Tank Guns of the Panzerwaffe


Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1975-102-14A,_Panzer_VI_(Tiger_II,_Königstiger)

Stunning successes in Poland and France earned the German Wehrmacht a reputation as a modern mechanized juggernaut which employed its armored forces, air power, and artillery in an invincible combination to enable the Blitzkrieg that crushed the armies of two continental powers in shockingly savage and brief campaigns.  While that reputation was well-earned, especially after the victory in France in 1940, the reality was somewhat more pedestrian.  The highly mobile mechanized forces of the Wehrmacht in 1939-40 represented but a small portion of the German Army, perhaps 10% of the combat forces, and were never more than a minority of the combat forces at hand.

Horse-drawn 10.5cm LFH 18/40 in France, 1940

Infantry column with horse-drawn wagon, Lithuania

Horse-drawn 10.5cm LFH 18/40 in France, 1940

Horse-drawn 10.5cm LFH 18/40 in France, 1940

Additionally, in the summer of 1939, Germany’s Panzerwaffe was coming off of a lackluster performance in Spain, and two harrowing, if uncontested, road marches, into Austria in 1938 and into Czechoslovakia in March of 1939, when each time the mechanized columns were plagued by mechanical breakdowns, engine trouble, and fuel resupply issues.

German Panzers in Prague, March 1939

German Panzers in Prague, March 1939

However, the Wehrmacht proved itself to be an impressive learning organization, and rapidly sought to solve the doctrinal and technical problems identified in Spain and Austria and Czechoslovakia in order to make the Panzerwaffe the decisive instrument of maneuver warfare that visionary men such as Heinz Guderian knew it could be.  Nowhere is that learning more evident than in the development of the tank guns of the Panzerwaffe.  In this post I will track their development from the small-caliber machine-cannon to the famously lethal instruments whose descendants remain in the world’s arsenals  today.

A couple of notes on terminology.   German is not the easiest of languages to grasp for the uninitiated, and the propensity for long compound words can make figuring out the abbreviations and acronyms a bit of a headache.  So let me present a short glossary of terms for easier comprehension.  There are other translations of many of these words, but for the purposes of military terminology, these are the most common accepted meanings.

  • Panzerkampfwagen- “Armored battle vehicle”, or tank.  Abbreviation Pzkw.  For simplicity, rather than noting the Panzerkampfwagen Model III, many will use the abbreviation as Pzkw III, and that will be the method used here.
  • Ausführung- “Version”.   Abbreviated Ausf.  Denotes a subtype of a particular model.  The Pzkw IV Ausf E differed substantively from Ausf H, even though both emanated from the same basic design.
  •  Fliegerabwehrkanone-  “Anti-aircraft cannon”.  Abbreviated FlaK.  Which, of course is the name allied airmen gave to all anti-aircraft fire.
  •  Panzerabwehrkanone- “Anti-tank cannon”.  Abbreviated PaK.  Often either progenitor or derivative of the tank gun of the same caliber and length, with which there was some shared nomenclature.
  •  Kampfwagenkanone- “Battle vehicle cannon”.  Abbreviated KwK.  The tank’s gun, usually the main gun.
  •  Panzergranate- “Armor grenade”, describing the projectile itself.  Abbreviated PzGr.  Two projectiles, PzGr 39 and PzGr 40, were developed for a variety of calibers, and while there were further developments in projectile technology, those two variants would remain the vast bulk of ammunition in use.  (The PzGr 40 was a tungsten-core projectile, which was generally lighter in all calibers than the concomitant PzGr 39.  These tungsten-core projectiles had different ballistic coefficients, resulting in significantly better penetration capabilities at longer effective ranges in the larger calibers.)
     “Caliber” as a measure of tube length.   Cannon tube lengths are measured proportionate to the opening at the muzzle.   A 7.5cm cannon (75mm wide at the muzzle) that is 43 calibers long has a tube length of 3225mm (75mmx43), or 322.5cm.   The longer the tube length, the higher the muzzle velocity, and generally, the greater the penetration capability of the gun.   Tube length was designated by the letter “L” followed by a slash and a number.   That number represents the number of calibers of length.  The above 7.5cm cannon of 43 calibers would be designated “7.5cm L/43”.

The initial efforts of the Reichswehr in tank development had to take place in secret, as tanks were forbidden Germany by the Versailles Treaty.  The first such tank was the Panzerkampfwagen I, or Pzkw I, development of which began in 1932, production beginning in 1934.  The Pzkw I was a very light tank of only six tons, with thin armor and a pair of 7.92mm MG-13 machine guns in a small turret.

Pzkw I with 2x 7.9mm MG 13

Pzkw I with 2x 7.9mm MG 13

The design was largely built as a training vehicle that could be employed while more suitable designs were developed.  Lightly armored and without a tank gun, the Pzkw I ran afoul of Soviet 45mm tank guns in Spain, and was thoroughly obsolete by 1939, though many remained in service in the first years of the war.   (The design did provide training opportunity and design/manufacturing experience which would pay off in later and more capable tanks, assault guns, and self-propelled artillery platforms as the war progressed.)

Pzkw II with 2cm KwK 30

Pzkw II with 2cm KwK 30

The Pzkw II, incorporating the design lessons of the Pzkw I, was a larger light tank design.  It was the first to mount a true cannon, the Rheinmettal-Borsig manufactured 2cm KwK 30 L/55.  The KwK 30 fired a 120-gram (4.11oz) PzGr 39 projectile which could penetrate 20mm (0.77 inch) of armor at 100 meters, and 14mm (.55in) of armor at 500 meters.  The PzGr 40, a 100 gram tungsten core projectile, could penetrate 49mm and 20mm at 100 and 500 meters, respectively.   Not surprisingly, this performance was found to be inadequate when the Condor Legion faced Soviet-built T-26 and BT tanks, whose 45mm guns could penetrate the Pzkw II’s thin armor well past effective ranges of the 2cm KwK 30.  Later versions of the Pzkw II, beginning with Ausf J, mounted the slightly improved 2cm KwK 38 L/55.

Pzkw II with 3.7cm KwK 36

Pzkw III Ausf A mounting the 3.7cm KwK 36 L/46.5

3.7cm round on left, 3x 2cm rounds to right.

3.7cm round on left, 3x 2cm rounds to right.

The harsh lessons from the Spanish Civil War were incorporated into the designs of the next two Wehrmacht tanks, the Pzkw III and IV.  The Pzkw III was designed to engage enemy armor, and initial variants (Ausf A through F) mounted the then-lethal 3.7cm KwK 36 L/46.5 cannon.  The KwK 36 L/46.5 was a tank-mounted version of the successful 3.7cm PaK 36 L/46.5, and could defeat the front and side armor of the Soviet BT and T-26 tanks at 1,500 meters.   Despite the smaller caliber, the 3.7cm KwK 36 was superior to the Soviet 45mm cannon in both armor penetration and range.   The 1939 Polish campaign revealed no shortcomings with the 3.7cm gun, as Poland possessed few modern tanks, and none with armor protection that could withstand the KwK 36.

Pzkw III with 5cm L/60

Pzkw III with 5cm L/60

In France, however, the 3.7cm KwK 36 proved unable to penetrate the much heavier armor of the British Matilda I and the French S-35 and Char B1 tanks.  Worse was to come.  In North Africa, both the Matilda and Valentine proved difficult opponents.  In Russia, the 3.7cm KwK 36 was all but worthless against the T-34 and KV tanks in the Red arsenal.   An upgrade of the tank main gun was already being developed beginning with Ausf F, that being the 5cm KwK 38 L/42, which was a substantial improvement over the 3.7cm KwK 36.  However, it was clear after the first weeks in Russia that the penetration performance of the L/42 was already marginal, and production of the more lethal 5cm KwK 39 L/60-equipped Pzkw IIIs (Ausf J1 and later) soon replaced the L/42-armed vehicles.   The L/42-equipped Pzkw IIIs were re-gunned with the newer L/60.  The “long-barrel” Pzkw IIIs were capable of defeating all but the heaviest Soviet armor at ranges up to 1,000 meters, and with the PzGr 40, could penetrate the Soviet T-34/76 and KV-1 at 500 meters.

Pzkw IV with 7.5cm KwK 37 L/24 Main Gun

Pzkw IV with 7.5cm KwK 37 L/24 Main Gun

The parallel design of the late 1930s to the Pzkw III was the Pzkw IV medium tank.   Much like the American M4 Sherman, the Pzkw IV was conceived as an infantry support tank, and initial variants mounted the short-barreled low-velocity 7.5cm KwK 37 L/24.  As the role of the medium tank as an infantry support vehicle was proven less important than that of tank vs. tank combat (assault guns were at least as effective in such an infantry support role), the otherwise excellent Pzkw IV was in desperate need of a tank-killing gun.

Pzkw IV with 7.5cm L/43 and ball muzzle brake

Pzkw IV with 7.5cm L/43 and ball muzzle brake

Pzkw IV Aus H with 7.5cm L/48

Pzkw IV Ausf H with 7.5cm L/48

Beginning with Ausf “F2” (later called Ausf G), the Pzkw IV began to receive a much more lethal main gun.  The 7.5cm KwK 40 L/43 was a considerable improvement over anything in the Wehrmacht arsenal, a tank derivative of the very successful 7.5cm PaK 40.  With the larger propelling charge and higher velocity, recoil became a significant issue.  Originally, the KwK 40 was fitted with a ball muzzle brake, before being mated with a double-baffle design.   Barrel length was increased on the KwK 40 to a 48-caliber tube, improving penetration capability slightly at all ranges.   The 7.5cm KwK40 L/43 and L/48 were the most widely employed German tank guns of the war, and proved more than a match for the American Sherman, the British Churchill, and the Soviet T-34/76 and /85 at combat ranges.   With upgraded armor, and the long-barreled 7.5cm gun, the Pzkw IV remained a potent tank killer until the end of the war.  (Ironically, the last action of the Pzkw IV was in the 1967 Six Day War, when employed by the Syrians against Israeli M50 Shermans armed with a copy of the 7. 5cm KwK42L/70!)

Pzkw V Panther Ausf G1 mounting 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70

Pzkw V Panther Ausf G1 mounting 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70

Contrary to its legendary reputation, the most lethal German tank gun for most of the war was not the Pzkw VI Tiger’s vaunted “88” (more on that in a bit), but rather the 7.5cm KwK 42 L/70 of the Pzkw V Panther.  Designed to defeat anything on the battlefield, the Panther’s gun fired the PzGr 40/42 projectile at almost 3,700 feet per second, which was capable of penetrating the heaviest armor in the Allied inventory at ranges exceeding 2,000 meters. This included the American M-26 Pershing, the British Centurion, and the Soviet JS-2 heavy tanks.    The deadly L/70 would also be produced as a towed anti-tank gun, the 7.5cm PaK 42.  (One major difference between the KwK and the PaK versions is that the Panther’s KwK was electrically fired.)  The KwK 42 was such an advanced design that the French adapted it as the main gun of the AMX-13, which remained in production until the late 1980s and can be found in a number of the world’s arsenals even today.   It was the KwK 42/AMX-13 derived 75mm cannon that equipped many of Israel’s M-50 Super Shermans.

