Jump to content

Inhapi

Members
  • Posts

    713
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Inhapi

  1. So they decided to install a second floor on springs inside the vehicle (mine+ied resistance) and forgot that the crew compartment would become lower;... I had already an article on it in Dutch, but now you can read it in Englsh https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50864567 If you want i have a link to the Dutch article with pictures of legs getting stuck between steering wheel and floor and unreacheable pedals for the driver...... EDIT: Dutch link with pictures https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2019/12/17/vernieuwde-pantserwagens-defensie-militairen-kunnen-niet-meer-v/
  2. Thanks: that is the one that Ralf raths is referring to as being unobtanium now.
  3. Inhapi

    September, 1939

    Ken: I don't think this was oficial doctrine. Each 75 mm battery carried one traversing platform for one gun so it could be used in an AT role. The doctrine was that this would give the batery some AT self defense capability. AFAIK , it was on the personal initiative of a divisional commander to take away the 75mm gun with AT platform from the batteries and deploy them to the front line. I think this was done by several divisions, so it must have been informally discussed by certain mid to high ranking officers into a sort of "inofficial" doctrine. (mon Dieu ! Des officiers qui prennent des initiatves eux mêmes !!!!!!) By 'official' doctrine you may be referring to one that has been taught and drilled. This is why I referred to it as WWII doctrine, for the French Army introduced many new concepts and doctrinal guidance. For instance the armor doctrine for the DLM and DCM units was published and known, yet the divisions and their leaders/troops had no time to practice it, or even become familiar with their new machines. The division commanders at Gembloux were not the same cut of the cloth as their more miserable colleagues at Sedan. The 1st Army was prepared for tank warfare and did not have any restriction on how many guns it took from the artillery, however, they did return these guns to the arty sooner than necessary, for they thought they had defeated the main effort of the Germans. You are right Ken. The divisions going into Belgium were amongst the best the French army had. They fought hard, very hard. It is sad that the typical image that people have of the French army in 1939 is that of the 2nd reserve C class divisions. Which happened to be at Sedan. These were composed of men with their military service long behind them, almost no professional officers, outdated weapons and underequipped and underprovisioned. Also The French Army did fight very hard In the retreat from the Somme to the Seine, and even afer that. These were not surrender monkeys...these were disciplined, capable hard fighting men. The high comand OTOH. I recently read an article an interesting tidbit: Perré, the 2nd DCR’s commander from 20 May to 25 June tells: (i paraphrase): the Char 1Bis had an endurance of 5 hours down from the 8 hours specified for the original Char B1 due to engine changes. But the high command gave orders as if the B1 Bis had an endurance of 8 hours. So he (Perré) was confronted with having to execute marches which were impossible to achieve with the fuel available in the tanks and resupply. from : Martin S. Alexander, After Dunkirk: The French Army’s Performance against ‘Case Red’, 25 May to 25 June 1940, War in History, April 2007, Vol.14(2), pp.219-264 The article is not always very accurate, but if this quote from a DCR commander is correct, then we have another element to add to the French tanks' woes.
  4. Inhapi

    September, 1939

    This was in the pipeline for the French artillery, was to replace all 75 mm field guns and also part of the 47 mm AT guns: Canon de 75mm L/53 TAZ Mle1939 (Schneider) (TAZ = triflèche tous azimuts) Caliber : 75x518R mm Barrel length : 4000 mm (3250 mm rifling) Battle-station weight : 2090 kg Rate of fire : 20 rpm Muzzle velocity : 700 m/s Traverse : 360° Elevation : 40° Maximum range : 13000 m Penetration : 80mm at 1000m (note that a 75/57 Sabot round was being tested at this time for this gun. i have no penetration/range figures for this)
  5. Inhapi

    September, 1939

    The 13,2 round had following Ap capabilities: 20 mm @ 500m 15 mm @ 1000 m 12 mm @ 1500 m using a Tungsten cored round.
  6. Inhapi

    September, 1939

    Also a number of 75's had been modernized in the mid 30'ies with a carriage allowing for higher towing speed and 60° on mount traverse (much like the US conversions of the gun). These could be used in the AT role without modificaion. The were probably mostly found in the A class divisions which fought at Gembloux.
  7. Inhapi

    September, 1939

    Ken: I don't think this was oficial doctrine. Each 75 mm battery carried one traversing platform for one gun so it could be used in an AT role. The doctrine was that this would give the batery some AT self defense capability. AFAIK , it was on the personal initiative of a divisional commander to take away the 75mm gun with AT platform from the batteries and deploy them to the front line. I think this was done by several divisions, so it must have been informally discussed by certain mid to high ranking officers into a sort of "inofficial" doctrine. (mon Dieu ! Des officiers qui prennent des initiatves eux mêmes !!!!!!)
  8. Inhapi

    September, 1939

    It was probably way down on their "to do" list. Which was a long one considering they came from 8mm Lebel. They wanted to introduce the 13,2 mm MG instead, but indeed this was slowed by other priorities; The few heavy MG's produced first went to fortifications, AFV's, AA use. Tough the 13,2 mg was ofc not really a protable weapon it was a "dual" or even "triple" purpose gun like the M2 or the mcuh earlier TUF German project. The 8 mm lebel (and other 8 mm weapons) was not used anymore (or only as substitute) in the A series of divisions. On the other hand, the C class divisions were normally still entierly armed with them (they also used some Berthiers etc... in a sort of PDW for artillerists etc..).
  9. As far as i know, fall blau started out as an attempt to grab the Russian Caucasian oil fields. This to deny them to the Russians, but most important because the German economy and army ground to a halt due to the lack of fuel (e.g. the "demechanisation"). All clear and well, but was there any preparation made in Germany to repair wells (they can hardly have been so optimistice that they expected to capture the oil fields intact), transport the oil to Germany and what about refinery capacity ? many thanks, Inhapi.
  10. Another thing: Stuart: you mention that the Spifire was plumbed for 4 x 20 mm. But i always tought that involved switching out the wing ? A-wing for 8 x .303, B-wing for 4 x 20 mm (jeez, i start to sound like describing Star Wars fighters.)
  11. What would the armament of the Spitfire then be ? 2x20mm + 4x .303 ? I remember the combo of 20 mm and 50 cal.
  12. Kind of logical since it was originally developed to be used between the cylinders of a motorblock, iIRC. not so many freezing up problems there i guess.
  13. Hi all, i have a question about mixed calibre gun armaments in fighter aircraft. beginning in the 1920'ies we see that gun calibres in fighter aircraft in service start to multiply. before that there were basically only rifle calibre MG. As the war progressed we see that : The Germans (and Soviets) start to mount all sorts mixed gun armaments to their fighters like a HV MK103 + LV MK108 and a pair of MG 131. Or combining MG/FF with MG 151 and MG 131 These German weird combinations were ofc often a response the the need for ever heavier armament to use against bombers but the ballistics of the different weapons would make using these effectively a nightmare , not ? Didn't Japanese pilots dislike the mg/20mm combo on the Zero ? was there any positive side to mounting such disparate weapons in one plane ? The only reason i can think of is a designer (or even a field repair unit) looking at that FW 190 and thinking: i need maximum firepower. lets see...oh, we are used to put two 7,92 mm mg above the motor, so we will do that. And yeah, there is room in the outer wings for that really good MG 151, and while we are still at it, we used to mount mg/FF in the inboard wings, perhaps we might put 2 more MG151 there, but, mmm looking at the space and weight, i'd rather go with the MG/FF anyway, it will not hit anything at the ranges you use the MG 151 or even the 7,92 mg but lets do it anyway. (or pure desperation to mount ANY gun where there was space/weight available) Did it make any sense at all (apart on paper to the higher ups ?) And while we are at it, IIRC the Soviets went for a twin 23 mm + single 37 mmm combo in their early jet figthers. Did that work out ? While the early war Bitish 8 gun fighters might have had underperforming guns, and the US 50 cal did begin to show the same problem later in the war and especially by the time of the Korean war, at least they were able to put lots of bullets in one rather small area of the sky at the right range.
  14. No, nothing about the T34/85. Just the design iterations up to approval of "final" design to go into production.
  15. Maybe they had enough tanks to take all five of them at once ? ;-)
  16. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0R3gaRNkmh4
  17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxgyImhWMKM quote: "good book, buy it" enjoy. BTW: this is on the new English language channel of the Panzermuseum Münster, if you hadn't found it yet.
  18. Well, HMS Polyphemus was classified as a torpedo ram. the tactics Thunderchild uses are clearly those ascribed to Polyphemus: gettin into ramming position. Note that in the book reference is made of what seems to be a battle-line of other more regular ironclads standing of in the distance and not going in for ramming. HMS Polyphemus was OFC primarly a torpedo carrier, but her name "Torpedo ram" and her agressive looks that scream ramming attack has always made her in the eyes of the public a ship build primarly for ramming. Also Polyphemus most publicised feat was the breaking (by ramming) of the boom at Berehaven (i believe) during excercises, simulating an attack on a anchorage defended by a heavy boom and nets. So i'd go for Thunderchild being based on Polyphemus. public depiction of Polyphemus:
  19. A torpedo ram was a vague term and included ships such as HMS Polyphemus and early protected cruisers with torpedoes and rather heavy main guns wich were often seen as flagships/supportships for flottilas of torpedoboats (like the AH Kaiserin Elisabeth Class and the Italian Giovanni Bausan) AFAIK it was never used for destroyer(like) ships, but for heavier ships. From the text of the War of the Worlds, one gets the impression of it being some sort of Polyphemus like ship, albeit with more gunpower.
  20. Thanks, Wasn't the bombard used in the siege of Tobruk (i vaguely remember a photograph of this).
  21. As the title implies, are there any good books or sources on this topic. I'm mostly interested in the economic background: How fast could new weapons be cranked out etc ... I know of the exotic weapons dreamed up by al sorts of individuals (from the Beaverette to the Blacker bombard and everytyhing in between) but was most of this stuff seen as serious weapons or more like militia arms (i.e. the home guard) Ocf, a lot of field forticifations in a bewildering array of lines and types were also build, but i'm more interested in the "conventional" weaponry. How long did it take for example to crank out enough artillery and MG's and individual weapons (with ammo) for example to arm say 5-10 infantry divisions ?
  22. Inhapi

    September, 1939

    You mean something like this ?:
×
×
  • Create New...