Nice documente thanks for posting. Wich is the german name for a sabot tugsten core ?
Hi.
Sabot tungsten core is “Treibspiegelgeschoss mit Wolframkern” or “Treibspiegel-Hartkern-Geschoss”.
Yours
tom! 
Insteresting I saw that designation in a proyected 75 mm L/30 gun for the Panzer IV, the gun was only in the prototipe stage because the develpment of the larger 75 mm l/48.
Here you got another proyected use for the “Treibspiegelgeschoss mit Wolframkern”
Taken from.
“Panzerkampfwagen IV ausf G,J H 1942-45”
Hi.
I finished the second part of the translation:
- Flange projectiles
Constructional the flange projectile has some disadvantages due to the multipartness compared with the sabot projectile. The manufacturing is somewhat more difficult due to the multipartness, however it might not to be concerned, since the associated cannons will be present only in limited numbers, as the f-projectiles production will not be a projectile manufacturing mass production as for other guns.
The barrel diameter redcution necessary for firing f-projectiles is reached using conical barrels or a tapered bore barrel extensions.
Therefore there are some questions regarding inner ballistics and construction of the barrels and barrel extensions needed including shape (favorable form of the mantlett of the barrel or extension) and material (consideration of the increased wear with the pressure of the small muzzle diameter to the deforming flanges). Therefore the increased wear and life span of the barrels becomes the main problem, in connection with the question of the replaceability of the extensions.
It turned out that with rising barrel wear the muzzle velocity does not drop. Thus the life span is to be judged either by the increase of the dispersions or the reduction of penetration ability. The principle of the f-projectiles appears in principle limited in application to smaller calibers.
Outer ballistically a certain difficulty arises with the f-projectiles by the fact that due to their multipartness a shift of the balance point can occur when not laborated accurate, which lead to a bad flight. This difficulty does not seem to be completely overcome yet, so that occasionally individual shots occur again and again, with which the projectiles deviated without recognizable reason from the intended flight path.
With increasing wear of the barrels an increasing decrease of speed of the projectile arises as the flanges are not squeezed up to the core diameter.
The effect at the target of HE-projectiles is naturally low due to the limitation of the f-projectiles for the use with small caliber guns. Regarding AP-projectiles only full-caliber construtions have been tested jet. For lager calibers, e. G. 12,8/9,6 cm, a construction with a sub-caliber core built as APHE-projectile seems to be possible.
Basically it can be stated that an APHE flange projectile with comparable ability to a standard full-caliber APHE-projectile doesn´t exist jet. The main problem is that a possibility to connect the cap and the front flange with the core projectile without a decrease of stability of the core projectile hasn´t been found jet.
A further suggestion on the attachment of cap and front flange without attenuation of the core is attaching the cap using a thin coat pulled over the core in its whole length.
For penetration computations the following criteria are to be regarded in principle:
- It is appropriate to consider a speed drop of the projectile corresponding to a certain degree of the wear of the barrel or adapter.
- As with the armor-piercing shells a certain decrease of the penetration ability of the projectiles from the serial production in relation to the maximum values obtained during the first tests has to be considered.
- It appears justified not to use the full projectile weight since the flanges contribute only partially to the penetration.
An employment of the f-APHE- shells, for which special guns are necessary, is applicable mainly for reaching the high penetration demand of 200 mm below 60° up to 4000 m. Which achievements are necessary under the condition to reach a penetration performance comparably with that of the 7.5 cm and 8.8 cm armor-piercing shells, shows the following table, which was provided considering the points specified above.
(table missing)
One can see that the that the demanded conditions quite still seems attainable with acceptable gun loads and muzzle velocities.”
So far thus the paper of Krupp, which sounds actually not very encouraging. Somewhat differently it already looks in the “Investigation over the power increase of the heavy anti-aircraft artilery using subcaliber projectiles”, which was provided at 18.12.1944 by the Rheinmetall “department of weapon construction and ballistics” (WKB) at Sömmerda. As it is very large in the following only the parts regarding the 8.8 cm aa-gun are given.
“
Yours
tom!
Hi.
Conclusion:
According to the war situation the increase the power of the ant-aircraft guns was instructed by the High Command. A quick solution is the utilization of the existing gun types by introduction of more favorable projectiles. The substantial goal of the increase of power can be reached by the improvement of the hit probability reducing the flying time and/or decreasing the reproach.
Investigations accomplished by the Waffenamt devoted better success possibilities for direct firing. Therefore mainly projectiles with impact fuze were included into this investigation. Since for the destruction of a bomber about 500 g explosive are regarded as sufficient, the subcaliber projectile results for the future development. Over it suggestions were already made in the letter WBK1/G54 of 09.02.1943.
Apart from the destruction by a direct hit the fight against enemy aircraft with incendary projectiles is regarded effective. Therefore shells with incendary effect and time fuse or still better with a combined time-impact-fuze with consideration of the decrease of the flying time were taken up to this investigation.
