civdiv Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Those are some huge holes in that tank, any idea what made them. Given the time frame they are quite a bit bigger than I expected. They appear to the layman I am to be solid shot penetrations, but that is a total guess. I'd expect a HEAT hole to be smaller than the diameter of the round, is that correct? I'd rule out 25lbr due to the shot group. Seems like a high-velocity gun due to the accuracy, any thoughts on that? But the holes look bigger than 75mm, which IIRC, was the biggest anti-tank gun then in service. http://homepage.floodcity.net/users/odmor/photo.swf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Why rule out 25 pr.? (and why write 25lbr when the correct nomenclature is "25 pdr" or "25 pr.") Higher velocity guns are not more accurate than lower velocity guns, they merely reduce ranging errors by having a flatter trajectory and limit wind-induced errors by having a shorter time-of-flight. Once you have the range and assuming a constant wind, there is nothing to stop a low velocity gun hitting every bit as accurately as a high velocity gun. The holes are about fist size, which would be about right for a gun in the 80mm range, so it could be a 75mm gun or a 25pdr. If you're convinced that it's not a 25pdr, then it could be a 3.7" AA gun or a 4.5" medium gun. But it probably is a 25pdr. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 3, 2007 Author Share Posted February 3, 2007 I certainly claim to be no expert on the issue. But I did use to be an artillery FO, so I know something about arty. Does a 25 pdr have direct fire sights? Plus, due to the uniformity and large size of the holes, I assume they are solid shot. Again, I assume holes from HEAT would be smaller. 25 pdr doesn't have solid shot. I don't ever recall reading about a 3.7 incher being used in the anti-tank gun, and as with the 25 pdr, the 4.5" gun doesn't have solid shot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 It appears the tank was used for target practice after it was knocked out. Take a look at the third slide in the series where the penentrations are outlined in small boxes. Take note of the one on the right, just below the supposedly dead crewman's head, and the one in the middle. Now scroll forward to the slide showing the fire between the 4th & 5th road wheels. Still shows up clearly there. Now go forward one more slide. The middle pen is not there, and the tool box shows no sign of damage, even though the RH pen is right behind it. Edit: something else I just noticed. Take a look at the 4th road wheel in the first slides and then the same wheel in the side by side comparison shots. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 3, 2007 Author Share Posted February 3, 2007 Originally posted by Kingfish: It appears the tank was used for target practice after it was knocked out. Take a look at the third slide in the series where the penentrations are outlined in small boxes. Take note of the one on the right, just below the supposedly dead crewman's head, and the one in the middle. Now scroll forward to the slide showing the fire between the 4th & 5th road wheels. Still shows up clearly there. Now go forward one more slide. The middle pen is not there, and the tool box shows no sign of damage, even though the RH pen is right behind it. Edit: something else I just noticed. Take a look at the 4th road wheel in the first slides and then the same wheel in the side by side comparison shots. Good catch Kingfish! Also, if you look at the slide where you two pictures are side-by-side, maybe it's the angle or something, but you can see the German Cross on one, but not on the other. And one thing I noticed in the beginning, though the angles of the two pictures are slightly different, it looks like in one the TC's hatch is open, and in another it is closed. Are we sure it is the same tank, I now have my doubts. Do you want to inform the writer of your discovery? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 1) 25 pdr was used extensively in the direct fire role in the desert, mostly for anti-tank work, due to the lack of modern anti-tank guns Source 2) The anti-tank ammunition nature was AP shot. Source Finally, using ex cathedra arguments doesn't reflect well on a discussion board. Unless you were a FO with a 25pdr regt. in the western desert, it isn't really relevant. [ February 03, 2007, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: flamingknives ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 You don't see the German cross because in the LH photo the toolbox is covering it up. Something else I noticed that is interesting. Take a good look at the LH damage. Whatever hit the track guard did so with such force that it broke it in half, but also buckled it in a downward angle. Anyone here thinks that was caused by an arty shell? Perhaps a one-in-a-million shot cracked the guard down and jammed the treads, causing the crew to bail. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Originally posted by civdiv: I certainly claim to be no expert on the issue. But I did use to be an artillery FO, so I know something about arty. Does a 25 pdr have direct fire sights? Yes, of course. I doubt there was any field gun in any army in WW2 that didn't. Originally posted by civdiv: Plus, due to the uniformity and large size of the holes, I assume they are solid shot. Again, I assume holes from HEAT would be smaller. 25 pdr doesn't have solid shot. Yes it does. And before it did, the Gunners performed thoroughly effective tank shooting with HE shells, leaving the transport plug in instead of inserting the fuze. Given the number of well-attested occasions on which 25-pdr regiments engaged tanks with direct fire, it seems odd to discount the possibility; although it had doubtless become rarer by Medenine, it didn't cease until 155 battery's classic stand at Sidi Ndir in February 1943. All the best, John. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Better view. It must be the same tank.The damage over the return roller matches as does the rear two road wheels being slightly sunken into the ground. It is the same tank after the tool box is removed and a few more rounds shot into it. [ February 03, 2007, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: michael kenny ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 I second Kingfish. Seems like target practice to me. If the gun was low velocity, the track guard might have been hit slightly from above. If the hit to the left of the right elbow cut thru the track guard first it should be rather easy (for a projectile) to bend the track guard down. Hit sequence of the three hits on the track guard would be from center to rear. Center cuts it, next one bends it down and the leftmost bends it the most. Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael kenny Posted February 3, 2007 Share Posted February 3, 2007 Now if you are interested in penetrations and explosions............. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 To all, you have vasty expanded my knowledge of this incident due to your astute observations and your detailed knowledge. Well, except flamingknives. "ex cathedra" refers to an infallible decision made by the Pope, while I said right up front in my original post that I was no expert on the issue. Oh, and you use ex cathedra when referring to an internet discussion board?!?!?! I did what normal human beings do; I pointed out my own status as not being an expert on the matter and I appealed to others on their opinions on the matter to bring their experience to the matter at hand. A low velocity artillery piece would have real problems obtaining that sort of shot group unless they were like 200 meters away and the target was stationary. And, as someone more astute than I has pointed out, some of the penetrations are not present in both pictures. That is an example of moving the discussion forward, something Flamingknives, you have not done. So maybe they set up a 25 pdr 200 meters away and did penetration trials on the hulk, that seems to be the way we are assuming this went. Funny that someone mentioned shipping plugs. As an arty FO I could tell when someone shot a round with the shipping plug as it made a different sound. I would keep my mouth shut on the issue as in the pre-war USMC that usually meant someone had lost a fuze or miscounted, and that was something a gun chief could lose their job over. But as a funny aside, I'll freely admit I was an ass as an FO. When I started out I was with a split gun battery and we had 3 105s and 3 155s. I would survey the battery with binos and if they hadn't dug breech pits for the 105s I would always call for 'high angle' fires, and then watch them scrambling to dig pits in the gun position. The 105 required them to dig a pit under the gun to allow the gun to recoil during high angle fires. [ February 04, 2007, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 M.K., in the first photo I assume that is 2 88 penetrations and then 1 75 penetration, and I can't tell what is along the seam where the armor cracked. Is that your spin from the photo? Does someone have a good photo of a HEAT penetration? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Ah yes, I'm such a bad man. "ex cathedra", in many dictionaries, is given as meaning 'with full authority', deriving from papal announcements at a time when such proclamations were regarded as the highest authority on Earth. When applied to discourse, it generally means that a party is claiming unassailable authority, which is rather how your comment on being an FO came over, despite the caveat - i.e. "I was an FO, therefore I am right and you are wrong." If my comments came across as rude (which I didn't intend, tried to avoid but will nevertheless apologise for any hurt feelings derived from them) the yours came across as arrogant, even if they were not intended as such. I think you are being perhaps a bit harsh by writing off my contributions. You had written off the 25pdr on the basis of mistaken assumptions. I posted and linked to sources that indicate that it was entirely possible for the 25pdr. to have made those holes. Furthermore, I still think that you are wrong about low-velocity pieces being less accurate. AIUI, there are a number of reasons as to why a gun might miss a target: 1) Dispersion. The inherent inconsistancy of a gun. This is velocity independent so a low velocity gun can have less dispersion than a high velocity gun. 2) Aiming errors. not putting the sights correctly on the target. The most common (which has been discussed here previously) is getting the range, and therefore elevation, wrong. Obviously a low velocity gun suffers more in this regard as the elevation band to hit a target at a particular range is smaller than for a high velocity gun, for which the projectile drops less in covering a given distance. There is also the issue of constant cross winds, for which the gunner must apply the correct windage. Again this affects LV guns more than HV, as the time of flight is less for the HV gun, therefore meaning there is less time for a cross wind to apply force, which in turn means less deflection for a given range. 3) Unforseen environmental effects. A sudden change in wind, wind or air density being different at different point between the gun and target. As for the cross winds, this affects the LV projectile more. This may seem like sematics and hair splitting, but if you remove range errors (known range, or correct ranging) cross winds and random environmental conditions (calm day, as evidenced by there being no airborne dust and no deflection of fire or the surrounding vegetation, then the only remaining factor is inherent dispersion, and I can think of no reason why this should be more on a LV gun firing direct than a HV gun. If you know of a reason, please let me know. The source in the first link indicates that the 25pdr actually had a greater dispersion than the 2pdr, 6pdr and 17pdr at under 2000 yards, but that the 25 pdr becomes more accurate than the 2 and 6pdr at greater ranges indicates that environment conditions may have been a factor in the tests. An alternate scenario is that the Panzer was hit as a crossing target, then hit repeatedly until it brewed up, the crew bailed or there was some other factor to induce the gun to stop firing. As for HEAT rounds, I can't find any pictures. I've got two great pieces in the office, but work is a trifle touchy about taking cameras in. Basically it's a hole about big enough to put your finger into, with a random scattering of fragment scoring of the armour around it. That's for a classical 'cone' shaped liner from a non-spinning warhead. For spinning warheads, you would expect to see more radial fragmentation and a messier hole. The PIAT (although definately not contemporary with the picture) would leave a bigger hole as it used a hemispherical liner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdonahueus Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Hello fellow history hunters, I am the one that posted the "Photograph" website of the knocked out Panzer III L you have debated about. Well, I heard it from the horses mouth so to speak as I interviewed in 2005 the British Anti-Tank commander who's crews were responsible for knocking it out. All of my findings are going into a book that I am writing. In short, the tank was hit by a British 6 pound ant-tank gun. Yes, it was hit with more rounds to spice up photos for American and British photographers who wanted some action photos. I have been to the exact spot in Tunisia where the tank was knocked out twice now. I even interviewed an elderly Tunisian man who as an 8 year old boy witnessed the destruction of the tank. I looked closely at one of my photos from a previous trip in 2003 and noticed in the background that a large object that a dog was chained to was actually one of the large bogey or idler wheels from one of the 4 Panzer III L's that were knocked out by the one in the photo. I have it here, it is my Holy Grail if you will. I'll have to let you know when the book is. I have a question. I see there is a person with the name Kenny here. Are you in anyway related to Elmer Kenny of New Zealand? As I am currently on the trail to get in touch with his daughter who has several photos of this tank. If so, reply here and also send emails to kdonahueus@yahoo.com Thank you. Kevin. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 "They appear to the layman I am..." "I certainly claim to be no expert on the issue." "Again, I assume..." "I don't ever recall reading..." Flamingknives, The first quote is from my first posting and the subsequent three are from my second post. I won't defy you to note where I issued an 'ex cathedra" comment because you can't find one. I mentioned my status as a former arty FO as it makes me more educated on the matter at hand than most of the posters here whose military experience is limited to pushing sprites around on their computer monitor. But there are still lots of posters who have real experience either in the military or with defence related items such as ballistics. The original intent with the posting, as is clearly stated is to get THEM who have more knowledge of the issue to chime in. Your reply seems to indicate that someone found a cool new phrase to use and used this topic as the oppotunity to use it. I am aware of the phrase in question just because I encountered it years ago in my reading (Barbara Tuckman's 'Through the Looking Glass' IIRC) and I had to look it up at the time. Your reply was rude, period. It doesn't matter to me and it won't alter my life other than my telling you I felt it was rude. If you had said it in person I would have verbally eviscerated you, but here I took the high road as nothing is ever settled here in text. The original point of the topic was a genuine call for insight into the matter at hand as I was curious about it. Secondary was helping Kevin in his search for information. I have succeeded at both aims. In regards to low velocity guns being as accurate as high velocity in the direct fire mode, you are just plain wrong. Your preamble in regards to 'constant wind' 'ranging', etc, kills your argument before it starts. So they are just as accurate once they are ranged in and if the winds don't shift? So they aren't as accurate, is that what you are saying? 'Tell that German tank to stop until we figure out what the wind is.' I've fired artillery pieces in the direct fire mode; they are very inaccurate. [ February 04, 2007, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: civdiv ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Originally posted by civdiv: To all, you have vasty expanded my knowledge of this incident due to your astute observations and your detailed knowledge. Well, except flamingknives. Funny, since he is the one who vastly expanded your knowledge about the 25-pdr, regarding direct sights and solid shot, and it's use as an ATG. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv: To all, you have vasty expanded my knowledge of this incident due to your astute observations and your detailed knowledge. Well, except flamingknives. Funny, since he is the one who vastly expanded your knowledge about the 25-pdr, regarding direct sights and solid shot, and it's use as an ATG. All the best Andreas </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Originally posted by civdiv: His links do not show that solid shot AP was used by the 25 pdr. Others have said they do, so I believe them, but his links do not provide the info. AP does not equal solid shot AP.You are welcome to explain what "Anti_Tank Shot (20lbs)" from his second link could be, other than Anti Tank Shot. Before you struggle trying to weasle your way out of it, I suggest reading this page of his linked site: http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/ammo.htm In particular this sentence: "Technically, projectiles were classed as either 'shot' or 'shell'. The former was solid and restricted to anti-tank and some training natures. " Originally posted by civdiv: So my original statement has been agreed with by most on this board. Your original statement was based on bad reasoning, and that reasoning was corrected by fk. That it is correct was by accident, not because of the force of your reasoning. Originally posted by civdiv: Why would you wade into this discussion in this manner? If you want to have a private discussion, don't conduct it on a public forum. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 IIRC, AP shot (used multiple times in the reference) is a specific term indicating solid shot. If it were APHE, it would be referred to as AP shell. Regarding what you said: I certainly claim to be no expert on the issue. But I did use to be an artillery FO, so I know something about arty. It's the "but" that is causing what seems to be a misunderstanding. I could accept that you didn't intend it to come across as I read it. But now this: The first quote is from my first posting and the subsequent three are from my second post. I won't defy you to note where I issued an 'ex cathedra" comment because you can't find one. I mentioned my status as a former arty FO as it makes me more educated on the matter at hand than most of the posters here whose military experience is limited to pushing sprites around on their computer monitor. But there are still lots of posters who have real experience either in the military or with defence related items such as ballistics. The original intent with the posting, as is clearly stated is to get THEM who have more knowledge of the issue to chime in."Most of the posters who's military experience is limited to pushing sprites around on their computer monitor." Well, that'd be me, if one were to discount my day job of designing this stuff. I guess, for "THEM" that you believe that this does not include ME. Fair enough, but I'll leave my contributions as is, if you care to go back over them, or not, that's your choice. If you have any further questions then I'll no doubt give an answer if I know it. I used ex cathedra as it is one of my pet dislikes of internet discourse. Too often I see it used to hide a lack of research and critical thinking, so I tend to react strongly if I think I see it. As I was a touch indelicate with my phrasing (something of a habit, I'm afraid) I apologised for causing any offence with it. It was an unecessary aside to a technical answer. As for inherent dispersion etc., read the whole thing. I do try to explain why what seems irrelevant actually has some merit, after I've covered the sources of errors. Even if LV guns are that much less accurate, some days everything goes right, so the grouping is not a reason to write the 25pdr off completely. And some more goodies: By April '43, the 17pdr was being introduced into service with the RA, but the primary AT gun for the anti-tank regiments was still the 6pdr. The first 17pdrs into North Africa were mounted on 25pdr carriages as their dedicated split-trail carriage was not ready in time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 To Flamingknives, I saw something interesting, and asked for help in defining what it meant. In so doing, I admitted I didn't have the experience to make the determination. I freely admitted I wasn't the expert and clearly inidcated my opinion and I asked for feedback. Yet you shelled me in regards to my conclusion. I stated the problem or the issue. I stated that I was certainly not the expert but based on my rather limited experience this is a possible solution. I caveated my lack of experience or knowledge on many occassions. And here is the data that I have on hand, please someone more experienced on this issue please chime in. And you shelled me for making my initial determinations. Andreas, I did miss that portion and I had looked at the reference, so I am wrong. However, despite your point, the picture was wrong for exactly the reasons I pointed out that it was wrong. Low velocity artillery does not produce those effects. So you dwell into minutia yet my original point was correct, and thus, you bring nothing to the argument. In a battlefield situation low velocity artillery did not produce those affects. Basically what happened was, the artillery FO in me saw that picture and said; 'Whoa, that looks weird'. And I called for experts to look at this and we have determined that my initial suspician was that something 'non kosher' had occurredis correct. We seem to have solved the issue, but still, you and FK have added nothing to the discussion. [ February 04, 2007, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: civdiv ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Regarding MV, I think it is important to note that, depending on the charge;, the 25-pdr could get to over 600 m/s with AP Shot, which I think is considerably higher than other field guns pressed into AT service, and comparable to the Sherman 75mm gun. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 Originally posted by civdiv: We seem to have solved the issue, but still, you and FK have added nothing to the discussion. Of course not. You are obviously the most brilliant person posting on this board, and nobody can possibly add to a discussion by correcting false statements you made, since you don't make any. Sorry I forgot about that, won't happen again. All the best Andreas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted February 4, 2007 Share Posted February 4, 2007 No, I 'shelled you' because I thought you were claiming that your artillery experience of a different system with different weapons meant more than research from a historical perspective and an engineering background. And I apologised for it. Twice. With regards to the low velocity 25pdr, it isn't really. MV is 1,850 fps with a 20lb AP shot. By comparison, MV of a 75mm tank gun is 2,030 fps with a 14lb AP shot (US M2 and M3 guns are 1860 and 2300 fps respectively) Logically, a 25pdr would make similar holes to the 75mm guns. With higher velocity guns, you expect to see impacts at a slightly flatter angle, but that wouldn't be noticable under 1000 yards or so. The 25 pdr. really is a very different beast to 105mm M102s*. I suspect I need to use more smileys . *I'm guessing here - ISTR the M102 had quite a low breech. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
civdiv Posted February 4, 2007 Author Share Posted February 4, 2007 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by civdiv: We seem to have solved the issue, but still, you and FK have added nothing to the discussion. Of course not. You are obviously the most brilliant person posting on this board, and nobody can possibly add to a discussion by correcting false statements you made, since you don't make any. Sorry I forgot about that, won't happen again. All the best Andreas </font> 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.