Close Combat Series :: View topic

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> Total Realism Sub Mod

#1: The puma Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:31 am
—
The rate of fire of the Puma is to slow the 50mm KwK39/1l/60 with 2700 fps/ap rounds had a semi-automatic action! with a better rate of fire over the field AT gun.

its a small thing but i did notice.

Tiger!

The campaigns are going good.

#2: Author: Searry, Location: Finland

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 4:35 pm
—
Maybe some vehicles just had the old KwK 30 as the gun.

#3: Author: HistoryTeaches, Location: Germany

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 7:34 pm
—
For the Sonderkraft-Fahrzeug 234/2 aka "Puma" was only the 5-cm-KwK 39 used

#4: Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:20 pm
—

Quote:

The rate of fire of the Puma is to slow the 50mm KwK39/1l/60 with 2700 fps/ap rounds had a semi-automatic action!

heh,
most of ww2 guns were semi-auto...

Quote:

with a better rate of fire over the field AT gun.

sry to dissapoint u,
but no tank had RoF faster than same caliber ATG for sure. and Puma had even less RoF than tank with same gun as there was less space + KwK39/1 had MB that slowered practical RoF even more.

tho u r rite, it should be chnaged...to be slower than KwK39 of PzIII

Last edited by Dima on Sun Oct 07, 2007 8:58 am; edited 1 time in total

#5: puma Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 12:17 am
—

Dima wrote:

Quote:

The rate of fire of the Puma is to slow the 50mm KwK39/1l/60 with 2700 fps/ap rounds had a semi-automatic action!

heh,
most of ww2 guns were semi-auto...

Quote:

with a better rate of fire over the field AT gun.

sry to dissapoint u,
but no tank had RoF faster than same caliber ATG for sure. and Puma had even less space than tank with same gun as there was less space + KwK39/1 had MB that slowered practical RoF even more.

tho u r rite, it should be chnaged...to be slower than KwK39 of PzIII

Hi Dima

Disappointed nar! just did not think the mkIII had a semi-automatic action
with there 50mm their for concluded the reload would be faster with the Puma! because have never read any info to tell me this.The pigs head Mantlet as it was called had a specially made turret and Mantlet/100mm face with compact recoil mechanism.

Tiger!

#6: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 1:59 am
—

Quote:

t did not think the mkIII had a semi-automatic action with there 50mm their for concluded the reload would be faster with the Puma! because have never read any info to tell me this.

well Puma had same KwK39 gun but with shorter recoil move due to Muzzle Break installed Smile

Quote:

The pigs head Mantlet as it was called had a specially made turret Mantlet/100mm face with compact recoil mechanism.

Pig mantley has nothing to do with it Smile

. And it never had 10cm armor ... And the lesser recoil move was achieved by installing muzzle break (nothing to do with compact recoil machanism Wink

).

Now just picture the process of reloading in Pz.III turret and then try to compare it with Puma's turret space Wink

.
Plus it doesn't matter how fast the loader loads as muzzle blast after each shot of KwK39/1 (as it had MB) would blind gunner for a several seconds...actually one of the main reasons they didn't have MB for neither KwK34/38/39 nor for F-34/ZIS-5/M2/M3, etc....

anyway, i hope u r jocking here Laughing

#7: puma Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:29 am
—

Dima wrote:

Quote:

t did not think the mkIII had a semi-automatic action with there 50mm their for concluded the reload would be faster with the Puma! because have never read any info to tell me this.

well Puma had same KwK39 gun but with shorter recoil move due to Muzzle Break installed Smile

Quote:

The pigs head Mantlet as it was called had a specially made turret Mantlet/100mm face with compact recoil mechanism.

Pig mantley has nothing to do with it Smile

. And it never had 10cm armor ... And the lesser recoil move was achieved by installing muzzle break (nothing to do with compact recoil machanism Wink

).

Now just picture the process of reloading in Pz.III turret and then try to compare it with Puma's turret space Wink

ok
my info said quote:the Mantlet was up to 10cm thick! i have this now from 2 souces that say the Mantlet was 10cm thick!

will keep looking for more info...

