RichTO90

Sorry, but no, that is an urban myth. Production of the 2.36" Rocket Launcher only began in June 1942 and first issue was to units in Operation Torch , which sailed in October 1942. Only 3,000 launchers and 8,500 rockets were shipped under Lend-Lease to the Soviet Union. AFAICT they were probably shipped to the Soviets under the III or IV Protocol, so after 1 July 1943. The Soviets never issued the Bazooka that I can find but retained them for testing and technical evaluation, which was overall negative. The Germans began development of the Faustpatrone/Panzerfaust in the summer of 1942, the 8.8cm Ofenrohr/Panzerbüchse 43 in January 1943, and the Puppchen AKA 8.8cm Raketenwerfer 43 in the summer 1943. How much captured examples of the Bazooka led to the Ofenrohr is hard to say, given the Faustpatrone was already in development.

The projectiles could, but I doubt the cartridges were interchangeable? The Army "3-inch" actually used three different cartridge cases. The 3-inch M1917, M1925M1, M2, and M4 AA guns and the M1903 Coast Artillery gun all used a larger cartridge, while the 3-inch M1918, M1, and M3 AA guns, the M1902 Coast Artillery gun, the M5 and M7 Antitank, and the M6 Tank guns all used a smaller cartridge case. There were also two sizes of Navy cartridges for their various 3-inch guns. And yes, the Navy 3-inch AP Mark 29 projectile performed markedly better than the Army M62 and M79 AP projectiles in comparative tests done just postwar at Dahlgren, as I mention in American Thunder. The Army designs consisted suffered from shatter and deforming at similar velocities and angles of impact that left the Navy projectiles intact. Perforation both by Army and Navy standards was also much better for the Navy round. The results were damning both for the Army Ordnance designs and manufacturing specifications, but also for the simple failure to cooperate by the two Ordnance establishments. On top of that, the Army Ordnance knew by hearsay as well as from test results at Aberdeen as early as late 1942/early 1943 that the German AP projectile designs and specifications, as well as the German fuze designs, were far superior still, but took no action to improve the American designs.

U.S. Army Ordnance did attempt to copy the MG 42. It failed, for numerous reasons, not least of which they had a limited time frame to do so that would have resulted in any such copies getting into the hands of troops trained to use them. It also highlighted how problematic copying from metric to imperial and vice versa was. Notably, when the U.S. Army did finally develop "its" similar gun, the M60, it replaced the "heavy" M1917 and "light" M1919 machine guns in the Rifle Battalion, it was not deployed as a "squad automatic weapon" in the same manner as the MG 42. Instead, they first tried to make the M14 the SAW, replacing the BAR, then tried to give every rifleman and automatic weapon in the M16, then finally adopted another foreign weapon, the M249 (FN Minimi) as a SAW...in 1984 (who said Orwell wasn't prescient?) Now they are looking for a new one, which will probably be in service in another twenty years or so. Copying stiff like this is not like copying with a Xerox. 😁 The Bazooka was not copied by the Germans because they already were experimenting with various light man-portable antitank weapons. The Bazooka simply showed they did not need wheels on it. The Soviets developed their version too late and relied on hand-thrown types because their industry was already at capacity. I would have to look into it more.

BTW, the bursting charge of the German 75mm HE was 1.41 pounds of Amatol, while that of the 75mm M48 was 1.47 pounds of TNT and the 76mm M42 was 0.86 pounds of TNT (U.S. Army Ordnance was concerned with the stability of Amatol, so preferred TNT as an explosive filler). So the German round was roughly equivalent to 1.55 pounds of TNT, making it about the same as the M48, but superior to the M42, not that American tankers complained that it was not as effective as the German 75mm HE round, they complained that it was not as effective as the American 75mm HE round. 😁 A slight, but important difference.

Because the American 76mm Gun M1, the British Ordnance QF 17-pounder, and the Soviet 85mm were just as good guns, all developed and ready for production by the time the first 7,5cm Pak 40 was captured. The Pak 40 cannon tube, breech, and recoil mechanism were lighter because the Germans accepted somewhat more risk in gun designs, but otherwise they were not much different and the 76mm was probably the most accurate of all. It was not the guns that made the difference in penetration, it was the projectiles. There, at least with the Americans, you have a legitimate question. The problem with the HE in the British 17-pounder was the design of the cartridge case and the amount of propellant used, which resulted in a slightly higher muzzle velocity and a flatter trajectory than was desired for a high-explosive round. The complaint with the American HE round is that it was not as effective as the 75mm M48 High Explosive round as used in the 75mm Gun M2 and M3, not that it was not as effective as the German round.

We used to go to the INTERARMCO surplus store by his warehouses in Alexandria to look for coll World War II stuff. Around 1973 to 1978 IIRC. They had a Nebelwerfer sitting out front and some other intersting odds and ends.

Sigh...yes, it did, I was there in 2000 and it was more evident then, less erosion. The thing is, all that needed to be done was for the cables to be cut, which is what happened at Longues and others. Not that it mattered at Pointe du Hoc because the guns were not in a firing position, they were in a dispersal area, because the rubble was bouncing.

That could be, most sources are not too specific. I used the generic "relinered" without checking.

That at least theoretically was the difference, which is why the various Heeres-Küsten-Artillerie-Regimenter in Normandy had various fire control and communications bunkers either in place or under construction. However, my understanding is that the reality was they rarely had the ability to engage naval targets moving at high speed on diverging azimuths, which was the purview of the Marine-Artillerie-Abteilungen, which had more sophisticated navy-style analog fire control systems tied to the firing pieces, such as at Batterie Marcouf and Batterie Longues. The problem for those was that the FCS were vulnerable to loss of communications from the FC bunker to the guns because the cables were cut by the prelanding air and naval bombardment. That happened to all the guns at Longues, while two of the three at Marcouf were disabled by counterbattery fire and the third was unable to bear on targets. For Point du Hoc, the Heeres-Batterie there was simply not in position and had no communications to its fire control bunker because the cables again were cut by the massive bombardment, which is also why they were moved.

Okay, that's a stretch since I thought we were talking about World War II. Those are not "S Boats", they are Great War era T-Boot of the S klasse. Those would be included under "There were also a lot of earlier naval 8.8cm guns on different mounts that may have been used but in many cases they are only identified as 8.8cm so it is difficult to tell for sure." That includes all the Great War and pre Great War 8.8cm guns on different mountings - Schiffskanone (SK), Torpedobooteskanone (TbsK), and Unterseebooteskanone (UbtsK). Typically, the guns were the 8.8cm SK L/30, L/35, and L/45 and were on different mounts. They were also fitted on various smaller vessels of the KM, such as Vorpostenboot and other auxiliaries.

Yep, many of the Heeres-Küsten-Artillerie-Abteilungen mobilized in 1941 were sent to the Ostfront in the Baltic and the Black Sea. For example, 143. was organized 21 June 1941, then went to 18. Armee in late July. Twenty-four 15.5-cm cm Kanone 416 (f) in four batteries. 144. was organized the same time, but with three batteries and twelve 10.5-cm Kanonen 331 (f). it went to 11. Armee.

Most of those are identified on Lexikon https://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/inhaltsverzeichnis1.htm and Luftwaffe, 1933-45 http://www.ww2.dk/

Lots of French 15.5cm guns and howitzers in coast artillery. Some of the "French" 75s were actually Belgian.

The 8.8cm? No, they may have come from T-Boot, but the S-Boot largest armament was 4cm FlaK 28 or 3.7cm SKC/30. There were also a lot of earlier naval 8.8cm guns on different mounts that may have been used but in many cases they are only identified as 8.8cm so it is difficult to tell for sure.

I'm trying to remember if a medium regiment went to Greece? And, never mind, Leo comes through again. 7th and 64th Medium Regiments RA went to Greece. Of course, the six could have been 60-pdr or 4.5"/60-pdr from Dunkirk as well. I doubt the Germans knew the difference. Unless there is some more info on just what the 365 (e) was we are just guessing.