I posted some photos at a Face Book ordnance collectors site (Grenades & Ordnance of the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] Century) of a FLAK 38/39 APCBC HE shell and the self renowned experts have come out of the woodwork to denounce it. I have read that: “the projectile isn’t real” “the waffenamt code is for a maker of leather goods” “the eagles below the driving band are unheard of and the single driving band isn’t normal” “whats the point of an AP FLAK round” “the waffenamts were only put on to add value” etc, do I need to go on? I know Im not an expert, I know nothing about WA codes but this looks good and to make up a projectile as complicated and detailed as this, age it, would have to be prohibitively expensive for such a limited market item. So I am hoping somebody can help me out with some ammunition to defend myself and maybe even educate all involved with. Thankyou for your consideration. More photos are available if required.
British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Flak Attack
- Thread starter FNG61
- Start date
27MMNUTTER42
Member
FNG61 after following the post on the inert ordnance collectors Facebook page and seeing comments from both myself and Rhys you need to take back some of what's been said there as some of it has been corrected and justified
-Tim
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but aren't these forums and social sites supposed to be friendly interest groups?....all too often posts on Facebook and forums can shift from balanced debates to emotional squabbling, which is poor. The particular thread on Facebook isn't nearly that bad, but there is often tendency for people on both sides not to back down on comments said, even when truths appear......sadly we learn from our politicians.
To me (and I'm perfectly happy to be corrected) the projectile looks absolutely genuine and I would agree with Redmeer in that it is a 10cm Pzgr rot, in immaculate condition, and clearly repainted. As for the wee little eagle, the style and age of it also look perfectly genuine, along with the marking "97" on the driving band. What 97 means (if not a lot no.) and why the plant no.930 next to the eagle doesn't fits the paperwork produced so far, I'm afraid I don't know...and therefore churlish to comment.
I do have some photos somewhere of another 10cm Pzgr rot (AP) and with luck it'll show a little WaA marking, and we can match that up with the paper work.
Lovely projectile, thanks for showing Robert (I assume)
To me (and I'm perfectly happy to be corrected) the projectile looks absolutely genuine and I would agree with Redmeer in that it is a 10cm Pzgr rot, in immaculate condition, and clearly repainted. As for the wee little eagle, the style and age of it also look perfectly genuine, along with the marking "97" on the driving band. What 97 means (if not a lot no.) and why the plant no.930 next to the eagle doesn't fits the paperwork produced so far, I'm afraid I don't know...and therefore churlish to comment.
I do have some photos somewhere of another 10cm Pzgr rot (AP) and with luck it'll show a little WaA marking, and we can match that up with the paper work.
Lovely projectile, thanks for showing Robert (I assume)
Last edited:
Unfortunately Robert was attacked with group posting this projectile as a fake without any valid information 
Thats why I don't like Facebook. Just like I post in Facebook and here - genuine 10,5cm projectile, FlaK or K18 (42). All thins in this piece, except repaint, looks absolutely correct.
Thats why I don't like Facebook. Just like I post in Facebook and here - genuine 10,5cm projectile, FlaK or K18 (42). All thins in this piece, except repaint, looks absolutely correct.