No Tiger Tank with an artillery twist

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

There is no point to compare cannons and howitzers. One group 'chases' range, another 'chases' shell weight. Both are needed, neither can do other group's job well. Nobody used howitzers for CB if they had cannons around.
Well, that's what gun-howitzers are for like the Soviet 152mm corps level guns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_howitzer-gun_M1937_(ML-20)
The one thing though about the 127mm/128mm gun is that it could fire the lighter FLAK shells designed for fragmentation effect (IIRC with pre-grooved internal casing like a fragmentation grenade) which can get better range and still have strong anti-personnel effect even with reduce blast, but say use it with reduced charge at a higher angle against infantry targets and it would do a decent job at anti-personnel support fire.
I was wondering what an ideal employment of such a weapon would be...for the VAK I'm thinking 3 battalions of 127mm guns, 1 battalion of 210mm Mörser, and 1 battalion of 170mm heavy guns to be utilized at the army level as a combined firepower asset. For the corps level a regiment with 3 battalions, 2x 127mm and 1x mixed 210mm/170mm guns (6x 210, 3x 170) all towed pieces. For Panzer corps they'd get first pick of the self propelled versions, with second pick being the VAK at army level. Perhaps if there are enough to go around have 127mm SP make up one battalion, 105mm Wespe make up another, and 150mm Hummels the third.

Thanks for the numbers.
As for the Skoda's capacity, I think you've added 2 and 2 together and arrived at 5. Germans were reluctant to invest anywhere but Germany proper (with few exceptions), while encouraging their Allies to buy what was produced in Germany. Skoda was a premier exporter of artillery pieces between the wars, that is not achieved by having low capacity to produce, nor with outdated designs.
That isn't really accurate in terms of Bohemian industry. They invested very heavily in Czech industry, as it was so useful. I mean look at how many Pz38(t) chassis they made in WW2. Czech workers were pretty pacified by SS terror policies implemented by Heydrich.
https://books.google.com/books?id=1...onepage&q=czech industry nazi germany&f=false
The Czech industries were unique except with Poland in WW2 in terms of German investments in their industry.

https://books.google.com/books?id=e...page&q=nazi investment czech industry&f=false


Churn out the Geshutzwagen III/IV as much as possible, it is a non-nonsense vehicle that can use powerful artillery pieces from 15cm sFh down. Since the 'G III/IV' handled the sFh 18 recoil, it will not have the problem with 12,7 cm.
Good idea might've been to outfit the big guns with muzzle brakes ASAP, though.
Well they had muzzle brakes IOTL.
TRP00002312_0_l.jpg


But in terms of the lighter, simpler chassis, if it worked make a bunch of them and invest more resources in their production sooner, put less into the Panther and Tiger until later.
 
Well, that's what gun-howitzers are for like the Soviet 152mm corps level guns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/152_mm_howitzer-gun_M1937_(ML-20)
The one thing though about the 127mm/128mm gun is that it could fire the lighter FLAK shells designed for fragmentation effect (IIRC with pre-grooved internal casing like a fragmentation grenade) which can get better range and still have strong anti-personnel effect even with reduce blast, but say use it with reduced charge at a higher angle against infantry targets and it would do a decent job at anti-personnel support fire.

If one has gun-howitzers in a great numbers, yes - they are great. Ordinary howitzers in 150-152-155 mm were more numerous in German, Soviet and US army, plus the 105-122 mm howitzers. The TANSTAFL rule still applies - the ML-20 was twice the weight of M-10 or D-1, for example, and 3 times the weight of 122mm M1938.
The lighter shell is not always bound to have better range, as seen at the Kanone 81 example.


That isn't really accurate in terms of Bohemian industry. They invested very heavily in Czech industry, as it was so useful. I mean look at how many Pz38(t) chassis they made in WW2. Czech workers were pretty pacified by SS terror policies implemented by Heydrich.
https://books.google.com/books?id=18QqBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=czech+industry+nazi+germany&source=bl&ots=AN4LMAvk0u&sig=1wGJC-Bkek9OLXJUICim-y-kLfw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirxLXW55LSAhVIr1QKHSqjCCgQ6AEImgEwGg#v=onepage&q=czech industry nazi germany&f=false
The Czech industries were unique except with Poland in WW2 in terms of German investments in their industry.

https://books.google.com/books?id=e_m13Hk3AFEC&pg=PA214&lpg=PA214&dq=nazi+investment+czech+industry&source=bl&ots=RciJcGGFIU&sig=O7P44ouTouWs9JsIeQEw-uclqSk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihhYXr6JLSAhVljFQKHchGB60Q6AEINjAG#v=onepage&q=nazi investment czech industry&f=false

Thanks for the book tips.
I admit still not seeing how much Germans invested in Skoda, nor the yearly production of Czech artillery of, say, 100mm and greater calibre.

