No Tiger Tank with an artillery twist

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

What if instead of focusing on heavy tanks, from 1941 on the Germans opted to focus more on heavy artillery self propulsion? Looking at US SP artillery in the Cold War there are a number of options that the VK3601 chassis that eventually morphed into the Tiger could have been used for and been more useful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M107_self-propelled_gun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_howitzer
The Germans had 170mm guns and 210mm howitzer/mortars for their corps level artillery, but one of the major problems they had with using them was that they'd have to be broken up for transport and take forever to assemble and put in place and were frequently lost in retreat because they'd need hours to break down and move.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17_cm_Kanone_18
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_Mörser_18

The US actually managed to self propel their versions of these guns on even lighter chassis than the VK3601, so it was certainly doable to mount them on a proto-Tiger chassis in 1941.

Beyond that I've been reading about Soviet artillery in WW2 and comparison are often made with the German system, which the Soviets do not do well in comparison to, except in huge numbers of tubes. Late in the war they managed to effectively organize their artillery to minimize the weaknesses and maximize their strengths in positional warfare, but even then the flexibility of the German artillery arm kept them relevant until 1945. In the meantime the majority of casualties inflict on the Russians came from German artillery, while I've seen it estimated that only about 5% of casualties were inflicted by tanks. So given that artillery, especially the big guns, were critical for outranging/gunning Soviet heavy artillery concentrations AND inflicting casualties, much more than the 1200 or so Tigers made in WW2, wouldn't a better use for the Tiger chassis have been to self propel the heavy artillery that the Germans had (and probably make even more with the resources then not needed to make the KWK36 88mm cannon)? Assuming they did so, saving the horses/prime movers to haul these big heavy guns around, while making them a lot easier to get into action quickly and get them out of the way if needed, would it make a significant difference? The 17cm gun outranged anything the Soviets had outside the super heavy class and could dominate in counter-battery fire given the more flexible German artillery system.

Given the attritional style of warfare that the East turned into from 1942 on, artillery was one of the most important factors in maintaining a more favorable casualty ratio, so wouldn't it have made more sense and made more of a practical difference having large self propelled artillery instead of Tiger tanks and using things like the Nashorn tank destroyer for long range AT work?
 
Germany was so out-numbered in artillery pieces that any increase in over-all artillery capability pays handsome dividends. They were many times out-ranged, too, so a '15-kilometre' piece is a must-have, rather than just nice-to-have. The problem the long-range and/or heavy-shell pieces is the heavy weight of both piece and ammunition, so going self-propelled makes a lot of sense. Thus trading the small number of heavy tanks for a bigger number of SP artillery vehicles is a good trade IMO. Having more SP pieces in confined territories like the Appenines or Balkans should also add more to the German strength.
With artillery itself, Germans can try to produce more of the Czech 15cm sFh-37(t) howitzers, while introducing the 12,8cm howitzer or gun-gowitzer or indeed a cannon early enough, not wait until 1944 for the 12,8cm field cannon.
 
This could be useful, if the chronic ammunition problem is solved. As early as 1941 German artillery commanders found they were operating with as little as a third of the recommended quantity of ammunition for the ops they were involved in. Efforts to offset this through better tactics & precision were not significantly sucessfull.

Increasing the corps or army artillery groups by 25 percent does not mean much if your ammunition supply remains at X.
 

Deleted member 1487

Germany was so out-numbered in artillery pieces that any increase in over-all artillery capability pays handsome dividends. They were many times out-ranged, too, so a '15-kilometre' piece is a must-have, rather than just nice-to-have. The problem the long-range and/or heavy-shell pieces is the heavy weight of both piece and ammunition, so going self-propelled makes a lot of sense. Thus trading the small number of heavy tanks for a bigger number of SP artillery vehicles is a good trade IMO. Having more SP pieces in confined territories like the Appenines or Balkans should also add more to the German strength.
With artillery itself, Germans can try to produce more of the Czech 15cm sFh-37(t) howitzers, while introducing the 12,8cm howitzer or gun-gowitzer or indeed a cannon early enough, not wait until 1944 for the 12,8cm field cannon.
From what I've read the German 170cm K18 piece was probably the longest ranged CB weapon in the war. The 210mm and 150mm heavy field guns were either not long ranged enough or lacked enough explosive power for the range they had. The Skoda 150mm was continued in production, so I'm not sure they could increase production beyond OTL levels. Yeah the 128mm field gun/gun-howitzer would be pretty useful.

This could be useful, if the chronic ammunition problem is solved. As early as 1941 German artillery commanders found they were operating with as little as a third of the recommended quantity of ammunition for the ops they were involved in. Efforts to offset this through better tactics & precision were not significantly sucessfull.

Increasing the corps or army artillery groups by 25 percent does not mean much if your ammunition supply remains at X.
I think the ammo shortage was more of a supply issue given the problems of getting shipments to the front during the rapid advance in Barbarossa and in North Africa. I'm talking about these innovations happening in 1942 after the rail difficulties were worked out in the East.
This does suggest they were able to ameliorate supply difficulties in 1941 somewhat with improvisation:
http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/104/104-1-1/CMH_Pub_104-1-1.pdf
Again though by 1942 AFAIK any supply issues were caused by rapid advances, which wouldn't be helpful for the heavy guns, but then they'd have a hard time getting into action except in areas that were more static around AGs-Center and North. Having sufficiently mobile heavy guns at Rzhev and around Leningrad would likely pay off substantially and they were able to get ammo in sufficient quantities there.
 
This could be useful, if the chronic ammunition problem is solved. As early as 1941 German artillery commanders found they were operating with as little as a third of the recommended quantity of ammunition for the ops they were involved in. Efforts to offset this through better tactics & precision were not significantly sucessfull.

Increasing the corps or army artillery groups by 25 percent does not mean much if your ammunition supply remains at X.

Since mehtinks that Nazi Germany invested too much in heavy Flak artillery, along with everyting to support those, cutting on heavy Flak frees up the capacity to produce other types of artillery ammo. Eg. the production of heavy AA shells was around 1.4 millions for many months.

From what I've read the German 170cm K18 piece was probably the longest ranged CB weapon in the war. The 210mm and 150mm heavy field guns were either not long ranged enough or lacked enough explosive power for the range they had. The Skoda 150mm was continued in production, so I'm not sure they could increase production beyond OTL levels. Yeah the 128mm field gun/gun-howitzer would be pretty useful.
...

The 150mm heavy field gun was rangy (almost 25 km) and with payload. German eqivalent of the 155mm Long Tom, and s prime candidate to by installed on the tracked chassis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_Kanone_39
I'd invest as much as possible into the production of the sFh-37(t) in any case - almost two kilometers of extra range vs. the sFh 18 is no chump change.
 

Deleted member 1487

Since mehtinks that Nazi Germany invested too much in heavy Flak artillery, along with everyting to support those, cutting on heavy Flak frees up the capacity to produce other types of artillery ammo. Eg. the production of heavy AA shells was around 1.4 millions for many months.
In 1941 the issue was more about getting it to the front in Russia and Libya.

The 150mm heavy field gun was rangy (almost 25 km) and with payload. German eqivalent of the 155mm Long Tom, and s prime candidate to by installed on the tracked chassis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_Kanone_39
I'd invest as much as possible into the production of the sFh-37(t) in any case - almost two kilometers of extra range vs. the sFh 18 is no chump change.
They only made 61 of those guns and the 170mm outranged it by 4km and they made over 300 over those.
The K18 was much more common:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_Kanone_18
Even then there were only about 100 of them made, as it was realized it was too much gun for too little shell, hence the 170mm K18. So again it comes back to the 17cm piece.

I'm pretty sure the Skoda gun was maxed out IOTL and it wasn't that much different than the 15cm sFH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sFH_18
Once they got the RAP working, the Krupp gun was longer ranged and had much more production already in place.

Now taking the Skoda gun and turning THAT into the Hummel...
 

Deleted member 1487

In terms of the 128mm, it seems the Germans were turning it into a field gun:
https://books.google.com/books?id=EeYDDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT141&lpg=PT141&dq=Kanone+81&source=bl&ots=q6kwlo1wte&sig=khHxBuqbfx3P2A2e11Fo4M0QHyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiv8TLtJDSAhWIv1QKHWT6CVQQ6AEISTAJ#v=onepage&q=Kanone 81&f=false
The HE fired at 750m/s, considerably less than the direct fire AP rounds. The AP rounds had a max range of 24km at 950m/s so at 750m/s I'm thinking it should get to about 19km, which IMHO that would be enough to quality it for self propulsion on a VK3601 or Panther chassis. It would also be significantly lighter than any of the field guns from 150mm and up. Apparently the lighter FLAK HE rounds were able to reach about 21km, so a heavier artillery HE shell would probably reach about that 19km mark, but still offer considerably less barrel wear than the AP rounds due to significantly less propellant.

The K44/81 was shorter and less powerful (L52) than the Steurer Emil L61 cannon, so maybe the VK3001 or even 3002 chassis could work for it instead of having the early prototype Tiger chassis (though that would work just fine).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since mehtinks that Nazi Germany invested too much in heavy Flak artillery, along with everyting to support those, cutting on heavy Flak frees up the capacity to produce other types of artillery ammo. Eg. the production of heavy AA shells was around 1.4 millions for many months.

Which was one of the dividends of Strategic Bombing, which kept the Germans from sending these guns to the Russian Front where they were really needed...
 

Deleted member 94680

OTL was there an SP Artillery proponent in the German Army? Have him become more prominent earlier on?

Have the Germans early into Barbarossa be defeated/nearly defeated by a Soviet force heavily equipped with some ZiS-30 and the Germans are inspired to take it from there?
 
They only made 61 of those guns and the 170mm outranged it by 4km and they made over 300 over those.
The K18 was much more common:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_Kanone_18
Even then there were only about 100 of them made, as it was realized it was too much gun for too little shell, hence the 170mm K18. So again it comes back to the 17cm piece.

Whatever the Germans can produce in terms of long range artillery it helps their war effort. Couple of hunderds of LR cannons in not mass production, and the 12,8 cm cannon can also fall in the trap of 'too much gub for too little shell'.

I'm pretty sure the Skoda gun was maxed out IOTL and it wasn't that much different than the 15cm sFH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sFH_18
Once they got the RAP working, the Krupp gun was longer ranged and had much more production already in place.

Now taking the Skoda gun and turning THAT into the Hummel...

From the Wikipedai article we can't read how much the Skoda 15 cm gun was produced per year, hence no meanigful conclusions can be made re. Skoda maxing it out or not. RAP is not free (eats up in the shell weight), and if it is a great idea there is nothing that prevents Germans producing the RAP for the Skoda gun too.

In terms of the 128mm, it seems the Germans were turning it into a field gun:
https://books.google.com/books?id=EeYDDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT141&lpg=PT141&dq=Kanone+81&source=bl&ots=q6kwlo1wte&sig=khHxBuqbfx3P2A2e11Fo4M0QHyg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiiv8TLtJDSAhWIv1QKHWT6CVQQ6AEISTAJ#v=onepage&q=Kanone 81&f=false
The HE fired at 750m/s, considerably less than the direct fire AP rounds. The AP rounds had a max range of 24km at 950m/s so at 750m/s I'm thinking it should get to about 19km, which IMHO that would be enough to quality it for self propulsion on a VK3601 or Panther chassis. It would also be significantly lighter than any of the field guns from 150mm and up. Apparently the lighter FLAK HE rounds were able to reach about 21km, so a heavier artillery HE shell would probably reach about that 19km mark, but still offer considerably less barrel wear than the AP rounds due to significantly less propellant.

The K44/81 was shorter and less powerful (L52) than the Steurer Emil L61 cannon, so maybe the VK3001 or even 3002 chassis could work for it instead of having the early prototype Tiger chassis (though that would work just fine).

I was talking about the field gun, not the modification of the Flak. The Kanone 81 (or Kanone 44) was firing a heavier HE shell to 24300 m with full charge, and on half charge to 17250m:

44.jpg
 

Deleted member 1487

Whatever the Germans can produce in terms of long range artillery it helps their war effort. Couple of hunderds of LR cannons in not mass production, and the 12,8 cm cannon can also fall in the trap of 'too much gub for too little shell'.
The 15cm K18 was something like 18 tons in travel, the 128mm K81 was 11 tons with an over heavy carriage. Plus the 128mm didn't need to be disassembled for travel. Frankly it seems to be just the right amount of gun per shell.

From the Wikipedai article we can't read how much the Skoda 15 cm gun was produced per year, hence no meanigful conclusions can be made re. Skoda maxing it out or not. RAP is not free (eats up in the shell weight), and if it is a great idea there is nothing that prevents Germans producing the RAP for the Skoda gun too.
Sure, but the German shell was nearly 2kg heavier, so they could also just make a smaller shell and probably get similar performance.

