Talk:12.8 cm FlaK 40

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 12.8 cm FlaK 40 article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / European / German / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Early history

Early history of this page can be found at 12.8cm Flak 40.

Round info

I am in search of drawings of the rounds in use with the gun in reference (i.e.: 10,5cm Flak 38/39 German AA gun) I know that there are also in the web! But unfortunately they aren't quite well masterized when inserted in the web, so printing becomes a hard job. So who has drawings of the above rounds (both H.E. and A.P.C./B.C.) is kindly requested to inform me stating dimension of the drawing sheet, price of the copy, and shipment cost. Thank you in advance. A. Gottardi Genoa ITALY

Pak 44

Is there any proof that the Pak 44 antitank gun was developed from the Flak 40 AA gun?

There is a major error here - the 128mm Flak and the 128mm K Family (K43/44/128mm Pak) had almost nothing in common. The Flak was a Rheinmetall design and the others were Krup. A seperate page needs to be made for the K/Pak product and the links need to be changed away from here - might do it when I get time.

--Rbaal 01:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LV (talk • contribs) 14:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Removed any reference to the Pak 44 as this was a completely different gun - added Pak 44 page

12.8 cm Pak 44 --Rbaal 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears Rheinmetall did develop a candidate for the 12.8cm PAK based on their FlAK gun but it was rejected in favour of the Krupp design. Different weapon. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Rheinmetall gun was the 12.8cm PaK 40, after rejection in favour of the Krupp PaK 44 gun it was used on the two Sturer Emil prototypes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.30.100.222 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as stub --dashiellx (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captured ww2 french cannon

Is there any written evidence of French ww2 captured 155 mm cannon being relined and rebored to utilise german 12.8mm shells — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.29.245 (talk) 14:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC) I think you mean 12.8 cm shells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.8.5 (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the PAK 44 page there is mention of using French and Russian carriages to mount 12.8cm guns if that's any help... 51.6.242.179 (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory

It says in the text that it could throw a shell to 48,556ft, but in the info box, it give maximum range as a bit over 35,000ft. That's quite a discrepancy. AnnaGoFast (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. AA artillery is two problems (the two relevant here): throwing shells in the air, and throwing them in the right direction. Shells decelerate in flight, so their speed near apogee is getting pretty slow. The targeting problem is about predicting the path of shell and target aircraft, which may also be manouevering evasively; so a fast shell makes the prediction problem easier. As the shell weight is relatively unimportant in terms of causing damage, and the ceiling of a Lancaster was only about 21,000 feet, the reason for the growing calibre of these later WWII AA guns was for their faster flight (more propellant, heavier shells, better aerodynamic coefficient).

So this leads to a significant difference between altitude of the gun alone, and the much lower effective altitude of the system overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These guns also used on flak towers - worth mentioning? 86.170.8.5 (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

These guns also used on German & Austrian flak towers.

Flak guns against tanks on the flak towers

It seems that the story of the 128mm on teh berlin flak towers beings used against Russian tanks is a myth. never happened.

It possible that the 37 & 20 mm were used but the 128mm were not (as they could not be) - not sure how to word this though.

They could have been used a general artillery but again not sure how to word this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbaal (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good point. With the guns very high up on the towers and no means to depress them below -3 degrees, they had tremendous dead spots. Add trees and buildings to severely limit the field of fire, they almost with certainty have only been used in the indirect fire role. 77.183.155.186 (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

E/specially since they were surrounded by a high concrete wall! 2406:3400:31B:FEE0:186E:5840:FA63:ABAD (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In December 1943, Hitler decided not to introduce the FlaK 40 "During this war".

WOT!? 2406:3400:31B:FEE0:186E:5840:FA63:ABAD (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Skjoldbro as he added this in 2020. Please verify the cite is correct and actually related to this gun. It may actually be related to the towed 40/1 version for Heer/Luftwaffe, the vast majority was mounted on rail cars or in static emplacements. Denniss (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full quote: "The production of artillery weapons, however, included technically and tactically outdated models to a great extent, such as standard cannons that had been developed in the mid–20s. Because of the presumably insurmountable construction difficulties, Hitler decided in December 1943 not to introduce the new models of a light and heavy field howitzer "during this war". A very promising 12.8 cm cannon — which was supposably the best–designed cannon of the Second World War — arrived at the front only in meager quantities." (Müller 2016, p. 51)

Rereading it, the "new models" is not really clear what is being referred to, just like the "12.8 cm cannon". As "one of the most effective" was already present at the page, I assumed this was the gun mentioned by Müller. Skjoldbro (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Smells like a referal to the Pak/K variant for the Heer. The 7.5cm Pak 40 had an Artillery (FK) version planned that was seemingly cancelled too. Denniss (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree with Denniss here. This seems to be referring to the 12.8 cm Pak 44 rather than the Flak 40. Going by the articles, only 51 Pak 44 were produced (a "meager quantity") compared to the 1,125 Flak 40s. The part about not introducing "new models" in December 1943 also seems to be referring only to "light and heavy field howitzers", not Flak guns. Alin2808 (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]