Sergei Posted February 22, 2009 Share Posted February 22, 2009 I just learned about this... The ammunition used in the P.z.B. 38 and P.z.B. 39 utilized a steel core to penetrate armor. The original projectiles consisted of a hardened steel core and a tiny capsule of tear gas. The idea behind the tear gas capsule was that it would disperse once the projectile penetrated the vehicle and force the crew to evacuate. The idea was not successful, while the steel core often penetrated the armor of a target, the tear gas capsule would be left lying outside the vehicle. This would often affect German infantry troops that were attempting to assault the disabled vehicle. After 1940 a much harder tungsten steel core was used. http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/may03.pdf Very innovative, but also insane over-engineering... while the Pz.B 39 like any other light ATR wasn't too effective even against light armor and therefore adding "extra effects" to the ammunition was justified, just how much tear gas can you fit into a capsule fitted in a 7.92mm round? I could understand a desire to add something incendiary like WP to it, but tear gas?? That just sounds like something invented by the same guy that wrote the plot for Snakes on a Plane. I also would guess that it diminished the round's penetrating power which for the non-Tungsten core round wasn't that great to begin with. And finally, wouldn't it have considerably raised the cost of the ammunition? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Sounds like one of those ideas that gets funding because the person allocating the funds either 1) is in bed with the recipient of the funds, or 2) isn't bright enough to sort the sh!t from the shinola. That said, where would Barnes Wallace be without funding for his bouncing bombs? Or Oppenheimer, for that matter? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Smart ideas are always worth testing out. The germans did so and it didn't work, so they dropped it. Whether it was worth the cost/ complexity would probably have been decided based on the results it achieved. It would certainly have been useful to have an ATR that guaranteed a crew bailout with every penetration (until said crew begain wearing masks). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted February 23, 2009 Share Posted February 23, 2009 Like the German anti-magnetic mine coating : ) Would have been brilliant if any of their enemies used magnetic mines - and how long did they keep using it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Some of their enemies did use magnetic mines -- which they stole from the Germans. The Soviets captured large numbers of Hafthohlladung-type magnetic mines early in the war, so the Germans, fearing enemy use of said captured Panzerknacker weapons, developed the Zimmerit coating, even though the Soviets ended up not copying the Hafthohlladung and Germany's other enemies just used their own interpretations of the Panzerfaust and Panzerschreck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 5, 2009 Author Share Posted March 5, 2009 Actually Panzerschreck was a German copy of Bazooka, not the other way around. Meanwhile Panzerfaust was not 'interpreted' by anyone. In fact, were there any disposable infantry anti-tank rocket weapons until 1970's? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Anteeksi*, Sergei -- I stand corrected. I must have been misremembering what I've read about WW2 infantry anti-tank weapons. Leave it to the Germans to capture an weapon and then improve upon it! =P * That's Finnish for "sorry", right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 I've thought about this one a little more and, well, if the tank commander is trying to spot the AT rifleman, tear gas in the air around the tank sort of makes sense. "Where is he?" "Somewhere, aargh, over there, aahh, fer f**k's sake gimme some water..." If it was a hindrance to the German troops assaulting the tank it probably kept the TC buttoned. Maybe? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Sergei - the last model fausts (150, 250) were reusable not disposable, like the Russian postwar RPGs and US post war recoilless rifles. Also, the US fielded LAW (disposable 1-shot 66mm HEAT rocket) in 1961. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I was aware that with "150" they strengthened the tube so that it could be reused, but I wasn't certain of when M72 came to use. Thanks! It appears that Soviets took RPG-18 to use in 1972. Here's an idea: Americans should have called M72 as M61, and Soviets should have called RPG-18 as RPG-72. Or an even better idea: include weapon's caliber to the name, so eg. LAW would be called 66 LAW 61 (later revisions would be named according to year, eg. 66 LAW 88) and 64 RPG 72. Major armed forces, feel free to use this system! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 That would ruin the entire business of all grogs! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted March 29, 2009 Share Posted March 29, 2009 I was aware that with "150" they strengthened the tube so that it could be reused, but I wasn't certain of when M72 came to use. Thanks! It appears that Soviets took RPG-18 to use in 1972. Here's an idea: Americans should have called M72 as M61, and Soviets should have called RPG-18 as RPG-72. Or an even better idea: include weapon's caliber to the name, so eg. LAW would be called 66 LAW 61 (later revisions would be named according to year, eg. 66 LAW 88) and 64 RPG 72. Major armed forces, feel free to use this system! You've discovered a little-known WW2 tank-grog thing here that BTS, in its search for the ultimate in realism, has modeled in CM. I've been waiting to see if anybody else noticed this. Most people assume that the M in US vehicle designations means "Model". Thus, the Medium Tank M4 Sherman would be the "Model #4" Medium tank. This is incorrect. The M actually stands for "Mortality" and the number represents the life expectancy of the vehicle in minutes. Thus, Shermans were rated officially at 4 minutes of survival in a combat situation, which is reflected accurately in CM by having them die on turn 4. After the Sherman had been in production for some time and combat experience had been gained, it was noticed in many cases, particularly for the earlier production runs of Shermans, that the official Mortality rating was a bit optimistic. Thus, the designation was changed to reflect the new data. This involved appending the letter A and another number to the M4 designation, the A standing for "Actually" and the new number being the revised Mortality rating. For example, the M4A2 had a combat-proven life expectancy of "Actually 2" minutes. Later on, the designation system got even more accurate by appending a number in parentheses and the letter W. Despite the widely held conviction that the parenthetical number was the caliber of the gun, what these symbols really meant was that the tank had a 75% or 76% chance of going WHOOSH in a big fireball when penetrated. However, some models of Sherman were so inflammable that calcualtions showed they had a 105% chance of brewing up, so they just left it at that and didn't bother with the W, because they were going to WHOOSH regardless. Towards the end of the war, some Shermans gained an E and another number in their designations. The E meant "Extra Cost" and the number was a designator for the manufacturer, to ensure that company got extra money for making the tank. CM accurately reflects this by making these types of Shermans cost more to buy in DYO. Thus, the M4A3E8(76)W designation meant a tank with an official Mortality of 4 minutes, Actually 3 minutes, cost Extra, and had a 76% chance of going WHOOSH. As for the + symbol, this was an unofficial nomenclature developed by tank retrieval and repair personnel. As you know, vehicles that WHOOSH are totally destroyed so were just left to rust away. However, most Shermans had only a 75-76% chance of WHOOSHing (the difference being due to small variations in production techniques by the several manufacturers), so sometimes a few Shermans would simply be knocked out instead. When these were repaired and returned to service, the ordnance personnel annotated their log books with the + sign. The origin of this of symbol is still a matter of debate. Some claim it represents a white cross in a military cemetary. Others maintain that it's a pictograph for crossed bandaids over a wound. But one thing is clear--most US armored division personnel didn't believe in the independence of random events occurring at different times. They felt that if the tank had not WHOOSHED the first time, it certainly would next time. Hence, they made sure to mark such vehicles for assignment to replacement crews. So much for weapons designations. All the best Andreas 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.