killmore Posted April 12, 2000 Share Posted April 12, 2000 I never thought they made tank so small! The British outfitted the 37mm guns with an extruder adapter (squeeze-bore) that reduced the projectile from 37mm to 30mm increasing velocity to 4000 ft/sec from 2700 ft/sec. I wonder what it could penetrate... http://pwp.starnetinc.com/croberts/m22.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ol' Blood & Guts Posted April 12, 2000 Share Posted April 12, 2000 I'm guessing maybe a Duece and a Half? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted April 12, 2000 Author Share Posted April 12, 2000 It probably worked well on PUMA and HTs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted April 12, 2000 Share Posted April 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by killmore: I never thought they made tank so small! The British outfitted the 37mm guns with an extruder adapter (squeeze-bore) that reduced the projectile from 37mm to 30mm increasing velocity to 4000 ft/sec from 2700 ft/sec. I wonder what it could penetrate... http://pwp.starnetinc.com/croberts/m22.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> According to ballistic tests ( http://www.robertsarmory.com/ ): 100m 500m 1000m 1500m 118mm 85mm 59mm 46mm Not bad for a pop gun. Ethan ------------------ Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 12, 2000 Share Posted April 12, 2000 didnt the soviets use them? Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabot Posted April 12, 2000 Share Posted April 12, 2000 Imagine if Col. Frost had a dozen of these at Arhnem bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killmore Posted April 13, 2000 Author Share Posted April 13, 2000 118 mm at 100 meters? That good enought to kill Panter if it got close enought! Thats much better then I thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 Hey Ethan, What's the armor angle on those ballistic tests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40: Hey Ethan, What's the armor angle on those ballistic tests?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't know, as it's not quoted on the site. They do give a reference, however, which is from Bovington. I would imagine that it's the standard Royal Arsenal protocol, but I'm not enough of a grognard to know what that is off the top of my head. Still, even if it's at 0 degrees, it's pretty good for an air-mobile pop gun mounted on the equivalent of a Mustang convertible Ethan ------------------ Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Username Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Black Sabot: Imagine if Col. Frost had a dozen of these at Arhnem bridge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> He could have taken the whole town unopposed as the 9th and 10th SS died laughing. It looks smaller than it is in that picture because the tanker seems to be standing on the bogies on the oposite side. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What's the armor angle on those ballistic tests?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "U.S. Army Weapons capability against rolled homogeneous steel armor at 30 degrees obliquity" posted under Armor Penetration. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 "U.S. Army Weapons capability against rolled homogeneous steel armor at 30 degrees obliquity" posted under Armor Penetration." yes, but this was a British gun - was the test British or American? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Peltz Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 Just a connected anecdote- the 37mm adapter was known as the Littlejohn Adapter- the fellow who designed it was Czech and his name was Frantisek Janacek, which was anglicized to Littlejohn. His adapter was actually first developed for the 2pdr AT gun, but developed too slowly until the only vehicles left with the 2pdr were armoured cars. The 37mm adaptation came next, but was unpopular with the crews as the 24 inch adapter had to be threaded on by hand, and special ammo had to be used (tungsten cored with collapsible skirts). Many crews apparently fired the special ammo witthout the adapter, and still got superior results vs the standard loadouts. This could be true, as the tungsten rounds would be denser and have more mass when striking a target. Penetration for the 2pdr was 81mm at 1000 yards- almost double the norm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hakko Ichiu Posted April 13, 2000 Share Posted April 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Username: It looks smaller than it is in that picture because the tanker seems to be standing on the bogies on the oposite side. Lewis <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The specs elsewhere on the site list its height as 5' 8.5". Anyway you slice it, that's pretty small for an AFV. Lower than your average SUV. Ethan ------------------ Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts