>>65208943
Because the breech assembly of those different types of 7.5 cm guns, wouldn't fit otherwise inside their designated vehicles
Jagdpanzer IV had the KwK 42 L/70 from the Panther. Different gun

>Stug II
(You) mean III

for ze research and developments

>>65208943
Ww2 Germany is what happens when the "ideas" guy of the team never gets told to fuck off.

Because autism

>>65208943
The Pak 40 fired one version
The Panzer IV, Stug III/IV and other Jagdpanzers used a second version.
The only other 75mm version was an outright different gun (L/70) which, no wonder it has a different case.
Two versions of the 75mm is not that bad.

>>65208943
>>65209253
The field mounted PaK 40 was developed as a larger version of the 5 cm PaK 38, both the gun and carriage. The field PaK 40 used a percussion primer. When mounted on / in vehicles it used an electrical primer. Ammunition casing was shortened on the KwK 40 tank - StuG version of the gun for internal storage capacity. Early Pz IV Ausf F/G had the KwK L/43 gun and the later IV G through J had KwK L/48, as did StuG F/8 and G and the initial (700) Jagdpanzer IVs; later Jagd IVs had the KwK 42 L/70 (Panther main gun)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.5_cm_KwK_40

>>65209275
All of the tank versions of the Pak40 used the same cartridge.
The Pak40 had a longer more narrow cartridge because it didn't need to care about space concerns

>>65209300
Preferably an anti-tank gun is fired from longer range as well. And if not, you really need it to pen.

>>65209353
The Pak and KwK had the same velocity, the Pak's cartridge was longer but not as wide, for the same case volume.

>>65209376
I was ignorant of that fact. Interesting.

>>65208943
Abwechslung ist die Würze des Lebens.

File: ironic.jpg (45.8 KB)

>>65209231
>When you get rid of all your Jews leading to you having horribly managed projects and budgets

The fact that Germany's production system was dispersed among small and medium-sized domestic manufacturers may have been advantageous when creating slight variations on a particular weapon.

>>65209434
>>When you get rid of all your Jews leading to you having horribly managed projects and budgets

Thats pretty rich coming from an american.

>>65209231
That's a pretty stupid way of looking at it. Germany had some stupid projects (As did everyone else) but most of them were pretty sensible and made sense given the context of the war.

A really stupid idea is to have higly ineffective HE for M1 gun just to match AP ballistics.

>>65209686
Meanwhile the Germans realized you could just lower the propellant charge, allowing the Panther's hypervelocity gun to have just as much HE potential as the Sherman 75

>>65209690
Indeed Sprgr 40 for KwK 42 was even better than Sprgr 34 for KwK 37/40.

What if instead of creating larger and more powerful cannons. The germans just made a shaped charge ammo to their tanks?

Shaped charge penetration is much higher than anything else and doesn't need high velocity.
All they had to do is make it very precise and flight stable.

Nice varmint rounds.

>>65209590
What shithole do you come from my Juden-phobic anon?

>>65210934
>What if instead of creating larger and more powerful cannons. The germans just made a shaped charge ammo to their tanks?
They did. But you only get so much HEAT performance with spin stabilized low caliber rounds.
They ended up making 80mm HEAT-FS rounds, which could penetrate about as much as the Tiger's cannon for a fraction the size and weight though.

>>65208958
Because germans

>>65213259
Relax gramps. I'm sure your new nursing home has Fox News.

Autism and refusal to compromise on the larger design. Meanwhile Bongs would just modify the hull or turret ad hoc if they didn't get measurements for breaches and other shit correct in the design process.

>>65210934
>>65213285
You're thinking of something like the PAW 800. Truly a gamechanger and revolutionary, except that it came too late for that war and was immediately replaced by missiles after the war.
There's a timeline somewhere where somebody had the idea a couple years earlier and armored warfare looks very different. Nowadays it's only really used for grenade launchers.
>>65215555
Ever wondered why British tanks sucked so hard?

>>65210934
They did, they were designated as Granapatrone HL. Shaped charges, especially for high-pressure cannons rather than low-pressure rocket and recoilless gun systems, were cutting edge technology in WWII and still had a lot of problems with things like fuze reliability, performance at oblique imapct angles and shell spin undermining penetration performance. The result was that for example the shaped charge shell for the PaK 40 was still outperformed by APCBC at ranges out to 1000 meters.

>>65215646
>You're thinking of something like the PAW 800
No, I am directly mentioning the PAW 800. Which had very limited service near the end of the war.
They also had fin stabilized 75mm HEAT rounds which had good performance for their time.

>>65215683
>No, I am directly mentioning the PAW 800.
I don't think you quite know what "directly" means. But you're gonna learn today.
Think of the difference between implicit (implied) and explicit (outright stated).
You're welcome, anon. I love you and I'm proud of you.

>>65215692
You mind talking about WW2 shit instead of throwing a hissyfit like a whipped nigger?

>>65215735
Somebody will get you used to being treated without disdain one day, anon.

>>65215683
>which had good performance for their time
"Good performance" for the PaK 40 and L/48 tank gun meant on paper about equal to basic APCBC shell at 100 meters, and worse at distances below that. In practice, that performance was further marred by inconsistent fuzes and problems with impacts at more oblique angles, plus the much slower muzzle velocity of the HEAT shell made long-distance shooting a lot less accurate.

Overall it was only really useful for the short-barrel 75mm used by the earlier StuGs, Panzer IVs and the Panzer IIIN.

>>65215880
*1000 meters, my bad

>>65215880
German guns were pretty great.

>>65215880
>"Good performance" for the PaK 40 and L/48 tank gun meant on paper about equal to basic APCBC shell at 100 meters, and worse at distances below that. I
PAW 600 had 140mm pen at 1000m
Pak 40 had 100 mm pen at 1000m

>>65216414
>PAW
I was talking about the actual HEAT shells for the 75mm guns, not the wunderwaffe thingie they cooked up in 1945.

Also with these early HEAT shells, on-paper penetration figures will on average significantly underperform in practice due to severe issues with fuzes and impact angles that were only solved in the early Cold War.

>>65216444
>will on average significantly underperform in practice
True for every WWII round in practice. See 88mm rounds needing like 10 shots to kill relatively light tanks. Experience reports of actual soldiers is filled with stuff like that, the lethality in games is greatly exaggerated.

>>65216444
>I was talking about the actual HEAT shells for the 75mm guns, not the wunderwaffe thingie they cooked up in 1945.
There was nothing specifically wunder about PAW 600. It was just fins stabilised round like mortar.

>>65216709
>>65216698
>cheap
>efficient
>incredibly light gun due to only needing thick material at the breach
>effective
>massive payload compared to guns of similar caliber
It feels special to me.

>>65215880
I'm not talking about the early-mid war spin stabilized HEAT shell, I am talking about the very late war (possibly not used) fin stabilized HEAT shell that had considerably better performance.
IIRC it outperformed APCBC at point blank.

>>65217492
You mean this boy with a penetration of of 140mm?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600
That one was used, its planned bigger brothers weren't AFAIK though.

>>65217576
Nope, not the PAW800 (8cm)
I mean 75mm HEAT-FS
7.5cm Gr.38 Hl Ausf. C /KLW

>>65217576
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8_cm_PAW_600
>less than half as heavy as the 7.5cm gun at about 600kg vs 1.425 kg
>reuses parts of basic bitch mortar ammo production
>great pen at all ranges with light as fuck HEAT ammo at a level with expensive 7.5cm tungsten ammo
>great infantry support gun with amazing HE round due to the low pressure system replacing both infantry support and AT guns
>able to accurately hit a 1m2 target at 750m
Man, that thing is cool
>

>>65217710
>The russians tried copying it in the 50's and somehow made a considerably worse weapon
Jej

>>65217710
Shooting this thing must've been fucking fun. Probably better for the ears too

File: 381cf6793667733810d1560ec1f9549dfb52883a.jpg (1.2 MB)

>>65217594
>7.5cm Gr.38 Hl Ausf. C /KLW