Practical application of super light anti tank guns

[Ming]

Towards the end of the Second World War the Germans deployed an infantry artillery piece firing shaped charges meant to replace heavy anti tank guns.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600

The gun used an innovative method to propel the shell that drastically reduced weight and the required propellant. It simplified armament manufacturing and army logistics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High–low_system

The penetration characteristics exceeded the heavy tank guns of the day at ranges that were far superior to the handheld infantry weapons like the panzerschreck, bazooka, or piat.


While a seemingly small advance in the overall scheme of things, My question is whether this system could have changed the relationship between armored attackers and defending infantry if it had been fielded en masse at a time when the German army wasn't a crumbling disaster.

Certainly it is no war winner but highly mobile, cheaply produced, easily supported potent anti armor weapons were something very useful to the Wehrmacht as it struggled to resis its highly mobile enemies in the late war. There were plans to make more types of shells and warheads, as well as mount the guns on vehicles but these never came to fruition.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

This is exactly the kind of practical stuff the German army directly needed instead of flying saucers.

 

[Ming]

Well, what if Messerschmitt put a couple of them on a flying saucer?

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Well, what if Messerschmitt put a couple of them on a flying saucer?

Impressive of course but first you need these kind of guns at the frontline and in mass production.

The Fledermaus design of course beggs for these kind of guns in quin quadruple mounts.

 

[Kovax]

Wasn't the PAW 600 just a larger and purpose-designed version of what Germany was already doing to boost the effectiveness of its obsolete light AT guns? Basically, they had developed shaped charge projectiles that fitted over the ends of 37mm ATG barrels, which were far more lethal than the standard rounds for the "door knocker". Not a "war winner" by any means, but it got some extra mileage out of the old guns. Since it wasn't designed to fire conventional shells at all, the PAW 600 could be build a lot thinner and lighter than the old guns, requiring a lot less, if any, of the specialty metals needed in conventional gun barrels, and in such short supply at the time. With the larger diameter barrel, the large warheads could fit down the barrel and fire in a conventional-looking configuration, rather than sit on the end of it.

 

[DoomBunny]

That isn't super light, the thing weighs half a ton. Not much for a late war anti-tank gun, but still a considerable weight.

As far as the thing goes though, I'd have thought the application was fairly obvious. Hollow charges are great for turning otherwise ineffective weapons into armour killers, no reason this thing wouldn't have been a great addition to German forces. The only slight issue I can foresee is the limited AT range at under 1km, but even here it's not a massive issue, the weapon can simply be concealed until the enemy is that close (moreover, the chances of effective anti-AT gun fire by armour at that range are minimal).

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Did the big recoilless rifles that largely replaced conventional ATG's in post war years (e.g. M40 and B-11) cause any particular shift in tactical thinking? I certainly get the feeling it wasn't anywhere as significant as handheld variants (and RPGs) and ATGMs.

PAW is definitely showing they way foward regardless as the protection of tanks was starting to outpace the ability of reasonably light conventional ATGs to deal with.

 

[keynes2.0]

I think this is techwank. Compare it to a 77mm Vickers HV. Did the British get rid of all their 17 pounders and 6 pounders in favor of those?

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

I think this is techwank. Compare it to a 77mm Vickers HV. Did the British get rid of all their 17 pounders and 6 pounders in favor of those?

Not 77mm, but they did eventually ditch them in favour of wombats and such critters: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_mm_BAT_recoilless_rifle

 

[Meanmanturbo]

The Swedish IKV 91 light tank/tank destroyer from the 70:s used that kind of low pressure gun firing HEAT . IKV is actually the designation for infantry support vehicles so it basically had the same role as the Stugs, and was art of the infantry brigades. I would say that the concept was sound.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanterikanonvagn_91

 

[keynes2.0]

Not 77mm, but they did eventually ditch them in favour of wombats and such critters: (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/120_mm_BAT_recoilless_rifle

Okay but the 77mm HV could have been in service as an infantry AT gun in '44. It couldn't have been everywhere but they certainly could have replaced some guns on the way to Normandy if they saw the need. Instead they opted for 6 and 17 pounders. To me that indicates they didn't see the need for a light gun more powerful then the 6 pounder or a strong gun lighter then the 17 pounder.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Okay but the 77mm HV could have been in service as an infantry AT gun in '44. It couldn't have been everywhere but they certainly could have replaced some guns on the way to Normandy if they saw the need. Instead they opted for 6 and 17 pounders. To me that indicates they didn't see the need for a light gun more powerful then the 6 pounder or a strong gun lighter then the 17 pounder.

They couldn't be everywhere, so they were assigned to airborne units. I don't have a TO&E for the Brits in Normandy; but I can provide evidence of the US deploying them to the 17th Airborne as a primary AT weapon before being engaged in the Ardennes. The 75mm Recoilless Rifles were assigned to the anti-aircraft units, were mounted on a Browning .50 Caliber MG tripod, and hurt very badly when they hit.

But nothing beats the French deploying a 75mm Recoilless Rifle on a Vespa. I love this thing, and wanted one as a kid riding my bike around in traffic.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Okay but the 77mm HV could have been in service as an infantry AT gun in '44. It couldn't have been everywhere but they certainly could have replaced some guns on the way to Normandy if they saw the need. Instead they opted for 6 and 17 pounders. To me that indicates they didn't see the need for a light gun more powerful then the 6 pounder or a strong gun lighter then the 17 pounder.

I'm not entirely sure what piece you have in mind but if it's an ATG version of the tank gun then it's easy to see why they didn't want it. It would have been a unsatisfactory compromise too heavy for infantry and less powerful than the existing gun of Royal Artillery.

 

[keynes2.0]

It would have been a unsatisfactory compromise too heavy for infantry and less powerful than the existing gun of Royal Artillery.

Dude, it WAS the existing gun of the royal artillery, just lighter.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Dude, it WAS the existing gun of the royal artillery, just lighter.

Comet's 77mm? As far as I can gather, it had different ammo, different (weaker) ballistics and different breech design to 17pdr. Weight wise seems to have been somewhat heavier than US 76mm tank guns, and significantly heavier than 6pdr (6pdr Mark V tank gun was 728 pounds total weight, 77mm supposedly 1500, 76mm M1A2 1293). Certainly not a light gun ideally suited for infantry battalions.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

Comet's 77mm? As far as I can gather, it had different ammo, different (weaker) ballistics and different breech design to 17pdr. Weight wise seems to have been somewhat heavier than US 76mm tank guns, and significantly heavier than 6pdr (6pdr Mark V tank gun was 728 pounds total weight, 77mm supposedly 1500, 76mm M1A2 1293). Certainly not a light gun ideally suited for infantry battalions.

Yes. It is an armor variant, not an infantry variant.

The 77mm High Velocity gun is a modified 17-pounder. It still fires the same 76.2mm round as a 17 pounder, but the barrel is shortened and the breech and the carriage are specifically modified to maximize space and minimize the recoil inside a turret, notably the Comet's. It's performance against armor is specifically based on the fact sabot rounds are more effective when fired from the HV rather than the standard 17-pounder.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Yes. It is an armor variant, not an infantry variant.

Of course. All the three I gave wights for were tank guns. Inferring from other period ATGs an anti-tank gun version with carriage would have weighted 2-3 times as much, and been far too heavy (1.5-2 metric tons) to easily manhandle. Nothing like the PAW and hence I find it strange example for Keynes to have pulled up.

The 77mm High Velocity gun is a modified 17-pounder. It still fires the same 76.2mm round as a 17 pounder, but the barrel is shortened and the breech and the carriage are specifically modified to maximize space and minimize the recoil inside a turret, notably the Comet's.

The projectile might have been the same, but the cartridge case seems to have been different. Different powder charge I suppose. Anyway this aspect of discussion is quite irrelevant as it doesn't matter to the point if I said "less powerful gun" or "less powerful variant of the same gun".

It's performance against armor is specifically based on the fact sabot rounds are more effective when fired from the HV rather than the standard 17-pounder.

Everwhere I look I see less MV and penetration for 77mm. Perhaps it did not suffer as much from those early accuracy problems with sabot? Nevertheless 17pdr was the weapon of choice for Centurion, suggesting it was preferable if weight and size were not such big issues.

 

[keynes2.0]

Look, instead of getting lost in the weeds of 17 pounder vs. 77mm HV, can we just notice the obvious? The 77mm HV had unambigiously superior in firepower AND lighter then 6 pounder. However the UK continued to make 6 pounders. In the same vein, the US also had the 76mm gun, which was also a lighter more powerful gun then the 6 pounder but the US also continued to make 6 pounders.

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Look, instead of getting lost in the weeds of 17 pounder vs. 77mm HV, can we just notice the obvious? The 77mm HV had unambigiously superior in firepower AND lighter then 6 pounder. However the UK continued to make 6 pounders. In the same vein, the US also had the 76mm gun, which was also a lighter more powerful gun then the 6 pounder but the US also continued to make 6 pounders.

See weights above, 6pdr is the lightest by significant margin. Literally half as much as 77mm. The 76mm too is much heavier. Are you comparing tank gun weights (gun + breech + possibly muzzle break) to ATG weights with carriage?

The 17 pounder tank gun weighted about metric ton for example, the anti-tank gun 3 tons.

 

[keynes2.0]

Are you comparing tank gun weights (gun + breech + possibly muzzle break) to ATG weights with carriage?

Seems so. It's strange that the barrel would be such a small fraction of the overall weight.