Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

Precisely for these reasons, the Pz I should have been fielded as a light combat tank, not because it was a good one, but because it was useful. Putting a more potent gun (the 20mm is ideal) in the little thing was possible without enormous effort and resources.
And yes, the II was a logical step as well. very true. I’m not promoting the Tiger. I’m simply telling that not putting a 37mm gun on the II (“too much engineering”?!) and deliberately putting it on the III (“we simply have the 37”) which is designed to take a 50mm one is a very awkward way of decision making. Of course, the true reasons were not logistics and resources at that point in history, yet internal politics…

you would have to take that up with the Reich’s ministry that deals with such things, otherwise, its pretty much a game of woulda, coulda, shoulda. Though it seems that you have answered your own question. :slight_smile:

:slight_smile: true…

What I can make up of this discussion is that I’m not telling bullshit yet it just didn’t happen?

Quote:"I’m not telling bullshit yet it just didn’t happen? "
I’m not getting your meaning here neighbor, “What” didnt happen?

My suggestions. What I mean is that it seems all I’m saying actually makes sense and was feasable, yet it just didn’t happen in history.

Ah, okay now I get you, Agreed, they could have been more powerfully armed, at the time, I guess they built it as they could, and I’m glad they didnt up gun the early Pz’s. Less trouble for the Allies later…
Retro fitting is a huge painful process, just look how long it took to add the armor packages to the Humvees in the Mid East.

I apologize for necro-responding on this, but the GG/P-40 is a current research interest.

The illustration (which I cannot quote-include because I don’t have enough posts yet) shows a GG/P-40 loaded onto an infantryman’s K98. This of course is from Osprey Elite 124 “WWII Infantry Anti-Tank Tactics”.

> The GGP was put in service in mid 1940

I believe the illustration and quoted comment are incorrect. My understanding is that the Luftwaffe weapon bureau issued the contract to WASAG in late Summer or early Fall of 1940 to develop and manufacture what became GG/P-40, specifically because of the experience of fallshirmjaegers at the three airports peripheral to Hague, Holland. Those troopers were unable to be reinforced by glider or transport borne troops with heavier weapons because of airfield conditions and bombing damage to runways. Supposedly they had landed without PzB AT rifles, which would not fit the then-used containers, and found themselves without an effective anti-armor capability when counterattacked by Dutch armored cars. They were forced off all three airfields, and avoided being overrun only by consolidating and retreating to an area of soft sanddunes where the ACs could not operate effectively, and by the Dutch national surrender due to events elsewhere.

GG/P-40 hardly could have been available in mid 1940 if it began development in the July to September timeframe. My understanding instead is that GG/P-40 was not available in 1940 and in fact was not available for the 1941 Corinth drop, but was first fielded for the Crete operation in May 1941, in limited numbers.

It was found to be rather ineffective, not only because of its poor penetration and energy projection but also because the poor aerodynamics resulted in failure-to-fuze or excessively off-normal impact when fired in cross- or trailing breezes, and large dispersion due to the fins being too small.

As to showing GG/P-40 in use by infantrymen…I believe this is incorrect, in that only Luftwaffe ground units were issued this weapon, not regular army or SS units.

> As it could not achieve a spin from the Schiessbecher’s rifling it had to depend on six stabilizing fins attached to the rear of it’s shaft for flight stabilization.

Actually GG/P-40 had its own rifle launching attachment, a precursor to the later Scheissbecher, intended only for spigot type firing. It had a different sighting system and mounted to the rifle somewhat differently.

Both GG/P-40 and its launcher were withdrawn by the Luftwaffe in 1942 when the Heer weapons bureau introduced the 30mm rifled system with Scheissbecher launching attachment, thereby overcoming the aerodynamic and fuzing problems and delivering comparable (albeit obsolete) penetration performance even though with a smaller warhead diameter.

A number of statements posted to WWII discussion websites do say that GG/P-40 was fielded at some point in 1940, and/or used by the regular army or SS, but I haven’t been able to find documentary support for any of these. If anyone has such supporting information of a reasonably authoritative nature, I’d appreciate a comment about it.

No matter how long it takes, every comment in this old weapons systems is apreciated. Now that I think about it is quite likely your post is correct, supossedly the GGP was in service by the attack on France in may 1940, but so far I cant found a single photo of an infantrymen using it in that early date.

nice pics

Just to update the thread a bit, I ran across this episode of Weapons of Victory, a Russian TV show, its about the PTRS, and PTRD rifles, showing archival footage, as well as present day information.
http://youtu.be/d4d7H4J01NU