Pak 43/41: Deadlier than the Flak 88

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Corrections: 1:59 The Panzergranate 39/1 is actually APCBC-HE and Panzergranate 40/43 W is APCR although not with tungsten core. (Thanks to the various people that pointed this out.)

[@samoldfield5220]

Vindicated.

[@Narguhl]

I am very sad that you wrote "actually" the right way so I cannot read it in your voice :(

[@501Mobius]

I still think the penetration data is for a tungsten-carbide subcaliber penetrator. But these were only used in July 1943 in the Ferdinand and withdrawn at the end of the month. Maybe a soft iron penetrator was used after that, but they would be of little use. For example, the Pak41 squeeze-bore used tungsten carbide for a while but that was withdrawn, and a soft iron penetrator used thereafter. I made a response video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nKLcppKlndF8Z5Y

[@user-wg3wj6ur9z]

Do you play arma reforger?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@user-wg3wj6ur9z no

[@jameswolfe9451]

Unbelievably there's one of these beasts on display in Seneca Falls NY

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

They also have the Pak 43 in Canada... so the rare one with the cross mount, I guess many saw that gun and thought "oh, well, the Bismarck is gone, let's at least take this thing home".

[@Jccarlton1400]

Where does one display an artillery piece in Seneca Falls. The VFW and American legion posts seem to bereft and the memorial park was cannon deliquent when I looked on google maps. There didn't even seem to be a civil war cannon on display with cannon balls.

[@Legitpenguins99]

@Jccarlton1400 something tells me that this might be related to NY retarded firearm laws

[@paimonisfood4986]

@@Jccarlton1400 Maybe it's inside a building I don't know never been there

[@tdietz021]

Really, where at? The VFW? I live in Roc. Gonna have to take a trip.

[@causewaykayak]

A bit of well researched and carefully presented history. Many Thanks for your effort.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Many thanks!

[@socialjihad5724]

Oh that's so cool to see that gun out on the floor...I visited the behind the scenes at Bovington last summer while they were working on restoring it

[@JohnSmith-jj2yd]

The key doctrine term in english here is counter-penetration. These assets lacking in mobility and protection but also rare enough to be too valuable and vulnerable for the first echelon positions, primarily serve to stop enemy penetrations and enable the counter attack to retake forward positions. Really great work from both you and Chris on MAH these days in conveying operational factors in employment of equipment. Love the channel 😊

[@aymonfoxc1442]

Good old fashioned military hardware analysis. A classic of KZbin. Thank you for your reliable high-quality output and all the work you put into it. 🤝

[@Warmaker01]

I remember reading that the Germans already had big issues with the size and weight of the 75mm Pak 40. The Pak 43s were even larger and several times heavier. Just looked like a real pain. There weren't that many of them built, either, at least according to wikipedia. Only around 2100 Pak 43s were made while over 23k Pak 40s were built.

[@ivan5595]

To be fair they were used defensively in many cases

[@nerminerminerminermi]

Forget that your text fits better to the 12.8 they also had this thing as flak and pak

[@General_Cartman_Lee]

@@nerminerminerminermi The 12.8 cm PaK 44 resembles more the 8.8 cm FlaK as it was on a cross mount or removable trailers. The US were crazy enough to try the 105 mm gun T8 (the same gun mounted in the T28 / T29 prototypes) on a wheeled carriage like the 8,8 cm PaK 43/41. But they decided that hurling around an over 7 ton anti tank gun was impractical. The Soviets later came up with the 125 mm smoothbore Sprut with 6.5 tons but that one had a lafette and even it's own small engine.

[@schnuersi]

@@General_Cartman_Lee "The Soviets later came up with the 125 mm smoothbore Sprut with 6.5 tons but that one had a lafette and even it's own small engine." That is missleading. The 2A45 has entered service at the end of the '80. Roughly 50 years after the before mentioned guns. Its an entirely different level of technology. Mounting an auxilliary engine on the carriage of a gun is a thing since the '60. Its pretty common for 155 artillery pieces. There have been AT guns with auxilliary engines as well but these usually did not make it into service. ATGMs are simply more usefull and cost effective. One example would be the Rheinmetall 90 mm AT gun from 1960. Its the same gun that was used in the Kanonenjagdpanzer only in a traditional AT gun configuration. Was not adopted into service. "The 12.8 cm PaK 44 resembles more the 8.8 cm FlaK as it was on a cross mount or removable trailers." This is also true for the PaK43. The version shown in the video is the "improvised" mount. The production rate of barrels has been higher than that of the mounts, which where of a 360° cruziform type, so the guns where mounted on available carriages. Which resulted in the rather clumsy version we see above.

[@schnuersi]

"I remember reading that the Germans already had big issues with the size and weight of the 75mm Pak 40." That entirely depends on how you define "big issues". The PaK40 in general is highly regarded as a weapon and had been the backbone of the German AT effort since '42. The problems where not specific to the PaK 40 but to towed guns in general and the war situation for Germany at the time. The problem was not really the weight of the PaK 40, which is not particulary heavy for a weapon of its size and class, but the lack of prime movers. This made the guns very vulnurable to artillery fire and in defensive action often meant still functioning guns had to be abandoned. Which is why the decision makers in Germany wanted a light AT gun that could be effectively moved by its crew. Which is only possible with the PaK40 under ideal conditions. As mentioned these problems are to specific to the PaK40. Similar guns of other nations had the same issues.

[@Compulsive_LARPer]

"Historian in its natural habitat" Lmao. Excellent job as always, Mr. Kast.

[@sepulture777]

as always well researched but I saw you working without gloves are there no concerns about decay or "dirt" ?

[@ew3612]

That was an enjoyable presentation. During one of my night shifts I should put together a collection of my favourite videos from your channels. It would go back around ten years or so and be hundreds of videos but im sure there would be hundreds of hours of footage. It will be a fun time! Thanks for all of the history which you have shared with us!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@mladenmatosevic4591]

As a comparison, Soviet 100mm BS-3 gun was 3.6t, therefore a ton lighter and was used also for fire support on long ranges. But both USA with SU-100 and USA with M36 preferred self-propelled version of large AT gun, in similar class to German Jagdpanther and British 17pdr Achilles.

[@KevinSmith-ys3mh]

Agreeing, but you need an edit; namely "But both USSR with SU-100" on second sentence. Is AI truly intelligent? 😂

[@leme5639]

the longer range of 100mm BS-3 is somewhat useless..since the accuracy was mediocre.

[@horusfalcon]

Interesting and accurate, as all of your stuff is. Many thanks to Bovington for inviting you, and to you for this presentation.

[@exharkhun5605]

A masterclass of engineering and sheer force of will, the designers of this gun came up with a solution for a problem so complex, so mindbendingly difficult, so fiendishly improbable, that many feared it would remain forever unsolved: Make the Ferdinand seem to make sense.

[@Cernumospete]

Not gonna lie, you had me in the first half.

[@jpmtlhead39]

And also the Elefant/ Ferdinand. Hornisse is the Nashorn.

[@lucisferre6361]

Thanks!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you!

[@mohammedsaysrashid3587]

Excellent job as always

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you! Cheers!

Very intersting to hear the Feedback from the front on these 👍

[@MrSteve280]

I can imagine the discussion between the Pak 43 crew right after telegraphing their position to the enemy: " Wenn sie dieses Ding nur auf ein Panzerchassis montieren würden, wäre es viel einfacher zu bewegen".

[@justmymage]

Well, I asked for a Military History Visualized video from your other vid few days ago and I got it. Cheers mate.

[@yvc9]

Impressively thorough walkthrough

[@alangordon3283]

Great video thank Bernhard

[@mikepette4422]

A totally off topic topic here but this video got me thinking: I have been looking at naval guns from the first world war a lot recently. Something that surprised me was the 5.2 cm SK L/55, a very commonly used light gun on destroyers and light cruisers. It was built by Krupp and seemed like a perfect candidate for tank gun. I have read use of the 3.7 cm Kwk as the main tank gun was because nothing else was available. But that's clearly wrong since with the development of better metallurgy in the 20's and 30's that 5.2 cm gun could easily have been upgraded for more modern mountings and shells and it was already a rather fearsome little weapon having a muzzle velocity of well over 850 meters per second plenty to penetrate tanks even using the old pre WW 1 shells. What do people think was the reason this gun wasn't developed ? It was a Krupp weapon so the design wasn't lost and didn't need to have a foreign licensing I'm certain plenty of guys must have known about it.... any ideas ?

[@giovannifontana1433]

Versailles treaty

[@patttrick]

The treaty also stated that Germany could not make AT guns ,they could make AA guns though as they were defensive. Hence the 88mm AA gun which was really good against tanks ,did it also have a HE round?

[@ivan5595]

probably because the 37mm kwk was similar to the crew served pak. so you don't need too many additional factory toolings and more parts can be used interchangeably. like the pak40 and their tank/stug variants share the same shells (although propellant is different). and the 37mm was "good enough" or at least comparable to other tanks of its time

[@alexsv1938]

Most likely because they already had a 5 cm cannon in development for the Panzer III.

[@vladimirpecherskiy1910]

What is the difference to Pak 38?

[@samoldfield5220]

A rare mistake. APCBC does have an explosive filler (a small one). It's an evolution of APHE, the APC tip is good at punching through armour but it has poor flight characteristics, so it's covered up by the BC bit which is a soft cone on the tip that helps it fly and then shatters letting the APC bit do it's work getting through the armour after which, assuming all goes well, the shell explodes inside the tank.

[@Dummvogel]

APCBC exists with explosive or inert internals. Panzergranate 41/43 is inert (Hartkern)

[@samoldfield5220]

@@Dummvogel Most explosive filler is "inert" meaning it won't detonate from fire or ordinary shocks, it requires the detonator to trigger or it will just burn like any other type of plastic. Early shells were filled with guncotton which is volatile enough to explode from fire or shock, "inert" requires a small amount of guncotton in the detonator to actually explode. APCBC still has an explosive filler. It's just a better form of APHE which was in turn replaced by SAP (which explodes even if the round doesn't penetrate). Only rounds like APCR and APDS have no explosive filler, doing their damage by the kinetic energy of the projectile alone.