#8: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 2:55 am
—

Quote:

y info said quote:the Mantlet was up to 10cm thick! i have this now from 2 souces that say the Mantlet was 10cm thick!

tell me what r yer source plz Smile

some of mines:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/armored-cars/sdKfz-234.asp

"Die Gerpanzerten Radfahrzeuge Des Deutschen Heeres (1905-1945)"/W.J.Spielgerer

#9: Author: ronson, Location: England

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:52 am
—
I attach a link here which also gives a mantlet thickness of 100mm.....

http://www.wwiitanks.co.uk/tankdata/1944-Germany-8Wheeled-SdKfz2342.html

However look closely at the drawing of the puma and you will see that the actual mantlet only covers around 20% of the turret front, a very small area when compared to the size of, for instance the mantlet of the Panther.

Cheers
Ronson

#10: Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:13 am
—
this site has v many mistakes....

so i tend to believe Spielberger 'bit' more

Puma.JPG

Description:

Filesize:

53.82 KB

Viewed:

6773 Time(s)

#11: mmm Author: ANZAC_Lord4war, Location: Sydney Australia

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:14 am
—
Puma gun was a 50mm KwK 39/1 L/60
Panzer III with long barrels used 50mm KwK 39 L/60

mantlet was of 30mm to 38mm from my best sources,then keep in mind roundness and angle of it.

#12: puma Author: tigercub, Location: charters towers

Posted: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:12 am
—

Dima wrote:

Quote:

y info said quote:the Mantlet was up to 10cm thick! i have this now from 2 souces that say the Mantlet was 10cm thick!

tell me what r yer source plz Smile

some of mines:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/armored-cars/sdKfz-234.asp

"Die Gerpanzerten Radfahrzeuge Des Deutschen Heeres (1905-1945)"/W.J.Spielgerer

my info is from a book Purnell`s german fighting vehicles 1939-45 but this only the Mantlet of the AC.
it does not surprise me because of the shape of the Mantlet the info states 30-38 -100mm thick i don`t think this can be Modeled anyway!

Tiger! more info

Sorry guys i let this die as i could get no further.
What i Know.
The KwK 39/1 L/60 is well noted and appears to only have existed as a puma weapon. I have found no reference to the modifications to the KwK 39 that required the /1 designation. The obvious ones are muzzel brake (not really enough to require re designation) and the recoil damper arrangement, which protruded past the turret aperture and required the oddly shaped mantlet (as far as i can tell) this may be enough to require a redisignation /1.

Semi auto in reference to guns of this type is often mentioned but this in reference to other guns indicates it was self ejecting of the cartridge case. For example the Pak 40 is often remarked with semi automatic breech.

Thus descriptions of a semi auto 5cm KwK 39/1 may just be a indication of how the author references gun operation. The KwK 39 was self ejecting.

The BK 5 was an aircraft mount developed from the Pak 38, same development starting point as the KwK 39. This mount had full automatic operation and a 22 round magazine.
However the gun itself was of a very large size breech end and magazine. and would have struggled to fit in a panther turret let alone a pumas. of course it does mean that an automatic breech 50mm was technically possible and built in the war period. And an aircraft mount would be long in order to provide adequate balance for flight.

Having said that the BK 5 was developed after the puma and its unlikely that the technology from the BK 5 went into the KwK 39/1.

Conclusion: The KwK 39/1 was theoretically possible of being an automatic action.
However if the KwK was of auto breech i am sure that it would be well documented. a 50mm tank gun firing a cyclic rate of 40 odd RPM would be of significant technical interest and much quoting about the technical capabilities of ww2 german armaments. (of course the BK 5 is this marvel and is relatively unknown.)

I imagine that the KwK 39/1 was simple re designated because of its significant variance from the standard KwK 37 in its mounting and recoil systems.

Tiger!

Close Combat Series -> Total Realism Sub Mod

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1