| Tango01 | 23 Nov 2015 10:53 a.m. PST |
Interesting… link Do you agree it was the most powerful? Amicalement
Armand |
| SBminisguy | 23 Nov 2015 10:58 a.m. PST |
Nope, that prize goes to the 12.8 cm Pak 44. With the heavy charge, and using the PzGr.43 projectile, the Pak 44 was capable of penetrating just over 200 millimetres (7.9 in) of 30 degree sloped armor at 1000 meters, and 148 millimetres (5.8 in) at 2,000 metres (2,200 yd) range.[1]The 12.8 cm Pak 44 ended up becoming the standard main armament for the Jagdtiger heavy tank destroyer, as well as being the planned main armament for most of the future heavy tank designs in development during the dying months of World War II, including the Maus and E-100. link
|
| Murvihill | 23 Nov 2015 11:03 a.m. PST |
Jeez, is the PAK 40 even in the top 10? |
| steamingdave47 | 23 Nov 2015 11:09 a.m. PST |
I would have thought Flak88 was better than the Pak40, but I agree with SBminisguy about the Pak44, although it was not used as widely as the other two, owing to late war introduction. |
| Garand | 23 Nov 2015 11:10 a.m. PST |
I was looking at some penetration data, and a rough back-of-the-envelope estimate shows the PaK 43 88mm had better AP performance at long range (2000m) while firing APCR rounds, though when firing APCBC performance was expectantly worse. So there is a bit of nuance to this… link Damon. |
| bsrlee | 23 Nov 2015 11:15 a.m. PST |
A lot depends on your definition of 'Anti tank gun'. Then you have to throw in towed or only vehicle mounted, limited or general service. If you are a foaming Whermacht-o-phile, they conveniently ignore the 88mm Pak aka 'Barn Door' as a towed gun, then there are the various 128mm guns mounted in SP anti tank mounts. The British had the 76mm '17 Pdr' towed mount in general service and tested a '32 Pdr' based on the 3.9" (100mm)anti-aircraft gun – I don't think it made it into general service as it was really too big for towed deployment and even sticking it in the 'Tortise' SP was a failure. The Russians pretty much gave up on large calibre AT, the 76mm field gun was a good dual purpose gun having both an extremely high capacity HE round as well as AT rounds. They had the 85mm gun but it was mainly intended like the German 88, as an anti-aircraft gun, then jumped up to the various 100mm+ field guns which pretty much just crushed tanks |
| SBminisguy | 23 Nov 2015 11:37 a.m. PST |
They had the 85mm gun but it was mainly intended like the German 88, as an anti-aircraft gun, then jumped up to the various 100mm+ field guns which pretty much just crushed tanks Yes, but most of them had slower muzzle velocity and weren't as accurate as the higher velocity German guns with flatter arcs of fire. |
| John the OFM | 23 Nov 2015 12:08 p.m. PST |
I would not trust a home made round that Chumley assembled. |
| Mako11 | 23 Nov 2015 12:46 p.m. PST |
Wow, didn't know they made a Pak 44. I knew about the 128mm flak gun, and the twin 128mm flak gun, but that Pak 44 sure is interesting. Thanks for sharing. Of course, now I want the Pak44 in 1/285th scale. |
| Major Mike | 23 Nov 2015 3:23 p.m. PST |
The Pak 43 was a monster in size, I can only imagine that the Pak 44 was even bigger. |
| Fred Cartwright | 23 Nov 2015 4:06 p.m. PST |
The Pak40 was probably the best German AT gun of WW2 having a low silhouette, making it easier to conceal, but packing enough of a punch to make it dangerous right up to the end of the war. The Pak43, Pak44 and various flak guns were too big and cumbersome for the role, really only suited to flat open ground where their range and power could be used to good effect. That's the reason the 32pdr never went into production. It was too difficult to manoeuvre and conceal. |
| wrgmr1 | 23 Nov 2015 4:52 p.m. PST |
Fred, I agree with you:
Pak 44 weight: 10,160 kg (22,400 lb)
Barrel length:7.023 m (20 ft) L/55 Pak 40 weight: 1,425 kg (3,142 lb)
Barrel length:46 calibres: 3.45 m (11 ft 4 in) |
| elsyrsyn | 23 Nov 2015 7:24 p.m. PST |
The PAK 40 was probably the most all around USEFUL of the German AT guns, but it was nowhere near the most POWERFUL. Doug |
| Lion in the Stars | 23 Nov 2015 8:04 p.m. PST |
The PAW600 and PAW1000 should be on that list… Shame that they didn't see much/any service, as they could replace the 7.5cm infantry guns, too. |
| goragrad | 23 Nov 2015 11:12 p.m. PST |
32 pdr was the AT version of the 3.7 inch AA. At Stilicho's Tortoise website it was noted that its performance with APCBC was better than 20 pdr APDS. Didn't give hard numbers though. |
| Steve Wilcox | 24 Nov 2015 11:59 a.m. PST |
Of course, now I want the Pak44 in 1/285th scale.
link
linkThey look like nice minis! :) |
| Tango01 | 24 Nov 2015 10:47 p.m. PST |
Very nice! Amicalement
Armand |
| By John 54 | 25 Nov 2015 11:10 a.m. PST |
I'm just selling off my 1/35 PAK43s on E-Bay auction John |
Mark 1  | 25 Nov 2015 3:05 p.m. PST |
I think it is silly to call the Pak40 "the most powerful anti-tank gun of WW2". You would think that a site like Military.com would have higher standards for their content. It was a compact design, powerful ENOUGH, and produced and distributed in large numbers. So at least one could make a case for saying it was "most effective", "most deadly", or even "best". A debatable case, to be sure, but at least one could make a case. But "most powerful"? No. Not even close! -Mark
(aka: Mk 1) |
adds a tower to his 15mm trainyard.