[@Dummvogel]

@@samoldfield5220 That is not what inert means. Also, as I said, APCBC exists with explosive filler and without. And Panzergranate 41/43 does not have one. Stop posting.

[@samoldfield5220]

@@Dummvogel That's exactly what inert means. It's called the explosive chain. Categories 1&2 are volatile, Categories 3&4 are "inert". C1 is something like the phosphorous head of a match. C2 is guncotton. C3 is TNT. C4 is RDX. So you use a tiny amount of phosphorous which ignites a small amount of gucotton which in turn detonates a little bit of TNT which detonates the main mass of the charge made up of RDX. RDX is otherwise completely inert. You can set it on fire, you can smash it with a hammer, you can drop it off a building, you can shoot it with a gun, it will not explode without a detonator. That's what inert means when talking about explosives. The fuse is the dangerous bit.

[@501Mobius]

@@samoldfield5220 c Sorry my posts were being deleted. Search online for: TM 9-1985-3 German Explosive Ordinance 1953 pg 440. Figure 427 A.P. Projectile with Tungsten Carbine Core (Type 40), 88-mm, 8.8-cm Pzgr.40 And other shell info.

[@jwoody8815]

I love your channel and im used to accents so no subtitles needed, you explain things very easy to understand. And I was Born in Germany, Frankfurt AM :D

[@markusdegenhardt8678]

Most of the time i learn something new from your videos but this one just confirmed my opinions. I always considered these beasts too big.

[@knoll9812]

With hindsight you are correct. However the Germans didn't know that the allies would not be sending thousands of heavy tanks in 1944

[@blaze1148]

@@knoll9812 .....and that the Soviets would mainly attack with Artillery and infantry first rendering the gun useless.

[@skorpion7132]

Results from the difference in doctrine and style of warfare envisioned. Mr. H was in a race for increasingly heavier tanks and ordnance, hence projects like the Maus. However the race he though he was in, was not shared by either the Allies or the Soviets. So very cumbersome and stupidly heavy weaponry would be facing swarms of 'flies'. You don't need much strategic knowledge to guess what happened next.

[@ComfortsSpecter]

Incredible work and Beautiful Art All this Lovely Efficiency and design for such a Terrible Context Great presentation Good work

[@MaxRavenclaw]

3:12 I'm a bit skeptical about the image presented here. The 1944 IS-2's upper plate was 100 mm @60° which does translate into 200 mm LOS thickness, but that's doesn't necessarily reflect effective protection. It likely exceeds that against most non-overmatching shells striking @0°. Meanwhile the Jumbo is 38+64 @ 47° which leads to LOS ~150, but also likely greater effective protection (though the fact that there were two plates instead of 1 does decrease effectiveness a bit). Besides, the Pak 43/41's penetration is at 30°, not 0°, complicating the question further. Basically, it's hard to say for sure at what distances we'd see penetrations. Anyways, great video! Thanks for the upload!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

It is a general guide line.

[@j.f.fisher5318]

Though if you want a really excessive AT gun, The 12.8 cm Pak 44 produced muzzle energy greater than that of modern MBT guns, thanks to slinging a 28 kg shell at 950m/s.

[@Jfk2Mr]

Said 28 kilo lump is about 12,6 MJ at muzzle, while 12 kilo angry nail at about 1750 m/s is 18,3 MJ + whatever is lost on the sabot

[@dustinontaiyabbi5608]

The m103 has the most powerful tank gun ever produced. It produced much more energy than any modern tank guns by a good bit, and was more powerful than the jagdtiger's 128mm

[@LoisoPondohva]

​@@dustinontaiyabbi5608 where are you even getting that lol.

[@marvelinofirmansyah1452]

@@dustinontaiyabbi5608 huh isnt that self propeled artillery

[@dustinontaiyabbi5608]

@@LoisoPondohva muzzle energy testing and projectile energy on target. You can find the information rather easily.

[@retonman7492]

Hey MHV, how are you? Just wanted to know if you have plans on making a video comparing contemporary anti tank guns of different countries in ww2, things such as the 17 pounder vs Pak 40 or 43. On all videos that appear here on KZbin comparasions are only drawn between guns of the same country even if they are for completely different scenarios such as the Pak 36 vs 40 and I believe it would be interesting to see guns of a similar time and role being put against each other instead of the existing ones. (Observation) It is mentioned in the video that German armor quality diminished throughout the war, this is true but it is also important to note that the Allies also suffered with that, some with minor changes like the USA, and some (soviets) to an extent where armor was significantly worse than even German armor and would be deemed completely unacceptable for use in most other countries.

[@gotanon9659]

To put it short the german AT gun were performance wise not equal to there allied counterpart until 1942 were they equalled and in late 43' they exceeded there allied counterpart

[@KevinSmith-ys3mh]

Agreed, and re your last point about armor quality: all the producers had differing opinions as to what "good armor" was, and it changed over time, (the see-saw effect) because of the changes in attack weapons, and what it takes to defend against them. Any analysis video could easily take an hour, and I will refer everyone to Drachinifel's video explainer about the development of warship armor (the tech progenitor of tanks - Land Ships Commission) being a fine example.😊

[@carrickrichards2457]

Less than 1000 Pak 43/41 saw action. It was not popular outside fixed fortress positions due to its size and weight. The biggest ATK gun was the Pak44/51 (128mm) which saw alot of action from flak towers (noteably in Berlin) and on the Jagdtiger (only 30-40 of which saw action).

[@bajonettm2122]

You are confusing Flak40 with Pak44. There sure enough were NO pak44s in any flakturm

[@yaki_ebiko]

Had me rolling with the hard to camouflage icon 🤣

[@Scalaflow]

What was that about ? Just looked like a giant Kangaroo 🤷‍♂

[@SNOUPS4]

Interesting to the how the archives are inside, too

[@Mark-Bretlach]

really interesting facts and reports, makes it all so real

[@alepaz1099]

Moral: bigger is not always better 🤷‍♂

[@satriabagaskara4198]

the PaK43 was the one she told me not to worry about. i guess my PaK40 is enough and has good personality.

[@patmcgroin6916]

WW2 Germany had an unhealthy fixation with bigness. "Awesome but impractical" is the applicable trope, I believe. Think of that railway monster gun that required an entire regiment and the laying of tracks that lobbed shells into Sevastopol.

[@ivan5595]

well my gun is from thet object 120 so

[@satriabagaskara4198]

@@patmcgroin6916 i think we have to remember the context in how the situation was in order to give us an understanding of why stuff happened the way they did. when the gustav was ordered germany just started conquering half of europe in a quick rate, like d-day was still 10 years to come. safe to say there was confidence within the wehrmacht and germany of its war capabilities. the gun itself made sense since it was designed to attack the french maginot line, which was a line of bunkers with armored turrets, artillery, and mg placements all over it. thats what the gun was designed to be. a bunker busting tool. and remember too, that prior to this germany was expecting the battle for france to be a long one just like how it was in WW1. they needed something as revolutionary as the "tanks" back then if they wanted to cut the battle short. however unexpectedly flanking belgium had gotten the job done before the gun was finished. by the time it was moved to the eastern front in 1942 germany was 2 years away from losing d-day and doing constant retreats. but in the cases where the gun was deployed its achieved general success. so it wasnt a fixation on bigness. its just in those cases the "bigness" made sense.

[@patmcgroin6916]

@@satriabagaskara4198 Used against the Maginot line, protected by air cover it makes sense. Heck, same applies if Spain had joined the Axis for Gibraltar, I think. Regardless, looking back, I feel like the Axis had about 2 years seal the deal before US, Commonwealth and Soviet production and natural resources swamped them. If Hitler could have gotten Spain involved and taken Gibraltar, locking the British fleet out of the Med, if the Axis could have broken through to the oilfields of the ME or central Soviet Union...some combination of those things might have won. But by mid to late 42 the production of the Allies was crushing. I think the Panther was the world's 1st main battle tank, by the way, but by the time it was really being produced, the writing was on the wall.

[@AnimatedWarMapper]

Great episode man!

[@peckelhaze6934]

Excellent.

[@alexandrebelinge8996]

I remember seeing the one Kingston and I was very surprised how big it was.

[@ambravirlebreton]

Nice work ! Would love to see a video about the pak 44 and 128mm !

[@MGB-learning]

Great video!

[@samgeorge4798]

You could have said 6ft we would not have blamed you

[@JeffHenry-cq3is]

Someone would

[@mr.waffentrager4400]

Nobody cares about your imperial bs 1.8m or 180cm sounds much superior.

[@samgeorge4798]

@@mr.waffentrager4400 lol ok

[@lastboyscout6437]

It depends... The US would ude both imperial and metrik depending on the country of original gun, but I think the Germans only used metric 😄

[@ivan5595]

It's over for under 6fts

[@EuropeAryan]

thanks for your hard work

[@501Mobius]

Wouldn't the APCBC also be the Pzgr. 39 projectile? The Pzgr. 40 would have the subcaliber tungsten penetrator.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

PzGr 40/43 W (Weicheisen) is soft iron.

[@501Mobius]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized US TM-E 30-451 Lists Pzgr 39 as APCBC 30° 3280 f/s . APCR = 3705 f/s Pzgr. 39 = 1000 m/s and Pzgr40. = 1,130 m/s I read there was a soft iron HK for the Pak 41. 75mm PaK41 APCNR 500m/172mm 75mm PaK41 APCNR soft 500m/78mm Find TM 9-1985-3 German Explosive Ordinance 1953 pg 440 Figure 427 A.P. Projectile with Tungsten Carbine Core (Type 40), 88-mm, 8.8-cm Pzgr.40

[@501Mobius]

x TM 9-1985-3 German Explosive Ordinance 1953 pg. 440.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

thanks added a pinned comment. I am a bit confused, because originally I didn't plan to add the designations (APHE, etc) but ran across a source that noted them, but I can't find where anymore, maybe a mix up.

[@captainhurricane5705]

Considering the inherent problems of quickly moving defensively deployed artillery in Russia, particularly in the winter, one wonders why they thought a gun weighing over 4 tons would be suitable for deployment in the HKL.

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

I think the soviet heavy tanks and their ability to shrug off PaK 40 hits may have influenced that decision.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

​@@naamadossantossilva4736 something the germans could have solved by just lengthening the barrel and increasing the case/breech volume of the 75mm to a necked down KwK 88 or FLAK 10.5 casing for a significant boost in projectile velocity.

[@defender1214]

​The kwk42 has in far inreased velocity compared to the pak40 and also couldn't penetrate enemy heavy tanks reliably@@SonsOfLorgar

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

@@SonsOfLorgar You can't increase speed forever,barrel life becomes very short and it gets cumbersome.And the gun will get heavier anyway because it will need to handle more recoil and higher pressure. The other method to increase performance,using better ammo,also had the issue of being impossible,because tungsten was vital for the war machine and hard to work with,HEAT still sucked and steel APFSDS was still 20 years away.

[@SFASDFASVVqwRWQTGWR]

Did Germany ever plan to install motor directly into the 88 gun carriage, like the UK did with the 17 pounder with the straussler conversion?

[@kjhnsn7296]

Yes. It was called the Tiger....😄

[@HJBLucy]

@@kjhnsn7296you mean the slowest Porsche ever? The Ferdinand

[@Teh0X]

Waffenträgers were very much a concept between tank destroyers and gun with engine.

[@DavidTang-k2i]

Love your videos man. But one potential area of concern is when you were talking about the heavy tanks effective armor thickness vs the pak 43, the pak 43 values were sloped at 30 degrees while the heavy tanks had theirs at the effectiveness, so assuming it were to act as 90 degrees. just wanted to point it out, thanks for the video anyways, great job keep it up

[@thomasadler4277]

The lesson learned from the complicated transport of these big guns was the death of these guns after WW2, replaced by more mobile tank destroyers

[@DD-qw4fz]

Thats why we see no AT guns after ww2, they just got too big to have enough penetration..

[@MrSpirit99]

Some eastern block countries used 100 mm guns for anti tank work until 1998. East Germany for example still had them in the 80s.

[@chrisjones6736]

I think Soviets had a 100mm towed AT gun until the packed in in 90's😊

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

@chrisjones6736 The T-12 Rapira.

[@profesercreeper]

They were more replaced by smaller guns that can fire heat projectiles. No need for such a big gun to achieve the needed penetration.

[@Nimmermaer]

The situation on the battlefield had changed in 1944. Soviet artillery superiority was way more pronounced than in 1943, so it's no wonder a weapon vulnerable to artillery fire like the Pak 43/41 was deemed inadequate at that time.

[@looinrims]

Minecraft Ostfront edition? You mean…MeinFront?

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

Nononono, he means MinedFront!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

MeinCraft :D

[@papaaaaaaa2625]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized DeinCraft? 🤣

[@stathispapadopoulos7926]

The figures for the frontal armor of the tanks are for the upper plate only. The is2 1944 does not have the equivelant protection of 200 mm in its lower plate or entire turret and therefore being ''safe'' at 1000meters is most certainly not true at all. The effective thickness given here is also just the geometric one. For example, the sherman's upper plate at its angle does give 87-90 mm of effective thickness geometrically but in reality due to loss of distribusion of kinetic energy to penetration on impact, a gun that can penetrate 100mm of armor at 0 degrees could be unable to penetrate the sherman's upper plate which has an effective thickness of 90mm (meaning that normalised for 0 degree angle the plate equals 90mm). It largely depends on the characteristics of the shell what the true effective thickness (which is almost always MORE than geometric effective thickness) is and the sherman might have 90mm geometrically but even against the best shells for angled armor its true effective thickness was 100mm and up and against shells that werent good angainst angles it would often be the equivelant of 120 or 140mm of protection (usually very fast, very hard small calibre projectiles like 57 or 75mm apcr). This however still isnt anywhere near enough to stop this round which would penetrate a sherman or t34 at over 3 kilometers (assuming one could even aim that far ). Keep in mind that different spots have different protection and can range massively. The flat turret face of the t34 is just 45 to 55mm thick effectively while the upper plate is more than 100mm againt many shells or at least 90mm against others. Same for the is2 where many areas are merely 100 or 120mm of unangled armor like the lower plate and turret face on its flat parts.

[@MrT67]

Little known fact. The Pak 43 could also be used as a jousting stick.

[@nattygsbord]

Flak 88mm was an amazing gun because it could be used in so many ways... as an anti-aircraft gun, as an anti-tank gun, as artillery. It was enormously over kill against tanks the early years of the war. Matilda, BT-7 and such stood no chance. So I think that Tiger I did perhaps have the best gun of all the German tanks. I guess its 88mm shells carried more explosives than the 75mm gun of the panther and the long 88mm gun of the King Tiger that needed shells that could handle the more violent forces that comes with a long gun barrel. And then you need a thicker metal skin on your rounds, and that means less room for explosives. And that would make both the King Tiger and Panther less effiecent in fighting against soft targets like infantry. And having a gun with an enormous muzzle velocity could also create the problem that a projectile simply just punch trough the frontal armor of an enemy tank and then punch a hole also on the back of the enemy tank and flies out on the other side without exploding inside the enemy tank and destroying it. So with the Tiger I gun would the risk of this happening be the lowest as its muzzle velocity was lower than that of the Panther 75mm/L70 gun and the 88mm/L71. The Tigers gun was the best for dealing with infantry and 90% of allied tanks. It also had a high rate of fire, good precision, much penetration, much explosive power, and was accurate and powerful at long ranges.

[@outofturn331]

Initial versions were L55 right.. probably not over powered

[@memonk11]

Another super and informative video. But it sounds as if the X-mount was superior. Why did they stop using it?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Took too long to produce.

[@rgbaal]

They didn't - once production ramped up they ceased production of the 43/41. You see the last of them on tank hunters. The reason for the carriage delay was just as the intended carriage got into production the production line was bombed. The parts used in this carriage were from items already in production so could be repurposed until the correct carriage production could be restored. Approx 1400 were made with production ceasing in first half 1944 when production of the x-carriages came back up to speed.

[@chrismair8161]

The Barrel was a Riegn-Mettal original. The Company built the 15' Guns for the Bismarck and the Tirpitz.

[@skimoney28]

Looks like there are aiming stakes on the gun carriage. I would expect that an antitank gun would be used in a direct fire role only. Could you consider making a video on the role of these guns in an indirect fire role using the aiming stakes?

[@sugarnads]

Didnt he say its the same carriage as an artillery piece?

[@ronschroeder9035]

There is one standing in front of the old town hall of Susteren, Dutch province of Limburg.

[@classifiedsnake3947]

Ive had an awesome chance to see a pak 43/41 and let me tell you, its massive

[@jacobbrada2140]

You mention the poor armor quality for the king tiger but not the is-2? The Russians had heat treating problems throughout the war.

[@cyanidetaco759]

The Video is based on german reports. As far as the germans would be concerned, simply penetrating the quality of the production is enough. They simply had more data on the tiger since they made it.

[@REgamesplayer]

Armor penetration does not work as directly. Like you mentioned, German armor quality. However, Soviets also had massive issues with quality control back then. A lot of their armor was poorly wielded and differed widely in quality between different factories. Soviet tank might resist such a shot, but it would essentially cause all the welds off from that shoddily made tank. Another thing is that when we are approaching theoretical maximums, these shots start to dig deep into armor, causing spalling, deformation of a hull and such weakening of an armor plate that any follow up shots from anti-tank guns become deadly. Not to mention that it can cause such an impact to the crew that it knocks them out or forces them out of the tank.

[@lucisferre6361]

I probably worked harder to sign in to drop a thanks to you than I worked to actually earn it!

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

😂

[@knoll9812]

Excellent logical narrative

[@reikomi]

Idk if this has already been pointed out, at 2:29 you said 179 instead of 197

[@---rz5th]

pakm on trailer is now in Fort Lee.

[@foobar9220]

Does anyone know what these red-white poles on the side of the gun are used for?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Measuring the location of the gun and stuff, important for artillery fire.

[@luisvillagra879]

Pak 43/41: literally the guy she tells you not to worry about

[@elbeto191291]

I guess we really don't take into account how huge these late-war AT guns are. And not just this one, the 17 pounder, the 90mm M3...

[@nerminerminerminermi]

All of them are small compared to the 12.8 pak

[@SonsOfLorgar]

​@@nerminerminerminermi which was practically useless and the materials wasted on developing and producing it would have been better used building StuGs and panzer schreks...😂

[@nerminerminerminermi]

@@SonsOfLorgar its not useless when it can destroy any tank at any distance

[@ldmitruk]

So what's with the red/white poles on the gun carriage? They remind me of surveying range poles so I wonder if they are used for a similar purpose.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Yes

[@czwarty7878]

​@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized how are they used in this case? (I don't even know how they're used in geodesy so excuse my ignorance) Can they be used for like comparing objects size in relation to it, or are they simply to mark ranged positions when setting up a firing lane in defensive position?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

@@czwarty7878 No idea, since I don't know how they are used generally.

[@kryts27]

Probably this channel have reviewed half-tracks. It was a feature military vehicle for the 1940s, and it was used by all sides (unsure if the Italians or Japanese had one). It was however, expensive and quite a bit of manpower to make. Post-WW2, few of these half-track vehicles were made for the military, for example, in NATO. I do note that in carrying a squad of soldiers, these vehicles are poorly protected for the crew.

[@Alan.livingston]

and now two guys can carry more firepower on their shoulders

[@Geronimo989]

Is the gun barrel itself interchangeable with ones on Nashorn and Jagdpanther, or are they different guns but with same dimensions/specs?

[@rgbaal]

Yes and no. To tell whether you are looking at a Pak43 or a Pak43/41 look at the breach. The /41 has a horizontal block (as you can see in this video) the Pak 43 was vertical. The Nashorn got both, the Jagdpanther only got 43 not 43/41. The barrel was the same for both items the breach was different because of the different mounts and the /41 got a different muzzle brake,

[@justmarc2015]

I thought the historian's natural habitat was an armchair.

[@PanzerdivisionWiking]

What color is the bovington example painted in?

[@nowaymannope]

there is one at carlisle barracks pennsylvania

[@Toreno17]

The Swiss 90mm Pak 58 that was supposed to be the main armament of the Panzer 58's is somewhat based off of this gun, Switzerland being given an example mounted on a Jagdpanther, along with a Panther, Stug III and Jagdpanzer 38(t) and this 90mm weapon was actually slightly superior to the British 20 pounder in penetration power (219mm vs 205mm at 1000m), though ultimately the British 20 pounder was chosen to be fitted instead.

[@bagobones9891]

I always wondered why no one thought to add small engine to there antitank guns to assist in slight positioning movements like a couple soviet cold war artillery guns

[@THX11458]

This is a good example why most nations dropped the towed ATG in favor of other anti-tank weapon systems in the post war era.

[@SonsOfLorgar]

That and development in shaped charge and understanding of venturi nossle recoil compensating principles, resulting in portable infantry assault guns like the 84mm Carl Gustaf m/48 recoilless grenade rifle.

[@chessnut4886]

2:20 one hundred seventy nine (197) mm range? It's easy for us Germans to get our numbers wrong.

[@armendfiqi]

What about pak 44 128mm?

[@clapper3530]

at 01:55 the mistakes start. Left one is the APCBC, right one APCR. Not left one APHE and right one APCBC

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Nope, you think of the PzGr 40/43 HK (Hartkern) this is for the PzGr 40/43 W (Weicheisen).

[@clapper3530]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized and solid APCBC without explosive filler? There wasnt such thing :D Not for germans and not particulary for 8,8cm guns

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

source?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Might have mixed something up, does not help that sometimes it is also APCBC-HE for PzGr 39.

[@501Mobius]

@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized TM 9-1985-3 German Explosive Ordinance 1953 pg 440

[@SonsOfLorgar]

I wonder why they didn't keep the 75mm projectile calibre while necking down the case for the long 88mm round in a barrel of the same mm length as the 88/L71 to save weight and materials in both gun and ammo production lines.

[@Kuschel_K]

They already had the high velocity 75mm that the Panther used. The PaK 43 is just overkill as AT gun but had some success on the Nashorn for being able to fire at targets at long range and retreat.

[@michaelguerin56]

In regard to guns needing rezeroing, the recent WW2 history of the Sherwood Rangers mentions that the main gun zero on a Sherman tank should be verified after each day of combat or travel.

[@jmi5969]

the disclaimer about falling armour quaity raises a question: what kind of armour did the Germans use a reference for penetration tests? How did this reference compare to actual armour plates of their adversaries?

[@501Mobius]

The German test armor averaged 275 BHN. But thicker plates averaged less. For example German 140mm test armor=246.5 BHN. In comparison US test data came from tests on average 240 BHN. Their tests also differed in penetration percentage factor.

[@tenarmurk]

3:46 isnt it the nashorn ? i thought the hornisse was an spg

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Nashorn and Hornisse are the same vehicle different name. The Hummel sp artillery is what you think and it was identical besides the gun.

[@rare_kumiko]

So as I understand, the issues with the PaK 43 were inherent to big anti-tank guns? That is, anti-tank guns were starting to become obsolete? Because I remember that even the PaK 40 was considered too large, and that was about the minimum sized needed to engage common late-war medium tanks.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

yes and no, it could have worked "good enough" I guess, if there would have been less artillery superiority for the Soviets, etc. At least this is my interpretation from the limited reports I have seen so far.

[@X1mtheDespot]

Where do the figures on heavy tank effective armor come from?

[@bajonettm2122]

Make a video abou the pak44, please!

[@vankronau4187]

I remember hearing about a battle in northafrica where rommel used antitank weapons offensively and to great effect. Can you corroborate and would this the change your rather bleak assessment of their effectiveness?

[@arthurneddysmith]

2:42 This is confusing. You say the Jumbo's armour is 102mm, the screen says 139mm, but then you say it's only vulnerable from 1,000m or less but both weapons clearly can penetrate 139mm at 2,000m.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Screen is effective armor that accounts for the angle

[@CalgarGTX]

200mm effective frontal for IS-2 mod44 ? That seems highly optimistic I'd give it at most 175-180mm if I was driving one and betting my chances.. yes thats very solid against most WW2 guns... but not a pak43. Ofc depends the exact part that gets hit since it has a weird profile, with the upper left and right corners being rounded towards the side armor, yeah that would deflect most things, but the center frontal area where the driver is, no way. The turret is also either an autopen or an autobounce on the frontal arc for a pak43. The pen figures for the guns are already reported for 30° off the vertical so overall an IS-2 is swiss cheese for a pak43 standard ammo until 1km and 1.5km for the turret, that's what really scary about the long 88s.