As subcaliber projectiles the following types are examined:
a) sabot projectiles (TS)
b) flange projectiles (K)
c) “Pfeilgeschosse” [arrow projectiles] (UKP)In addition it investigation is divided on the basis of the following criteria:
I. Use of existing barrels
With flange projectiles a conical adapter is to be applied by shortening or other preparations of
the barrel.II. Use of new barrel types with enlarged final spin
In this case the installation of a pipe with smaller caliber is considered into the existing carriage of a larger caliber gun.The flying times indicated in this investigation refer generally to a target distance of 10 km.
Attachment 1:
Increase of efficiency of the heavy anti-aircraft guns using subcaliber ammunition with existing barrelsI) Increase of effectiveness with existing barrels:
During the evaluation it is general to notice that the sabot projectiles have almost the same flying weight as flange projectiles, since otherwise stability is not ensured with the relatively small final spin angles. Therefore the total weight of the sabot projectiles is higher than that of the flange projectiles while the muzzle velocity and outer ballistic abilities are are accordingly lower.
In detail the following evaluations result based on attachment 1:
- 8,8 cm Flak 18 and 37:
With the cannons already existing in large numbers the increase in effectiveness is quite meaningful by sabot projectiles, since thereby practically the achievements of the 8.8 cm Flak 41 and/or 3741 can be achieved.
An appropriate flange projectile even brings a flying time reduction around approximately 8 per cent compared to the the 8.8 cm Flak 41
- 8,8 cm Flak 41:
The projectiles of the Flak 18 and 37 were examined also for an increase in effectiveness of the Flak 41. A flying time reduction around approximately 19 per cent follows for the sabot projectile, for the flange projectile one around approximately 27 per cent.
For an airplane speed of 150 m/s = 540 km/h arise thereby reproach for 10 km target distance:
Flak 41 ca. 2800 m
Sabot projectile ca. 2250 m
Flange projectile ca. 2000 m(Data follow to the larger calibers, then the report continues)
II) Increase of effectiveness with new barrels:
With the manufacturing of new barrels with larger spin the relationship between sabot and flange projectiles changes in favor of the sabot projectile. The flange projectile does not show no more the superiority opposite the sabot projectile, since with the flange projectile the Relationship of the diameter cannot be exceeded by a certain size provisionally.
However interior ballistic conditions result for the optimal sabot shells with impact fuze with the very high initial speeds, for which no comparative figures are present so far concerning the life span of the barrel.
- 8,8 cm Flak 37 and 41
For these two cannons no further increase in effectiveness is to be obtained with larger spin because of the small output caliber of 8,8 cm.
(Again Data follow to the larger calibers, then the report continues)
III) Summary:
As evaluation of the submitted investigation the following is to be said for the increase in effectiveness using the existing barrels:
Due to the given weight ratios the flange projectiles are more favorable than the sabot projectiles. The use of the flange projectiles causes however a rework at the existing barrels and the manufacturing of special adapters, which a larger manufacturing capacity presupposes. In order to arrive thus as soon as possible at an increase in effectiveness of the existing aa-guns of large style, is as the first measure only the employment of sabot projectiles possible. Since however the flange projectiles possess significant exterior ballistic advantages compared to the sabot projectiles, the development of these projectiles must be promoted likewise extremely.
The flange projectiles offer also still the advantage as that the unwanted flying off of the guidance parts with the sabot projectiles comes into abolishment. Of course a muzzle brake-safe sabot is here presupposed when all investigations. For the 10.5 cm Flak 39 could be planned however a divided sabot, since with this cannon no muzzle brake is necessary.
The shown sabot projectiles are to be provided additionally with a sabot basket, in order to avoid the free flight in the barrel when fired with the cartouches used at present.
For the drafts generally the projectile steel 40 was used. Only with some particularly highly stressed projectiles the projectile steel 44 and/or the steel ST. C. 60.61 verguetet was used instead.
By special construction of the projectile case a reduction of the demand might be possible, which will permit the use of the steel 30 in several cases. This necessary improvement of the construction was not considered with the multiplicity of the drafts into all details.
For the increase in efficiency in addition substantial constructional development has to be done, like for example firing and setting up the new firing tables. In the connection hereby the preparation of the new curve bodies and the change of the predictors are necessary.
An increase in efficiency using new barrels (i.e. barrels with changed spin or spinless barrels) doesn´t appear possible as first meassure.
From all examined projects it is to be recognized that the subcaliber arrow projectiles and/or sabot projectiles result in the greatest possible increase in efficiency in the case of the changed interior arrangement opposite the flange projectile due to the possible large caliber difference.
Since to a perfect determination of the probability of success the necessary bombardment documents and troop results are not yet accessible to the company, this investigation can give still no data concerning this. As long as these results are not present yet, the ways of the increase in efficiency specified here should be pursued paralel to each other.
It is therefore suggested accomplishing the following investigations:
the development of sabot projectiles :
a) 8,8/7,0 cm HE-grenade with impact fuze for the guns 8,8 cm Flak 18, 37, 3741 and
41
b) 10,5/8,8 cm HE-I-grenade for the 10,5 cm Flak 39
c) 12,8/10,5 cm HE-I-grenade for the 12,8 cm Flak 40the accelerated development of flange projectiles for the calibers 8,8 cm, 10,5 cm and 12,8 cm as HE- and HE-I-grenades
the development of an optimal subcaliber sabot projectile with the caliber 12,8/7,5 cm and/or a subcaliber arrow projectile for the 12,8 cm Flak 40 and 45
“
Next part follows, when translation is done…
Yours
tom!
Thanks for your work ¡
you could also type the articel in german in to the google translator and get a decent translaton.=) Good articel, nice job.
The German eighty-eight is probably the the best known artillery piece in world war 2. The name applies to a series of of anti-aircraft guns officialy called the 8.8 cm Flak 18, 36 or 37, and could also include newer and more power models, the Flak 41 and 43, although these were different weapons. Flak is a german contraction of either (Flieger)a(bwehr)k(anone) or Flugabwehr-Kanone (hence the capital K, nowadays one word) meaning anti-aircraft gun, the original purpose of the eighty-eight.
Succes as an improvised anti-tank gun led to a seperate line of guns for anti-tank use, referred to as PaK88 and as the main armament for tanks such as the tiger .
In informal German use, the guns were universally known as the Acht-acht, a contraction of Acht-komma-acht Zentimeter. The German word “Flak” was the preferred Allied term for German AA fir.
The forces of the Third Reich employed the 88 extensively in World War II, not only in its original role as an anti-aircraft gun, where it performed well, but also as an anti-tank gun. Throughout the war the gun had few rivals.
Erwin Rommel helped develop the 88 as an anti-tank weapon, first in France and later in North-Africa. His timely used to the gun to blunt the British advance at Arras ended ended any hope of a breakout from the blitzkriegencirclememnt of May 1940. In Libya and Egypt, he lured British tanks into traps by baiting them with apparently retreating panzers. When the British pursued, concealed 88s picked them of far beyond of the two and six pound turret guns of the british marks. The unparaled penetration of the 88’s shell destroyed many Allied tanks and other armoured vehicles. The British 8th Army eventually learned to coordinate their heavy artillary with their ground advances, destroying the relatively immobile 88s in their replacements once they revealed their position.
Does anybody of you know how effective the German AA was during the WWII ?
2cm (quadruple) and 3,7cm were good weapons at short and mid ranges and low altitide attacks against FLAK of this caliber was always feared by the allied. Í have read a report from a P-47 pilot who stated that there it was nearly impossible not to get hit.
the bigger guns like the 8,8cm 10,5cm and 12,5cm for sure were also well built cannons, but the effectiveness against high flying bombers was not too overwhelming. I think it was between 2,5 and 5% of all losses by heavy AAA.
jens
The 8,8 and 10,5 cm were extremely efective , especially if the aircraft was flying over 2000 meters and no more than 7000 meters.
WOW ! what a picture! I wonder how long that noseless B-17 kept going before it crashed?
Not much.
Hi.
Heavy anti aircraft artillery was not really effective. Ok, a direct hit was able to destroy any plane but the number of grenades needed to destroy one plane was very large:
8,8 cm Flak 18/36/37: 14.000 rounds
8,8 cm Flak 41: 8.500 rounds
10,5 cm Flak 39: 6.000 rounds
12,8 cm Flak 40: 3.000 rounds
The statistical ammunition consumption for one month in 1944 only for the homeland defence units was:
1.749.300 rounds 8,8 cm
199.800 rounds 10,5 cm
73.700 rounds 12,8 cm
The main task of heavy aaa was to disturb the bomber crews while aiming and to break up formations for the fighters.
Yours
tom!
8,8 cm Flak 18/36/37: 14.000 rounds
Hmm, that figure seems plain wrong to me, remember that the 88mm as much like th 105 and 128 mm did not requira dirrect hit to damage a plane, with the schrapel effect the “area” of the shot was much wider than the caliber of the weapon.
Unless the flight engineer had secondary controls, it will make it all the way to the scene of the crash. (credit to Ron White)
Hi.
The statistic is based on Luftwaffe evaluations which are avaliable at the Bundesarchiv Freiburg. It is as it is.
During the innitial stages of the war the Flak 18 needed 16.000 rounds for one kill using time fuzes only. In 1944 only 12.000 rounds were needed due to improved fire control (Funkmessorter etc.) and use of combined impact and time fuzes.
The lower numbers for the Flak 41 ammunition compared to the Flak 18/36/37 ammunition is caused by the use of the combined fuzes immediately after introduction and the higher accuracy due to the higher muzzle velocity.
Yours
tom!
lmao :shock: