@KillaKiwi
I actually found mention of it.
In Mauser Ziel 2/24 - A visit to Mauser Werke AG
In which the testing of the 104g Minengeschoss X is multiple times mentioned. Aparently there were problems with it getting stuck in the barrle ir it exploding in the barrle (Rohrkrepierer)
It would be 104g up to 25g HA 41 and 950m/s.
So any idea for what weapon system it was first intended?
Probably makes more sense for the 2cm FlaK 38 considering it’s more powerfull.
On the MG 151/20 it reduces the already rather low velocity by quite a lot, being a heavier Mineshell that also uses less propellant because of the longer shell.
Sounds like it was never actually put into service. The 2cm Brandgranate was probably good enough anyway.
I can only imagine the Mineshell X to be used for Schräge Musik, where the low velocity and different trajectory wouldn’t make much difference.
For what it was first intended, idk, how far the development of it reached, also idk. I have only seen 2 mentions with time date 1944 of it. But i didnt look throught the whole Book, as its huge and i dont have it, i only looked at a preview.
I suppose the Mx is also for the Mg 213C, which has higher velocity, is against bombers and uses Flak ammo but also Minengeschosse as i habe read.
Damn i thought this won’t be a problem since the mg 151/20 fires 20×82mm shells and the Flak 38 fires 20×138mmB shells so both shells are the same diameter and only difference is the length
Well, i found a 2nd italian source mentioning a Mx tracer round. And i dont know if they fixed it in the end.
Welp thanks for the info at least it’s nice to know that they used more powerful shells on the Flak 38 at some point
Well and on the Mg 151/20.
Have you found anything else on this shell? Its available on some in-game german boats but finding a reference to it IRL seems quite rare.
Unfortunately not, except, that it may be the same APCBC shell, which was developed for the 3,7 cm Pak L/65 and L/70, however kept empty, similar which was done with 20mm Ammo for the Flaks, as the filler wasnt really needed when shooting at ships. Tho tbh i really dont know more, info is very sparse. Unfortunately i havent even found a copy of the Marine Manual of the 2 and 3,7 cm Flaks (And no i dont mean the Madsen Flak).
2 Likes
Damn, that sucks. Best of luck in the future.
1 Like
I now added the 3,7 cm Flak 341 as intended for the Flakpanzer 341 of which 4 were build (2 for tests 2 for reference) HOWEVER there is a big void on the ammo, i suspect its adapted navy ammo of the C/30, conciddering that the Pzgr.18 long has reached its shattergap, and the L/4,1 rounds were developed for the same-ish velocity of 1000 m/s compared to the 1040m/s of the Flak 341.
The only know stats to me are 725g, 65g unknown filler (but most likely Np 10 or H.5 AlGrieß) and 1040m/s.
While the Brsprgr. L’Spur L/4,1 of the C/30 is 730g, 30g Np.10 or H.5 AlGrieß and 1000m/s. The overall length is even the same with 152mm.
So ANY info regarding the ammo is welcome.
I do know of a 2nd bigger M-Gr. for the navy with some 130g Filler, any info and possible use here would also be welcome, the Flak 341 was to be shared between Heer and Kriegsmarine.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/AmTFRaANjmcy
1 Like
No, sorry
1 Like
Straving away from history, a slight shower thought. I assume the Flak 341 uses the same 37x265mmB casings (by drawing and photo) but with the heavyer Naval shells of 725g (its own shell, the navy ammo was 730g, 748g and 820g) with 1040m/s and 420g proplellant.
The 37x265g Shell is loaded with 200g Propellant for the other Flaks, how did they make more than double fit? More dense propellant?
Comoared to the 3,7 cm 61-K AA gun, which has 37x252mm casings also with ~200g propellant and also ~730-740g He and 770g AP-T shells at 860m/s and a L/67 barrel, i wonder why the Flak 18 L/57 is so much weaker?
Would it also have been possible to slim ammo production and use the heavyer 730-748g and maybe a longer heavyer Pzgr.18 for the Flak and give it also a L/77 barrel with slower but eaqually powerfull propellant? Maybe reaching a velocity of 900m/s with the 748g shell?
Why did they only so late choose to go bigger?
As a comparisson the same 640g Shells but with 250mmR casing was used by the 37mm Navy automatic gun at 845m/s with 180g propellant and L/69 barrel, so longer barrel (L/77), more propellant (200-220, the H-Pzgr had 240g) would have made a fairly powerfull AA/AT gun.
But thats just a shower thought, still dont know how they crammed 420g propellant in that casing. Maybe its just a typo and should be 220g? But a different earlyer chart gave test fire of 735g Shell and 392g propellant, so i think its unlikely to be a typo.
For the Flak 18 (primarily?) For the H-Pzgr. There was also a wider casing, that required some chaning to give it even more power, however to my knowlege it was never used and the H-Pzgr used the same casing as all other ammo. Maybe that was a 2nd option also taken into concidderation for all ammo and it wasnt seen as worth the change.
In general, the 730g (or 725g shortened tracer more filler) he grenade would have had better performance and ballistics, even when taking the 748g Sprgr. L’Spur L/4,1 as basis, for the 3,7 cm Pak L/70 there was a 750g Apcbc round developed, these 2 rounds would have been a major performance increase against both air and ground.
Any more info, something i am missing, to me unknown guns or your opinion on it are welcome.
1 Like
Is the Flak 13/36/37 ammunition historically the same on the BK 3.7? APHE on german 37mms would be nice to have
Yes it is. All 4 guns Flak 18/36/37 and Bk 37 are even the exact same gun, the Flak 18. The 36 and 37 are just different mounts and sights and the Bk 37 is upside down and adapted for remote shooting. Only the Flak 43 and Bk 43 are different guns.
The ammo is also shared. Main types for air were the same as for ground: Sprgr.18 L’Spur, Brsprgr.18 L’Spur, Brsprgr. Vk. L’Spur, Brsprgr. o.L’Spur, Pzgr.18 L’Spur, H-Pzgr.L’Spur and M-Gr.18 L’Spur.
I also made reports about that, that have yet to be implemented, the H-Pzgr. is just complete overkill at Br 1.3 and 1.7, more after effect (especially given how low the ammo count is on the Ju 87 G) would be awesome.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/gUwXLNPXLl3g
If I had to guess it’d be the usual suspects again. Trying to maintain production up, not wanting logistics to have to deal with yet another type of 37mm ammo, etc…
Yeah, i thought so too. But with the same casing, the already (throughout the war) 730g shells (which were continued to be used with captured 61-K guns). Would simplefy the production and longer barrels wouldnt be so much so a production hurdle.
How much heavier the longer barrel would be? Maybe it would have been an issue for mounts?