[@scottperry7311]

I doubt a crew of 11 could even budge if trying to traverse it to a new firing angle. Its about 9 tons, at least three or four times heavier than a regular car. Field positions are not even and flat firing platforms, so the slightest bump, rock, or obstacle in the wheels path to create a major hinderance in moving the gun by hand. Also with that weight on only two wheels, the wheels probably sink into or dig into the ground, especially wet ground and make movement even more difficult. That means any movement would have to be done with vehicles, maybe horses if available for small movements.

[@livincincy4498]

This is one of those how did it get off the drawing board ? I have often thought people were working in clandestine operations to waist resources. Seems like a 75 or Tiger 88 towed by a 38t would be better. The 38t could shoot at infantry only and carry the crew on top. Other 38t’s could haul trailers with ammo.

[@rgbaal]

By 1944 the front line commanders were demanding more than a 75 could deliver.

[@ZeroToMidnight]

I spit out my drink at 12:08 😂

[@looinrims]

Could you make a video on historical mine warfare? Seems a bit relevant now adays…

[@ashcarrier6606]

The Wehrmacht "lessons learned" feedback is very detailed. One gets the sense they knew then that towed anti-tank guns days were numbered. Which makes it all the more strange that the Soviets stuck with towed AT throughout the Cold War. Stranger still that those AT guns are appearing in Ukraine, albeit obviously for indirect fire and because ammunition is available.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Soviets use nearly all there guns as general purpose guns. It is a different philosophy, see my Su 76 video.

[@REgamesplayer]

Towed guns are used up to this day. They weren't outdated then and they are not outdated now. Though, it is towed artillery mostly, but there are towed anti tank cannons in production up to this day too.

[@ashcarrier6606]

@@REgamesplayer Indirect howitzers are not obsolete, but direct fire guns are.

[@REgamesplayer]

@@ashcarrier6606 Modern direct fire guns are still being produced and used up to this day. Obsolete implies that it is no longer in use, though I do agree that it is no longer practical to use such guns.

[@knoll9812]

Much cheaper and much more reliable than self propelled. Probably can afford four to one. Towing vehicles much improved. Wonder why they don't employ design based on agricultural. Tractors can hitch up heavy equipment and move off without driver leaving the cab.

[@KManXPressTheU]

And why was the Two Wheeled mount called the 'Barn Door'🤔🤔🤔🤔 Take A look.

[@ricksadler797]

Hetzer or stug III ,,,, wich one was better???

[@jasskeeper8152]

Hi can you made video about kwk 42?

[@huwhitecavebeast1972]

I so do enjoy hearing German spoken.

[@gamereditor59ner22]

3:52 : 15km!!! Dang!!!

[@GTjaxson]

I think he said 15km

[@gamereditor59ner22]

@@GTjaxson My bad.

[@karoltakisobie6638]

Didn't Soviets introduce similarly sized AT gun after war? I think it was in 85 mm but I can be wrong.

[@heimdalshorn]

Soviets turned in the 1960s to a 100mm smooth-bore gun in the thousands and later adopted even a 125mm smooth-bore gun. Both towed by an ATV...

[@SonsOfLorgar]

And some of them still in active use....🤦🏼‍♂️

[@Schwarzvogel1]

@@SonsOfLorgar Any AT is better than none, right? In fact, towed AT guns still potentially have use on a modern battlefield provided the following conditions hold true: 1. Your opponent lacks anything resembling a modern air force--or if he did have one, it's mostly scrap metal distributed over the countryside now. 2. Your opponent's technological capabilities are not much better than yours. Maybe both of you are still running Gen 1 NODs and both your and their troops are still equipped with 1950s vintage kit. 3. You don't care that much about your troops' lives. Generally, I could see towed AT guns being used to decent effect in fights between equally impoverished and underdeveloped nations, or by desperate guerrilla fighters who raided their nation's museums and old arsenals to find something more effective than AKs and Molotovs to use against the armoured forces of a larger and better-equipped invader. The third possibility is in a "broken-backed war"--a conflict, possibly nuclear in nature, which leaves both belligerents so devastated but still unwilling to surrender or agree to a ceasefire that their remaining troops in the field are virtually reduced to fighting with sticks and stones, as Einstein warned us would be the case in a Fourth World War. In such a nightmarish scenario, one will almost certainly see obsolete, low-tech weapon systems returning to the field as the armies of both reeling sides grasp for anything they can use to continue the killing at the behest of wealthy old sociopaths who decided to burn civilisation to ashes just to satisfy their own egos and pride. Nobody backed down, and all bluffs were called because nobody wanted to "lose face," and millions, if not billions paid the price for these rich bastards' moral failings. I hope and pray that nobody alive today will ever see such a conflict, because it represents a depth of madness and barbarism that should have been firmly consigned to the dustbin of history by the end of 1945.

[@ww2planes_810]

2:28 I believe you mispoke and said 179mm of penetration

[@off6848]

Do one about the pak 44 beast