I was talking about the field gun, not the modification of the Flak. The Kanone 81 (or Kanone 44) was firing a heavier HE shell to 24300 m with full charge, and on half charge to 17250m:
Sure, the K44/81 was able to fire the lighter FLAK shell further than a purpose designed artillery HE shell, which didn't initially exist, so they had to use the FLAK ones. The field gun could handle both. I suppose the 'normal' charge was around 19km or so, but you could up or down rate it with propellant load.
Anyway seems extremely useful relative to the 15cm K18 and quite a bit lighter.

OTL was there an SP Artillery proponent in the German Army? Have him become more prominent earlier on?

Have the Germans early into Barbarossa be defeated/nearly defeated by a Soviet force heavily equipped with some ZiS-30 and the Germans are inspired to take it from there?
The problem isn't so much not having a proponent in the army, it is getting Hitler to listen. Still, encountering the Soviet 122mm did inspire the 128mm field gun variant, but it wasn't ready by the end of the war apparently and time was wasted on the PAK version. The original FLAK 128 wasn't ready until 1942 IOTL, so perhaps the naval 127mm version is an inspiration for such a piece early enough to have it ready in time?

Edit:
Seems like they might have gotten into action in late 1944:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=200222&p=1804139&hilit=k81#p1804139
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The 15cm K18 was something like 18 tons in travel, the 128mm K81 was 11 tons with an over heavy carriage. Plus the 128mm didn't need to be disassembled for travel. Frankly it seems to be just the right amount of gun per shell.

Having the 15 cm cannon on the tracked chassis removes the heavy carriage from the equation, along with laborous & time consuming assemble/disassemble job. Adavntage of the 12,8 cm cannon vs. 15 cm cannon is that Pz-IV can carry it easily enough, the disadvantage is that shell is far lighter, along with a bit smaller range.


Sure, the K44/81 was able to fire the lighter FLAK shell further than a purpose designed artillery HE shell, which didn't initially exist, so they had to use the FLAK ones. The field gun could handle both. I suppose the 'normal' charge was around 19km or so, but you could up or down rate it with propellant load.
Anyway seems extremely useful relative to the 15cm K18 and quite a bit lighter.

Heavier shell was with longer range, it was about 1/4 longer thus more streamlined. Lighter shell went to 21000m with full charge, and to 16600m with half charge. As a towed gun it certainly has/had it's role and appeal.


The problem isn't so much not having a proponent in the army, it is getting Hitler to listen. Still, encountering the Soviet 122mm did inspire the 128mm field gun variant, but it wasn't ready by the end of the war apparently and time was wasted on the PAK version. The original FLAK 128 wasn't ready until 1942 IOTL, so perhaps the naval 127mm version is an inspiration for such a piece early enough to have it ready in time?

Good point in choosing the 127mm as the basis for the new field gun, the choice need to be made in late 1930s to make sense.
 

Deleted member 1487

Having the 15 cm cannon on the tracked chassis removes the heavy carriage from the equation, along with laborous & time consuming assemble/disassemble job. Adavntage of the 12,8 cm cannon vs. 15 cm cannon is that Pz-IV can carry it easily enough, the disadvantage is that shell is far lighter, along with a bit smaller range.
That's my point with the comparison, it wasn't just the carriage, the 15cm gun was 11 tons just by itself, while the PAK44 with carriage was 10.5 tons. Minus carriage it is substantially less, perhaps under 6 tons. The 105mm K18 with carriage was under 6 tons so a 128mm gun with same caliber length isn't going to be much more just with the gun itself (not sure what the KWK44 was in terms of weight, but that should be a good indication for SP mounting).


Heavier shell was with longer range, it was about 1/4 longer thus more streamlined. Lighter shell went to 21000m with full charge, and to 16600m with half charge. As a towed gun it certainly has/had it's role and appeal.
Indeed, with 24km range it would be able to outrange all but the Soviet superheavy guns. As a CB weapon or long range harassing fire weapon it would have been pretty ideal.


Good point in choosing the 127mm as the basis for the new field gun, the choice need to be made in late 1930s to make sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.7_cm_SK_C/34_naval_gun
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_5-45_skc34.php
Weight 3,645 kilograms (8,036 lb)
Of course it was an L46 gun, so shorter than the PAK44 or K81.

Still, it would be an great off the shelf gun used as is or maybe even slightly lengthened. You could even use the VK3001H chassis for it instead of as the "Steurer Emil" with the L61 PAK40 128mm. The same chassis could even mount the 105mm K18 just fine too. Start mass producing those in 1941-42 and you've got a solid mobile asset for an artillery fire brigade.

IOTL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volksartilleriekorps
A Volksartilleriekorps (People's Artillery Corps) was a brigade-sized massed artillery formation employed by the German Army in World War II from late 1944 until the end of the war. A Volksartilleriekorps (VAK) was typically composed of five or six battalions of differing kinds of howitzers and guns, including antitank and anti-aircraft guns. Where deployed, VAKs were normally allocated on the basis of one to two per field army. As an organizational development of massed artillery, VAKs were relative latecomers in World War II and neither numerous enough nor strong enough to counter the massive artillery support of the Red Army or the powerful and expertly controlled corps and army artillery units of the Western Allies.

Type I VAKs were authorized:

  • One battalion of eighteen 7.5-cm antitank guns used in a field gun role
  • One battalion of eighteen 8.8-cm antitank guns used in a field gun role
  • One battalion of eighteen 10.5-cm howitzers
  • One battalion of twelve 122-mm howitzers
  • One battalion of twelve 15-cm howitzers
  • One battalion of six 21-cm guns and three 17-cm guns
Type II VAKs were authorized:

  • One battalion of eighteen 7.5-cm antitank guns used in a field gun role
  • One battalion of twelve 10-cm guns
  • One battalion of eighteen 10.5-cm howitzers
  • One battalion of twelve 122-mm howitzers
  • One battalion of twelve 152-mm howitzers
Corps headquarters for Type I fully motorized VAKs included an observation battery.[4]

Instead of having to too large artillery division, have a mobile artillery brigade like this in 1942.
Don't waste assets on using 75mm AT or 88mm AT guns as field artillery, use only battalions of SP 105mm K18s and 127mm L46s, perhaps also including 170mm or 210mm K18s on Tiger chassis.

Have one or two of these in Rzhev would have been a pretty nasty shock to the Soviets and done a lot of damage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's my point with the comparison, it wasn't just the carriage, the 15cm gun was 11 tons just by itself, while the PAK44 with carriage was 10.5 tons. Minus carriage it is substantially less, perhaps under 6 tons. The 105mm K18 with carriage was under 6 tons so a 128mm gun with same caliber length isn't going to be much more just with the gun itself (not sure what the KWK44 was in terms of weight, but that should be a good indication for SP mounting).

I'm not sure how you've came at 11 tons figure for ordnance itself for the 15 cm cannon? The 15 cm K39 gun in action, ie ordnance + carriage weighted 12,2 tons, vs. the K81 at 11 or 9 tons, depending on carriage - captured French or Soviet, respectively.
Looks like the 12,8cm Pak 80, as installed on the Jagdtiger, was at 7 tons (link).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.7_cm_SK_C/34_naval_gun
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_5-45_skc34.php
Of course it was an L46 gun, so shorter than the PAK44 or K81.
Still, it would be an great off the shelf gun used as is or maybe even slightly lengthened. You could even use the VK3001H chassis for it instead of as the "Steurer Emil" with the L61 PAK40 128mm. The same chassis could even mount the 105mm K18 just fine too. Start mass producing those in 1941-42 and you've got a solid mobile asset for an artillery fire brigade.

The 12,7 cm SK C/34 gun was a fine piece of artillery - fired at 30 deg, the 28 kg shell was to reach 17400 m (link). There is possibility to beat 20 km mark with 45 deg elevation? BTW - it looks like both 12,8 and 12,7 cm were of same bore - 12,8 cm (makes sense).
So the Germans can start out with L46 gun from late 1930s, later introduce the L61 gun; dont bother with L55 gun at all.
 
Since mehtinks that Nazi Germany invested too much in heavy Flak artillery, along with everyting to support those, cutting on heavy Flak frees up the capacity to produce other types of artillery ammo. Eg. the production of heavy AA shells was around 1.4 millions for many months.

Basic load for the 10,5cm division howitzer was 60 HE rounds IIRC. About 120 divisions in June 1941 were equipped with the FH18 at 36 per div in the firing batteries. Thats 259,200 rounds, & if that is expended every other day its 3,888,000 in a month. Add in similar rate of use for the 15cm howitzers (40 rounds per cannon & 12 per division x120) & it jumps to a additional 864,000 rounds. In the latter case they weigh triple the 10.5cm rounds. 44kg x 864,000 = 38,016 metric tons of 15cm @ a 50% use of the basic load per month. In the larger scale battles demand could easily go over four times that rate per day. But dont base your railway numbers on that. I left out the propellant, fuze, and dunnage weight.
 

