Tiger Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 Did the Brits start using tungsten much earlier than the Yanks? What I'm thinking is the "t" rounds for the Fireflys are the sabot rounds. Is this correct? Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDesertFox Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 TTT Time Traveling Tungsten Are you sure with June ? According to what I remember ( Gudgin, Peter: Armoured Firepower; Hogg, Ian V.: British and American Artillery of World War Two and Hunnicutt, R. P.: Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. ) APDS projectiles were supplied to the troops from August 1944 on. cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: TheDesertFox@gmx.net WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheDesertFox: TTT Time Traveling Tungsten Are you sure with June ? According to what I remember ( Gudgin, Peter: Armoured Firepower; Hogg, Ian V.: British and American Artillery of World War Two and Hunnicutt, R. P.: Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank. ) APDS projectiles were supplied to the troops from August 1944 on. cheers Helge <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> If you look closely enough, the Firefly is a British medium tank and not a US tank. The British had tungsten tested for the 57 and 17lb in the start of 1944. With fewer tanks and better supplies from the empire, they had more tungsten to waste, and a longer ramp up to make sure Fireflies went ashore with it. Remember, the UK made tanks, ammunition, and weapons on its own, they did not rely 100 percent on the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDesertFox Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If you look closely enough, the Firefly is a British medium tank and not a US tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROFL, who are you telling this ? anyways might be wise to re-check your sources on APDS availability cheers Helge ------------------ Sbelling chequed wyth MICROSOFT SPELLCHECKER - vorgs grate! - The DesertFox - Email: TheDesertFox@gmx.net WWW: http://www.geocities.com/desertfox1891 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheDesertFox: ROFL, who are you telling this ? anyways might be wise to re-check your sources on APDS availability cheers Helge <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought it was both of you. I checked my sources. UK tungsten stocks were much higher than US, their tanks had tungsten in Italy "early 1944" possibly earlier but I have no proof. I have no idea how CM treats it, but British tanks were supplied with tungsten on a completely different schedule than US. The works you cite all deal with US tungsten. The Firefly, being British, would not be limited by the US lack of tungsten, especially since the 17lb ammo was not made in the USA that I have ever found. So 6 rounds of tungsten for the UK forces is not only not surprising, it should be expected, unless the British wanted to screw the Normandy landings and give all the tungsten they had to the Italian campaign (a possibility, but so far not supported by anyone). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 Ellis et al, 1962 "Victory in the West, Volume I: The Battle of Normandy", Maj. L F Ellis with Capt G R G Allen, Lt-Col A E Warhurst and ACM Sir James Robb, HMSO, 1962 This is the first volume of the British official history of the NW Europe campaign. Elsewhere in the text it is stated that "a small quantity" of 6-pdr DS ammunition was available for the landings, and that "it was late in August before there was any for the 17-pdr Hogg, 1978 "British & American Artillery of World War 2", Ian V. Hogg, A&AP, 1978 In this book, Hogg states that 6pdr APDS was issued in June 1944, although in "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Ammunition", Apple Press, 1985, he says on p. 58 that it "appeared" in 1944, and on p. 151 that it was "first introduced for the 6-pdr" in 1943. Hogg, 1997 Source: "Tank Killers", Ian Hogg, Pan, 1997. Hogg gives the introduction dates for APDS as June 1944 for the 6-pdr and August 1944 for the 17-pdr, Hunnicut, 1978 "Sherman, A History of the American Medium Tank", R. P. Hunnicutt, Presidio Press, 1978, pages 559-570. Hunnicutt says "a few" 17 pdr APDS became available in Aug 44, but that the early rounds were "somewhat erratic", and less accurate than APCBC From Penetration Tables on: http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt5.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dittohead: Ellis et al, 1962 "Victory in the West, Volume I: The Battle of Normandy", Maj. L F Ellis with Capt G R G Allen, Lt-Col A E Warhurst and ACM Sir James Robb, HMSO, 1962 This is the first volume of the British official history of the NW Europe campaign. Elsewhere in the text it is stated that "a small quantity" of 6-pdr DS ammunition was available for the landings, and that "it was late in August before there was any for the 17-pdr Hogg, 1978 "British & American Artillery of World War 2", Ian V. Hogg, A&AP, 1978 In this book, Hogg states that 6pdr APDS was issued in June 1944, although in "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Ammunition", Apple Press, 1985, he says on p. 58 that it "appeared" in 1944, and on p. 151 that it was "first introduced for the 6-pdr" in 1943. Hogg, 1997 Source: "Tank Killers", Ian Hogg, Pan, 1997. Hogg gives the introduction dates for APDS as June 1944 for the 6-pdr and August 1944 for the 17-pdr, Hunnicut, 1978 "Sherman, A History of the American Medium Tank", R. P. Hunnicutt, Presidio Press, 1978, pages 559-570. Hunnicutt says "a few" 17 pdr APDS became available in Aug 44, but that the early rounds were "somewhat erratic", and less accurate than APCBC From Penetration Tables on: http://www.britwar.co.uk/salts/salt5.htm <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That is possible. I am only basing it on GPO doc 008-029-00451 Allied Italian Campaign which mentions the early 1944 arrival of 17lb and 6 lb tungsten rounds (the 17lb coming with the new guns) as a significant increase in the ability of AT units to deal with German tanks. I have no proof that the British sent any of it to France for the 17lb, and this book is ancient, one of a set of teaching aids for the military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 By the way, Hogg, Ellis, and Hunnicutt are all secondary sources, what primary sources do they list for that information. Not that we can find them (a lot of them are interviews) but we found in the 76mm thread that there was a lot of tale chasing citation of the same fact, which was in error in the first place, by the more popular journals, making it seem like there was 4 sources when there was actually 1 repested 4 times. May not be the case here, and sometimes its the best you can do, but it would be interesting to track this back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 Assuming that military bureaucracies can act in a logical manner, it would make sense to concentrate on producing Tungsten rounds for the 6pdr and not for the 17pdr for use in Normandy. The 6pdr at the time was the prime AT asset of the Commonwealth infantry division. It was also found in a number of Churchill tanks in use in Normandy, AFAIK (did these get Tungsten rounds?) The 6pdr penetration was not bad, but much worse than the 17pdr. The 17pdr could expect to defeat German heavies at quite a distance, Tungsten or not. The 6pdr needed Tungsten. Ergo, using the limited supplies of Tungsten to upgrade performance of the weaker gun to a point where it can still threaten German heavies makes sense. Note: this is deduction, and not based on any sources. It is the case I would probably have made if I had to decide about this in 1944. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machineman Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: The 6pdr penetration was not bad, but much worse than the 17pdr. The 17pdr could expect to defeat German heavies at quite a distance, Tungsten or not. The 6pdr needed Tungsten. Ergo, using the limited supplies of Tungsten to upgrade performance of the weaker gun to a point where it can still threaten German heavies makes sense. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That would make a lot of sense. I remember reading the Germans kept what tungsten projectiles they had for the 50mm weapons, to give those gunners a chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted January 22, 2001 Share Posted January 22, 2001 Don't know any more references on the availability of tungsten for the British. I'll keep looking. Maybe Rexford knows a few more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 So perhaps there should be no tungsten for the 17 pdr until August? ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted January 24, 2001 Share Posted January 24, 2001 Originally posted by Vanir: So perhaps there should be no tungsten for the 17 pdr until August? Well as far as I remeber 17lb APDS became available in August 1944 in small quantaties & was 1st used in the tests at Igsny. 17lb HE bacame available in Sept 1944. Another point, to consider is that normal 17lb APCBC could defeat the Panther mantlet & turret armor at standard battle ranges but not the glacis, here again APDS wasn't as critical for the 17lb as it was the 6lb. Regards, John Waters ------------------ "We've got the finest tanks in the world. We just love to see the German Royal Tiger come up on the field". Lt.Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. February 1945. [This message has been edited by PzKpfw 1 (edited 01-24-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 My recall is that the 17pdr APDS wasn't available in quantity until a couple of months after D-Day, but of course I can't cite a particular source other than those already used. I think the rationale outlined by Germanboy seems spot on. If anything I would like to see a few more 6pdr 't' rounds around than other gun types. This rationale was ably demonstrated in the havoc wreaked by 6pdr, and 17pdr guns and armed tank destroyers upon counterattacking German Panthers in the aftermath of Epsom. The 6pdr at the time was the prime AT asset of the Commonwealth infantry division. It was also found in a number of Churchill tanks in use in Normandy, AFAIK (did these get Tungsten rounds?) Arrgh, did you have to bring up one of my pet hates. From my reading they did get 't' rounds ahead of the infantry battalion organic 6pdrs I think. Unfortunately they are not in the game, curses. Maybe if I started bootlicking earlier instead of starting arguments about captured Fausts, tank crews, bocage (which is still no good), etc etc then I might have been able to influence the matter On the subject of availability. I am not sure that the date for the introduction of the Achilles is right. It seems far too late to me. I am sure that I have read somewhere that at least some were ready for D-Day. Also that the conversion of M10s to 17pdr was accelerated when they found that it was a much better gun/vehicle combination than the original. Can anyone throw more light on this? Hunnicutt says "a few" 17 pdr APDS became available in Aug 44, but that the early rounds were "somewhat erratic", and less accurate than APCBCThis is the problem with the APDS accuracy question. Lots of sources say this or similar and I agree that 't' rounds should take an accuracy 'hit', but how to quantify it? If the Isigny results are with the "early rounds" then how do the 'later' rounds perform? Which British tests are with 'early' rounds and which with 'later'. ------------------ Muddying the waters as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 25, 2001 Share Posted January 25, 2001 Originally posted by Simon Fox: My recall is that the 17pdr APDS wasn't available in quantity until a couple of months after D-Day, but of course I can't cite a particular source other than those already used. I think the rationale outlined by Germanboy seems spot on. If anything I would like to see a few more 6pdr 't' rounds around than other gun types. This rationale was ably demonstrated in the havoc wreaked by 6pdr, and 17pdr guns and armed tank destroyers upon counterattacking German Panthers in the aftermath of Epsom. Arrgh, did you have to bring up one of my pet hates. From my reading they did get 't' rounds ahead of the infantry battalion organic 6pdrs I think. Unfortunately they are not in the game, curses. Maybe if I started bootlicking earlier instead of starting arguments about captured Fausts, tank crews, bocage (which is still no good), etc etc then I might have been able to influence the matter On the subject of availability. I am not sure that the date for the introduction of the Achilles is right. It seems far too late to me. I am sure that I have read somewhere that at least some were ready for D-Day. Also that the conversion of M10s to 17pdr was accelerated when they found that it was a much better gun/vehicle combination than the original. Can anyone throw more light on this? This is the problem with the APDS accuracy question. Lots of sources say this or similar and I agree that 't' rounds should take an accuracy 'hit', but how to quantify it? If the Isigny results are with the "early rounds" then how do the 'later' rounds perform? Which British tests are with 'early' rounds and which with 'later'. And then again, the problem with all benchmark testing was the use of hand inspected rounds rather than random pulls from production, or the use of individual pallets in testing. The 76mm AP penetration is overstated in many tables by what was gotten out of the barrel of a 76 on the shores of France because testors discarded ammunition that did not meet tests standards. Tests of the Panther after the war used hand turned shells, not random lots culled from German stocks (which were blown up in any case and no longer available). Many tests contain poor documentation and fail outright to explain how they got their shells, or how they tested for hardness of plate, or other very basic things that a modern test would include. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted January 25, 2001 Author Share Posted January 25, 2001 The question remains. Should Firefly tanks be getting tungsten rounds in June-July, 6 rounds no less! Where is BTS when you need 'um Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 I agree this needs to be looked at. ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by Tiger: The question remains. Should Firefly tanks be getting tungsten rounds in June-July, 6 rounds no less! Where is BTS when you need 'um It is either a mistake or BTS had some evidence. What may be good is to gather sources and citations for no 17 pdr ammunition to allow BTS to see it and decide. If we can get more than the enclycopedias (like the stuff mentioned above) it could well change BTS's mind. Or, they could say oppps, we made a mistake. Or, which is often the case with Charles and Steve, they have better sources that ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Originally posted by Simon Fox: Arrgh, did you have to bring up one of my pet hates. From my reading they did get 't' rounds ahead of the infantry battalion organic 6pdrs I think. Unfortunately they are not in the game, curses. Leaving away the bootlicking - just out of curiosity, do you happen to know the difference between the Mk IV and the Mk VI? I did some research today and came away thinking the Mk. VI was just a Mk IV with a 75mm instead of a 6pdr, otherwise identical. Also, is the Osprey book 'The Churchill Tank' any good? ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 26, 2001 Share Posted January 26, 2001 Sorry, Simon did not provide an email address... Bump ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Posted January 29, 2001 Share Posted January 29, 2001 This one deserves a bump IMO. ------------------ You've never heard music until you've heard the bleating of a gut-shot cesspooler. -Mark IV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts