Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Inhapi

  1. Yes, it the ammo in production in amny countries and Maxim played into that as that would enlarge the potential customer base for his gun. For the WWI infantry guns it was the same: the ammo was in production, it was suitable for the needs so the new small infantry guns were designed around it. MCollum forgets to mention that 100's of these guns were produced for use in fortifications, mainly for ditch defense. The French had a very intersting variant designed for it: 40 mm, 5 barrels with different twist of rifling and firing only canister. The idea was that the 5 different spreads of the casister of 5 successive rounds would cover the entire length of the more or less standardised ditch lenght in balls.... seems to have workded well
  2. yup you are right...... Tought it was the 1.5 pdr, looked it up^and the "source" was erroneous.
  3. I don't know whether this has been posted before, but imho this is a very good youtube channel on AFV's (mostly British) : Armoured archives. it mainly consists of presenting rare documents from archival research and some context. Extremely well sourced .... https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCIgjPAYn253oyWLsYgiHDw
  4. The gun the Germans used in WWI was the 37mm 1pdr.
  5. The system was used on some Jagdtigers... ofc a totally different weight class, but the gears did indeed break....
  6. Yes, Basically they used everything they could get going, even some A13's in Barbarossa (no need to say these didn't last long)
  7. I don't know, but I hope he continues publishing these wonderful books for a long time ....
  8. Well, you had the Jesus of Lübeck, sold (by the city of Lübeck) to the British and ended up being used in one of these Hawkins/Drake semi pirate raids on the Spanish overseas possessions.
  9. The Germans tested (or at least touroughly inspected) about everything they captured at Kummersdorf, not jsut to evaluate the vehicles as fighting vehicles, but also to try and learn something from their engineering. A Char 2C ended up there and these pictures are interesting: a listing and pictures of captured tanks and a gneneral article on the tanks in the proving grounds http://beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer/Museum/museum.html http://beutepanzer.ru/Beutepanzer/Museum/Articles/Artcile.html There are some extracts from these repaorts in Spielberger's Beutekraftwagen un Panzer ..... In the book are some extracts of testing done on a Churchill tank captured at Dieppe and testing it fitted with return rollers ... The report on the tank was rahter ... scathing
  10. According to the expedition records they worked well on the few patches of bare rock/gravel in the summer but were worthless on snow and ice due to the high ground pressure and lack of traction on these surfaces. From what I can find on these two vehicles, the M2A2 was sent as a tractor, not a fighting tank, but the only real modification was the removal of its turrets. Other mods were done at the base's workshop. Note that this was a quasi military expedition send as a response to the German Schwabenland expedition, so I would not be surprised that testing a real combat tank was part of the expeditions programme. (due to its semi-military nature no extensive account of the expedition has been published yet, a fact now used by "hollow earth" and "flat earth" conspiracy theorists 🙂 ) The vehicle in the background is a T3E4 carrier. they also took along this monstrosity: The "Antartic snow cruiser" a complete mobile base on wheels.... which was completely useless (it was fitted with oversized tires for swamp vehicles of all things which ofc had no grip on the snow/ice) and could only make any progress when driven in reverse, the thing was rediscoverd intact almost 20 years later buried in meters of snow but has not been found since..... Its main use seems to have been that they could measure the depth of accululation of snow on the spot whre it was abandoned when rediscovered later....
  11. So I found a picture of a wreck of a US M2A2 + a tracktor on the same chassis still lying around in Antarctica. They were taken there by the 1939-1941 Byrd expedition..... did they envision fighting tank battles there ? Anyway, I guess these must be a rare relics
  12. T-62 modified into a MLRS system fiiring canisters with fire extinguishing stuff..... is this a joke ?
  13. I want one now..... the kids already have enough toys....
  14. http://www.chars-francais.net/2015/index.php/engins-blindes/chars?task=view&id=1643 Not going to steal the picture, so I provide a link. French 1940 "Mausisches" tank: 145 tons, 90 mm gun in main turret + 47 mm secondary. Only a wooden mock-up was in the works when France fell.
  15. The version with twin 25 pdrs wat nothing more than a test rig to test wether the hull/turret could withstand the recoil of a 17pdr gun, of which not even a single example was available in Australia for testing. It was never meant to be prodcued as an operational tank. OTOH, if they had just made it with a singe 25pdr (and if the off road capability was good enough) I guess it would have been a great tank for jungle/island warfare against the Japanse.
  16. IIRC, this was a plate of rather thin spaced armour. As you can see it is bolted to a frame which in turn was IIRC welded to the original hull/armour. So while looking outwardly impressive, it is little more than a standard Comet with a thin sloping front plate added. Yuo can see at teh edges of the sloping front plate that it is just a thin add on and not the main armoured hull. In practice the extra protection from this plate turned out to be negligable. [edit] : P.M. Knight, The Comet tank.... , p 210: "Altough it was too late to redesing the Comet with a sloping front glacis, an experiment was carried out in which an additional 1" thick IT 80 homogenious-machinable armour plate was bolted at 49° to three brackets welded onto the exisiting visor and glacis plates, in order to create an extra layer of protection." tests showed the plate did indeed imoprove protection (it hardly could be otherwise ofc), but that just welding an extra plate onto the existing armour would give better protection for the same weight without covering up the exising drivers' door and Besa mount.
  17. Thre is a lot to unpack in that vid....... I am sorry... So we focus on beer, patriotism hard work... some things are factually untrue: like the piano thing ... and the "German" generals in the Roman army ? There were some (but can we project what we now think as being Gemran to that period ?), lots of them were Avars, semi-Hunnic, etc.... I wonder that the greatest achievements in science of the Germans are just not mentioned, in the late 19th early 20th century they revolutionised physics, chemistry, medicine, the study of history, produced some of the greatest writers and philospers (even before that) etc..... Many of the leading compsers of the 3rd to end of the 19th century were German....etc etc But hey, beer and patriotism.... everyone his priorities..... i find the focus on important people/generals that were "ethnically" German in some way...... disturbing.... TBH, this vid is like : too many people look at Germany trough the lens at what happened in the 30'ies and rightfully so, yet most of its narrative is focussed on the stuff that was part of the propaganda/doctrine of the 1930'ies... there are lots more important and interesting things to tell by , I wonder whether what the intentions of the maker of this vid are ?< ah..okay..took a look at his channel, no more questoins.
  18. true, they start out with a lot of different models and by sort of inbreeding all end up being M50'ies or M51's 🙂
  19. Also by the early twenties more than 1300 tractors were in use in Belgium in agriculture alone, no mean feat for such a small country that was completely broke in 1918.
  20. Well, kettenkrafts seem to be considered to be very sexy.... so...... there you have your prime mover of choice 🙂
  21. OFC it did not. I just wanted to point ou that the Suez canal geve the (eastern) med some of its importance back strategically. I didn't mention the Portuguese essentially controlling the (northern) Indian ocean but this indeed a second factor in cutting the traditional (Byzantine)Ottoman-Venetian trade routes. I guess the point is that even if the Ottomans had sustained trade routes to India, European nations (Portugal to start with) had now an alternative and would never accept a high "middleman" mark-up from a Middle eastern empire-nation in the trade routes.
  22. The 16th century was not the beginning of Ottoman "decadence" ofc, but the transformation of the empire to one focussed on consolidation. A large part of the economic reforms that completely transformed the empire was to make it more self-sustaining. OFC they were still a large power for a long time.
  23. The same happened to Venice ofc..... I think in the larger long term schem of things it was just the focus of international trade and wealth shifting from the Mediterrean to the Atlantic/North sea and Northwestern Europe in general. No fleet policy could have changed that in the long term. Long ranged ocean worthy trade ships just made the med. economically a backwater. (Until the new trade route openend by the Suez canal ofc, but that was just a trade route pasing trought the Med and did not put the med region back on the front seat economically) It hurt Venice and Genua most directly (hence eg the Venetian turn from gathering wealth by trading to starting a domestic "empire" on the terra firma and a colonial one in Dalmatia and the Aegean. The Ottomans responded by centralising their state economically and socially basicaly turning inward. Their trade shifted from being the middle man in the trade with the Orient to trade with the North-Western European states and imports from these market for domestic use became much more dominant than the previous "middelman" trade. Both the Ventian and Ottoman answers to the diminishing importance ot the med. were rahter effective in the short/mid term. Due to the small size of the Ventian "empire" this one went down first (mainly at the hands of the Ottomans none the less) The Ottomans took much longer to desintegrate due to sheer inertia (i.e. like the Roman-Byzantine empire). The Ottoman empire pre 16th century can best be compared with the Roman principate era, post 16th century with the Roman dominate era: more focussed on surviving (altough they did still trive) with large military reforms, increasing buraucracy to keep things running etc.... The geographically more exposed Genoese had to deal with these new emerging powerhouses in the north western Europe (at first Milan, then Spain and France, later Austria) And would only survive by forging/switching alliances with these in which their impact/importance in these aliances quickly diminshed to being a spectator without much say at best.
  24. Yes, The 1916 version of the Leighter Minenwerfer (LeMN n.a.) could fire horizontally with a traverse of 360°. Thus it was made into a light "universal" infantry support weapon: Indirect fire mortar or direct fire light gun. It could also be fired on its wheeled carriage in a more mobile role but then ofc only over the frontal arc. (and IIRC only in the lower register, but have to look that one up) On its wheeled carriage it could be towed by 3-4 men.
  • Create New...