Deleted member 1487

I'm not sure how you've came at 11 tons figure for ordnance itself for the 15 cm cannon? The 15 cm K39 gun in action, ie ordnance + carriage weighted 12,2 tons, vs. the K81 at 11 or 9 tons, depending on carriage - captured French or Soviet, respectively.
Looks like the 12,8cm Pak 80, as installed on the Jagdtiger, was at 7 tons (link).
I was talking about the K18, not the K39. Both were only made in limited numbers and their combat weight was 11 and 12 tons respectively. The French/Russian carriages were quite a bit heavier than they needed to be for the 128mm gun.
Not sure how the PAK80 could be 7 tons when the L46 naval version was only 3.5 tons.

The 12,7 cm SK C/34 gun was a fine piece of artillery - fired at 30 deg, the 28 kg shell was to reach 17400 m (link). There is possibility to beat 20 km mark with 45 deg elevation? BTW - it looks like both 12,8 and 12,7 cm were of same bore - 12,8 cm (makes sense).
So the Germans can start out with L46 gun from late 1930s, later introduce the L61 gun; dont bother with L55 gun at all.
I would think so at the 40 degree mark. I don't think the L61 would be necessary except maybe as a 1980s tank gun.

Basic load for the 10,5cm division howitzer was 60 HE rounds IIRC. About 120 divisions in June 1941 were equipped with the FH18 at 36 per div in the firing batteries. Thats 259,200 rounds, & if that is expended every other day its 3,888,000 in a month. Add in similar rate of use for the 15cm howitzers (40 rounds per cannon & 12 per division x120) & it jumps to a additional 864,000 rounds. In the latter case they weigh triple the 10.5cm rounds. 44kg x 864,000 = 38,016 metric tons of 15cm @ a 50% use of the basic load per month. In the larger scale battles demand could easily go over four times that rate per day. But dont base your railway numbers on that. I left out the propellant, fuze, and dunnage weight.
Sure and that was a problem in 1941 in the East. Not so much from 1942 on once they got the rail transport problem sorted. IOTL at Rzhev they fired huge weight of artillery and the German army alone used more shells and tonnage of total shells than the Soviets the entire year.
 
I was talking about the K18, not the K39. Both were only made in limited numbers and their combat weight was 11 and 12 tons respectively. The French/Russian carriages were quite a bit heavier than they needed to be for the 128mm gun.
Not sure how the PAK80 could be 7 tons when the L46 naval version was only 3.5 tons.

The French carriage was from the 155mm GPF, a powerful cannon on it's own, without the muzzle brake - so yes, the carriage was too generous for the needs of the much weaker recoilng gun. The Soviet carriage was much lighter - 2 tons - and was used for Soveit 122 mm cannon for example, so it fits nicely.
I'll try to find the source that confirms or disputes the 7 tons weight figure for the Pak 80.

I would think so at the 40 degree mark. I don't think the L61 would be necessary except maybe as a 1980s tank gun.

The L61 was the barrel length of the 12,8cm Flak, so the idea was to use off-the shelf barrel once available, rather than to 'invent' a new barrel.
 

Deleted member 1487

The L61 was the barrel length of the 12,8cm Flak, so the idea was to use off-the shelf barrel once available, rather than to 'invent' a new barrel.
Sure, I just am not sure why there would be a need for an L61 128mm gun except for extreme CB work or long range armor killing. I think the 128mm L46 could do both effectively anyway.

Do you have any info about the 122mm Soviet carriage?

Edit:
seems like it was the Soviet 152mm carriage-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.8_cm_PaK_44
12.8 cm Kanone 81/2: K 44 mounted on the ex-Russian 152mm howitzer model 1937 carriage. 2-wheeled split trail.
Too much for the 128mm.

A 122mm carriage might work for the L46 naval 128

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_gun_M1931/37_(A-19)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay - the 'Waffen revue' article about the German 12,8 cm guns (both prototypes and production) really states that Pak 80 was at 7000 kg (!). However, the ordnance of the Kanone 81 was at just 3353 kg!

Do you have any info about the 122mm Soviet carriage?
Edit:
seems like it was the Soviet 152mm carriage-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12.8_cm_PaK_44
Too much for the 128mm.
A 122mm carriage might work for the L46 naval 128
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/122_mm_gun_M1931/37_(A-19)

The carriage was the same for the 122mm cannon and 152mm gun-howitzer.
IMO, it is not a question if the carriage was too big, but the fact that carriage used cost no resources for the Germans to buy/produce it.
 
Last edited:
Top