Well they had muzzle brakes IOTL.

'Kanone 81' is not same as 'the big guns' of Germany.
 
A few trucks per battery isn't that big of a deal. Plus towing trucks/prime movers weren't carry much ammo either, so they needed ammo carriers themselves.
......

Okay, I give up. You have absolutely no idea of the logistical nightmare artillery can be, never mind SPGs. The Soviets could afford all those guns because it was backed by all the support of Lend Lease trucks, oil, explosives, etc. Just not producing a couple thousand Tigers will not mean Germany suddenly gains the ability to make hundreds of thousands of shells to supply even the couple thousand SPGs that might be made.
 

Deleted member 1487

......
Okay, I give up. You have absolutely no idea of the logistical nightmare artillery can be, never mind SPGs. The Soviets could afford all those guns because it was backed by all the support of Lend Lease trucks, oil, explosives, etc. Just not producing a couple thousand Tigers will not mean Germany suddenly gains the ability to make hundreds of thousands of shells to supply even the couple thousand SPGs that might be made.
You haven't made a case for that really. You just say they'd need ammo haulers. That means several trucks per battery...which they already had to have because prime movers were largely not hauling their own ammo. In terms of SP larger guns it actually saves a lot of logistical trouble, because they didn't need to be broken down into multiple loads and either be carried by multiple prime movers or horse teams, freeing up road traffic a fair bit. Germany actually had more trucks throughout the war until either late 1944 or early 1945 than the Soviets; even with domestic production and LL the Germans had more trucks, prime movers, and halftracks than the Soviets. They did after all make over 100,000 halftracks, including some 75k haulers ranging from 1 ton to 18 ton loads. During WW2 the Germans made 350,000 military trucks, over 120,000 semi-tracked trucks and tractors, and hundreds of thousands of cars and motorcycles on top of pre-war stocks and captured vehicles from their enemies and conquered states. They had more at their disposal than the Soviets ever did even with LL.
http://ww2-weapons.com/german-arms-production/

Throughout the war Germany also made many more shells, in aggregate heavier tonnage of hells, more explosives, etc. than the Soviets made and got via LL. They had many more shells to fire than the Soviets despite having many fewer guns (which fired many more shells per gun), so having sufficient shells isn't the problem, it's having enough guns in the right place at the right time to use them effectively, which was an issue for the Germans IOTL.

If one has gun-howitzers in a great numbers, yes - they are great. Ordinary howitzers in 150-152-155 mm were more numerous in German, Soviet and US army, plus the 105-122 mm howitzers. The TANSTAFL rule still applies - the ML-20 was twice the weight of M-10 or D-1, for example, and 3 times the weight of 122mm M1938.
The lighter shell is not always bound to have better range, as seen at the Kanone 81 example.
Sure, howitzers themselves are purpose built guns for smashing enemy positions and killing infantry; the gun-howitzer is an attempt to get the best of both worlds, though it is a heavier, more expensive gun to make, but can beat having to have two different guns for two different missions (why they are the standard today). The 127mm would be a gun howitzer with it's caliber length.

What do you mean in terms of the K81? It outranged the ML-20 and the 127mm L46 would at least match it (though perhaps outrange it firing at 40 degrees instead of the navy gun's 30 degree max). The weight of a shell isn't so much to do with the range, it's the propellant behind it.

Thanks for the book tips.
I admit still not seeing how much Germans invested in Skoda, nor the yearly production of Czech artillery of, say, 100mm and greater calibre.
In terms of numbers I didn't see that on a quick google search, but they heavily invested in Czech industry nonetheless, which included Skoda, the largest armaments manufacturer in the country.

'Kanone 81' is not same as 'the big guns' of Germany.
Sure, but I thought you were references the K81. Beyond that if you go back and look at the pics of the Grille 17 and 21 I posted the 17cm and 21cm guns on the Tiger chassis had muzzle brakes very similar to the K81.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
..
What do you mean in terms of the K81? It outranged the ML-20 and the 127mm L46 would at least match it (though perhaps outrange it firing at 40 degrees instead of the navy gun's 30 degree max). The weight of a shell isn't so much to do with the range, it's the propellant behind it.

I was not comparing the K81 with ML-20, but the K81 firing a lighter shell and heavier shell. The heavier shell was longer ranged.

Sure, but I thought you were references the K81. Beyond that if you go back and look at the pics of the Grille 17 and 21 I posted the 17cm and 21cm guns on the Tiger chassis had muzzle brakes very similar to the K81.

The main 'big guns' of Germany were the 15 cm sFh18, 17 cm K18, plus a handfull of 10,5cm and 15cm cannons - neither was outfitted with muzzle brake (apart from one-offs) IOTL.
 

Deleted member 1487

I was not comparing the K81 with ML-20, but the K81 firing a lighter shell and heavier shell. The heavier shell was longer ranged.
Because it had more propellant behind the casing, the lighter shell was a FLAK shell with smaller semi-fixed casing; the field gun shell designed later had a larger shell and propellant casing (or none at all, not sure if it was a bagged charge piece).

The main 'big guns' of Germany were the 15 cm sFh18, 17 cm K18, plus a handfull of 10,5cm and 15cm cannons - neither was outfitted with muzzle brake (apart from one-offs) IOTL.
The sFH18 was a howitzer, not a 'big gun'. That would the 15cm K18 or 39. Then there was the 10.5cm K18, 17cm K18, and 21cm Mörser. Those was the heavy guns, not the standard field howitzers, the 105mm leFH18 and 150mm sFH18. The former had a muzzle break, the latter did not. On planned SP mounts all the 'big guns' they had muzzle brakes (but the Hummel, not one of the field guns, did not).
 

Deleted member 1487

Churn out the Geshutzwagen III/IV as much as possible, it is a non-nonsense vehicle that can use powerful artillery pieces from 15cm sFh down. Since the 'G III/IV' handled the sFh 18 recoil, it will not have the problem with 12,7 cm.
Looking back that the PAK44/K44/K81 it seems that even the SK C/34 (127mm) might have been too heavy for the GW III/IV. The 15cm sFH was 5.5 tons at combat weight, the K81 was 8.2 tons combat weight on the Russian 152mm carriage:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6...YcwBHgQ6AEIdDAQ#v=onepage&q=128mm k81&f=false
Granted the K81 was 10 caliber lengths larger than the 127mm, but even if that shaves off two tons that's still substantially heavier than the 15cm howitzer. Also apparently the K81/2 (128mm mounted in Soviet carriage) used the Soviet recoil system and the German gun was supposedly a bit too powerful for it.
The listed weight of the SK C/34 127mm was over 3.6 tons, I don't know if that is just the gun itself or also the recoil mechanism, that might be too much gun for the chassis to handle. Also given the length, it might limit elevation to 30 degrees too; the PAK43 was about a meter longer than the L45 127mm gun, but could only elevate to 20 degrees, so 30 degrees elevation on the GW III/IV might be all that is possible for the 5.7m long 127mm.
 
...
The sFH18 was a howitzer, not a 'big gun'. That would the 15cm K18 or 39. Then there was the 10.5cm K18, 17cm K18, and 21cm Mörser. Those was the heavy guns, not the standard field howitzers, the 105mm leFH18 and 150mm sFH18. The former had a muzzle break, the latter did not. On planned SP mounts all the 'big guns' they had muzzle brakes (but the Hummel, not one of the field guns, did not).

Sorry, the sFH 18 still counts as a 'big gun' in my list of the guns.

Looking back that the PAK44/K44/K81 it seems that even the SK C/34 (127mm) might have been too heavy for the GW III/IV. The 15cm sFH was 5.5 tons at combat weight, the K81 was 8.2 tons combat weight on the Russian 152mm carriage:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6-UDDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=128mm+k81&source=bl&ots=Vi4t38qJCP&sig=8WXwZQ6Sn_SiLWNW16ux66lTiZ4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj616aX2ZPSAhVQz2MKHYcwBHgQ6AEIdDAQ#v=onepage&q=128mm k81&f=false
The listed weight of the SK C/34 127mm was over 3.6 tons, I don't know if that is just the gun itself or also the recoil mechanism, that might be too much gun for the chassis to handle. Also given the length, it might limit elevation to 30 degrees too; the PAK43 was about a meter longer than the L45 127mm gun, but could only elevate to 20 degrees, so 30 degrees elevation on the GW III/IV might be all that is possible for the 5.7m long 127mm.

For the Hummel of 24 tons, adding another, say, 1 ton of weight should be no problem IMO. The recoil will go down.
Elevation is factor of length of recoil, and whether there is enough of place between the rear part of barrel assembly and possible objects that can interfere (carriage legs, platform or earth). BTW - the Pak 43/41 was good for 38 deg of elevation, the Pak 43 up to 40 deg.

Granted the K81 was 10 caliber lengths larger than the 127mm, but even if that shaves off two tons that's still substantially heavier than the 15cm howitzer. Also apparently the K81/2 (128mm mounted in Soviet carriage) used the Soviet recoil system and the German gun was supposedly a bit too powerful for it.

Apparently, supposedly?
The K81/2 used the Soviet-produced carriage, but recoil system was German.
 

Deleted member 1487

For the Hummel of 24 tons, adding another, say, 1 ton of weight should be no problem IMO. The recoil will go down.
Elevation is factor of length of recoil, and whether there is enough of place between the rear part of barrel assembly and possible objects that can interfere (carriage legs, platform or earth). BTW - the Pak 43/41 was good for 38 deg of elevation, the Pak 43 up to 40 deg.
The chassis was at the point of overload at 24 tons and could only fit a fist full of shells with the 150mm L30 as the main gun. The recoil would actually be heavier with the longer gun at that caliber. The towed PAK43/41 was fine for that elevation, but on the Nashorn the mounting could only handle 20 degrees elevation. So I'm thinking it might be too much gun and the VK3001H would be necessary.

Apparently, supposedly?
The K81/2 used the Soviet-produced carriage, but recoil system was German.
Ah you're right. The problem with recoil seems to have been the German design due to the rush to get it working. A second prototype of the K81/2 had the original Russian equilibrators.
 
The chassis was at the point of overload at 24 tons and could only fit a fist full of shells with the 150mm L30 as the main gun. The recoil would actually be heavier with the longer gun at that caliber. The towed PAK43/41 was fine for that elevation, but on the Nashorn the mounting could only handle 20 degrees elevation. So I'm thinking it might be too much gun and the VK3001H would be necessary.
...

The recoil does not get 'heavier'.
Factors in recoil force are: shell weight, muzzle velocity, weight of recoiling parts, capability/capacity of buffer elements (buffer, muzzle brake if present), travel distance of recoiling parts When mass recoiling parts is greater, the recoil forces are lower. The 12,7-12,8 cm has 2-3 things that keep recoil being lower than with 15 cm sFH - lower shell weight, higher weight of recoiling parts, and, in case of 12,8mm, presence of muzzle brake.

As for the Nashorn - do we know the distance between the (horizontal) trunion and/or rear part of the muzzle assembly vs. firing platform?
 

Deleted member 1487

The recoil does not get 'heavier'.
More forceful, whatever terminology you want, which necessitates having a heavier recoil system to take it. Not all platforms can handle it with their suspension.

Factors in recoil force are: shell weight, muzzle velocity, weight of recoiling parts, capability/capacity of buffer elements (buffer, muzzle brake if present), travel distance of recoiling parts When mass recoiling parts is greater, the recoil forces are lower. The 12,7-12,8 cm has 2-3 things that keep recoil being lower than with 15 cm sFH - lower shell weight, higher weight of recoiling parts, and, in case of 12,8mm, presence of muzzle brake.
It's less the shell weight than how much propellant is being used. A muzzle brake can help only so much, a lot depends on the recoil absorbing mechanisms and how heavy they are, plus how much the suspension system has to absorb.
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNGER_5-45_skc34.php
We know nothing about the recoil absorbing mechanisms or their weigh, but as to the propellant:
Propellant Charge 19.2 lbs. (8.7 kg) RPC/38 (6.4/2.6)
Cartridge: 35.3 lbs. (16 kg)

In terms of the 15cm sFH18:
https://books.google.com/books?id=6-UDDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=150mm+sFH+18+propellant&source=bl&ots=Vi4t3dqIyO&sig=2F2YyiFRdIkNgcDmmFxEDlXIJCA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi9qbz1kpXSAhVI9WMKHVfgBEcQ6AEIYTAO#v=onepage&q=150mm sFH 18 propellant&f=false
There were 8 different charges, numbers 7 and 8, the max range charges were only allowed in special circumstances and with higher commander authorization, no more than 10 consecutive rounds could be fired with those due to barrel wear and they needed to be kept in the record so the barrel wear was known (they normally could first between 15-25k rounds per barrel). Charge #1, the lightest was only 62 grams (!) of propellant. Charge 7 was the heaviest at 2.93 kilograms of a special more powerful propellant. Charge 8 was 768 grams of propellant that was more powerful than the usual type. Charge ignitor was 550 grams.
It says when moving up the charge number you'd combine all previous charges up to the number you wanted, while Charge 7 replaced 1-6 if used. Charge 8 was just added to 1-6 if it was to be used.

Looking at the K44, the propellant was 15.30kg full charge. Even adding up all the charges together for the 15cm sFH 18 (1-6) it only weighed about 1.3kg of propellant plus another 550g for the ignitor. Add in Charge #8 to 1-6 and you are still only looking at 2kg of propellant plus the ignitor of 550g. So about 2.6kg of all ignited materials.
I'm not sure what the standard charge exactly was for the 127mm gun, but it seems it was at least 8.7kg with an additional something (RPC/38 6.4/2.6?), which is still at least 4x more than even the heavy overload charge for the 15cm sFH18.

As for the Nashorn - do we know the distance between the (horizontal) trunion and/or rear part of the muzzle assembly vs. firing platform?

C3F-JZwUYAAJBp7.jpg
 
Here are the propellant loads for the 15cm sFH18. 'Nz' should be standing for 'nitro-celulose'; 'Digl' is 'diglycol'. Max propelant load is about 6-7 kg, depending on propellant type.

15load.jpg

In order to move away from beating of 12,7-12,8 cm dead horse, there were 2-3 guns that might be interesting in self-propelled version. One is the 15cm sFH 36 - much lighter than sFH 18, a bit shorter barrel with muzzle brake, less propellant capacity, with some 750m less range. Weight saved could be used to carry more ammo?
Another is the sFH 40, that was with a longer barrel with muzzle brake, 1/3rd increase in propellant capacity, range almost 16 km. The slightly modified barrel was installed at the carriage of the sFH 18, range 15100 m, produced in tune of 42 pcs.
 

Deleted member 1487

Here are the propellant loads for the 15cm sFH18. 'Nz' should be standing for 'nitro-celulose'; 'Digl' is 'diglycol'. Max propelant load is about 6-7 kg, depending on propellant type.

View attachment 308554
I was just citing the Ian Hogg book numbers on the sFH18. Where do you see 6-7kg propellant load?


In order to move away from beating of 12,7-12,8 cm dead horse, there were 2-3 guns that might be interesting in self-propelled version. One is the 15cm sFH 36 - much lighter than sFH 18, a bit shorter barrel with muzzle brake, less propellant capacity, with some 750m less range. Weight saved could be used to carry more ammo?
Another is the sFH 40, that was with a longer barrel with muzzle brake, 1/3rd increase in propellant capacity, range almost 16 km. The slightly modified barrel was installed at the carriage of the sFH 18, range 15100 m, produced in tune of 42 pcs.

BTW this says the 128mm K81 was a Jagdtiger gun mounted to a variety of carriages, rather than a PAK44 or something lighter:
http://axisafvs.blogspot.com/2015/07/128-cm-pak-44-as-main-armament.html
So if the Jagdtiger gun was 7 tons and the carriage 3 tons, then a 3.6 ton 127mm L45 could be about 6-7 tons or less with the same carriages...

BTW the guys over in the non-political chat section are convince the Hummel could not mount a 127mm L45 and that the VK3001H would be the minimum chassis that could handle it:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...vehicles-part-2.357730/page-194#post-14237432

As to the sFH 40 not sure if the Hummel could handle that, but for a VK3001H that would be a fine weapon; the sFH36 though would probably be a better fit for the Hummel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was just citing the Ian Hogg book numbers on the sFH18. Where do you see 6-7kg propellant load?

I've underlined the weights of propellant in each of charges for the case/composition #2 - about 6.5 kg total? Pic:

15load2.jpg



BTW this says the 128mm K81 was a Jagdtiger gun mounted to a variety of carriages, rather than a PAK44 or something lighter:
http://axisafvs.blogspot.com/2015/07/128-cm-pak-44-as-main-armament.html
So if the Jagdtiger gun was 7 tons and the carriage 3 tons, then a 3.6 ton 127mm L45 could be about 6-7 tons or less with the same carriages...

Thanks for the tip, I'll look it up.

BTW the guys over in the non-political chat section are convince the Hummel could not mount a 127mm L45 and that the VK3001H would be the minimum chassis that could handle it:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...vehicles-part-2.357730/page-194#post-14237432

I'll thank the fellow forumite Claymore for his input.
Unfortunately, he discussed/calculated just one factor in recoil force - the muzzle energy, where the muzzle velocity is the main factor since it is multiplied by itself in order that we arrive at m. energy. I'll post about non-discusssed/non-calculated factors it that thread, just mentioning them here:
- momentum (mass multiplied by velocity)
- mass of the recoiling parts
- presence of muzzle brake (eg. cut the recoil lenght of the D25 gun vs A19 by 40% - that meant the T-34 was able to mount the 122 mm D25 cannon; the sFH18 was with recoild lenth 30% greater than the much more powerful ML-20 gun howitzer in the ISU-152 because it sported no muzzle brake)
- allowed recoil length

As to the sFH 40 not sure if the Hummel could handle that, but for a VK3001H that would be a fine weapon; the sFH36 though would probably be a better fit for the Hummel.

The carriage of sFH 18 was used in conjunction with ordnance of sFH 40 in order to create the sFH 18/40, later named sFH 42. Recoil went down by 20% in comparison with sFH 18, mostly due the muzzle brake installed.
 

Deleted member 1487

I've underlined the weights of propellant in each of charges for the case/composition #2 - about 6.5 kg total? Pic:
That's the problem, the 7th charge was not added to the rest, it was a replacement for the rest if used while the max was 1-6+8 and was very rarely used. Normal 'max' was 1-6 added together according to Hogg.

The carriage of sFH 18 was used in conjunction with ordnance of sFH 40 in order to create the sFH 18/40, later named sFH 42. Recoil went down by 20% in comparison with sFH 18, mostly due the muzzle brake installed.
Granted the SK C/34 did not have a muzzle break for naval use, that would probably be a significant factor in mounting it for field gun use or on a SP chassis.
 
That's the problem, the 7th charge was not added to the rest, it was a replacement for the rest if used while the max was 1-6+8 and was very rarely used. Normal 'max' was 1-6 added together according to Hogg.

I was wrong stating that we can just add masses of the loadings, I apologize.
This is what I get from the ammo manual: the 1-to-6 were indeed 'normal' loadings. In order to use 8, the means of igninting need to be there, that were present in loading 7 (50-440g of priming charge, depending on type of propellant), and the picture shows the 7+8 in the casing, but never 8 with another loadings. The 7 and 8 were 'special loadings' (Sonderkart.) The max propellant load looks to be 3,7 to 4,7 kg, in '7+8' case, again depending on the type of propellant.


Granted the SK C/34 did not have a muzzle break for naval use, that would probably be a significant factor in mounting it for field gun use or on a SP chassis.

Install the muzzle brake, if it is overloading the recoil system and/or carriage.
 

Deleted member 1487

Install the muzzle brake, if it is overloading the recoil system and/or carriage.
Looks like the double baffle worked best for howitzers (on Soviet 122mm AFV mounted guns and German howitzers, plus the 122mm D-30 used a different design in first version, then the improved went back to the D-25 double baffle), but the K44/81 used the 'pepper pot' design, why?
 
Looks like the double baffle worked best for howitzers (on Soviet 122mm AFV mounted guns and German howitzers, plus the 122mm D-30 used a different design in first version, then the improved went back to the D-25 double baffle), but the K44/81 used the 'pepper pot' design, why?

Who knows - perhaps they said 'hmm - maybe this design works better', or 'this is cheaper/easier to produce'? Or 'this one does not leave such an abrupt & huge smoke plume'? Or a combination?
 
Another proposal: make something like the Italian prototype for Semovente da 149/40. The long range gun (almost 24 km; no muzzle brake) was installed on a modified tank hull, total weight 24 tons. So, the Germans use the Pz-IV hull, relocate the engine in the middle, install the 15cm cannon at the back. Italian original
 

Deleted member 1487

Another proposal: make something like the Italian prototype for Semovente da 149/40. The long range gun (almost 24 km; no muzzle brake) was installed on a modified tank hull, total weight 24 tons. So, the Germans use the Pz-IV hull, relocate the engine in the middle, install the 15cm cannon at the back. Italian original
Yeah, like the German Waffentrager:
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/entwicklung-series-standard-series.htm
http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:G97_Waffentrager_IV
http://wiki.wargaming.net/en/Tank:G99_RhB_Waffentrager
ardelt11.jpg


p1.jpg


Compare to Italian model:
p1.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top