Joji

Thank you for this perfect analogy: 'I told you to go before we left.' It brightened my evening. It is of course funny, but also true, and it reminds us of vehicle crews having to pee in their helmets under armour, before slopping them out by hand - so as not to get shot by snipers while dismounting for a comfort break. War is hell. But long car journeys with small kids ain't a picture postcard either.

Mmm, no true, wrt the frontal arc not being restricted by rail gauge. But there are always trade-offs for uparmouring in this way. You have the extra weight, the balance of the vehicle, the cost - in materials, time to design and fit - and so on. I guess the question is: is it effective _enough_ to justify the trade-off costs involved? Off-hand I can't think of many examples of spaced armour in the frontal arc. The MkIV H, is kind of my poster boy for spaced armour - particularly in the turret and hull flanks - but it doesn't have that much in the frontal arc, does it? A plate bolted on the mantlet - but not really 'spaced armour' as such. I seem to recall they have a Swedish S-tank in the sheds at Shrivenham with frontal arc bar armour. But on that unusual vehicle it isn't going to interfere with your turret traverse and elevation/depression. It is the iron laws of physics again - if you are having to putz about with a vehicle to that extent (a bit like trying to keep an old banger on the road) then you might well have to ask yourself whether you have the right vehicle for the game you're in. And if your frontal arc is _that_ vulnerable you are thinking about applique armour, chances are you need to take a good long hard look at your fleet. Kind of the story for British tank production through the war really...

Ah! It's an action replay! Thank you for the clarification and apologies for my being dense. I never formed the impression from the 51mm mortar (curse you metric system) that it could hit anything much in particular with enormous precision. The thought that there might be an electronic Commonwealth, or <ahem> Empire, mortarman out there who could hit things so reliably filled me with great pride, but a lingering sense of doubt. He's probably a Canadian. Reflexes honed to razor pitch from years of expert log-rolling as a lumberjack in the great northern forests.

A lot of great points. I had forgotten the CG handheld recoiless rifle - potentially another great fast-track route to VC ownership! The spaced armour point is interesting. One of the key limitations for the larger AFVs is the need to fit them through railway tunnels when moving them by rail between theatres. I think there is a standard rail gauge - basically a cut out shape which your rail car and load have to be able to pass through before you can freight them around the rail system: measure twice - freight once: getting a train-load of tanks stuck in a rail tunnel being a super fast route to that summary court-martial you've always worried about. I have a suspicion that the smaller German AFVs (thinking the Mk IIIs/Ivs) probably could fit through a gauge with their permanently fitted spaced armour. But there is no way that would work for big modern AFVs - or the WWII German big cats. In fact didn't the Tiger II need to be fitted with narrower tracks for strat moves? Of course, nowadays don't we have the same problem? I suspect that the big MRAP trucks will not go into any strat lift with their bar armour fitted. Fine if you have the time and base setup to put it all on when you get into your theatre of entry. But not a scheme that would have appealed to anyone in bad old WWII.

Yes - that's the video. That's a 2" mortar is it? Devilishly good shooting, that.

One advantage of a PIAT was the absence of backblast. It could therefore be fired from inside a building and it would create less launch signature than a rocket. These are significant advantages for the firer of the PIAT. My father, who did fire one on a range post-war, said the firing recoil was unpleasant. Add that to the custard pie like trajectory of the round and you are seeing some significant disadvantages of the system. It is telling that all modern infantry anti-tank systems (the Soviet RPG family comfortably leading the field) use rockets to push warheads out. Or are there any exceptions?

What on earth is firing at the tank destroyer at around minute 3 of video 1? It scares me.

DT, Many thanks for posting this. I find these unit histories fascinating. Note the claims for panzers killed - more than Rommel had with him in the DAK I am sure! And yet interesting too to note the number of knocked out Shermans that are repaired: not entirely the 'Tommy Cooker' of myth. Accounts like this repay close study... Best regards, Joji.

Damian, Thank you for your very good posts. They are very informative and your english is pretty good: it is a hard language. I was interested when you said that an RPG29 had defeated the frontal armor of a CR2, wounding the driver. The only combat injury to a CR2 driver that I have heard of was due to an under belly IED strike. What is your source for the RPG29 claim? Keep up the good work!