from a myriad of sources. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com (614) 860-5294 "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu
scameron@blake.acs.washington.edu (Scott Cameron) (06/01/89)
From: scameron@blake.acs.washington.edu (Scott Cameron) In article <6998@cbnews.ATT.COM>, adrian%cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk@NSFnet-Relay.AC.UK (Adrian Hurt) writes: > > Don't forget the US Lee tank, with a 75mm gun in the hull, a 37mm gun in a > turret, and a machinegun in a cupola on top of the turret. Which accurately describes the U.S. WW2 GRANT tank. Interestingly enough, (if I remember correctly) both the 37mm and the 75mm were rather effective against Axis armor. Other than the M3 Stuart and Ft. Bragg, what has the US military named after Confederates? SD Cameron | Univ of WA --+-- Bioengineering _________(*)_________ Seattle ! ! --I have full and sole right to the opinions expressed herein, as long as I cannot be fitted with a detachable magazine holding more than 20 opinions. [mod.note: Well, let's put those danged rebels back in their place 8-) Adrian has correctly described the General Lee, used by the US Army. The British turned up their noses at this design, but were hard-pressed for tanks, and so accepted it with modifications. Notably, a different, somewhat larger turret was fitted, with room in the rear for the radio set, which the British wanted in the turret, near the commander. They also deleted the machinegun cupola, and named the resulting vehicle the General Grant. BTW, the US never named any of their tanks until after the Sherman; the names Lee, Grant, Stuart, and Sherman were all applied by the British. Southerners may take offense from the fact that the British chose to name their "improved" version of the M3 Medium the "General Grant", and its inferior US cousin the "General Lee". The British names stuck, and were used by the US on a semi-official basis. Other British names for US equipment were less well-accepted; for example, the M-10 Tank Destroyer (Wolverine) and the M-36 TD (Jackson). The Soviets had, perhaps, the least catchy name for the M3 Mediums we sent them. With an eye toward their rather large crew, the Russians knicknamed them the "Coffin for Seven Brothers." - Bill ]
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (06/01/89)
From: cs.utexas.edu!wasatch!uplherc!esunix!jcallen (John Callen)
There are two VERY good reference books on the Luftwaffe aircraft that
I have found useful in my research:
"Hitler's Luftwaffe", Tony Wood and Bill Gunston, Salamandar Books
ISBN 0-86101-005-1
"German Aircraft of the Second World War", JR Smith and Antony Kay,
Putnam, ISBN 0 370 00024 2
Smith/Kay is considered THE reference text book on ALL planes (including
little known research experiments) for the Luftwaffe. It is the standard
reference at the National Air and Space museum. The Ta 152 is covered in
pgs. 207-210. <A special note: there is a mention that the NASM has a
Ta 152H-0!> Though there are mentions of single prototype models, there
is no mention of specific production runs.
[mod.note: While poking around a magazine rack today, I noted an aircraft
magazine with an article about an Arado 234 "Blitz" (jet bomber) recently
restored by the NASM; it's supposed to be on display there now. I gotta
get out thataway sometime... - Bill ]
Wood/Gunston is one of those books that you really enjoy reading through.
It adds colorful pictures, annecdotes with some informative technical
detail. The Ta 152 is covered in color side views and a very nicely
detailed cut-away view. According to the text, 67 Ta 152s were built
(excluding development aircraft). By the way, earlier Ta 152 models were
originally called the Fw 190D-9 ("Dora-9").
I am also a big fan of the Focke Wulf 190 lineage. It never ceases to amaze
me how the Me 109 seems to be the plane that will always be associated with
the Luftwaffe, even though when asked most German pilots prefered flying the
Fw's!
BTW, if you haven't had a chance to read the NASM's book on the Focke-Wulf
190 they have in their collection (service records and restoration details),
you really should. It's a must for any Fw lover!
--Johnallen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) (06/01/89)
From: allen%codon1.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Edward Allen;345 Mulford;x2-9025) The short barreled Pz MkIV's were originally expected to serve primarily as infantry support tanks, and the low velocity gun was expected to be okay for shooting HE and smoke. The MkIII was thought to fill the tank-fighting tank role. It wasn't until the war got underway that the Germans and everybody else realised that tanks were going wind up having to fight other tanks and the dedicated infantry support tanks were going to be in trouble whenever this happened. The slow, heavy, undergunned British tanks like the Valentine and particularly the Matilda also got caught by the same kind of conflict between design and jobs actually undertaken. At least this is my impression after reading a lot on tank warfare over the years. I'm afraid I can no longer remember the specific references to back these comments up. Ed Allen (allen@enzyme.berkeley.edu)