View Single Post
  #17  
Old 17-10-04, 06:48
Richard Notton
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Pak Weight

Quote:
Originally posted by Wayne Henderson
The Pak I was refering to was the Pak 40 type which is an anti-tank gun similar to the 17 pdr in role. The Pak 40 pulls in at around 1500Kg where the 17 pdr a mere 3040kg. The calibers are a bees dick apart. (1.6mm in Canadian).
Ah, I see where you're coming from. Yes indeed, in calibre the 17pdr is quite comparable to the PAK 40 and is a heap heavier. I was coming from the "grunt" performance angle, if you will, where the 17pdr is close to the 88mm PAK 43 and 43/41 derived from the 88mm AA gun. Against these it is a lightweight.
Quote:
The 88 Flak was not a Pak but an AA gun used in a role it was never intended for. Those bloody Germans were always cheating.
But you could, in theory, have a Pack of Flak of Ack Ack.
Indeed so and when looking at the ballistics tables the 3.7" somewhat out-classed it, had we ever been allowed to use it thus. If I understand it right, the later 3.7" with Probertised barrels and chambered for the 4" naval case were hugely more potent.

I wish I could find again the library book read years ago that carried two plates showing the staff orders that made it a court marshal offence to engage ground targets with 3.7s and required gun crews to record the date, time and serial number of each round and the target engaged.

Of course Hans von Lucks also had to take his pistol to an intransigent Luftwaffe lieutenant who flatly refused to re-train his AA guns on the advancing tanks of operation Goodwood, he was asked if he'd like the Iron Cross now or later. Von Lucks relates this on the longish and detailed analysis made of Goodwood by the army probably in the early 60's or before; it is still used for training I understand. It is presented and narrated by the actual commanders on both sides. It is not on public release (of course) but I do have a (poor, but highly watchable) tape copy.

R.
Reply With Quote