Talk:8.8 cm Pak 43

8,8cm-PaK 43/41

Untitled

I don't know why this was removed. I agree I did not cite it correctly but several authoritative sources have this information.

As part of the design effort from Krupp to compete with the Flak 41, a barrel had been produced to prove the ballistics and design. This barrel design was developed, via an intermediate design known as the Garat 42, to become the barrel used with Pak 43 design. When the Pak 43 was delayed,

Krupp was asked to produce a weapon using this barrel using as many existing components as possible. This previous barrel design was then designated the Pak 41.

The Pak 41 barrel was fitted with a horizontal sliding-block breech mechanism resembling that of the 7.5 cm PAK 40, and the semi-automatic gear was a simplified version of that used on the Pak 43. The two-wheel split-trail carriage was from the 10.5 cm leFH 18 field howitzer, with the wheels from the 15 cm s FH howitzer. The PAK 41 was ballistically identical to the Pak 43 and fired the same ammunition, hence its performance was identical. Sources are unclear as to whether the Pak 41 and the Pak 43 barrels were identical; either way it is responsible for the Pak 43/41 designation for the whole design.

When I can get to my source material I will cite it correctly and put it back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbaal (talk • contribs) 20:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I've googled something about that here: http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Waffen/panzerabwehrkanonen-R.htm it gives also some literature sources, maybe this helps you, even though it doesn't say which info stems from which book. -- 79.194.235.102 (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

No One is Ever Perfect

Again, as in other cases in Wikipedia, the provision of alleged "accuracy" tables is fraught with peril; I do not see what benefit the provide to the average user, who is looking for general information on the weapons system, and they are misleading in the extreme.

In this case, they are worse than misleading, they flat out wrong.

There are no primary sources asserting that any operational combat unit for any nation achieved a 100% success rate, ever. It is an impossibility. As to the usual secondary source—Jentz—there are no "perfectly calm" gunners in combat. Beyond that, "hitting" a "target area" and actually damaging or destroying an enemy AFV are very different accomplishments.

My preference is for the data to be removed. It seems, however, that the inclusion of "accuracy" information is a point of great personal import to others. So I suggest doing as has been done elsewhere on Wikipedia, and using something like "Test Bed" and "Firing Range" for the data.

Ranya (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Pak 41

The Pak 41 was a 7,5cm L/55 (7,5cm/57-Calibre) A/T Gun employing the Squeeze Bore principle, firing the 75mm×543R ammunition, not an 8,8cm relative of the various Flak 41 and Flak 42 competitors.

Unless and until the history of the Flak 41 chassis mated to the Pak 43 rifle can be sorted out properly, the description of the Pak 43/41 must be set aside. As it exists now, it is counter-factual.

The elements are all here, it is simply that the issue was not properly understood, and the solution was put end-around.

Ranya (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)