I used to think a MG shoot would be cool--until...

[John Kettler]

I saw these!  Sure, they only fire machined zinc projectiles, but still...  As a point of reference, note these guys are still taller than the top of the gun while kneeling. By contrast, I have stood behind the shield of the M5 3-Inch ATG and been completely covered. Am 5'11" and change! 

 

Drat!  I realized belatedly I had reverse ordered the two ATGs by bore size, so I went in and plunked in the Pak 40. Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to get rid of its twin. Can anyone help, please?

[iluvmy88]

ahh yes nothing like firing the big guns, my last shot of my career was a paladin, pretty proud of that. went out with a bang =D.

[Childress]

Smokeless powder?

Henry W. Johnson, Captain, Company F, 66th Armored Regiment:

"The German use of smokeless powder makes it very difficult for us to pick them up when they lie in ambush, whereas the flash of our own guns is easily discernible to an alert foe and may be easily observed from a great distance."

Everette L. Harris, Corporal, Gunner, 2nd Armored Division:

"...Due to the type of powder a Jerry tank has, they can fire at you and are difficult to pick up because there is so little smoke or muzzle flash. When we fire our 76-mm there is so much smoke and muzzle flash that you can hardly observe your burst, except for long ranges."

[JoMac]

Also, note the Spaced Armor on the Gun Shield...Should deflect most all Small Arms, except the .50 cal, unless from Long Range.

Joe

[iluvmy88]

3 hours ago, Childress said:

Smokeless powder?

Henry W. Johnson, Captain, Company F, 66th Armored Regiment:

"The German use of smokeless powder makes it very difficult for us to pick them up when they lie in ambush, whereas the flash of our own guns is easily discernible to an alert foe and may be easily observed from a great distance."

Everette L. Harris, Corporal, Gunner, 2nd Armored Division:

"...Due to the type of powder a Jerry tank has, they can fire at you and are difficult to pick up because there is so little smoke or muzzle flash. When we fire our 76-mm there is so much smoke and muzzle flash that you can hardly observe your burst, except for long ranges."

It is "smokeless" but th concussion will kick up large amount of dust and the flash is still considerable. no arms really use black powder anymore and havent for some time. it still gives off smoke just considerably less compare to the former black powder so concecutive rounds will create a cloud

[Childress]

Of course, you're right. But the absence of the effects of the Germans' smokeless powder in the CM series always seemed curious. The inherent challenge that it posed to the Allies has been noted in tactical narratives. Not that it would be hard to simulate, just a modification of the spotting parameters.

[Fenris]

Yeah I dunno.  I've read all the above too a various time but when you watch footage, there certain looks like lots of smoke and/or dust...

 

 

 

But I wasn't there so no legs to stand on really questioning comments of eye witnesses on the receiving end of these things.

 

-F

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2016 by Fenris

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

4 hours ago, Childress said:

Of course, you're right. But the absence of the effects of the Germans' smokeless powder in the CM series always seemed curious. The inherent challenge that it posed to the Allies has been noted in tactical narratives. Not that it would be hard to simulate, just a modification of the spotting parameters.

It's not the powder.  It's weapons size and lack of muzzle brakes.  The 76 MM that was being discussed by the US soldiers lacked a muzzle brake and it was infamous for how big of a plume it kicked up as a result.  This lead to the later model M1A1C and M1A2 76 MM guns which were fitted with muzzle brakes and did not have the significant plume issue.

German "smokeless" powder was from my understanding no lower signature than US weapons, it's just the flash and smoke is positively negligible compared to what a large caliber gun can do in terms of tossing debris.  

See modern tanks with likely much lower "smoke" signature and how irrelevant the powder is to the firing signature.  It's less pronounced with wet ground, but it'll still throw up a big signature.  
 

 

[Childress]

As I understand it, it wasn't just the powder but the muted muzzle flash. 

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

2 hours ago, Childress said:

As I understand it, it wasn't just the powder but the muted muzzle flash. 

The muzzle brake helped reduce the amount of visable "bloom" but arguing for stealthier cannon fire signature is a bit like arguing which hippo is more likely to fit in a suitcase.  

[JonS]

Indeed. Is this yet another example of where own-side claims are basically worthless? I don’t doubt what they have to say about what they observe of their own weapon systems, but I do wonder – strongly wonder – when they start opining on the German's perceptions. German weapons tended to be larger calibre and have higher MVs, which physics would suggest create blast and dust effects at least as bad as equivalent Allied weapons. And we’ve all seen photos of 88s and the like firing, and they throw up a LOT of crud. Smoke and flash was probably roughly comparable too. In other words, the ‘problem’ isn’t that German powder was magic, the problem is that we only have reports from one side, reports by guys trying to figure out why their friends keep dying, and are only seeing one side – their side – of the coin.

[sonar]

Hi. I remember reading something from a german anti tank gun ace, who said that to eliminate the threat of dust giving away their firing position,his gun crew, when setting up would wet the ground in front of the gun and then lay their zeltbans down. 

 

[iluvmy88]

On 4/21/2016 at 4:54 AM, sonar said:

Hi. I remember reading something from a german anti tank gun ace, who said that to eliminate the threat of dust giving away their firing position,his gun crew, when setting up would wet the ground in front of the gun and then lay their zeltbans down. 

 

You would need a lot of water, from what ive seen europe tends to be rather damp so i dont think dust would be that much of an issue but every little bit helps in combat.

[iluvmy88]

On 4/21/2016 at 6:27 PM, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

see modern tanks with likely much lower "smoke" signature and how irrelevant the powder is to the firing signature.  It's less pronounced with wet ground, but it'll still throw up a big signature.  

Modern tanks do not use brass type round with traditional powder, it is a combustable case amunition with entirely different chemical properties. in any case after a few rounds you will create a distinguishable could of smoke dust or no, but if they dont know where you are by then they are dead or running for dear life anyway.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

9 hours ago, iluvmy88 said:

Modern tanks do not use brass type round with traditional powder, it is a combustable case amunition with entirely different chemical properties. in any case after a few rounds you will create a distinguishable could of smoke dust or no, but if they dont know where you are by then they are dead or running for dear life anyway.

Pretty aware of how modern tank guns work.  I've got an aft cap upstairs with some sabot petals in it I hang my Order of St George medal from.  

However the whole point of the video wasn't to show "smoke" it was to show what a flat trajectory weapon will do.   Firing a cannon of any size on a flat trajectory tends to pick up anything near the front of the gun.  So this image of dimly seen positively smokeless German guns is pretty unlikely given the amount of dust/turf/leaves etc it's throwing up.

There might be a perception of German shots being fairly stealth, but again looking at the Germans on the defensive nature of the combat, the Germans will be able to generally choose when they opened fire, at ranges best suited to them.  The massive dust plume from the video I posted might seem like it'd be a dead give away, but at ranges of 2+ KM it's going to take a second to spot, and look fairly small.

American tankers might tend to perceive German guns as smokeless because they're seeing firing effects from a distance, while seeing the fairly massive effects from their own tanks up close (especially on the early run 76 MM tanks).  But as all the videos shown have demonstrated, you shoot a cannon and it's going to leave a pretty big signature.  

[Pete Wenman]

 

Love those reactions on the Pak40 video at the top - why do some many of the guys that play with these things think they are toys !

P

[iluvmy88]

4 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

Pretty aware of how modern tank guns work.  I've got an aft cap upstairs with some sabot petals in it I hang my Order of St George medal from.  

However the whole point of the video wasn't to show "smoke" it was to show what a flat trajectory weapon will do.   Firing a cannon of any size on a flat trajectory tends to pick up anything near the front of the gun.  So this image of dimly seen positively smokeless German guns is pretty unlikely given the amount of dust/turf/leaves etc it's throwing up.

There might be a perception of German shots being fairly stealth, but again looking at the Germans on the defensive nature of the combat, the Germans will be able to generally choose when they opened fire, at ranges best suited to them.  The massive dust plume from the video I posted might seem like it'd be a dead give away, but at ranges of 2+ KM it's going to take a second to spot, and look fairly small.

American tankers might tend to perceive German guns as smokeless because they're seeing firing effects from a distance, while seeing the fairly massive effects from their own tanks up close (especially on the early run 76 MM tanks).  But as all the videos shown have demonstrated, you shoot a cannon and it's going to leave a pretty big signature.  

Totally sensible. Its really the same powder and i dont think this is really a debate. its just situational depending on climate how much debris they put up. ill bet they never had trouble finding em in Africa for instance.

 Didnt mean to insult your intelligance just general information to put in. and i hate sabot petals, had to count so many of these damn things it isnt even funny.If i had some i would more likly melt it than keep it but thats just me lol.

Edited April 23, 2016 by iluvmy88

[John Kettler]

iluvmy88,

I don't believe it is the same powder. Otherwise, why do we find people up to the rank of general writing reports that go to Ike specifically mentioning the smokeless/flashlless powder the Germans have (that we don't) and the altogether real tactical advantages the Germans gained as a result? Some digging In the Standard Catalogue of Ordnance will establish what the US used for tank ammo propellant, and I know that info exists for the Germans, having seen an entire 1956 period report which broke down the chemical composition of the fills for pretty much every mine, shell and flare the Germans had. ISTR I cited this a year or two ago in a Panzerschreck discussion. Yours is a testable claim. We need not rely on mere assertion here.

Regards,

John Kettler

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

8 hours ago, iluvmy88 said:

Totally sensible. Its really the same powder and i dont think this is really a debate. its just situational depending on climate how much debris they put up. ill bet they never had trouble finding em in Africa for instance.

 Didnt mean to insult your intelligance just general information to put in. and i hate sabot petals, had to count so many of these damn things it isnt even funny.If i had some i would more likly melt it than keep it but thats just me lol.

I think in the Bulge it was a bit harder for everyone.  Dust tends to stay in the air for a while, the heavier stuff, not so much  Heavily greened areas tend to have less signature too.

We didn't have to police much in Korea.  Usually whoever had the range detail would go look for souveniers.  Some of my dudes asked if they could borrow my HMMWV's fan grill to sift for canister round pellets.  I told them they could if they brought me back something pretty, which turned out to be canister pellets, carrier, sabot penetrator (training of course) and a complete set of petals.

I miss those dudes.  

 

[iluvmy88]

4 hours ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I think in the Bulge it was a bit harder for everyone.  Dust tends to stay in the air for a while, the heavier stuff, not so much  Heavily greened areas tend to have less signature too.

We didn't have to police much in Korea.  Usually whoever had the range detail would go look for souveniers.  Some of my dudes asked if they could borrow my HMMWV's fan grill to sift for canister round pellets.  I told them they could if they brought me back something pretty, which turned out to be canister pellets, carrier, sabot penetrator (training of course) and a complete set of petals.

I miss those dudes.  

 

My souvenier is a primer for the paladin round i fired, my last roud fired of my career. pretty awesome to fire those suckers.

[76mm]

Where did they fire those weapons? Can I play?

I went and shot a Maxim machinegun not long ago, but it was a huge let-down, because it was single-shot--boring!

[John Kettler]

panzersaurkrautwerfer,

Muzzle brakes do not, in and of themselves, prevent target obscuration upon firing. This is shown by one of the findings from Russian trials of the 17-pounder ATG. Taken from Archive Awareness.

http://tankarchives.blogspot.com/2014/03/17-pounder-trials.html

No. 7 in the list of drawbacks is this.

Fair Use

Observation of the results of the shot is difficult due to the smoke and dust kicked up by the muzzle brake.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 30, 2016 by John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Okay. I managed to track down the grog fest book on German explosives! The chemical compositions and percentages for bombs, shells, rockets, flares and such are all here. This should allow direct comparison of US tank cartridge propellants with their German counterparts. Prepare to lose your minds! And probably a bit more because some of the text quality isn't great. Microfilm, you know.

Picatinny Arsenal Technical Report No. 2510

DICTIONARY OF EXPLOSIVES, AMMUNITION AND WEAPONS (German Section), Federoff et al., 1958

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/160636.pdf

JoMc67,

The spaced armor on the Pak 40 was specifically designed to defeat the Russian 14.5 mm ATR by causing its projectile to break up.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited April 30, 2016 by John Kettler