Private Bluebottle Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 I'm particularly interested in discoving the maximum towing speed for the US 37mm AT Gun and the Commonwealth 2 Pdr AT Gun. Anybody go any idea? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 27, 2004 Share Posted December 27, 2004 Well, since they are effectively trailers, it only depends on the condition of the road. Obviously you can go as fast as you want if the road is smooth enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-E Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 While that is true, certainly the top speed would be affected if towed by an African Swallow (versus a European Swallow). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 One swallow or a team? If the former, it would be the same in either case: zero. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted December 28, 2004 Author Share Posted December 28, 2004 Originally posted by Redwolf: Well, since they are effectively trailers, it only depends on the condition of the road. Obviously you can go as fast as you want if the road is smooth enough. There may be other factors involved such as the springing (suspension) of the wheels and whether or not they had bearing races for the axles. The first will determine how fast you can tow over rough terrain, the latter how fast you can tow on smooth roads. Then you have the sturdiness of the mount's construction. The little French 25mm, while an adequate AT gun literally shook itself to pieces if towed at high speeds, which wasn't a disadvantage to the French who largely relied upon horses still for towing in 1940 but the British whom the guns were given to, used motorised vehicles so they had to find an alternative method of towing the weapon. So, I take it no one has anything constructive to say? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Bluebottle You are thinking desert terrain, no? The 37mm Pak 35/36 was designed for motor vehicle towing, as were all German antitank guns, only more or less successfully so. It had only 60cm of Axis between two rather large, rubber-tye (with air) wheels. It couldn't turn over or fall, because the two tubular aluminium towing - er, you know the two thingies that were part of the carriage and used for towing - kept it in place. What it did was bounce a lot. It had liberal suspension, weighed less than half a tonne and the gun was a real air-trap when towed if the gunshield was not dismounted. I have never seen any figure on max speed - the standard towing vehicle intended for the Pak 35/36 could do a theoretical 65mph - but of course here will have been one. A problem in the desert was the small rocks bouncing up at the hydraulics during towing. The hydraulics were only partially covered by the carriage itself. Haven't seen anything on shaking apart tho. Generally easier to tow was the 5cm Pak 38. With a wider axis, weight closer to the tonne and rubber tyres with no air in them, it did not bounce around. Suspension was still liberal and I haven't seen any text on these shaking apart either. In the desert, the Pak 38 kicked up a dustcloud as large as any vehicle. It also had the hydraulics problem on rocky terrain. By the Pak 40 you get the opposite problem. Steel carriage and 1.5 tonnes. The weight was such that it bogged on soft ground, and you got the caravan trailer problem of the trailer not being very responsive (especially if you used a towing vehicle of less than 1.5 tonnes, which they did), and heavy enough to shift your towing vehicle unless you used halftracks. Not much on these from the desert, since none saw service there. I believe the much noticed problem with the mle 34 was only present with the ultra light SA37 carriage, of a hilarious 300 kg weight and stripped suspension? With the SA34 carriage it weighed about as much as the Pak 35/36 did and should behave similarly. The French used horses in the Infantry Divisions but the DLM and DCR used tracked artillery tractors. I think the latter might have worked a lot better than the trucks used by the FFL in the desert, and by th British. But en porté solved the issue I guess. Cheerio Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 "trails" in English, Dandelion... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dandelion Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 You mean the two thingies? You could probably make a full night out of reading my improvised English on CMAKdb It is sectionally embarrassing. Why is there no dictionary for WWII military terms? It's not like you find Rohrholmen or Spreizlafette in the Oxford's. It's silly. There is an obvious demand for this item on the market. I can easily come by bottled water from France and Turkish candy up here, even though we have unoverviewable amounts of water and candy ourselves (MS Word no longer accepts the word "ourselves", it changes it to "us" - just another piece of market oppression). But a WWII dictionary that we can't make ourselves I cannot find. Grumble. Dandelion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Originally posted by Dandelion: You mean the two thingies? You could probably make a full night out of reading my improvised English on CMAKdb It is sectionally embarrassing. Why is there no dictionary for WWII military terms? It's not like you find Rohrholmen or Spreizlafette in the Oxford's. It's silly. Grumble. Dandelion The US military did produce one during WW II, I own a reprinted copy. It is designed for English speakers looking up German, I can't recall if it also has English-German or is just German-English. What, the Wehrmacht never did such a thing? For shame. Then again, with 75% of your Army fighting the Russians, I can see why it might take a backburner... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 Dandelion, I have no problem reading your posts at CMAKdb. The people from English speaking countries on the other hand, sometimes amaze me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 28, 2004 Share Posted December 28, 2004 "...if towed by an African Swallow" You do realise "Swallow" was the initial British codename for the Sherman tank on shipping lists into NA. Imagine the creative off-color remarks among tankers if that nickname had stuck! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 The standard figure I have heard tossed around for vehicles in convoy on reasonable road is 25mph, but what the truckers actually drove at, god only knows. And on a lesser quality surface the speed would have been reduced, maybe to a crawl. Busting your oil pan on a rock in the middle of the desert—or anywhere else for that matter—is distinctly frowned upon. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sand digger Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 As others have indicated, the maximum practical towing speed would depend on the road or ground surface. Even with no suspension and solid rubber tyres there is no reason why something like a AT gun could not be towed at maximum WW2 type speeds, if the surface was good enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I'm trying to figure out why some people here seem to think not having a suspension and pneumatic tires would mean an easier ride for the gun. Not having either of those means that the shocks of striking irregularities in the road surface of any size get transmitted unreduced. Why do you think they put springs and shocks on cars? To have one more thing they can charge you money for? :confused: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: Why do you think they put springs and shocks on cars? To have one more thing they can charge you money for? :confused: Michael Is that why Skodas are so damn cheap! Thanks for clarifying that for me Michael. Regards Jim R. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Private Bluebottle, From what I can tell regarding the U.S. 37mm AT gun, the limit is as fast as the jeep can go. There is some famous military trial footage of a jeep tearing across the countryside, the gun bouncing merrily behind. Such is the speed of the combination that at one point, jeep and gun are airborne simultaneously, after having raced up a low rise. Call the hang time impressive. The 2 pdr. is another matter entirely. Instead of being a lightweight, relatively simple design like its American cousin, the 2 pdr. is more akin to a baby 88, what with its extensive high shield, cruciform platform, etc. I've seen both guns up close at Ft. Benning, and the 2 pdr. is big and heavy, so heavy I seriously doubt a jeep could tow one effectively. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by John Kettler: The 2 pdr. is another matter entirely. Instead of being a lightweight, relatively simple design like its American cousin, the 2 pdr. is more akin to a baby 88, what with its extensive high shield, cruciform platform, etc. I've seen both guns up close at Ft. Benning, and the 2 pdr. is big and heavy, so heavy I seriously doubt a jeep could tow one effectively.A jeep could probably tow it as long as there weren't any steep grades, but you're right about the weight being greater. Chamberlain & Gander list the all-up weight for the 2pdr as 1,848 lbs. and for the US 37mm as 912 lbs. Quite a difference indeed! Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 While I haven't tried towing any kind of gun with my Willy's, I can at the least attest to the fact they were built for traction...I agree with Emrys' assessment about towing the gun. Ammunition to go into the gun might be a different matter... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 well, it's only a 2-pr, so you get quite a few rounds to the cubic metre. Max, practical, and actual speeds are all quite different birds of course. IIRC, the CW used 5mph as a basis for planning convoy moves in the desert. At that 'speed' it wouldn't really matter what you were towing. Lot's of good stuff here, if you're prepared to do the looking yourself Jon 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Ammunition to go into the gun might be a different matter... A second jeep for the ammo and extra crew. I don't think I'd have more than two people riding the jeep pulling the gun. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by JonS: Max, practical, and actual speeds are all quite different birds of course. IIRC, the CW usede 5mph as a basis for planning convoy moves in the desert.If that was that planning speed, and it sounds about right to me, that also includes allowances for stops for various reasons, such as topping off a hot radiator, fixing a flat, looking at the map and debating where they are, etc. Thus the actual speed the vehicles were making when in motion would have been a bit higher. And that figure was likely an average over various types of terrain, though one assumes they were all passable without a lot of doubling back to find a route. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 yeah, granted - but planning speed = convoy speed, otherwise all your planning goes to pot. Remember in a battle space there are any number of units moving around in an intricate, choreographed dance. One convoy going to fast tends to cock up everone else, and is frowned upon. By the by - the jeep happily towed the 6pr around. by the by the by - the 2pr could be towed fairly quickly, but the bearings tended to crap out over long distances. It was for this reason that it was generally carried en-portee, rather than any speed limitation. Then some bright spark had the brilliant idea of fighting tanks from the back of an unarmoured truck (and giving up most of the inherent advantages of a gun into the bargain), and the rest was history :mad: [ December 29, 2004, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Originally posted by JonS: yeah, granted - but planning speed = convoy speed...Minus of course all the planned and unplanned stops and delays that have to be taken into account. Otherwise, all your planning gets turned into a "cock up", as someone once said. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 = -> ~ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 Talk about planned and unplanned stops, i read in a government report somewhere that the U.S. Army's famous 'Rush to Baghdad' in April 2003 only averaged-out to something like 4 mph if you count from first crossing the Kuwait/Iraq border til setting foot on the city line. And that pace was hailed as a lighning advance! I suspect WWII convoys would almost appear to be travelling at a glacial pace compared to modern highway speeds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.