8,8cm Pak 280(e) and 281(e). These were British 25–pounder guns.
1. 8,8cm Kw.K.36 and 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 & 37. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Tank Combat in North Africa; Jentz, Thomas L: Germany’s Tiger Tanks. Tiger I & II: Combat Tactics; Spielberger, Walter J.: Panzerkampfwagen Tiger und seine Abarten and Hogg, Ian V.: German Artillery of World War Two. The values for APCBC muzzle velocity vary between 773m/s and 820m/s depending on the source, and this is because there are in fact two types of APCBC projectile: the Pzgr. and the Pzgr.39. There is little external difference between the two, the second projectile having soft iron driving bands instead of copper and a slightly more pointed ballistic cap, but there is a significant difference in penetration capability. Jentz mentions only the first APCBC projectile (the Pzgr.) in Tank Combat in North Africa and the second APCBC projectile (the Pzgr.39) in Germany’s Tiger Tanks, leading me to surmise that the second APCBC projectile was not available until sometime after June 1941, but before the introduction of the Tiger I in July 1942. Hogg has some further differences in data for the 8,8cm Flak 18, 36 and 37 but they are minor. (Partly from On Armour by Claus Bonnesen). [up]
2. 8,8cm Flak 41. Source: Hogg, Ian V.: German Artillery of World War Two. This is a different weapon from the 8,8cm Kw.K.43 and 8,8cm Pak 43, being made by Rheinmetall-Borsig. The gun penetration data from Hogg is sketchy and I am not even sure whether it is based on British or German tests. The armour plate angle as given by Hogg is 3° but I assume this is a misprint for 30°. However as the muzzle velocity and projectile weights are similar to that of the 8,8cm Kw.K.43 and 8,8cm Pak 43, it is tempting to suppose that its penetration data would also be similar. [up]
3. 8,8cm Kw.K.43, 8,8cm Pak 43 and 8,8cm Pak 43/41. Source: Jentz, Thomas L: Panzer Truppen Vol 2; Spielberger, Walter J.: Panzerkampfwagen Tiger und seine Abarten and Hogg, Ian V.: German Artillery of World War Two. This is a different weapon from the 8,8cm Flak 41, being made by Krupp. Spielberger’s penetration figures, quoted as being measured at a 0° angle, correspond with Jentz’ 30° figures. Spielberger also refers to some data by Senger und Etterlin which appears to be 0° figures. It seems to me that Spielberger might have left out the information that the two figures he is referring to are actually based on two different angles of attack (30° vs 0°). (Partly from On Armour by Claus Bonnesen). [up]
Do you like this web site? Please rate it between one and ten, with ten being the best: