Talk:8 cm PAW 600

message: :Image:PAW600 8cm 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) 17:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:PAW600 8cm 1.jpg

message: The text has a very poor quality. Some native English speaker should improve it. Even I as a German can tell that it's crappy.
I did a few minor improvements today before logging in, but the article needs many more. Lastdingo (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  poor text 

message: I revised the lethality claim for the HE munition down (comparable, if not superior" to "almost comparable").
There's no historical source for the original claim anyway.
My short justification was "2.7 kg mortar bomb impacting flatly after 32° launch is rather weaker than a 5.45 kg HE shell impacting near-vertical after 70° launch AND thicker wall=more fragments mass"
Furthermore, I'd like to point out that shells dropping after a 70° shot impact near-vertically and provide frag effect in all directions almost evenly. Flatter trajectories lied to a fragmentation pattern with much effect to forward/sides and little to other directions.
example http://nigelef.tripod.com/wt_of_fire.htm
Mortar ammunition is usually efficient because of high angle firing, but this gun was limited by the anti-tank carriage design (from 5 cm Pak 38) and had thus not even the full lower elevation group; less than the about 43° needed to exploit the full range potential. Much less than the 70° of the most common infantry gun (7,5 cm leIG 18).
The previous author's idea (that the PAW's HE shot may be comparable or superior to a 7.5 cm IG HE shot because of a wall thickness issue) is impossible to support, not the least because the latter weighs twice as much and thick shell walls turn into fragments (and are thus not much of a disadvantage if there's still enough explosive inside). Lastdingo (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Correcting myself: Just saw in a book that the 8 cm (81.4 mm) HE shot weighed 4.46 kg (HEAT was 2.7 kg). Still same result. It weighs substantially less than 5.45 kg and usually impacts at a worse angle. Lastdingo (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  lethality of HE munition 

message: ...didn't affect weight of barrel and weapon directly. The main advantage was simplified construction of shells - they could be lighter, from cheaper alloys and with higher HE ratios. HEAT ammo with aerodynamic stabilization could be made less resistant to acceleration in the barrel. Lighter shells tougether with medium velocity (hi-low system can be used for high velocity ammo-in principle) allowed for light weapon construction. 93.159.184.227 (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi-low pressure system...