Pzkw VI Tiger Ausf E with 8.8cm L/56

Pzkw VI Tiger Ausf E with 8.8cm L/56

8.8cm FlaK 18/36 in anti-tank role

8.8cm FlaK 18/36 in anti-tank role

The development in 1941-42 of the legendary Pzkw VI Tiger gave the Wehrmacht a combat vehicle that mounted the vaunted 8.8cm gun, a adaptation of the 8.8cm Fliegerabwehrkanone (FlaK) 18/36 L/56 that had proven so deadly in the anti-tank role in North Africa and Russia.  Production began in August, 1942.  The massive Henschel-designed 56-ton Pzkw VI Tiger was protected by armor up to 120mm thick, and on the front hull and glacis was proof against anything except close-range (500m) shots by all but the most powerful Allied tank and anti-tank cannon.  The Tiger was expensive and complex, but a fearsome tank killer, operating in “heavy tank detachments” (Schwere Panzerabteilung) on both the Eastern and Western Fronts.  Tales of handfuls of Tigers decimating entire battalions of Soviet tanks with long range shots from the KwK 36 L/56 are legion, and the machine was much feared by Soviet, American, and British crews.

Pzkw VI Ausf B with massive KwK 43 L/71 cannon

Pzkw VI Ausf B with massive 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 cannon

Beginning in January of 1944, improvements to the design of the Tiger began.  These included thicker, sloping armor, wider tracks, and the mounting of the massive 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 cannon (A tank cannon version of the PaK 43 L/71).  Production was halted on the earlier Henschel version of the Tiger (Ausfuhrung E), in the spring of 1944 in favor of the improved Ausfuhrung B Königstiger (often called “Tiger II”).   At seventy tons, it was the heaviest operational tank of the war.   Production was severely interrupted by the Allied air campaign over Germany, and fewer than 500 were built before the end of the war.  But while it was in service, as a tank-killer it had no equal.  The Königstiger‘s cannon could penetrate an astounding 152mm of armor plate at a 30 degree angle at a range of 2,000 meters.   In fact, the L/71 was capable of penetrating the frontal armor of every Allied tank in service at ranges of 2,500 meters or more, well beyond the ability of any Allied tank to successfully engage a Königstiger.

The Königstiger and its 8.8cm KwK 43 L/71 represented the last word in German tank design during World War II.  A number of other experimental projects, including super-heavy tanks (E-100) mounting gargantuan 12.8cm cannon, had been in various stages of development, but none ever saw action.  (The Jagdtiger, a Königstiger chassis mounting a 12.8 cm PaK 44 L/55 in a non-rotating armored casemate, saw limited service in the last year of the war.)

From L to R:  3.7cm L/46, 5cm PzGr 40 L/42, 5cm L/60, 7.5cm L/24, 7.5cm L/43-L/48, 7.5cm L/70, 8.8cm L/56, 8.8cm L/71

From L to R:
3.7cm L/46, 5cm PzGr 40 L/42, 5cm L/60, 7.5cm L/24, 7.5cm L/43-L/48, 7.5cm L/70, 8.8cm L/56, 8.8cm L/71

The history of tank gun design in the Third Reich is a fascinating one.  The Wehrmacht found itself well behind in the field of tank main gun design, being outclassed in 1937-38 by Russian and British designs, but by 1943 had more than closed the gap, producing the most lethal and accurate tank killers on the battlefield.  Adding to the lethality of the guns and ammunition themselves was the superb quality of German optics.  The Leitz sights (Turmzielfernrohr 9 and Turmzielfernrohr 12-series) had wider fields of view than allied counterparts, and contained reticle patterns which aided greatly in range estimation.   The level of magnification was generally higher, and lens quality markedly superior to American, British, and Soviet manufacture.

Pzkw V Panthers in French service, 1947

Pzkw V Panthers in French service, 1947

By any standard, to move in just half a decade from a position of marked inferiority to near complete dominance in the design of tank armament is an impressive accomplishment.   And that accomplishment is indicative of the German willingness to identify and absorb tactical and technical lessons from the battlefield in the development of newer, more effective weapons and equipment.  The legacy of those weapons, and some of the weapons themselves, can still be found on battlefields and in military equipment inventories seventy years after the war.

About these ads

13 Comments

Filed under ARMY TRAINING

13 responses to “Tank Guns of the Panzerwaffe

  1. … willingness to identify and absorb tactical and technical lessons from the battlefield in the development of newer, more effective weapons and equipment.

    More on this topic later.

    Like

  2. scottthebadger

    The Maus was to have a KWK 40 as a coaxial mount to the 12.8cm main gun.

    Like

  3. If Hitler had not insisted on being an amateur Field Marshall and allowed the Wehrmacht to fight the war, I feel confident Hitler could have staged an old fashioned Roman Triumph parading Stalin in chains. The Army certainly acquired the means to fight the war very quickly.

    I learned back in the 60s that the Wehrmacht had used a lot of horse drawn transport and I was shocked when I learned it. It still is incongruous to me that such was the case. I would have been building trucks out the wazoo instead of wasting time a resources on monsters like the Maus.

    Like

    • ultimaratioregis

      The wheeled transport the Germans did build was rear-wheel drive only, to boot. Most of the Wehrmacht motorized transport was not destroyed by enemy fire, but either suffered mechanical breakdown or became stuck fast in the mud in Russia and had to be abandoned or destroyed to prevent capture. I once attended a lecture at Camp Lejeune where a historian made the case that the instrument that won the war in Europe was the 6×6 five-ton truck. He had a great argument.

      Like

    • QM, horse drawn transport was a deliberate plan of the German General Staff. They wanted 90% of the land forces to depend on horses.

      The reason was the forseen inability of the Kriegsmarine to clear the high sea for oil imports. Available oil and synthetic oil resources were reserved for the Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, and armored units of the Wehrmacht, SS, and Luftwaffe.

      Oil was the limiting resource of Nazi Germany, and every effort was made to reduce the need. If some strategic mobility was lost, oh well. Needs must when the devil drives.

      Like

    • Paul L. Quandt

      URR:

      I would change that to include the 6×6 2.5 ton truck.

      Paul

      Like

    • ultimaratioregis

      He mentioned that and the 4×4 Dodge, too. But you get the idea.

      Like

    • scottthebadger

      I quite agree with the CCKW 2 1/2 ton assessment. Even on the Russian Front. Could the Red Army have done what they did without the 500,000 Studebaker 2 1/2 ton 6X6 trucks we sent them? I doubt it very much.

      Like

    • scottthebadger

      On hard surface roads, the CCKW WAS a five ton truck.

      Like

    • Salty, I’m aware of that, but it still does not add up. Such an intention is basically saying you’re willing to lose before you even start. If you can make a case for the General Staff not expecting “drang nach osten” then maybe it adds up. Given what I know about the German General Staff, I doubt that they did not make such an allowance and plan for it.

      URR, I think a very good argument can be made that AWD transport was a war winning tool. The logistical load across the distances the war was fought, particularly on the eastern front would have been impossible to carry without such transport. With a little foresight in that regard, the Wehrmacht could have reached the Caspian and cut off the Soviets from their oil resources in Caucasus and probably taking the Soviets out of the war.

      I do like “what if” discussions. When I lived in Germany I became proficient in German and I got to meet a number of German war vets, several of them officers. The former SS types were the hardest to talk with as most of those I met didn’t want to talk with Americans, even if said Amerikaner was a 14 yo boy. Victory was within reach of Germany, but not with Field Marshall Hitler in charge.

      Like

    • Among the five war winning weapons Eisenhower listed were the duece and a half, and the C-47. Eisenhower may not have been the most gifted tactician, but he fully understood the criticality of logistics in warfare.

      Like

  4. Superb intro to the Panzerwaffe and its tanks. Well done URR!

    Like

  5. Pingback: The Daley Gator | Blogging Appreciation Post