Dinsdale
-
Posts
31 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Dinsdale
-
-
APDS problems were linked directly to sabot seperation issues with 1-2 batches of amunition.The problem with Brit and U.S. tungsten core sabot rounds was their unreliability at longer ranges. They had an awful time keeping them following a straight flight path.About 1 in 7 IIRC went high. Will verify that
My vote is the 17 Pdr. AtGun
-
French RGs fired using live rounds.
Rest used Blanks.
The No.68 Mk I/II was relatively ineffective due to its need for close to 90 degree hits to cause proper detonation. Later MKs had better angles but still were hard to get good hits with. They are far from precision targetted devices. They did work OK against Bunkers/walls etc. when not faced with a bunch of different angles in a small area (tank).
I have 2 No.68 Mk IIIs at home. They are quite small and light.
-
I don't think Never is a good word.There was never a period during WW2 where infantry was unable to draw a fresh supply of ammuntion for an hour or more"Rarely" might be a better word. Or possibly "Not often"
Didn't take much time to dig this up
2 days without resupply before being wiped out.Croatian Volunteers in the German Wehrmacht in WWIIby Allen Milcic
On December 19th 1942, the Brigade was holding Hills 210 and 168 near Hracin. Here they were surrounded by a massive Soviet attack, but continued fighting till December 21st 1942, when they ran out of ammunition and were over-run. There were no survivors and the unit was totally destroyed.
Also at Dieppe.
That's 2 seperate fronts, 2 sepearte armies.We went back to the seawall, but there was nowhere to hide," said the 77-year-old who was 22 in 1942. He said he took a piece of shrapnel in the leg, but didn’t realize it at the time. The shrapnel was found during a medical examination in 1949 and was finally removed at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto in 1960."The battle was over in a few hours. We had no more ammunition. Someone waved a white flag and a well-dressed German officer appeared. He said: ‘Now boys, drop your weapons and equipment. For you the war is over.’"
...The Essex Scottish assaulted the open eastern section on a beach swept with machine-gun fire. All attempts to breach the seawall were driven back. By mid-morning, with ammunition running low, the survivors struggled back to the water’s edge.
Both ran out of ammunition after many hours of fighting. No resupply.
[ June 15, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]
-
April '43
-
You touch on it and then continue to make blanket statement that US Marksmen are better.Yes Dinsdale, I know I covered that in a topic somewere above...Its alot of reading,,,sorry.As a whole, no they were not. Compare specifically Marine marksmen vs Others, and you may get a different result.
Get it?
I have UsArmy Ammunition Data sheets if someone has Brit/Canadian ones.Everything from .22, .410 shotgun through 30mm Cannon rounds.
[ May 14, 2004, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]
-
You cannot take Marine Marksmanship and equate it to All US troops. They trained differently, and had different standards.
-
Funny how the III at the Patton Museum has the same values as the one at the Bovington museum.
I'll measure the one at Borden as well later in the Spring.
But of course, your "drawings" are more accurate.
-
That is all fine and dandy but as a Production tank has the following values, measured off the tank, I question the value of your 'original drwaing' until you find any production tanks with a values that corroborates your inforamation.This is wrong. The original drawings of the Pz-III H viewport claps show a thickness of about 48 mm. Since it was measured on a curved screen, perhaps 3 or 4 mm less.The covers over the sight openings at either side of the mantlet are 25 to 30mm thick and recess into the mantlet armor when closed. -
You are misunderstanding.
Look at this PIIIE
Compare to the IIIH which has a large External Mantlet.
-
I have for armoured regiment May 1942:
Regiment with 3 Squadrons.
55 Cruisers
6 CS tanks
8 AA tanks
-
I recognize that drawing from a 1943 report on the Vulnerability of German tanks to 20mm MKIII AP
I can send it to you if you like.
[ March 22, 2004, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]
-
Front Turret armour is 30mm.
Mantlet is 37mm.
You can hit the Turret Front without hitting the Mantlet.That and the Viewport covers are 25mm-30 mm and vulnerable as well.
-
From WWIIOnline Forums just FYI for those interested.
Reply:Mr. Lemmons,Recently there has been a debate in forums I participate on concerning the armor configuration on the Pz.IIIH mantlet. Most sources state that the mantlet was 37mm, curved, face hardened, as appears in many books. That appears to be the extent of the armor on this tank, as produced. So we thought.
However, recently some information has come to light that the mantlet on this (and other Pz.III/IV models) was backed by an 'inner mantlet'/gun cradle/rotor which provided additional armor protection.
In photographs I've viewed, such as these on AFVinteriors, it appears that the MG, vision slits and gun mount are attached/go directly through the backside of the mantlet: http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/pz3/pz3a.html
And in fact you can see the backside of the mantlet, in our interpretation. Some sources debate that this is not the backside of the mantlet, but is another piece of metal which is used as a backing plate to the actual mantlet. This piece, it is claimed, provides additional armor protection of 20mm or more.
Can you shed some light this? Do you know if the backside of the mantlet is exposed on those pictures? I have additional pictures you can browse at: http://www.pangea-systems.com/jas/pub/share/wwiiol/IIIh/ some are not IIIH tanks, but used in an attempt to discover the nature of the construction of the vehicle. In fact, there are pictures of your museum's Pz.III I've used during our debate and discussion.
Now, I understand that your tank appears to be up-armored with a thicker mantlet - perhaps a Pz.IIIJ mantlet of 50mm. This would not change the nature of this tank's construction as compared to the IIIH base model in my opinion.
The real interesting and burning question: is the backside of the mantlet exposed at some places directly to the interior of the turret? Or, is there additional protection that must be defeated?
Thank you for your time.
Sir:
Best information (after some research with our vehicle and looking at the British references). 1st thing is that the vehicle we have is identified by serial number as a PzKw III Ausf F which was modified by the germans with the added 30mm armor bolted on to the front of the hull and glacis. It was upgraded with a new mantlet having 50mm armor. The armor forms the front portion of the rotor into which the gun is mounted. The shield over the recoil mechanisms that project forward of the armor is 20mm thick on sides, top and bottom with the front of the shield being 50mm thick. The covers over the sight openings is from 25 - 30mm thick. The protruding machinegun cover is also constructed of 20mm thick armor. The "added armor" on the inside is apparently a sheet metal plate to catch splinters - not armor protection at all. That information is based on British inspections of the PzKw III and IV.
First remember the construction of the beast. You have the rotor - to which the gun mount is attached. In US vehicles the armor is then bolted on over the rotor for protection. In the case of the German PzKw III and IV, the rotor is open at the front and back with the curved armor plate welded directly across the front opening - making it an integral part of the rotor. Behind the rotor in some vehicles a sheet metal plate is bolted across the opening to act as a light splinter shield in case anything should come through the opening for the sights or machinegun. It is NOT armor - as it is mostly to take care of bullet splash and the like. Of course the cradle for the gun takes up a large amount of the space behind the mantlet - but nothing special is added.
The term "exposed directly to the interior" is a bit confusing. The frontal armor plate seals against the rotor completely - using 20mm thick plates to take up the space difference caused by the greater curvature of the rotor vs the armor. (sealing the armor against the rotor all around). If you are asking "If the round penetrates the 50mm armor - is there something spaced behind it to stop it?" then the answer is no. I doubt that the light metal spinter shield would stop even shrapnel caused by a penetration of the frontal armor - although it might stop armor flaking from a near penetration. The gun mount might catch some of it, but otherwise you are out of luck. The actual thickness of the turret front (surrounding the opening where the rotor and mantlet are mounted) is 30mm thick - but that is a very small target compared to the mantlet.
I hope that I understood the question.
Charles Lemons
Curator, Patton Museum
-
I have inspected our PzKw III H and have the following information:
The main problem I see here is some inaccurate information. The front mantlet armor on our PzKw III Ausf H is 50mm not 37mm - the records I found always seem to quote 37mm. Perhaps ours was upgraded to 50mm, but we have no additional information on that. Ours was brought back from southern Germany in October 1946 and had been captured by the American Third Army. Having said that - let's talk construction.
You have the gun assembly itself attached to the rotor and gun mantlet assembly. The gun tube and some of its recoil mechanisms project through the mantlet armor and are not covered by the its 50mm thick mantlet armor. They are, instead surrounded by an oval section of formed armor plate (20mm thick at sides, top and bottom) that projects from the front of the mantlet center and is covered at the end with a plate through which the gun tube finally projects. That end plate is bolted over the end of gun recoil mechanisms and measures 50mm thick.
The opening for the coaxial machinegun is approximately 100mm in diameter is is covered by a cast and milled steel armor cover which is 20mm thick all around. The covers over the sight openings at either side of the mantlet are 25 to 30mm thick and recess into the mantlet armor when closed. The armor plate over the mantlet is welded to the rotor at top and bottom with 20mm thick plates to take up the space between the two curved surfaces.
The two surfaces do not actually overlap very much- as the mantlet armor was designed to protect the gun rotor and the gun itself. Where they do overlap (top and bottom) they would only overlap no more than 2" or so. and would be spaced probably about 4" apart at that point.
Hope that this is helpful
Charles Lemons
Curator, Patton museum
-
That was what I recall from pre-1942 testing as well.Maybe I understand Jentz wrong, but he tells that at least for the 2-pdr the criterium was that not the full projectile, but only at least 20% of the projectile had to penetrate in 80% of the hits.German had a more stringent definition:5 to 10 (depending on calibre) consecutive shots had to penetrate the plate with 100% of the projectile, without any failure was permitted.
--Derek WardThe german criteria while tougher is not THAT much tougher. Many works on the shelf equate the delta to about 10-15% depending on attack conditions, projectile mass vs armor type, and host of other factors.Gives a quick way to get approximate values.
Hey there Ireg, we'll keep it more civil here ok?
[ March 12, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]
-
The No.68 Grenade the British had in 1940 could penetrate 89 mm @ an effective range of 100m.
No admittedly it wasn't that effective. It had a very narrow margin to achive that penetration due to angles needed. The Mk2 version corrected this by 1941.
The M9A1 anti-tank rifle grenade should be capable of a similar performance which the following confirms. You need to realize that
these were the precursor to the PIAT,Bazooka and
used the Munroe principle. (HEAT)
US Rifle-mounted Grenade LaunchersThe launcher, essentially an extension of the rifle, had six graduations for different ranges (for use in high-angle fire, as with signal and illumination rounds), and also a grenade retainer spring. In use, the launcher was inserted into the stabilizer assembly of the rifle grenade to the appropriate range graduation.
A special grenade cartridge, always hand-loaded, was the propellant for the grenade mounted on a rifle grenade launcher. The first widely used grenade launcher for the M1, the M7, attached to the bayonet lug by a hinged clamp, and had a stud that fitted into the gas cylinder valve screw to hold it open and vent the excess gas from firing this special cartridge. With the development of the M7A1, which permitted full semiautomatic fire when mounted, the M1 became very effective as a grenade launcher. Using the M3 grenade cartridge, an experienced rifleman could fire a MarkII fragmentation grenade with good accuracy almost 200 yards!
The M1 carbine's M8 grenade launcher used the M6 grenade launching cartridge. At about 65% the muzzle energy of the M1 rifle, the carbine could function in the fully semiautomatic mode with the launcher mounted. The M8 clamped on the end of the barrel and was held in place by a wing nut.
Another example of dedicated rifle grenades was the M9/M9A1 HEAT anti-tank grenade. The M9 weighed about 1.3 pounds, contained a shaped charge similar to the bazooka AT rocket, could penetrate 3 to 4 inches of armor, and had a maximum effective range of 250 yards (probable effectiveness about 100 yards).
Gases produced when the hand-loaded grenade cartridge is fired launch the grenade. For most of the designed rifle grenades, however, the thrust was not great enough to lift them to the desired altitude or propel them with enough force. Therefore, a propelling charge, ignited by flame from the fired cartridge, was assembled in the base of some of the rifle grenades to provide the additional boost. At the same time, the flame from the propelling charge would ignite the black powder of any time train for a time delay fuze, if needed. Fuzes were standard in signal and illumination pyrotechnic rifle grenades.
Because of the heavy recoil generated by the grenade cartridge, the rifle (or carbine) was fired by firmly planting the butt on the ground, turned sideways to avoid damaging the stock.
[ February 26, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]
-
The same way the US army does.How does scotsman define a penetration wrt the calculator?Not necesarily a killing shot. Look at the energy listed to get an idea of impact.
He did interesting things and found/proved that the 17 lber APDS does not in fact shatter as some authors believed , but rather had a bad first run of ammo and the penetrator yawed due to improper seperation.
If you run the 2lber you will see Shatter GAp is included in the script.
Reults are from Jetz and others with a few run on the Hydrocode generator in his spare time.
-
That's a tool a friend of mine built.
Handy, accurate and up to date, unlike some texts.
The creator works in the industry.
Also for reference:
-
HE and all damage is still Joule based damage modelling. We are still trying to convince them to give up their HE model and go with the US Armies technique of simulating HE.Have they switched to a statistical HE model yet? Timed fuses for grenades, maybe?Also have modelling errors with their afv's been addressed yet? Primarily the top tier stuff that was most affected. I.E. Mk.II infantry tanks being set afire by hits to the superstructure plating below the armored fuel filler covers while their rear deck remained immune to 75mm HE fire in complete disagreement with range cards issued to troops in N.Africa. The Pz.Kpfw.III having too much ammunition for the Ausf.H variant and both modelled variants having ammunition stacked around the turret sides (where access hatches, vision ports, and crew normally sat). Next was armored ammunition bins missing altogether for the incorrectly located ammunition on the Pz.Kpfw.III. Do AFV's still detonate themselves upon contact with various game objects (i.e. walls, railings, etc). Also, are the poor froggies still forced to stay buttoned up at all times in their tanks? That brings me to my final question, are the froggies even in existence anymore, or have they been replaced by the American forces yet?
Thanks, and btw, I'm sure your rifle grenades as modelled will exhibit behavior which will range from ridiculous to somewhat believable in the case that they are still using a rather truncated physics based HE model.
Bouncing,timed grenades still in the works. :-(
Matty still has artificial weakness despite proof that this in fact was not the "Weakspot"
Still hoping they admit to that and add to list of fixes.
IIIh still has too much Ammo, and it is still in turret. This should change with the coming armour audit.
AFV exploding on contact with walls is not as common anymore and is related to the netcode. Once they figure out the issue limiting them, it will disappear. Gotta slow down around town.
French commanders will be able to get out to look only once the new model which includes jettisoning" is included. Until then the French are "sucking hind teat" although the M3A3 sure is nice.
Although it is a buggy game, it is the ONLY game in town. I both love/hate it and that tells you something. CRS also will take researched data and add changes to the game based on the data. Just have to make a well documented case.
And for the record, I love Combat Mission
and alot of my squad plays as well.
-
Can you post any info you have on this.
I have 89 MM and effective up to 100m but with a fairly high amount of poor penetration due to angles.
Fired from Kneeling position using a Blank cartridge.
Anything you guys can add?
-
Can you post any info you have on this.
I have 89 MM and effective up to 100m but with a fairly high amount of poor penetration due to angles.
Fired from Kneeling position using a Blank cartridge.
Anything you guys can add?
-
Froma friend who is a professional Kinetic energy AT Missile tester and WWII grognard.In reference to WWIIOnline APHE effects but info is still valid.Another note is the APHE ammunition used by many auto-cannons. These were particulary troublesome to the crew, even when only partially penetrating, they stood to do damage to the occupants. Though this would apply more to the larger calibers (i.e. 75mm) than the auto-cannons, the thickness of armor generally engaged by such weapons would compensate, imo. There was a famous test of the german 75mm APHE round stuffed into an M2 and fired by the British ca. 1942 (T.C.N.A. - Tom Jentz). This test provided interesting results regarding the effectiveness of even a partial penetration by APHE
And that is in a tight interior. Unlike a Halftrack.IMHO the effects of the burster charges are VASTLY overstated. Avg crew casualies per vehicle penetration by 1944 (read generally 75mm penetrations) should be a little over 2...probably around 2.3-2.4 given a fair hit. Average crew casualties for a 37mm should be alot less UNLESS ammunition explosion is induced (possible because ammo bins on early british AFV are not armored...the german bins are). Taking that into account, though, one would think the avg crew casualties for a clean 37mm penetration would be 1 or less...certainly NOT multiple crew casualties the way we currently see them in game.Scotsman
-
My Maternal Grandfather was an Airframe Mechanic on Swordfish9RN). His Swordfish dropped Flares in the Raid on the Italian Fleet. He was on the Illustrious when she sank. Was in the Hanger Deck when a 500KG bomb went off. Most died. He lived. He went on to Malta and then back to England.
He Met my Grandmother , who built airplanes, while on leave.
My Great Grandfather fought for BEF in WWI and went AWOL to Australia. He returned and rejoined on the condition they drop the AWOL charges.
My Paternal Grandfather and all his relatives were Merchant Marines(UK).
My Step Grandfather was a Doctor and my Step Grandmother a Nurse(Royal Canadian Medical Corps).
OF My Step Great Uncles , there were 4, 2 served. 1 was a Major in the Governor General Foot Guards and Died fighting near Caen during the Falaise battles, 14 days after landing.
The other was a doctor who Died in Korea as a Colonel in the Royal Canadian Medical Corps.
EDIT: Go here http://www.virtualmemorial.gc.ca
for Information on deceased canadian Soldiers.'
Some information is incorrect. It lists my Great Uncle as a Sherbrooke Fusilier. Getting them to fix it and adding Pictures I have.
[ January 09, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]
-
My Maternal Grandfather was an Airframe Mechanic on Swordfish9RN). His Swordfish dropped Flares in the Raid on the Italian Fleet. He was on the Illustrious when she sank. Was in the Hanger Deck when a 500KG bomb went off. Most died. He lived. He went on to Malta and then back to England.
He Met my Grandmother , who built airplanes, while on leave.
My Great Grandfather fought for BEF in WWI and went AWOL to Australia. He returned and rejoined on the condition they drop the AWOL charges.
My Paternal Grandfather and all his relatives were Merchant Marines(UK).
My Step Grandfather was a Doctor and my Step Grandmother a Nurse(Royal Canadian Medical Corps).
OF My Step Great Uncles , there were 4, 2 served. 1 was a Major in the Governor General Foot Guards and Died fighting near Caen during the Falaise battles, 14 days after landing.
The other was a doctor who Died in Korea as a Colonel in the Royal Canadian Medical Corps.
EDIT: Go here http://www.virtualmemorial.gc.ca
for Information on deceased canadian Soldiers.'
Some information is incorrect. It lists my Great Uncle as a Sherbrooke Fusilier. Getting them to fix it and adding Pictures I have.
[ January 09, 2004, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]
What is the usual shipping time on an order?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
Depends on where you are.
Canadian residents wait several weeks thanks to customs.