MikeyD Posted March 12, 2004 Share Posted March 12, 2004 "The kill vehicle, if you will, in APCR is a short rod made of tungsten carbide, and that rod is securely locked into a light alloy jacket." Doesn't that describe the latest U.S. Army 5.56mm rifle ammo? Tungsten core in a light jacket? When I first heard about the new round (promoted laughably as an 'Eco-friendly' non-lead round) my first thought was Mini-HVAP. Make me wonder about that round's longer range ballistics. Yeh I know, outside the scope of CMAK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalin's Organ Posted March 13, 2004 Share Posted March 13, 2004 Originally posted by flamingknives: Why would the 6pdr need a counterweight? The 95mm how. did because the short barrel needs extra weight to balance the breech mechanism. The 6pdr was fairly well balanced, by comparison Were the tank-mounted 6-pdr shorter than the original AT gun? The later AT guns were a couple of calibres longer than the early ones (L45 vs L42.8). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Churchill Mk III had the short 6 pdr Mk III while the Churchill Mk IV had the longer 6 pdr Mk V. I think there was question on the CMBB forum asking if the Mk III had the longer 6 pdr fitted as an update. [ March 15, 2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: PS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 In the game you can see long and short 6 pdr gun tubes on the Valentine VIII and Churchill IV respectively. It doesn't look like BFC varied the penetration data appreciably between gun types. If the Brits gave the American 75mm gun gyrostabilizer a try (I don't know that they did) that would necessitate adapting the 6 pdr to balance properly. Hence the counterweight? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 The British tank design people were notorious for favouring a gun balanced on it's mounts, but whether that extends to the later Churchills I don't know. In any case, a longer gun will be barrel heavy, so any counterweight would be on the breech. Possibly the the Gyro was designed to work on a barrel heavy gun? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 I think the 6 pdr tank mount still used shoulder elevation like the A/T gun. I did read why the MkV 6 pdr had a counterweight and will try to find it. The MkV in the Valentine did not need one. It is prob down to the mount type as the 17pdr M10 Achilles needed one but the Firefly didn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PS Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 They took the muzzle brake off the MkV 6 pdr so it needed a counterweight. Found pictures of Centaur and Cavalier with counterweighted Mk Vs. Why not the Valentine? Prod did but was removed, will need some time to dig out my photo collection. Before someone makes a remark I know the first Churchill Mk IVs had a Mk III 6 pdr. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 "In any case, a longer gun will be barrel heavy" I'm not positive, but for the 6 pdr that may not be the case. I recall reading a reference to the initial production short 6 pdr barrel as being the 'heavy type'. This might be in reference to its thick-walled forward barrel. Late-war barrels had a significant stepped decrease in diameter a short way after the breech, and the U.S. 57mm barrel was tapered. It would be interesting to learn what the differences in barrel weight was between early war and late war guns. 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.