John Kettler Posted August 25, 2001 Share Posted August 25, 2001 Attention grogs, demigrogs, mod makers and the militarily curious! For the princely sum of U.S. $9.99 your local Barnes & Noble can provide you with a profusely illustrated, technically rich 320 page handbook called TWENTIETH-CENTURY ARTILLERY which covers artillery from WWI through 2000, with a huge chunk devoted to the period preceding and during WWII. Each weapon has a color illo, a paragraph describing the weapons's development, technical aspects and quality, and a data table. Unfortunately, either the eminent ordnance specialist and former Royal Artillery Master Gunner didn't proof the galley or it was screwed up after he turned in corrections. I say this because there are some lulus awaiting the unwary in a book covering not only standard artillery but flak, railway guns, certain SAMs, even selected ICBMs, plus manportable AT weapons and armored trains. The worst one I found was that the illos were swapped for the German 37mm flak and the 2cm Flakvierling. Somewhat exciting was the ZSU-23-490mm M1. 490 23mm barrels. Eek! Two captions fused, actually. ZSU-23-4 and 90mm M1. There are some spelling howlers too. I was particularly stunned to find that every use of the word "fuze" was misspelled "fuse," particularly since Ian Hogg carefully explains proper ordnance nomenclature in his other books. My guess is someone ignorant of military terms did a spellcheck and ordered a global search and replace. On the plus side, this book is inexpensive, has the kind of information new CM players desperately need, is a great visual resource for the mod builders, and has grog stuff I've never seen before, including the first illo I've seen anyplace of the desperate, dangerous improvised weapon called the Northover Projector (launched chemically ignited Molotovs prone to burst during firing and ignite) and the mentioned but seldom seen Land Mattress multiple rocket launcher used by the Allies. Yes, the Allies had MRLs, even if not one is in the game. If you want to know what fires that honking 28cm round in the German artillery list, look here under the 28cm K5(E). If you don't know a PIAT from a Panzerschreck, a Panzerbuchse from a PTRD, this is for you. Can't tell your 12.8cm Pak44s from the similar looking K44s? Help awaits. Ditto for the bewildering array of 88 models and the difference between a sIG 33 and and an sfH 18, both 15cm in bore but radically different in performance. See what a British 7.2 looks like, find out why the 3.7" AA gun wasn't used like the very similar 88 for ground targets, and learn to tell Oerlikons from Polstens. All of the above and more await your viewing and reading pleasure. Exercise a little caution and make sure the picture matches the technical data. Remember, too, that the illos are to a common size, NOT a common scale. And they're off! Regards, John Kettler [ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: John Kettler ] [ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: John Kettler ] [ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: John Kettler ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted August 25, 2001 Share Posted August 25, 2001 Yep. A very handy reference. Hopefully we'll get to see some taper bore guns in action for CM2. Over 1000m/s MV. Yum! Do you know if they were widely used during the war, John? - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmead Posted August 26, 2001 Share Posted August 26, 2001 In some places in this world, the letter S is commonly used instead of a zed (Z). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 26, 2001 Share Posted August 26, 2001 Most people recognise that the "s" replaces the "z" in British words such as "recognise", "authorise" etc. Hogg is English. Does the British Army use "fuse" or "fuze"? I would suspect the former but am open to correction. [ 08-25-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 26, 2001 Author Share Posted August 26, 2001 Michael, If you read any of his numerous works except this one he always is at pains to to explain that correct spelling for that which detonates a bomb, mine, shell, rocket or missile warhead is "fuze." I just checked his GRENADES & MORTARS on this point. The body text consistently uses the zed form, if you will. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 26, 2001 Share Posted August 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: Michael, If you read any of his numerous works except this one he always is at pains to to explain that correct spelling for that which detonates a bomb, mine, shell, rocket or missile warhead is "fuze." I just checked his GRENADES & MORTARS on this point. The body text consistently uses the zed form, if you will. Regards, John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wild. Was it a US publisher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 26, 2001 Author Share Posted August 26, 2001 Michael, I'm confused. GRENADES & MORTARS was published by Ballantine Books as part of its Ballantine's Illustrated History of a Violent Century. The entire editorial team was British, but the book was printed in the U.S., at least my edition was. TWENTIETH-CENTURY ARTILLERY had all its design and editorial work done in London, but was printed in Singapore. Hope this helps. John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted August 26, 2001 Share Posted August 26, 2001 FWIW, this hardback edition was published by Barnes and Noble "by arrangement with Amber Books Ltd". A paperback edition from a different publisher looks like it's going to be released next month: Twentieth Century Artillery - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 26, 2001 Share Posted August 26, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: Michael, If you read any of his numerous works except this one he always is at pains to to explain that correct spelling for that which detonates a bomb, mine, shell, rocket or missile warhead is "fuze." I just checked his GRENADES & MORTARS on this point. The body text consistently uses the zed form, if you will. Regards, John Kettler<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Never read any of his books, but I can say for a fact that Cambridge Dictionary and the paper version of Chambers on my desk disagree with him on this. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Cambridge definition: fuse (DEVICE ON EXPLOSIVE) noun [C] a string or piece of paper connected to a firework or other explosive item by which it is lit, or a device inside a bomb which causes it to explode after a fixed length of time or when it hits or is near something He lit the fuse and ran. FIGURATIVE Anti-police feeling was high in the area and an incident in which a local youth died in custody just seemed to light the fuse (=suddenly start a dangerous situation). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What was that about the UK and the US being two countries divided by a common language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 26, 2001 Author Share Posted August 26, 2001 Wolfe, Working purely from the top of my head, the Gerlich 28/21 sPzb 41 saw wide use in North Africa, Russia, Italy, etc., and was even mounted on armored vehicles (250,222,251) in field mountings. I believe it was originally an FJ weapon, being light in weight but quite potent for its size. There was also a 42/30, about which I know almost nothing. The Germans designed a full size squeeze bore antitank gun, PAK 41 which was murderous in trials and in the field after limited production, but the weapon was canceled because of a tungsten shortage and because weapons like the PAK 40 were able to handle most battlefield threats. If you need further info I'll have to break out some books and do research. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJungnitsch Posted August 26, 2001 Share Posted August 26, 2001 For the Canadians out there it is available at Smithbooks for 9.99 Canadian, even cheaper! Handy when there was a thread going on about anti-tank rifles. 150 of the PAK 41 were made, which Hogg calls 'undoubtedly the best anti-tank gun in existence' (in 'Tank Killers' another excellent book of his). The squeeze bore gave the shell the short range punch of HVAP and the long range punch of APDS, without the inaccuracy. It was the gun the Tiger was originally designed around, and the reason it ended up so overweight when they had to squeeze the 88 in instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted August 26, 2001 Share Posted August 26, 2001 It's also on Amazons UK site, thanks for the heads-up John, looks like an interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted August 26, 2001 Share Posted August 26, 2001 An excellent book. Wish I'd come across similar books about armour and another of hand weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted August 27, 2001 Share Posted August 27, 2001 Thanks for the info! So the 28/20mm sPzB41 and 42/28mm lePaK41 were produced in sufficient quantity to maybe make it into CM2. Cool. But with so few produced I would guess the 75/55mm PaK41 may not make it in. Oh well. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted August 29, 2001 Share Posted August 29, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: The worst one I found was that the illos were swapped for the German 37mm flak and the 2cm Flakvierling.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm. Sure about that, John? Bishop's Encyclopedia has the exact same drawings shown with their respective FlaK30, FlaK38, and 37mm FlaK18/36/37 entries (pp. 166-167). They match up with what the Hogg book has on pp. 99-100 and 107. Are both wrong? And the Handbook on German Military Forces (US War Dept) has pics (pp. 344-348) of: * A Flak30 mounted on an HT (Fig 53), which appears to have the same barrel as shown in the FlaK30 in in Hogg's book. * 3 FlaK38's (Figs 54, 55, 56) which have the same barrel (and even same carriage in Fig 55) as the Hogg Flakvierling 38 drawing on pg. 100. Though the Hogg book does title the single barreled FlaK38 "20mm Flakvierling 38" without showing the Quad FlaK itself. * And pics of a FlaK36 and FlaK18 (Figs 58, 59) whose barrels look, again, exactly the same as the FlaK37 Hogg/Bishop drawings. So unless they all screwed up I don't think they got the pics mixed up; though the relative sizes of the guns are obviously off. Am I missing something here? - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danyzn Posted August 31, 2001 Share Posted August 31, 2001 It was always fuse in Australia. When I first saw the word fuze used in the context of artillery I thought it was some highly technical artillery-specific term that I didn't know. Then I figured out it was another case of confuzed Americans. But wait, I'm looking up the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, on my Bloomberg machine, and under "fuse" it gives the full primary definition, while under "fuze" it just gives the definition as "fuse". Does this mean that even in America "fuse" is the primary spelling, or just that "fuse" comes before "fuze" lexicographically? Anyway, it's interesting that both "fuse" and "fuze" appear in an American dictionary, where I cannot find "recognise" or "realise". So fuse does appear to be a special case. After all, it doesn't end in -ise like the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 31, 2001 Author Share Posted August 31, 2001 Wolfe, Please take a look at page 108 of TWENTIETH-CENTURY ARTILLERY. The illo clearly shows a 2cm Flakvierling 38 on its special trailer, not a 3.7cm Flak 43. Note particularly the shape and proportions of the flash hiders. Now, compare them with the flash hider on the 2cm Flak 30 illo on page 99. Note similarities. Once you've done that, take a look at the 3.7cm Flak 37 on page 107 and the purported 2cm Flakvierling 38 on page 100, a weapon possessing, I might add, from its illustration far fewer than the required four barrels. Again, study the flash hiders on the two guns. I stand by my original contention: the illustrations got inadvertently placed on the wrong pages. The remark in the text blurb on page 108 about an over-under twin 37mm had me going briefly, but the flash hiders shown are the 2cm type, not the 3.7cm type. My reference material on this rather obscure subject is limited. Could someone with more comprehensive and authoritative information please look into this and, if possible, post supporting imagery, preferably with a man in frame that we may gauge relative size? Turning now to the vexed fuze business, I first ask what the OED has to say? Next, I note that my MERRIAM-WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY, TENTH ED., Copyright 2000 has this to say as far as explosive applications under "fuse" 1: a continuous train of a combustible substance enclosed in a cord or cable for setting off an explosive charge by transmitting fire to it 2 usu fuze : a mechanical or electrical detonating device for setting off the bursting charge of a projectile, bomb, or torpedo. The verb form permits either spelling. Logically, if we're discussing ordnance matters of World War II and aren't talking about lighting the fuse for, say, blowing up a bridge, then my dictionary indicates that the zed form should be used to discuss that which detonates the warhead of a shell, bomb, rocket or torpedo. I would similarly draw a distinction between fusing the aforementioned demo charges to blow the bridge and fuzing shells before firing them at the foe. I hope this clears things up, at least for the U.S. types. Regards, John Kettler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viceroy Posted August 31, 2001 Share Posted August 31, 2001 The Shorter OED volume 1 lists fuse and fuze as interchangeable. Fuse or fuze sound the same and mean the same. Hope this clears things up, at least for the Brit types Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted August 31, 2001 Share Posted August 31, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler: Please take a look at page 108 of TWENTIETH-CENTURY ARTILLERY. The illo clearly shows a 2cm Flakvierling 38 on its special trailer, not a 3.7cm Flak 43.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OH! I thought you were comparing the single-barreled "Flakvierling 38" on page 100 to the Flak37 on page 107, which is why I was confused. But you're right; the pics on pages 100 and 108 are reversed. And the exact same mistake is also made in Bishop's Encyclopedia. In what should come as a shock to everyone: both books are published by Barnes and Noble. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 31, 2001 Share Posted August 31, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Wolfe: the single-barreled "Flakvierling 38" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, 'Vierling' (quadruplet) stands for a four-barreled gun. 'Zwilling' (twin) for a two-barreled gun. Speaking in Hapu's voice from the Simpsons: 'A single barreled Vierling - who has ever heard of such a thing?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfe Posted August 31, 2001 Share Posted August 31, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: [QB]Hmmm, 'Vierling' (quadruplet) stands for a four-barreled gun. 'Zwilling' (twin) for a two-barreled gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Now that part I knew. Which is why I put it in quotes. The pic is obviously wrong, but I didn't realize it was also the wrong gun (3.7cm instead of 2cm); I thought they were just showing the single-barreled version. - Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts