WWII quality....the manufacturers.

[Soren]

Juha,

Why change the subject ? That the 88's in Africa were mostly present at the frontline has nothing to with what we were discussing.

[Glider]

First class info Soren many thanks. Can I ask which of the books that you mentioned contains this, as you may have solved my Christmas present problem for my wife?

Obviously your info is far more detailed than mine, I can only assume that the % figures I have for accuracy, relate to the APCBC shell, clearly it cannot be the APDS.

Quality of ammunition seems to be a major problem which would be a worry in the field. Section (6) says that five 17pd SABOT shots were fired at 700 yards at a Panther, 5 hit and three penetrated which is a pretty good average I would have thought.
However they are right, the performance in these tests was very dissapointing, no question.

Also of interest is the varied quality of the German plate on the front of the Panthers mentioned at the start of the article.

Re the Shatter gap as far as I can tell this applied to nearly all allied shells not just the APDS shells, the US 76mm is often mentioned. That said I clearly don't access to the books you mentioned, but its worth noting than none of the shells fired in this test seem to have shattered.

[Soren]

You're welcome Glider.

The books I'd recommend and from which most of the info is from are the ones I mentioned before. The Isigny tests are refered to many times by other respectful sources as-well. The info itself is from declassified documents released in 1988.

As to the shattering of the Allied projectiles (Esp. that of the APDS), this was mostly against the armour of the Tiger, not the late production Panthers which armour wasn't of the same quality - hence why no projectiles shattered in those tests. The 17 pdr APDS projectiles were witnessed to simply shatter against the armour of the Tiger at short to point blank ranges, much to the surprise of those poor British gunners who suddenly found themselves in a rather hairy situation.

As to questioning of the quality of the projectiles fired in those tests (Which was primarily raised because of the disbelief that the accuracy could be that bad), this has already been settled and the projectiles were of normal quality so the tests are representative of how the APDS projectile behaved. You can read further about this in Robert D. Livingston & Lorrin R. Bird's book.

Finally if you want the comparative test results for each gun conducted at the Aberdeen proving grounds USA, then stick around the Tank Gun Comparison thread in the WW2 General sub forum, I'll be posting the results soon.

[Glider]

Thanks again for the info. Its only fair to tell you that I remain to be convinced about this poor ammunition being the norm. There are three reasons for this.
1 - Logic
The APDS shell in this test had a marginal improvement in penetration and a disasterous result in accuracy. No army would pass such ammunition for use in the front line. As your test rightly point out, it isn't close to good enough.
2 - The Previous test
As mentioned a previous test showed not just greater accuracy but a very significant improvement in penetration.
3 - Experience of participants
The people taking part in the test are experts and they mention the probability of a problem with the ammo
4 - Other Sites
I don't have the books you mention, but I have found a number of sites which support the significant improvement in penetration of the APDS shell. There are a number but the following is one that impressed me for the detail it goes into and the sources that it quotes, many of which are the books you quote
. Its also neutral in tone, covers all the major armies as well as all aspects of the topic such as the tests, metal hardness etc.
I think you will find it of interest
Introduction to References

Enjoy and thanks again for the info

[Soren]

Well read Robert D. Livingston & Lorrin R. Bird's book and you'll be convinced Glider. Other than that let me answer your points:

1.) Logic, yes, and like I said the penetrative performance of the APDS projectile fell off sharply with slope, and the Panther's frontal hull armour is angled at 55 degree's from vertical - hence the results. The APCBC projectile is less affected by the slope and therefore comes close to or supercedes the penetration of the APDS projectile. Furthermore as already stated the quality of the Panther's armour varied a lot, so the previous test results at Balleroy are highly likely to have been achieved against a Panther with substandard quality armour. So yes logic does apply, but only if you understand the merrits of each type of projectile and the current state of the targets.

2.) The ammunition used is the same as what was handed over to the armoured regiments in Europe. That Col. Cole mentions that he is of the opinion that the furnish of the rounds is sub std. is his opinion of the rounds when compared to the std. quality of the rounds normally used in US testing. But this was in France, not Aberdeen USA, so test quality ammunition wasn't available.

3.) Accuracy shouldn't be affected much by the superficial furnish of the projectile, and certainly not to the degree that 57% of the rounds fired at 400y miss their target (A Panther) completely (Note that the othe projectiles performed fine in terms of accuracy). The test clearly illustrates that the accuracy of the APDS projectile isn't good to begin with. Remember that this early APDS projectile was without any form of stabilization in the air and was of very light weight after discarding the Sabot, and thus more prone to be affected by wind.

[Soren]

As to the site you forwarded me Glider, yes I know of it already and it is indeed a great site, esp. considering all the sources used as reference. (Ian V. Hogg being one of them)

But notice the penetration figures are the official ones against 30 degree sloped armour.

[Juha]

Soren
IMHO I didn’t change the subject, you began to talk the use of 88 as an A/T gun and I only noted the downside of that. Using expensive and specialized AA gun in A/T work means lessening of own AA protection because the gun can be only at one place in time and because, as you should know, a heavy AA gun is an effective AA weapon only when connected to its predictor. And if we are taking along to A/T discussion all guntypes used in A/T work we get a great variety of guns. Most effective German gun used in A/T work during the great tank battle in Lithuania on 24-25 June 1941 was 15cm sFH 18, 4th PzDiv used in 1941 in Soviet Union to attach to its vanguard Kampfgruppe 2 88s and 2 10cm sK18s as a safeguard against heavy Soviet tanks. Soviet Union used it’s field artillery pieces and AA guns to bolster its PaK fronts. And British used its 25pdr (87,x mm) in A/T role and it also had a shield and its AP round was capable to pierce the max 50mm armour of PzIVs up to appr. 1.000m, British also used at times in NW Europe in 1944 their 3,7in (94mm) AA gun in ad hoc A/T screens when the fast advance left gaps between first line units.

So, back to business, You claim “Throughout WW2 German AT & tank guns were THE best in the world.”
can be prove wrong by the fact that 3.7cm PaK 36 wasn’t the best but among the worst AT guns in 1939-40 because it had serious lack of penetrating power. British 2pdr, French 47mm, Czech 4.7cm (used by Germans), Soviet 45mm A/T gun and Swedish Bofors 37mm A/T gun (used also by Polish and Finns) were all more powerful, French 25mm A/T gun had about the same penetration power than PaK 36. Things were made worse by the fact that French tanks were better armoured than their German counterparts which highlighted the lack of punch of PaK 36.
Of course Germans tried to rectify the situation and when 5cm PaK 38 arrived it was among the best or the best around, qualification because I don’t remember when the first batch of Soviet 57mm ZiS 2 A/T guns was made.

Juha

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Juha

I have never argued that British had better or even equal heavy artillery but my point was that contrary your claim that German guns were superior across the board British medium artillery pieces were better than their German counterparts and medium artillery was much more numerous and important than heavy artillery.

So what British medium arty pieces were superior to their German counterparts? I struggling for examples.

The 25pdr gun-howitzer was clearly inferior to it`s foreign counterparts, it simply lacked punch compared to the 10.5cm leFH18, and others. Worse, the 25 pdr production just couldn`t keep up with demand and in reality many British divisions had to make with 4.5" howitzers from WW1, another unimpressive piece with just 6040m range, ie. firing the same sized shell as the German 10.5cm, to half the distance. Some 2200 25 pdrs (or rather, 18 pdrs converted, up bored etc. to 25 pdr) were completed by 1940, by which time the Germans had a bit over 5300 alone from the leFH18. To throw some pepper into the wound, far too many 25 pdrs were left behind at Dunkerque.

Same with the 4.5" gun. Being the heaviest piece available for the division (if it was attached, at all) for a long time time, it again clearly lacked punch. It was somewhat comparable to the German 10.5cm K18, being a long range piece, but too much gun for a too little shell.

Again, the 4.5" was, as opposed to some of your wishful thinking, just not availabe. Up to 1940, a mere 21 pieces were completed, and production was slow and limited even afterwards.

The sad new was it was supposed to be a counter to the Germans divisional medium arty, namely the 15cm sFH 18, which already fired a shell about twice as big, worse, the Germans had about 1500 of these 15cm Howitzers by 1940, which also outranged the 25 pdrs. In contrast, the production of the 4.5" medium gun was slightly below 1000 for the entire war. Due to the shortage of both 4.5", the actual piece issued as a heavy piece to add weight to 25 pdr batteries was.. well, again a WW1 piece, the OBL 6" howitzer, firing a 39 kg shell to just 10 400 meters.

