Wellington Bomber with 40mm Gun Turret
Rob Arndt
Mr.Smartypants
> http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5600/bw7522218.jpg
>
> Rob
What the hell were they hunting with that? Subs?
Gordon
Andrew Chaplin
news:422469c2-4113-4697...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
FW-200s
------------------------------------
Not hunting, but defending themselves, if Wiki is to be believed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_S_gun#History.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
Gordon
<ab.chap...@yourfinger.rogers.com> wrote:
> "Gordon" <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote in message
>
> news:422469c2-4113-4697...@d2g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 13, 9:44 am, "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 13, 12:28 am, Rob Arndt <teuton...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5600/bw7522218.jpg
>
> > > Rob
>
> > What the hell were they hunting with that? Subs?
>
> FW-200s
> ------------------------------------
>
> Not hunting, but defending themselves, if Wiki is to be believed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_S_gun#History.
Heh - I'd far rather be in a Barnes Wallis product than in that
brittle Focke Wulf airliner were a running battle to break out over an
unforgiving sea. I've always had an interest in bomber-on-bomber
combat, and it's hard to believe the 200 was another other than a
target.
Gordon
Yeff
> I've always had an interest in bomber-on-bomber combat
Pervert.
--
-Jeff B. (next you'll say it's okay for a BUFF and a Bear to marry...)
zoo...@fastmail.fm
"Freedom Through Vigilance"
Andrew Chaplin
-----------------------------------
I gather the Condor was the only type of aircraft my father ever got to shoot
at. I am not sure if it was when he was in WRESTLER as gun's crew in '41 or in
BERWICK as a knob twiddler in '44. More likely the former, I suspect.
Keith Willshaw
"Mr.Smartypants" <bunghol...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5bc934c0-5deb-4f8a...@n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
Thats the Vickers 'S' glass gun. Originally developed as a bomber defense
weapon it was tested in a Wellington II but not adopted for that purpose.
It was however used by the Hurricane IID as a tank buster when fitted
with the Littlejohn adaptor the round fired had approx the same
penetrating capability as the 30mm round fired by the A-10
Keith
Keith Willshaw
On Apr 13, 11:55 am, "Andrew Chaplin"
>
>> Not hunting, but defending themselves, if Wiki is to be
>> believed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_S_gun#History.
> Heh - I'd far rather be in a Barnes Wallis product than in that
> brittle Focke Wulf airliner were a running battle to break out over an
> unforgiving sea.
Me too
> I've always had an interest in bomber-on-bomber
> combat, and it's hard to believe the 200 was another other than a
> target.
The Fw-200 wasnt involved. The aircraft shown was a prototype used as
a test bed for the gun.
Keith
Gordon
True, but I was misinformed by my own memory. I shall punish it
accordingly.
G
B24...@aol.com
Still, it would have been amusing to see what it would have done to
a Fw-200.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Keith Willshaw
<B24...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d5dbccda-0087-4b13...@z19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> True, but I was misinformed by my own memory. I shall punish it
>> accordingly.
>>
>> G
>
> Still, it would have been amusing to see what it would have done to
> a Fw-200.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
Here's a nice picture of what happened when an Fw-200 tried to duke
it out with a Lockheed Hudson
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Focke-Wulf_Fw_200_Kondor_sinking_(July_23_1941).png
Keith
B24...@aol.com
>
> Keith
How much did they get fined for littering?
David E. Powell
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:35:09 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:
> > I've always had an interest in bomber-on-bomber combat
>
> Pervert.
LOL
The Japanese 4 engine flying boat vs. B-17 battle is the one I have
heard mentioned a lot....
David E. Powell
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
That's pretty impressive for pre-DU rounds....
Gordon
> On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 12:35:09 -0700 (PDT), Gordon wrote:
> > I've always had an interest in bomber-on-bomber combat
>
> Pervert.
>
> --
>
> -Jeff B. (next you'll say it's okay for a BUFF and a Bear to marry...)
BUFFs and BEARs? Now THAT would be one FUGLY baby...
As for non-fighter vs non-fighter combat, there are several incidents
that I find interesting - the B-26 slaughter of all those Ju 52s (and
Me 323s IIRC); various North Sea and GIUK gap encounters, that sort
of thing. Didn't a B-24 mix it up with a Condor..?
I assumed (cof) that the Wellington with the MU turret anti-tank gun
was an escalation in the attempts to duel with Condors from greater
range, as there didn't really seem to be any other reason for such an
installation on the upper deck of a Wimpy. Imagine a Lanc or
something similar with a couple of these turrets flying alongside a
BV-222 similarly armed, firing broadsides at each other. The only
other fantasy that gives me such a grin is combat among zeppelins - I
feel cheated somewhat that air combat never evolved into that
direction.
v/r Gordon
B24...@aol.com
<snip>
The only
> other fantasy that gives me such a grin is combat among zeppelins - I
> feel cheated somewhat that air combat never evolved into that
> direction.
>
> v/r Gordon
That would be almost as slow as ships of the line naval battles. Can
you imagine boarding parties?
Gordon
> On Apr 14, 11:16 am, Gordon <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >The only other fantasy that gives me such a grin is combat among zeppelins - I
> > feel cheated somewhat that air combat never evolved into that direction.
>
> you imagine boarding parties?
Absolutely! Complete with Greek Fire arcing between the armored
leviathans with Maxim and Lewis guns raking control gondolas... Mini
zeppelins acting as frigates racing in close to drop firepots on the
enemy, as one must consider that such combat would involve entire
fleets of the dreaded giants. How could the Admiralty have let such
an opportunity for glory pass?!
G
B24...@aol.com
I'm beginning to worry about you.
Mr.Smartypants
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> "Mr.Smartypants" <bunghole-jon...@lycos.com> wrote in message
That would be the gun the Hurris used in North Africa when busting
Rommel's tanks and supply convoys?
Gordon
you imagine boarding parties?
>
> > How could the Admiralty have let such
> > an opportunity for glory pass?!
>
>
Errrm.... WTMI..? Surry.
G
Dan
Gordon, what worries me most is there might have been someone back
then who considered airships to defend against the German airships just
as you describe. It was probably you in a prior life. Do you have an
ancestor in the admiralty of old?
LIBERATOR
> http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5600/bw7522218.jpg
>
> Rob
It'll make a mess out of anything it hits.
amy
Keith Willshaw
>> Thats the Vickers 'S' glass gun. Originally developed as a bomber defense
>> weapon it was tested in a Wellington II but not adopted for that purpose.
>>
>> It was however used by the Hurricane IID as a tank buster when fitted
>> with the Littlejohn adaptor the round fired had approx the same
>> penetrating capability as the 30mm round fired by the A-10
>>
>> Keith
>That would be the gun the Hurris used in North Africa when busting
>Rommel's tanks and supply convoys?
Yep
Keith
Joe Osman
The only
> other fantasy that gives me such a grin is combat among zeppelins - I
> feel cheated somewhat that air combat never evolved into that
> direction.
>
> v/r Gordon
You should check out the anime series "Last Exile". It's chock full of
airship vs. airship combat.
Joe
Gordon
> On Apr 14, 12:16 pm, Gordon <Gor...@oldboldpilots.org> wrote:
> The only
>
> > other fantasy that gives me such a grin is combat among zeppelins - I
> > feel cheated somewhat that air combat never evolved into that
> > direction.
>
>
> airship vs. airship combat.
Will do - thanks for the steer.
v/r Gordon
Jeff Dougherty
Don't know if you're into wargaming, Gordon, but if so you might enjoy
the games "Luftschiff" and its expansion "ZRCV". "Luftschiff" covers
zeppelin operations during WWI in pretty intense detail (you have to
keep track of ballast, elevators, etc.) and "ZRCV" takes a "what-if"
look at airships through 1941- it has Akron, Macon, a hypothetical
ZRCV zeppelin aircraft carrier, and Japanese units to duel with them
over the Pacific.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/959
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5570
Both are OOP but I understand they're findable on eBay and the like.
Cheers,
-JTD
Joe Osman
Rudyard Kipling wrote a couple of novels about a world wide
controlling organization over airship travel called the Aerial Board
of Control - "With the Night Mail, a story of 2,000 A. D." and "As
Easy as ABC". See http://internetarchive.wordpress.com/2007/07/.
Joe
euno...@yahoo.com.au
wrote:
The Littlejohn adpater was never used either on the ground or in the
air though the US may have used and adaptation of it for their ground
based 37mm gun. It was an adapter fitted to the muzzle of the gun
that squeezed special flanges on the ammunition so as to reduced
aerodynamics drag while still having a broad area, to take advantage
of this increased velocity tungsten carbide needed to be used: ony it
was hard, heavy enough and strong enough to resist shattering. Once
fitted ordinary ammunition could no longer be fired. The Hurricane
IID 40mm had rather a low velocity but combined with the forward
motion of the aircraft it was effective against the German tanks which
were still fairly thin skinned.
The Germans were the only ones to use squeeze bores in any quantity;
the most famous being the PAK 41 which was an AT gun with very
impressive penetration vs gun weight figures (ie it was light).
These were specialist squeeze bores with more performance gain than
mere adapters however the front of the barrel could still be replaced
since this was a high wear item. The Krupp tungsten monopoly and
tungsten shortages meant these powerfull weapons were eventually
withdrawn.
The British switched to what they called APDS (Armour Piercing
Discharging Sabot) on the 17 pounder and 6 pounder guns apparently a
French idea developed by French expatriates in the UK which I guess
explains the use of 'sabot'. In this the light weight metal
surrounds drops off rather than being squeezed. It is slightly less
capable but also much more practical.
The Germans also used APDS only they called it Triebspiegel or TS
(Driving base) ammunition for the PAK 40. By this time there was no
tungsten left so they used hardened alloy steel which gave improved
penetration but not as much as Tungsten Core.
The early APDS had some problems: the sabots didn't seperate cleanly
(perfection was required) and this meant that the penetrator, wandered
thereby degrading accuracy over what should have impressive range
compared to ordinary tungsten core which lost penetration and accuracy
at long range due to velocity loss instead. Modern penetration are
fin stabilized as spin stabilization doesn't work with long rods.
APDS-FS.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
Less so than ordinary ammunition though its more likely to get through.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
>
> Keith
Coastal Command would have been lucky to have had a long range patrol
aircraft such as the FW 200 to close more of the 'gap' till the
Liberator became available. The early version had an Endurance of 14
hours, for a range of about 3860km, (2400 miles) or 18 hours if
additional fuel tanks were carried instead of bombs, and cruising
speeds were around 250km/h. The common bomb load on long-range
missions was just four 250kg bombs.
Given the weak armament of the Hudson its not readily apparent why it
should manage to win against the Condor. The FW 200C being based on
an ultra long range airliner (Capable of a New York to Berlin non stop
flight) was restricted in maneuvers proably more so than a Hudson
and also had a blind spot behind that might have been exploited.
The Fw 200 was replaced by the Ju 290 and He 177, aircraft far more
powerfully armed and much faster.
Keith Willshaw
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:0a456a38-5bbc-45e9...@s38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It was however used by the Hurricane IID as a tank buster when fitted
> > with the Littlejohn adaptor the round fired had approx the same
> > penetrating capability as the 30mm round fired by the A-10
>
> > Keith
>
>> That would be the gun the Hurris used in North Africa when busting
>> Rommel's tanks and supply convoys?
>The Littlejohn adpater was never used either on the ground or in the
> air though the US may have used and adaptation of it for their ground
> based 37mm gun.
Incorrect , it was used on British armoured cars and light tanks
such as the Tetrach firing the APSV (armour piercing super velocity)
round.
<snip>
> The British switched to what they called APDS (Armour Piercing
> Discharging Sabot) on the 17 pounder and 6 pounder guns apparently a
> French idea developed by French expatriates in the UK which I guess
> explains the use of 'sabot'.
Not quite
The designers at Fort Halstead were Permutter and Coppock. Mr Permutter
was Belgian and had been working for the French Edgar Brandt company
on APDS he joined an existing devlopement program in Britain. Sabot was
a long established term in artillery use having been used extensively in the
19th century
> In this the light weight metal
> surrounds drops off rather than being squeezed. It is slightly less
> capable but also much more practical.
Cite for its lesser capability please, I note almost ever army has
switched to APDS.
>The Germans also used APDS only they called it Triebspiegel or TS
>(Driving base) ammunition for the PAK 40. By this time there was no
>tungsten left so they used hardened alloy steel which gave improved
>penetration but not as much as Tungsten Core.
Wrong. The Germans used a small number of APCR rounds which had
a hardened steel core and a light metal shroud BUT this shroud was
NOT discarded when fired. This results in a rapid los off velocity after
firing and a resulting poor long range performance The most common round
fired was the APCBC ('Armour-Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped')
> The early APDS had some problems: the sabots didn't seperate cleanly
> (perfection was required) and this meant that the penetrator, wandered
> thereby degrading accuracy over what should have impressive range
> compared to ordinary tungsten core which lost penetration and accuracy
> at long range due to velocity loss instead. Modern penetration are
> fin stabilized as spin stabilization doesn't work with long rods.
> APDS-FS.
Early versions of all new weapons have problems, except for German
weapons in Eunometic World.
Keith
Paul J. Adam
> The Littlejohn adpater was never used either on the ground or in the
> air
It was quite widely used on 2lbr-armed armoured cars (such as the
Humbers and Daimlers) late in the war, and on the Tetrarch light tank
(which didn't see much use - the Rhine crossing is about the only
occasion that comes to mind)
> The British switched to what they called APDS (Armour Piercing
> Discharging Sabot) on the 17 pounder and 6 pounder guns apparently a
> French idea developed by French expatriates in the UK which I guess
> explains the use of 'sabot'. In this the light weight metal
> surrounds drops off rather than being squeezed. It is slightly less
> capable but also much more practical.
APDS is considerably *more* capable, particularly for multi-role guns
and any weapon hoping to fire more than a few hundred rounds. Hence its
near-universal adoption post-war, and its evolution into the current
generation of APFSDS.
A major problem with squeeze-bore guns was that they were one-trick
ponies: at best firing HE from one meant a seriously reduced payload,
and a squeezebore tank gun would need a barrel change after the third or
fourth ammo replen. At worst they were confined to only firing AP
rounds, which puts the tank using them back into Matilda II territory.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Geoffrey Sinclair
news:b39336ed-fe0f-4fb7...@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Coastal Command would have been lucky to have had a long range
> patrol aircraft such as the FW 200 to close more of the 'gap' till the
> Liberator became available.
Ah yes, another Eunometic erase of history. Think Short Sunderland,
in service pre war.
> The early version had an Endurance of 14
> hours, for a range of about 3860km, (2400 miles) or 18 hours if
> additional fuel tanks were carried instead of bombs, and cruising
> speeds were around 250km/h. The common bomb load on long-range
> missions was just four 250kg bombs.
Using the RAAF history performance summary.
Sunderland I range 2,530 miles with 2,000 pounds of bombs.
Sunderland III 2,137 miles with 2,000 pounds of bombs, 1,968
miles with 4,000 pounds of bombs.
From Janes, Sunderland III overload range 2,900 miles.
By the way the first B-24s arrived in the UK in the third quarter of
1941. The British were high on the priority list. Some 24 had
arrived by the end of the year. Of course the extensive modifications
to make a VLR type delayed entry, then there were decisions to
equip bomber squadrons with the type.
Number 120 squadron began equipping with B-24s in June 1941.
Number 240 squadron received its first Consolidated Catalinas
in March 1941, 210 squadron in April.
And the Hudson VI is quoted as having a 2,160 mile range, which
would appear to be the maximum, the Hudson I and II range with
900 pounds of bombs was 1,355 miles.
> Given the weak armament of the Hudson its not readily apparent why it
> should manage to win against the Condor.
Simple really, the Fw200C was based on an airliner and the weak
structure meant the crews would try and avoid combat for obvious
reasons.
> The FW 200C being based on
> an ultra long range airliner (Capable of a New York to Berlin non stop
> flight) was restricted in maneuvers proably more so than a Hudson
> and also had a blind spot behind that might have been exploited.
Try the earlier Condors had about the same armament as the
Hudson. The Condor had a 20mm and 3 rifle calibre machine
guns the Hudson had 5 rifle calibre machine guns plus provision
for another 2 guns for beam defence.
Condor armament was upgraded in 1941.
> The Fw 200 was replaced by the Ju 290 and He 177, aircraft far more
> powerfully armed and much faster.
Ah another Eunometic definition, replaced basically means the Condor
provided the bulk of the German long range anti shipping reconnaissance
and strike into 1944, hence things like fitting them with Hs293 bombs.
KG40 still had about 40% of its long range strength as Condors in May 1944.
So replaced rather overstates the situation.
Not to mention the USSBS records 268 Fw200's as produced 1939
to 1944, versus around 23 Ju290 maritime reconnaissance versions
and 14 bomber versions. As of 31 May 1944 KG40 still had over
30 Fw200's while being in the middle of changing over to the He177,
meantime there were 11 Ju290s with FaGr 5. The He177s were
supposed to be taking over the maritime strike duties.
In the end the USSBS notes some 518 He177s built, so around 2
for every Fw200.
So the Ju290 production of the type, used for transport as
well as reconnaissance, was comparable to the number of Condors
in KG40 in May 1944.
The Germans were shutting down the war against allied shipping
in mid 1944.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
<ke...@nospam.kwillshaw.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> <eunome...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
>
> news:0a456a38-5bbc-45e9...@s38g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > It was however used by the Hurricane IID as a tank buster when fitted
> > > with the Littlejohn adaptor the round fired had approx the same
> > > penetrating capability as the 30mm round fired by the A-10
>
> > > Keith
>
> >> That would be the gun the Hurris used in North Africa when busting
> >> Rommel's tanks and supply convoys?
> >The Littlejohn adpater was never used either on the ground or in the
> > air though the US may have used and adaptation of it for their ground
> > based 37mm gun.
>
> Incorrect , it was used on British armoured cars and light tanks
> such as the Tetrach firing the APSV (armour piercing super velocity)
> round.
Not much indication that it was issued till after 1944 on ground based
artillery (definitely never on the Hurricane) and if issued actually
that it was used. The 'adapter' in practice couldn't be removed once
fitted which limited its utility and perhaps explains its low. The
Canadians seem to have tried to use it on their 40mm guns but it seems
an academic exercise. I have it anyway that it was developed in the
1930s.
>
> <snip>
>
> > The British switched to what they called APDS (Armour Piercing
> > Discharging Sabot) on the 17 pounder and 6 pounder guns apparently a
> > French idea developed by French expatriates in the UK which I guess
> > explains the use of 'sabot'.
>
> Not quite
>
> The designers at Fort Halstead were Permutter and Coppock. Mr Permutter
> was Belgian and had been working for the French Edgar Brandt company
> on APDS he joined an existing devlopement program in Britain. Sabot was
> a long established term in artillery use having been used extensively in the
> 19th century
>
> > In this the light weight metal
> > surrounds drops off rather than being squeezed. It is slightly less
> > capable but also much more practical.
>
> Cite for its lesser capability please, I note almost ever army has
> switched to APDS.
APDS is not longer used. Most armies have swtiched to fin stabilized
rounds fired from smooth bore guns. APDS-FS. Even the UK Army with
its penchant for HSH has finally abondoned its rifled guns on
Challenger and is adapting a smooth bore rheinmetall design capable of
firing APDS-FS
Developed at Penemunde for outsize extra long range artillery rounds
possibly it was considered for AT use.
PAK 41 had perhaps 20% less penetration at 500 yards than the 100%
heavier Ordinance 17 pounder firing APDS.
Littlejohn adapter instead of APDS on 2 ounder suggests its
superiority.
The taper bore uses more cartridge energy for some reason.
>
> >The Germans also used APDS only they called it Triebspiegel or TS
> >(Driving base) ammunition for the PAK 40. By this time there was no
> >tungsten left so they used hardened alloy steel which gave improved
> >penetration but not as much as Tungsten Core.
>
> Wrong.
No you are wrong.
> The Germans used a small number of APCR rounds which had
> a hardened steel core and a light metal shroud BUT this shroud was
> NOT discarded when fired.
The German Army used what the UK army calls APCR and the German called
PzGr 40 or Arrowhead shot and the US Army called HVAP but they also
used APDS which they called PzGr PAK Patr TS 42 and the 'sabot'
definitely dropped of but yes it was quite rare.
TS is for Trieb Spiegel, 42 is for the year of development completion
as in all German ammuniton prior to 1945. It doesn't ,matter what
calibre incidently.
Shortages of tungsten meant that they used steel cores. There was
some work with the use of Uranium as a substitute for tungsten
apparently the firing range in Poland that was used still shows
contamination.
This results in a rapid los off velocity after
> firing and a resulting poor long range performance The most common round
> fired was the APCBC ('Armour-Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped')
17 pounder APCR lost accuracy due to the difficulty of ensuring even
discarding of the sabot, low RPM spinning of the round relative to the
round diameter and unlike APCR it had a tendancy to bounce or or break
up on angled armour. In other words the dispersion of APDS was as
great as that of slower APCR rounds at long ranges. Later issues of
ammunition or guns designs resolved this.
Advanced WW2 rounds, such as the German tungsten core rounds or US
HVAP, had a 'sticky' metal nose cap behind an aerodynamic nose cap
that ensured the round nose stuck to the Armour and the core bent or
rather swung around to penetrate angled Armour rather than bounce off
or break.
In theory APDS was significantly superior to APCR type rounds in
practice the disadvantages closed the gap considerably.
There was of course no need for German use of APCR on the western
front since the 70 caliber 75mm guns of the Panther and the 71 and 56
caliber versions of the 88mm guns as well as the smaller 75mm PAK 40
could penetrate any western allied tank and any practical range. They
were kept as silver bullets for dealing with a IS-2 tank or for use
from aircraft 30 and 37mm guns.
The German anticipation of tungsten shortages was the reason German
tanks and guns grew so rapidly in size.
APCR or APDS would have been very usefull for 50mm PAK 38 AT guns
which could penetrate nearly 140mm with this ammunition at 250m, again
enough to deal with any Western allied tank hoevrer the metal was too
rare.
The lack of APDS ( PzGr PAK Patr TS 42) for the L42 caliber version
of this 50mm gun round caused some embarraement to the Panzer III
which was supposed to have received this by the invasion of russia due
to the emergence of the t-34. The immediate solution was the
retrofitting of the 50mm L60 firing normal PzGr 40 or Arrowhead shot.
Paul J. Adam
>> switched to APDS.
>
> APDS is not longer used.
Quite so, APFSDS slowly replaced it from the 1960s. However, APDS ruled
the roost for over thirty years for gun-launched tank killing.
Most armies have swtiched to fin stabilized
> rounds fired from smooth bore guns. APDS-FS. Even the UK Army with
> its penchant for HSH has finally abondoned its rifled guns on
> Challenger and is adapting a smooth bore rheinmetall design capable of
> firing APDS-FS
Is *considering* going to the Rheinmetall 120mm/L55 because it's rather
uneconomic to develop ammunition alone these days. The Challenger 2s
still have rifled 120mm guns, the question is what MODIFIER (Mobile
Direct Fire Equipment Replacement - who came up with that acronym?)
might be armed with. MODIFIER may be a regunned and updated CH2, or it
may be... something else altogether.
One certainty is that funding for that whole area is being pushed hard
rightwards and changes to proven, effective and lethal in-service kit
have a very low priority at the moment.
> The taper bore uses more cartridge energy for some reason.
Major frictional losses in the bore where you're wasting energy swaging
down the skirts instead of simply accelerating plastic or aluminium. For
the same reason, taper-bore guns have horribly short barrel life; not
good for WW2 tanks who were best used firing HE and smoke rounds
supporting infantry, rather than AP rounds at other tanks.
> Advanced WW2 rounds, such as the German tungsten core rounds or US
> HVAP, had a 'sticky' metal nose cap behind an aerodynamic nose cap
> that ensured the round nose stuck to the Armour and the core bent or
> rather swung around to penetrate angled Armour rather than bounce off
> or break.
This is "AP Capped" and was known and used back in WW1. The application
to tank rounds took a little time but when the designers paused to think
"we're trying to poke a high-velocity round through relatively thick
armour at often-unfavourable angles of incidence, has that ever been
done before?" then the adoption of APCBC (Armour-Piercing, Capped,
Ballistic Cap) followed quickly thereafter.
> In theory APDS was significantly superior to APCR type rounds in
> practice the disadvantages closed the gap considerably.
Which explains why APDS was the dominant KE penetrator for thirty or
forty years post-WW2, while APCR died a quiet death?
> There was of course no need for German use of APCR on the western
> front since the 70 caliber 75mm guns of the Panther and the 71 and 56
> caliber versions of the 88mm guns as well as the smaller 75mm PAK 40
> could penetrate any western allied tank and any practical range. They
> were kept as silver bullets for dealing with a IS-2 tank or for use
> from aircraft 30 and 37mm guns.
I'm curious, why didn't Allied tank crews learn to fear the Luftwaffe
and their lethal 30mm and 37mm guns?
> The German anticipation of tungsten shortages was the reason German
> tanks and guns grew so rapidly in size.
With catastrophic results on their mobility and their availability. And,
unfortunately, it's little consolation to be able to kill five Shermans
before being destroyed when there are a hundred Shermans to every King
Tiger.
A brutal lesson from the end of WW2 was that having handfuls of tanks
that could kill every adversary at a mile might feel nice... but having
undergunned vulnerable deathtraps like T-34s and Shermans shooting your
infantry onto their objective in squadron or battalion strength was far
better.
Wouldn't stockpiling tungsten _before_ declaring war on most of the
world have been a better option than designing guns so heavy and
immobile that they routinely had to be abandoned under attack, and
demanding tanks so heavy and expensive they were routinely outnumbered
and outmanoeuvered?
After all... most non-German mi
--
Gordon
Who else but Kipling?? I grew up on a sound diet of him, Verne, and
the like. I look forward to seeing this!
v/r Gordon
Keith Willshaw
<euno...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:eef92a66-17e3-4be4...@z16g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 20, 12:34 am, "Keith Willshaw"
>
>> Incorrect , it was used on British armoured cars and light tanks
>> such as the Tetrach firing the APSV (armour piercing super velocity)
>> round.
> Not much indication that it was issued till after 1944 on ground based
> artillery (definitely never on the Hurricane) and if issued actually
> that it was used.
Apart from such minor evidence as the recollection of the crews who used it
You were the one who claimed it was 'never' used, wrongo.
<snip>
>
>> Cite for its lesser capability please, I note almost ever army has
>> switched to APDS.
> APDS is not longer used. Most armies have swtiched to fin stabilized
> rounds fired from smooth bore guns. APDS-FS.
That would be a variant of APDS then
> Even the UK Army with
> its penchant for HSH has finally abondoned its rifled guns on
> Challenger and is adapting a smooth bore rheinmetall design capable of
> firing APDS-FS
That would be British Army and they have not yet decided on adopting that
weapon.
> Developed at Penemunde for outsize extra long range artillery rounds
> possibly it was considered for AT use.
This is nonsense even by your standards
> PAK 41 had perhaps 20% less penetration at 500 yards than the 100%
> heavier Ordinance 17 pounder firing APDS.
And was dropped by the Wehrmacht
> Littlejohn adapter instead of APDS on 2 ounder suggests its
> superiority.
No it suggests its availability just as with the use of Me-109 in 1939
instead of the Fw-190
Sheesh
> The taper bore uses more cartridge energy for some reason.
Try the conservation of energy as a starting point.
