Talk:12.8 cm Pak 44

Untitled

Due to errors on the Flak 40 page I have made this one

--Rbaal 01:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Pak 44 1.jpg

Image:Pak 44 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Corrected

--Rbaal 23:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

== Pak 80 vs. Pjk 80

To the person who keeps on changong it to Pjk80 please provide some reason for doing this - I have never seen the designation Pjk used but I have seen this system called Pak 80 in several places nothing else seems to be called Pjk xx i.e. no Pjk40 no Pjk39 etc

Pak stands for Panzerabwehrkanone no j in there ?

--Rbaal 00:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pak = Panzerabwehrkanone, Pjk = Panzerjägerkanone. The first term is usually the towed weapon, the latter is usually the vehicle-mounted Pak. --Denniss 01:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have adjusted the page - I don't see why this was the case here - the PaK 39 was only ever used on the SPG never towed yet it is always called the Pak 39 not the PjK39 ?? never mind minor point . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbaal (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to locate any original German documents using the Pjk designation. It is used in Panzer Tracts 9, which strongly indicates that the designation was used at some point. The Pak 80 designation can definitely be verified, though, in the Datenblatt for the gun.

I managed to find a couple of references, in the Datenblätter for the Panzer IV/70 and Jagdpanzer 38, in which the gun is designated 7,5 cm Pjk 42 (L/70) and 7,5 cm Pjk 39 L/48, respectively. The gun for the Jagdpanzer IV, the exact same gun as was used on the Jagdpanzer 38, is designated 7,5 cm Pak 39 L/48. This, to me, indicate that there was a name change at some point from Pak to Pjk. As always, however, one cannot count on consistency, and the gun for the Jagdtiger is referred to as both Pak 44 (for the weapon) and Pak 80 (for the vehicle name) on the same page.

It is important to bear in mind that Pak was used for both Panzerabwehrkanone and Panzerjägerkanone at the same time; another good example of confusing German nomenclature. In D 97/1+ from 1943-07-01, Panzerabwehrkanone is used for all guns, except the 4,2 cm Pak 41, up to and including 50 mm, and Panzerjägerkanone is used for all larger calibers. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 22:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned?

That despite; "its short-range performance (being) similar to the 8.8 cm PaK 43" in penetration, impacting armour with a heavier shell changes the dynamics. While penetration isn't more likely other affects are such as internal components breaking and the crew being concussed. I know this has been discussed on other large calibre WW2 anti tank guns.--Senor Freebie (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Really, the point seems kind of moot. The PaK 43 could frontally one-shot the heaviest Allied tank of the war (the IS-series) at 1250 yards. Since your average open-steppe tank engagement took place at 400 yards or less, there doesn't seem to be much room for improvement there. All the Pak 44 did was push the "maximum range for a one-shot frontal kill" out about 500 yards while also using a larger and better HE shell for field gun duty. It strikes me as kind of a white elephant for the Germans, especially in the late war. Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Finally tracked down the PAK/FlAK Confusion

Found a note in Chamberlain and Doyle's book - a cited - that noted that a 12.8 cm gun developed by Rheinmetal from the 12.8cm FlAK was used as the armament for two vehicles built from chassis used in the Tiger I development programme. No, not the same thing as the Jagdtiger, but certainly an ancestor. This would appear to be the source of our confusion - two different guns in the same calibre ... which ironically we already had in the article. Amended appropriately. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This turns out to be the Sturer Emil. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 13:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Add more info to the list of designations

I've seen some pictures of different carriages.

• A 4 wheeled split carriage version that is said to be K-81/1.
• A two wheel split trail version. This would be russian carriage K-81/2.
• A massive 6 wheeled version, where 2 wheels are completely detached when in fireing position and the other 4 are raised up in front of the shield. This one has 360 degree traverse.
• A 4 wheeled version that has 2 wheels at the front and two at the back. This version is also capable of 360 degree traverse. The article already has two pictures of this one and the text at the bottom of the pictures sais that this is a Krupp version.

Can anyone find out the official full names of the last two; confirm the first one and add the above carriage descriptions into the article? GMRE (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 12.8 cm PaK 44. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141214003703/https://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9858/nrty.jpg to http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9858/nrty.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 02:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

---

12.8 cm PaK 44 → 12.8 cm Pak 44 – Period documents consistently use Pak rather than PaK. Furthermore, this is the more common variation on Wikipedia. This article has previously been moved from PaK to Pak, but this was reverted without any discussion. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay then. I will revert the edits I have made. Sorry. Tried judging on it by the title. Well... Guess I will have to fix my mistakes and thanks to the person who reverted it.Dictonary1 (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC); edited 21:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for fixing it Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.