Bottom line what the British had in reality instead of 25pdrs and 4.5" medium guns in their divisions were various obsolate pieces scraped from the bottom of the barrel labeled 'Leftovers from WW1'.

The 5.5" gun-howitzer as again simply not available. Five were produced until 1940, and it was not until 1942 the gun even got into action. Some 1679 pieces were completed by the end of the war, not much by any standard, considering the guns themselves were not available until the 2nd part of the war.

The comperative production figure for the 15 cm German gun and howitzer production (here I only include FH18, K18, K39) were about 6800 pieces between 39-45, to which pre-war production should be added (some 1350 FH18s available at the start of the war). It is noteworthy though that the FH 18 was not the only 15cm howitzer available to the Wehrmacht Division, they also used a fairly large number of large infantry guns, in this class the 15cm sIG 33.

These were light, shorter ranged pieces that were supposed to accompany the infantry, firing a 38 kg shell to some 4650 meters; 410 of these were available at the start of the war, and around 4100 were produced by the war ended. I`ll ommit the 7.5cm IGs, though these were very numerous (some 3000 were adding direct fire support to the infantry, and further 11 000 produced during the war).

I’m not claiming that all British guns were better than Germans but that in one important class they were better. And that except say 1½ years in desert British A/T guns were adequate..

... really? Then why so much reliance on the 25 pdr howitzers in a last-ditch AT effort? If you use expensive field guns for AT work with regularity, something has gone terribly wrong already.

And as I have wrote earlier even if PaK 40 was less powerful than 17pdr

Of course. You like unfair comparisons, you keep comparing British AT guns which weight a ton or two more than the other and arrived a year later, and you keep comparing guns of which a dozen was available at a given time to guns of which were thousends were avaible in field use.

Then of course your forget your own criteria when you want to argue about the other side.

A perfect example of that is your dismissal of the 5cm Pak 38, when you claimed it couldn`t be compared to the 2pdr (it`s late contemporary, as the 2pdr was around just too long), because the Pak 38 was not around in the Battle of France (in reality, production of the PaK 38 begun in 1940, with 390 being made by the end of the year, and by Barbarossa, 1064 were in service, so the two guns only missed each other in 1940 by a few months due to the British retreat and surrender of France effectively ending any land action between the Western Allies and the Germans for a good bit of time).

Somewhat later on, you claim the 6pdr and the PaK 38 are comparable. Well then I ask, how many 6 pdr guns were available to the British on the Balkans? Or in Africa, 1941? Could it be the 6 pdr did not came until May 1942, the same month the 7.5cm PaK 40 saw it`s baptism of fire?

Yet you compare the earlier PaK 38 to the 6pdr ATG. I must say you are an extremely biased and manipulative fellow.

Again :

The 2 pdrs contemporaries were the 3.7cm and 5cm PaKs. The 3.7cm weights half as much, and performance is comparable considering the defiencies of the 2pdr`s ammunition, which was unable to deal with German tanks in the desert (whereas the 3.7cm could handle all but the - rare - British heavy tanks) . The 5cm gun clearly outclassed the 2pdr, and with it`s tungsten cored rounds, it could handle anything.

The 6 pdrs contemporary (as a matter of fact, I believe, it preceeded it) was the 7.5cm PaK 40, it both timeframe and weight class.

The 6pdr was obsolate already when it appeared on the field, as it simply couldn`t handle even the uparmored versions of the Pz III and IV with it`s deficient AP ammuntion, even at point-blank range. There is not much competion between the 6pdr and the PaK 40, the latter is simply a superior piece.

The 17 pdrs contemporary, in both weight and timeframe, was the 8.8cm PaK 43. Again, you can argue until you`re blue in the face that it isn`t, using the usual double standards.

The difference is, the Pak 40 was available, the 17 pdr was not for a long time, the PaK 40 was a standard piece, was not, not even by Normandy. Again, you can continue with the wishful thinking about it being so, similiarly as 'numerous' 4.5" and 5.5" guns. The truth is still, these guns were simply not available for too long, and the British artilerry had to do with obsolate pieces for most of the war. This does not decriment British designers, who were just as capable as any other, but rather, the British industry`s capacities to support the troops with up-to-date pieces.

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Juha

So, back to business, You claim “Throughout WW2 German AT & tank guns were THE best in the world.”
can be prove wrong by the fact that 3.7cm PaK 36 wasn’t the best but among the worst AT guns in 1939-40 because it had serious lack of penetrating power. British 2pdr, French 47mm, Czech 4.7cm (used by Germans), Soviet 45mm A/T gun and Swedish Bofors 37mm A/T gun (used also by Polish and Finns) were all more powerful, French 25mm A/T gun had about the same penetration power than PaK 36.

It doesn`t seem to me a fact until you support the statement with something substantial.

Be sure to include in your comparisons : weight of gun, effects of face hardened armor vs. uncapped AP rounds, availability of the gun.

Things were made worse by the fact that French tanks were better armoured than their German counterparts which highlighted the lack of punch of PaK 36.

Hmmm, most French tanks had not especially thick armor which the PaK 36 could handle. It even had a chance to handle the heavier

British tanks in the 1940 OTOH were as a rule very poorly armored, vulnerable even to anti-tank rifles, autocannons. The Pak 36 was an overkill against these. I wonder about which Polish tankette would pose a problem to the Pak 36 either. The heaviest French tanks were indeed a challange, but even these could be handled with tungsten cored munitions, albeit only at short range with good conditions.

Of course Germans tried to rectify the situation and when 5cm PaK 38 arrived it was among the best or the best around, qualification because I don’t remember when the first batch of Soviet 57mm ZiS 2 A/T guns was made.

Well the Zis 2 had two lifes, actually, it entered production a month before Barbarossa, but was soon withdrawn from production, and re-entered service just before Kursk, in June 1943.

[plan_D]

"so the two guns only missed each other due to the premature British retreat by a few months)."

Another anti-British comment there; what is it with the recent digs at Britain from a lot of members? There was nothing premature about the British retreat - let's all be reminded that Britain went over the Channel to help France out.
The artillery discussion is all well and good, and I'm siding with you on this matter, but your anti-British Axis bumming comments are just uncalled for. A simple "due to the British retreat.." was needed, instead of having a go at the only Allied country who was there from day one to days end...or maybe you don't like it that Britain fought against the Axis?

[Kurfürst]

You`re right, I`ve edited the part.

[Juha]

Kurfürst
while talking on medium artillery I meant the situation in NW Europe in 1944-45, I admit it’s a narrow view and that I didn’t state that qualification. Anyway my examples were from Normandy in 44 of which have a good OoB of British Army but have almost nothing on German OoB below division level, only a notion that they had only one battalion of 17cm K 18s there but even that could be false.

“Some 2200 25 pdrs (or rather, 18 pdrs converted, up bored etc. to 25 pdr) were completed by 1940, by which time the Germans had a bit over 5300 alone from the leFH18. To throw some pepper into the wound, far too many 25 pdrs were left behind at Dunkerque.”

British army was much smaller than Germany’s so it naturally needed less artillery.

“so the two guns only missed each other in 1940 by a few months due to the British retreat and surrender of France effectively ending any land action between the Western Allies and the Germans for a good bit of time.”

I’m perfectly aware of that.

Quote:
I’m not claiming that all British guns were better than Germans but that in one important class they were better. And that except say 1½ years in desert British A/T guns were adequate..
“... really? Then why so much reliance on the 25 pdr howitzers in a last-ditch AT effort? If you use expensive field guns for AT work with regularity, something has gone terribly wrong already. “

Because I meant in that 1½ year time from March/April 41 to Sept/Oct 42 ie the time when British had to use 25pdr in A/T work. see the one above point.

“Somewhat later on, you claim the 6pdr and the PaK 38 are comparable. Well then I ask, how many 6 pdr guns were available to the British on the Balkans? Or in Africa, 1941?”

Again see the one above point.

“Yet you compare the earlier PaK 38 to the 6pdr ATG.”

Do you always get so agitated that you lost your ability to understand English text when someone says something positive on British equipment? How many times I must quote my own text that got you so agitated

Quote: “Of course the BIG British problem was that they were running late, 6 pdr came some 1½ year later than PaK 38 and 17 pdr appr. year later than PaK 40. And PaK 40 was adequate against all Western tanks but Churchill VIIs, VIIIs and Crocodiles. Also German PaKs had a decent HE shells which added their flexibility.”

I even wrote the big with capital letters but seemingly no avail. So if you please read the quote slowly and then tell me what is wrong in it!

“perfect example of that is your dismissal of the 5cm Pak 38, when you claimed it couldn`t be compared to the 2pdr”

I never said that, I only said when you or Soren wrote that I cannot compare 2pdr with PaK 36 that that is a valid comparation for May-June 40 French campaign. If someone is comparing the situation in Desert in 41-42 it’s of course OK to compare 2pdr with PaK 38.

“The 6pdr was obsolate already when it appeared on the field, as it simply couldn`t handle even the uparmored versions of the Pz III and IV with it`s deficient AP ammuntion, even at point-blank range.”

I recommended that you check the test results British and US AP ammo versus German tanks from Jentz’s Panzertruppen 1 p. 284. That gives test results not someone’s opinion.

“the PaK 40 was a standard piece, was not, not even by Normandy.”

But the numbers of PaK 40s in German Infantry Divs in Normandy was very low, IIRC average only 13 per div. That’s a low number.

“Be sure to include in your comparisons : weight of gun, effects of face hardened armor vs. uncapped AP rounds, availability of the gun.”

Now the best is always difficult to define so I used the system Soren seems to have used in his messages, ie penetrative power as decisive factor, weight of the round and the muzzle velocity. IMHO it’s fair to use Soren’s own system.


“British tanks in the 1940 OTOH were as a rule very poorly armoured”
Latest Cruisers, IVAs? maybe, in France in 40 had the same 30mm basic armour than German mediums, earlier cruisers had 14mm basic armour.

“Well the Zis 2 had two lifes, actually, it entered production a month before Barbarossa, but was soon withdrawn from production, and re-entered service just before Kursk, in June 1943.”

Thanks for that I knew that it has two lifes and that the second began in June 43 but didn’t know when the first began, only that it was there at the beginning of Barbarossa, at lest a few I mean.

Juha

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

So what British medium arty pieces were superior to their German counterparts? I struggling for examples.

The 25pdr gun-howitzer was clearly inferior to it`s foreign counterparts, it simply lacked punch compared to the 10.5cm leFH18, and others.

The 25pd had a smaller shell that is clear but matched the FH18 for range until 1943 (I think) when a modernised version of the FH18 came out which did give it additional range.
I am sure that you will agree that there other factors that come to the fore when fighting a war. The 25pdr could be broken down into 13 parts and carried on a mule. The axal was shortened in the Far East so it could be towed more easily by a jeep and it fitted inside the standard C47 transport without being dismantled. I recognise that this wasn't a factor for the German Army but I admit, trying to fit an FH18 into a Ju52 would be fun to watch.

Worse, the 25 pdr production just couldn`t keep up with demand and in reality many British divisions had to make with 4.5" howitzers from WW1, another unimpressive piece with just 6040m range

Its true to say that the 4.5" howitzer was important in France where 96 were lost. They were also important until the end of 1940 when production of the 4.5" gun improved the situation. However to pretend that the Germans were fully up to date in artillery is misleading.

Some 2200 25 pdrs (or rather, 18 pdrs converted, up bored etc. to 25 pdr) were completed by 1940, by which time the Germans had a bit over 5300 alone from the leFH18. To throw some pepper into the wound, far too many 25 pdrs were left behind at Dunkerque.

True, 704 18/25pd guns were lost in France, but by the end of 1940 the British had 1,449 25pdrs plus 568 18/25 pdrs so the situation wasn't desperate as the main effort was preparing for an invasion plus the middle east.
Re the German production. According to my sources Germany built 1,863 leFH18 in 1939 and 1940 together. As it entered production in 1935, I seriously doubt that Germany built 5,300 in total by the end of 1940. In 1941 Britain produced 3,173 25pds and Germany 1,160 leFH18 so there is no doubt that the UK were outproducing Germany in the critical early years.

Same with the 4.5" gun. Being the heaviest piece available for the division (if it was attached, at all) for a long time time, it again clearly lacked punch. It was somewhat comparable to the German 10.5cm K18, being a long range piece, but too much gun for a too little shell.

True but they played a role as it proved usefull to have a CB role at this level.

Again, the 4.5" was, as opposed to some of your wishful thinking, just not availabe. Up to 1940, a mere 21 pieces were completed, and production was slow and limited even afterwards.

Close but not quite. My sources give a figure of 63 by the end of 1940 still low but the British had around 100 60pdr guns. These were WW1 weapons but still very effective with a range of 15,000 yards.

The sad new was it was supposed to be a counter to the Germans divisional medium arty, namely the 15cm sFH 18, which already fired a shell about twice as big, worse, the Germans had about 1500 of these 15cm Howitzers by 1940, which also outranged the 25 pdrs. In contrast, the production of the 4.5" medium gun was slightly below 1000 for the entire war. Due to the shortage of both 4.5", the actual piece issued as a heavy piece to add weight to 25 pdr batteries was.. well, again a WW1 piece, the OBL 6" howitzer, firing a 39 kg shell to just 10 400 meters.

There is no denying that German Heavy Artillery was better than the UK weapons until the 7.2in and American 155mm guns came on stream but after 1942 the normal weapons were the field units with 25 pds supported by the Medium regiments with 4.5in and 5.5in.
Now the 60pdr Howitzer you mention was last used in action in the desert in 1942. Its also worth noting that the original shell which did have a range 10,300yds had been replaced with the Mk1D shell with a range of 15,500yds a performance which was at least respectable and better than some of the German 'modern' weapons.

Bottom line what the British had in reality instead of 25pdrs and 4.5" medium guns in their divisions were various obsolate pieces scraped from the bottom of the barrel labeled 'Leftovers from WW1'.

Leftovers maybe, but modernised to a significant degree and as I said replaced by 1942.

The 5.5" gun-howitzer as again simply not available. Five were produced until 1940, and it was not until 1942 the gun even got into action. Some 1679 pieces were completed by the end of the war, not much by any standard, considering the guns themselves were not available until the 2nd part of the war.

As mentioned before they replaced guns that could hold their own and I do not see what the problem is with that.

The comperative production figure for the 15 cm German gun and howitzer production (here I only include FH18, K18, K39) were about 6800 pieces between 39-45, to which pre-war production should be added (some 1350 FH18s available at the start of the war). It is noteworthy though that the FH 18 was not the only 15cm howitzer available to the Wehrmacht Division, they also used a fairly large number of large infantry guns, in this class the 15cm sIG 33.

Fair comment but you forget that your 8,150 15cm weapons were against the 3,000 ish British weapons plus all the weapons produced by Russia. The German Army units was always outgunned by the British Army units and at the end of the day, that is what counts.

.. really? Then why so much reliance on the 25 pdr howitzers in a last-ditch AT effort? If you use expensive field guns for AT work with regularity, something has gone terribly wrong already.

And the 88mm AA guns used as AT guns were cheap and of course, the Germans didn't rely on them did they.

[plan_D]

Thank you, Kurfurst.

And once again, excellent debate (learning a lot).

[Juha]

Find time to type a small part of the table fron Jentz’s book I mentioned.

By mid-42 , British carried out tests in Middle-East with captured German tanks. The table shows the ranges in yards at which the different types of German tank armour were completely penetrated. The angles of impact were the normal slope of the armour on the tank.

PzKpfw III & IV with 30mm thick plates, ie as in France 1940, standard 2pdr shot pierced at the range of 1300 – 1400 yards when firing from front.

This is in way supported by Oberst Kühn’s (CO of 3. PzBrigade) report on 4 June 1940, in which he wrote on Allied A/T guns
Accuracy of the anti-tank guns: the French 4.7cm is good, the French 2.5cm is very good, and the British 4 cm is excellent. Penetration ability of the enemy anti-tank guns at favourable angles against all German Panzers: the French 4.7cm is very good up to range of 600 meters, the French 2.5cm is very good up to range of 400 m (the frontal armour of the PzKpfw III was clearly penetrated by 2.5 cm. Experimental tests against captured tanks demonstrated that the 2.5 cm anti-tank gun was superior to German 3.7cm PaK), and the British 4 cm is excellent (better and more effective than the French 4.7cm anti-tank gun) at ranges up to 800 meters…source Jentz p. 132

I’m a bit puzzled on the claim that the 2pdr was better than 4.7 cm, even if 2pdr was very powerful for its calibre. Maybe French had 2 kinds of AP rounds of which one was uncapped and 3. PzBr had used that kind of ammo in its tests.

To the defence of 3.7 cm KwK L/45 it must be said that it seems that Germans reacted very effectively to the crisis of May 40 big tank battles. According to Mr Rausch Germans began to produce Pzgr. 40 (APCR) in June 40 and first PzIIIs used them around 10 June IIRC. According to him all 3.7 cm Pzgr. 40s first went to PzRgts and A/T units didn’t get them during BoF.

Juha