PantherG Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Why do the 122 and 152s both load the cartridge seperately from the shell? This seems like a really stupid mistakes from the designers (of the guns, that is ). Why must they load seperately, if things like Hummels don't have to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KwK43 L/71 Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 The weight and length of those projectiles made loading them as a single cartridge almost impossibly awkward within the close confines of an AFV. Also if I remember both those and the 128mm were developed from artillery weapons where seperate shells and charges are the norm. They wanted to be able to rapidly adapt the weapons without having to majorly redesign them and having to create new production lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 The Hummel, being open topped, is rather more roomy for gun operations than the Soviet SPGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John D Salt Posted November 20, 2002 Share Posted November 20, 2002 Originally posted by PantherG: Why do the 122 and 152s both load the cartridge seperately from the shell? This seems like a really stupid mistakes from the designers (of the guns, that is ). Why must they load seperately, if things like Hummels don't have to?How many conventional weapons of 120mm calibre or above do you know that are not separate-loading? What evidence do you have that the main aramament of Wespe, Hummel, Grille and Jadgtiger were not separate-loading? My sources seem to say that they all were. Was this a really stupid mistake by their designers? Were the designers of the Chieftain's L11 120mm gun really stupid, too? All the best, John. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KwK43 L/71 Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 I know that the Jagdtiger's was seperate loading for a fact, don't know about the other's though, have to check my bookshelf. Most modern tanks that I know of use unitary rounds, however most modern tanks are using guns specificly designed for tank use, not rapidly adapted artillery pieces. Modern technology, fatter cartridge cases, and big tanks allow these 120mm rounds to be one single round. However if memory serves I think that even some modern Soviet/Russian tanks with guns of 125mm use seperate loading shells and charges. Also I don't know of a single 155mm artillery that uses unitary rounds, far as I know they are almost all seperate. Except maybe for that wierd Swiss SP Arty, the one with the auto loader. The Pershing was going to have seperate loading ammo until they designed a new gun that used a cartridge that was shorter but fatter. Gave the same bang for the buck but was easier to manuver in the turrent. [ November 20, 2002, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: KwK43 L/71 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevsharr Posted November 21, 2002 Share Posted November 21, 2002 The Hummel and wespe had two piece ammunition because they were howitzer's that used variable charge rates to change the distance the projectile could travel.All howitzer's be the self-propelled or towed had separate propellant cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts