Whose 75mm HE round has been modelled?

[Private Bluebottle]

I ran into an interest bit of narrative when I was going through George Thayer's _The War Business_ (NY: Simon and Schuster, 1969). I thought this would be of some interest to some of you, if not outright amusing for most.

Colonel George Burling Jarett's greatest moment came in 1941-42 when he was the ammunition adviser to the British in North Africa. The

British were short of 75 mm tank ammunition, and they turned to Jarrett for help. He heard that there was some superior quality German 75 mm ammunition that had been captured at Tobruk; but, he was informed, the shells would not fit the Allies' guns because the rotating band was too large. Undaunted, Jarrett set up a mobile machine shop on the banks of the Suez Canal; each shell was mounted on a lathe and the rotating band was turned down by Royal Ordnance Corps technicians. He knew that the German 75 mm ammunition became fully armed when rotated at 1,500 rpm, so he kept the lathes turning no faster than 400 pm. There were no accidents but, he told me, "It scared the life out of a lot of people." These shells, some 17,000 pieces, were to play a vital part in later battles of the North African campaign. [Note p. 34]

[Michael Emrys]

How did they find German shells in Tobruk in 1941 or even 1942? The Germans didn't capture the place until mid-1942 and the Allies didn't take it back until six months later. Could they have been Italian shells instead? A lot of Italian equipment and supply was captured in the winter of 1940-41.

Michael

[Private Bluebottle]

A good point. Even so, it still raises the question, is there any substantial difference between the US 75mm HE round and the German/Italian 75mm HE round in CMAK? As I'm yet to recieve the game, I can't tell. It is an interesting anecdote though!

[Mr. Tittles]

I thought that story was about AP ammo not HE.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

...is there any substantial difference between the US 75mm HE round and the German/Italian 75mm HE round in CMAK?

I don't know about in CM, but in real life there certainly was. For one thing each side had more than one weapon in that caliber. The thing I am thinking about in regard to the anecdote that you began with is that even if an alien projectile could be machined to the precise correct size, you would still have to use your own cartridge case in order to fit into the firing chamber. The other thing is that the alien projectile would surely have a slightly different mass and probably a different profile, all of which would alter its ballistics and require recalibrating the sights all along the range of the weapon unless you were really lucky. In which case, mixing a batch of alien and native rounds would be bad news I would think.

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

How did they find German shells in Tobruk in 1941 or even 1942? The Germans didn't capture the place until mid-1942 and the Allies didn't take it back until six months later. Could they have been Italian shells instead? A lot of Italian equipment and supply was captured in the winter of 1940-41.

If you take a broader view of "Tobruk" it is quite understandable. During the winter of 41/42 there was a large battle in the Tobruk area (Op CRUSADER), during which quite a number of German supply and base depots were overrun (esp around Gambut, a few miles east of Tobruk). Also, the fortress of Bardia was recaptured in early 42, along with the frontier positions held by Maj, the Rev, Bachs' forces. Overall, these battles are often reffered to with reference to Tobruk (e.g. Relief of Tobruk)

So 'in Tobruk' (which you said) doesn't make much sense. However, 'at Tobruk' (which is what the original article said) does.

Regards

JonS

[ November 25, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Bluey - I think it was the same guy who did something similar with French 75mm shells captured in Syria.

[MikeyD]

I had heard of those reworked shells before, they're actuslly quite famous, in an obscure kind'a way I've seen photos.

I believe they were German AT shells with burster charges, which is why he'd have to be careful of the fuses.

[Guest Mike]

From http://afvinteriors.hobbyvista.com/grant/grant1.html

"There were initial problems with the first American high explosive ammo provided with the Grants. Because the new M2 gun was chambered to use the M1897 gun's 75mm ammunition, the rounds provided to the British were from old stock piles, much of it dating back to the 1920's. Many of the rounds were unstable and a couple of fatalities resulted during training with this ammunition around Cairo, Egypt. During the lull in fighting before the Gazala battles, the HE fusses were also changed from indirect fuse types normally installed in the 75mm projectiles to direct fire fuses for use against hard targets. But once again there was a problem, again due to the Americans lack of fighting experience. The available American M72 AP monobloc shot that was provided to the British tended to break up when used against the German face-hardened armour. In the end, large numbers of captured German APCBC projectiles for the Panzer IV tank's 7.5cm gun were used, the excellent exploding armor piercing projectiles mated to the original US shell casings and powder. Many of these modified rounds reached British Grant crews by the start of the Gazala battles, but results gained by using the superior German AP rounds compared to the American rounds has not surfaced."

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

How did they find German shells in Tobruk in 1941 or even 1942? The Germans didn't capture the place until mid-1942 and the Allies didn't take it back until six months later. Could they have been Italian shells instead? A lot of Italian equipment and supply was captured in the winter of 1940-41.

If you take a broader view of "Tobruk" it is quite understandable. During the winter of 41/42 there was a large battle in the Tobruk area (Op CRUSADER), during which quite a number of German supply and base depots were overrun (esp around Gambut, a few miles east of Tobruk). Also, the fortress of Bardia was recaptured in early 42, along with the frontier positions held by Maj, the Rev, Bachs' forces. Overall, these battles are often reffered to with reference to Tobruk (e.g. Relief of Tobruk)

So 'in Tobruk' (which you said) doesn't make much sense. However, 'at Tobruk' (which is what the original article said) does.</font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by JonS:

Bluey - I think it was the same guy who did something similar with French 75mm shells captured in Syria.

I remember reading something about that but cannot remember where. I don't suppose you have a reference handy?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

These shells, some 17,000 pieces, were to play a vital part in later battles of the North African campaign. [Note p. 34]

I detect some possible hyperbole here. 17,000 rounds, in the larger scheme of things, is really not that much. I would be interested how they could play a vital part in later battles[!].

Just an example - for 710 10cm K18 in 1939, ammo production was 93,000. For 800 guns in 1940, 1.26 million rounds were produced.

[ November 27, 2003, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

For 800 guns in 1040, 1.26 million rounds were produced.

That must have made a mighty powerful impression on those mounted knights, to say nothing of the housecarls!

Michael

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:

For 800 guns in 1040, 1.26 million rounds were produced.

That must have made a mighty powerful impression on those mounted knights, to say nothing of the housecarls!

Michael </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

These shells, some 17,000 pieces, were to play a vital part in later battles of the North African campaign. [Note p. 34]

I detect some possible hyperbole here. 17,000 rounds, in the larger scheme of things, is really not that much. I would be interested how they could play a vital part in later battles[!].</font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

These shells, some 17,000 pieces, were to play a vital part in later battles of the North African campaign. [Note p. 34]

I detect some possible hyperbole here. 17,000 rounds, in the larger scheme of things, is really not that much. I would be interested how they could play a vital part in later battles[!].

Just an example - for 710 10cm K18 in 1939, ammo production was 93,000. For 800 guns in 1940, 1.26 million rounds were produced. </font>

[Private Bluebottle]

Originally posted by JonS:

P.S. Bluey, I've been trying to remember where I saw that bit about the French 75mm ammo, but I can't come up with anything. I've tried Pitt, and it wasn't there. I think it may have been on one of the forums here that it was discussed.

Thanks Jon. I did a quick search and found this:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=022573#000016

However, its a discussion about smoke, not HE or AP rounds. Even so, its interesting. One question though, why does this bloke Rexford refer to himself in the third person? :confused:

ps. Where's my turn?

[ November 27, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Private Bluebottle ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

At a point when you have rounds that aren't functioning correctly and preventing you from killing enemy tanks, it would have been better to have some functioning ammunition than none.

I don't question that at all. I just questioned the idea that these 17,000 rounds mattered over the course of 'battles'. If you look at the rounds/gun produced in other applications, it is clear that 17,000 rounds is not a lot. Even at the outer edge of the envelope that Jon presents (which excludes losses in transport/depots, losses in lost tanks etc), it seems to be very little in terms of ammo loadout.

I am just bein anal here, because I can

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

One question though, why does this bloke Rexford refer to himself in the third person? :confused:

I think because he did the research for the book with his mates.

[JonS]

Cripes! My memory is getting worse!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

...why does this bloke Rexford refer to himself in the third person? :confused:

I haven't examined the thread in question, but I have read many of his posts, and in cases where he says "we" it is because he is speaking of the group of which he is a part that is doing research and writing material on the subject being discussed. So far as I know he has no royal pretensions.

Michael

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Private Bluebottle:

...why does this bloke Rexford refer to himself in the third person? :confused:

I haven't examined the thread in question, but I have read many of his posts, and in cases where he says "we" it is because he is speaking of the group of which he is a part that is doing research and writing material on the subject being discussed. So far as I know he has no royal pretensions.

Michael </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

Cripes! My memory is getting worse!

It's called "the aging process", Jon. Get used to it. It'll get worse. Much worse.

Michael