Welcome to the Inert Ordnance Collectors.
Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    417
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 125 Times in 78 Posts

    Ballistic Cap Variations on 8.8cm PzGr.39 Series Projectiles

    I've just bought (because it was cheap) what I believe to be a 8.8cm PzGr.39/1 projectile. It was cheap because the ballistic caps are missing. Milcorem does resin replicas of the caps, but this is the type with the groove between the ballistic cap and the penetrating cap.

    https://www.milcorem.fr/obus-de-76-à-89mm/

    However, all the pictures of the PzGr.39/43 variant I can find have the groove between the caps whereas all but one of the pictures of the PzGr.39/1 variant I can find don't have the groove. Here's the one exception:

    https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/a...2-a80f00aa2ae5

    So is the Milcorem repro correct for either a 39/43 or a 39/1, or is it incorrect for my projectile? I'm hoping the presence or non-presence of the groove are merely manufacturing variations.

    Thanks,
    Mark

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    417
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 125 Times in 78 Posts
    The item concerned. I've included some comparisons with a 39/43 variant.
    8,8cm PzGr.39-1.JPG8,8cm PzGr (3).JPG8,8cm PzGr (2).JPG8,8cm PzGr (4).JPG8,8cm PzGr (5).JPG8,8cm PzGr (6).JPG

    If someone could clarify the significance in the variation of the ballistic caps, I'd be very grateful.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    1,805
    Thanks
    439
    Thanked 2,157 Times in 479 Posts
    Just a difference in productions method. Some shells had the ballistc cap roll crimped in place, some had the cap spot welded in place. Both (With or without groove) are correct.
    For the rest, there is no way to see if your shell is an 8,8cm Pzgr39 or a PzGr39/1 than by metalurgical investigation (destructive testing) as the nose cap with the 1 in place is missing. 1 meant a better and harder quality steel was used for the projectile body.

    Regards, DJH
    Last edited by pzgr40; 25th July 2018 at 04:37 PM.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to pzgr40 For This Useful Post:

    peregrinvs (25th July 2018)

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    193
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 239 Times in 104 Posts
    Actually there were 3 methods of fixing the ballistic cap to the penetrating cap. Roll crimping in a grove, welding and spot welding. See picture from left to right.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to greif For This Useful Post:

    Martin Bull (1st September 2018), peregrinvs (27th July 2018)

  7. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    417
    Thanks
    163
    Thanked 125 Times in 78 Posts
    Update: the repro resin caps have arrived from Milcorem.

    The plan is to fill in the pitting on the projectile, epoxy the repro caps on top and then repaint. Then add to a 8,8cm Flak 18 case with a C/22 primer and et voilà, one Tiger E AP round.
    Attached Images Attached Images

 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top