>
> >The Germans also used APDS only they called it Triebspiegel or TS
> >(Driving base) ammunition for the PAK 40. By this time there was no
> >tungsten left so they used hardened alloy steel which gave improved
> >penetration but not as much as Tungsten Core.
>
> Wrong.
No you are wrong.
>> The Germans used a small number of APCR rounds which had
>> a hardened steel core and a light metal shroud BUT this shroud was
>> NOT discarded when fired.
> The German Army used what the UK army calls APCR and the German called
> PzGr 40 or Arrowhead shot and the US Army called HVAP but they also
> used APDS which they called PzGr PAK Patr TS 42 and the 'sabot'
>definitely dropped of but yes it was quite rare.
It was used in 30.5 cm K5 Glatt railway guns., NOT with the Pak40
> TS is for Trieb Spiegel, 42 is for the year of development completion
> as in all German ammuniton prior to 1945. It doesn't ,matter what
> calibre incidently.
It does if you try to fit a 30.5 cm round in a 7.5 cm Pak 40. Tony Williams
mentions the use of fins stabilised rounds but only in the context
of long rang railway guns.
Feel free to provide a cite for their use in the AT role.
> Shortages of tungsten meant that they used steel cores. There was
> some work with the use of Uranium as a substitute for tungsten
> apparently the firing range in Poland that was used still shows
>contamination.
>> This results in a rapid los off velocity after
>> firing and a resulting poor long range performance The most common round
>> fired was the APCBC ('Armour-Piercing Capped Ballistic Capped')
> 17 pounder APCR lost accuracy due to the difficulty of ensuring even
> discarding of the sabot, low RPM spinning of the round relative to the
> round diameter and unlike APCR it had a tendancy to bounce or or break
> up on angled armour. In other words the dispersion of APDS was as
> great as that of slower APCR rounds at long ranges. Later issues of
> ammunition or guns designs resolved this.
As already mentioned early versions of weapons tend to have flaws.
> Advanced WW2 rounds, such as the German tungsten core rounds or US
> HVAP, had a 'sticky' metal nose cap behind an aerodynamic nose cap
> that ensured the round nose stuck to the Armour and the core bent or
> rather swung around to penetrate angled Armour rather than bounce off
> or break.
No shit Sherlock
> In theory APDS was significantly superior to APCR type rounds in
> practice the disadvantages closed the gap considerably.
Guess which was used post war
> There was of course no need for German use of APCR on the western
> front since the 70 caliber 75mm guns of the Panther and the 71 and 56
> caliber versions of the 88mm guns as well as the smaller 75mm PAK 40
> could penetrate any western allied tank and any practical range. They
> were kept as silver bullets for dealing with a IS-2 tank or for use
> from aircraft 30 and 37mm guns.
Which neatly ignores the fact that Germany fielded large numbers
of 5cm guns
> The German anticipation of tungsten shortages was the reason German
> tanks and guns grew so rapidly in size.
Make that 'lack of anticipation'
> APCR or APDS would have been very usefull for 50mm PAK 38 AT guns
> which could penetrate nearly 140mm with this ammunition at 250m, again
> enough to deal with any Western allied tank hoevrer the metal was too
> rare.
Tell that to the crews of Mk III Panzers who saw their guns fail to
penetrate the armour of Churchill tanks in the Western Desert
> The lack of APDS ( PzGr PAK Patr TS 42) for the L42 caliber version
> of this 50mm gun round caused some embarraement to the Panzer III
> which was supposed to have received this by the invasion of russia due
> to the emergence of the t-34. The immediate solution was the
> retrofitting of the 50mm L60 firing normal PzGr 40 or Arrowhead shot.
But you just said it was available, make your mind up
Keith
Alistair Gunn
> Even the UK Army with its penchant for HSH has finally abondoned its
> rifled guns on Challenger and is adapting a smooth bore rheinmetall
> design capable of firing APDS-FS
Aside from the minor matter that the switch to a smooth bore is being
*considered* at the moment, Challenger 2 is already capable of firing
APDSFS.
--
These opinions might not even be mine ...
Let alone connected with my employer ...