The .661 used a projectile twice the weight of the tungsten .55 Boys at a similar velocity. The kick would be something to write home about.
1937-42, yet another alt British Army what-if
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
There was a lot of AT man-portable weapons in 14-20mm range byck in the 1940s, so even the .661 is not something excessive.
(we were shown the RT-20 weapon back in the 1990s, as well as the .50 MACS rifle)
But I'd suggest that these guns are primarily vehicle-borne - use the Bren Carrier (or whatever type of carrier we whip up this time) or the 4x4.
Last edited:
Not with that broken shoulder the rifleman's just got firing it they won't.
marathag
Banned
To wank that even farther, The Ford V-8 flathead could be upped a bit in power. It used the 239 cubic inch motor used in the Ford Transit Bus.
After the War, it got a stroker crankshaft, going from 95hp to 110hp, to 255 cubic inches
The block maximum was found by hot rodders to 295 cubic inches, for around 127HP and more torque
So that's the upper limit for a little more power in that vehicle
Extra power can be used to raise the sides a bit, for more armor coverage
Well the RT-20 is technically a recoilless rifle. The .50 BMG projectile is generally between 42 and 52 g and has a muzzle velocity of between 860 and 920 m/s. The .661 had an 85 g round and a velocity of 1005 m/s. In other words it had 72% more muzzle energy than the 50 BMG. It was a hefty round.
(https://www.quarryhs.co.uk/Vickers.html)
That is the .661 in the middle in between a Vickers .5 inch and an Oerlikon 20 mm. Which it is similar size to.
There's not a huge amount wrong with the Boys, for it's time. Rather than bringing in a bigger, heavier rifle as a platoon AT weapon I'd rather just replace it earlier with a PIAT/Bazooka type weapon that can take on any tank likely to be fielded up to 1945 (either will probably struggle with the King Tiger/IS-3 but by the time either of those are a worry you should also have 17 Pounder level weapons as your battalion AT guns at least).
I agree. The Boys could take out most early war German tanks and remained useful against light armour and softskin vehicles and from time to time in a sniping role after that. Sure it was heavy, but then again as soon as you move to anything bigger or more powerful it ends up needing transport and becomes a small gun rather than a rifle, which rather defeats the point of a man-portable AT weapon.
If going bigger, my choice would be a Hotchkiss 25 on a truck or a carrier. It was would be small, light(ish) powerful and was about as good as a PaK 36 against armour. I'd rather one of those than a 20mm 'rifle' in terms of performance.
Still, a PIAT would be better, but I think I'd nedd someone else sorting out the spring for the first shot of the day.
If going bigger, my choice would be a Hotchkiss 25 on a truck or a carrier. It was would be small, light(ish) powerful and was about as good as a PaK 36 against armour. I'd rather one of those than a 20mm 'rifle' in terms of performance.
Still, a PIAT would be better, but I think I'd nedd someone else sorting out the spring for the first shot of the day.
The 25mm Hotchkiss is indeed better choice if we're to put it exclusively on a vehicle, or as a classic towed AT gun.
A big AT rifle can be carried by two men from a vehicle to the vantage point, or on a place where the vehicle will be too exposed. Big AT rifle can also be used from a building, even a few floors high; the AT gun (even the 25mm was almsot 500 kg heavy) less so.
Granted, PIAT or Bazooka or whatever still need to be developed. Both for AT job and with a HE shell.
A big AT rifle can be carried by two men from a vehicle to the vantage point, or on a place where the vehicle will be too exposed. Big AT rifle can also be used from a building, even a few floors high; the AT gun (even the 25mm was almsot 500 kg heavy) less so.
Granted, PIAT or Bazooka or whatever still need to be developed. Both for AT job and with a HE shell.
No. The Boys is a 16kg unloaded and the 20mm types 40-50kg so a lot of weight for no particular advantage. A recoilless version would have been taking the weight down to 11-12 kg and handy but the british pick that up from later Swedish work. The British issued 22-25 man portable AT weapons per bn consistently through the war - one per platoon or section for the Carrier platoon, which is a hell of a lot by early war standards ( actually a hell of a lot) then 6-8 AT guns to the Bn prior to that it was 9 ATG at Bde level essentially as guns became available they were pushed down from Bde to Bn. So earlier rearmament more stuff happens sooner Added to which is the No 68 At rifle grenade which is no improvement on the Boys.
What is possible is an earlier PIAT. The Spigot mortar is well known the WW1 2'' mortar is one so earlier identification of the problem - which is hard without a war unless you are moving on to considering how the British Army breaks German fortification which OTL led to HESH ammunition fired from a spigot mortar, The big advantage is the calibre of the spigot tube can be much less than the calibre of the round fired and as the size of the warhead is what you need to increase its an easy way of getting a big charge out a hundred yards or so from a fairly light weapon.
marathag
Banned
PIAT could have been better with rocket assist projectile. Initial spigot launch, so crew doesn't worry about backblast, but rocket cuts in just a second after launch, giving longer range and flatter trajectory.
This way the launch charge doesn't need to be as large, resulting in less felt recoil as well
The battledress blouse was too short - it frequently rode up, inconveniently. Making it longer would be no great effort.
The map pocket on the trousers was at the front of the right thigh, again an easily fixed problem.
What I always say in these threads: jerrycans.
It buttons to the trousers at the back. Its basically a two piece ski suit making it longer means millions of yards more cloth which is an issue at scale as you then have to ship millions of yards of material and product around the world.
I agree the weight of the Hotchkiss 25mm (anď even up to the 2pounder, 45mm or Bohler 47) puts it into a different class of weapon, but for me the improved performance justifies the inconvenience.
In contrast, as man-portable AT rifles the Solothurns don't appear to offer enough advantage to justify the extra weight over the Boys/PTRS/PTRD type which could at least be carried by a single
But the core message is that once the AT rifles starts looking a bit limited, something like a PIAT is a much better step up than a bigger AT rifle.
Boys is not in the league of the Soviet guns. The only similarity was probably the weight of the PTRD and Boys?
Soviet guns were able to penetrate 60+- percent more. That is not just an academic difference - the 14.5mm guns were able to punch through the sides of Pz-IV and -III, the Boys were not.
British can opt to decrease a bit the propellant of the .661, or use 15mm Besa cartridge, too.
I would not want to wait until AT rifles start loosing the punch - there is a place and time for both of them, so make the PIAT or bazooka already by 1938, and outfit the AT rifle with a scope.
I agree that the British would have liked the Boys better if it had matched the PTRD performance!
For sure replacement planning should be implemented in advance of the need. The progression 3pdr, 2pdr, 6pdr,17pdr shows that this was (mostly) well understood in Britain, although delaying the tooling needed to make the 6 pounder wasn't the smartest move even before Dunkirk.
But the infantry man-portable AT rifle niche is harder to keep current because it's not just a matter of upsizing the round or passing down last year's model of AT gun but rather needs a different technology.
At least the British had an anti tank rifle
PTRD was designed in July 1941 under somewhat desperate situations!
The Boys in 1937
Not sure if we can get HEAT warheads earlier - the first was the type 68 rifle grenade which entered service in 1940
All the bits are there - just not sure of its realistic to get a PIAT/Bazooka type weapon in 1939?
Those buttons were murder.
Every time you bent over, those buttons reduced the chance of children.
Last edited:
With total hindsight, could we go with the US .5BMG bolt action that can be disassembled (ie with a quick removable barrel LMG style for easy carriage by a 2-man team on the march) and then just develop a tungsten 30 cal sub caliber round for it in a pot style sabot to get really high velocity at close range, or a normal round for other targets that will work early on anyway? (not sure an optic is worth the effort as will it not likely get broken by the repeated firing, considering WWII optics poor quality and anyway cost a lot compared to the rest of the rifle?)
Then we let a few get "sold" commercially to US early on pre-war, so they go into production in US and GB (if not France...) can get them commercially and as LL as well as the ammo in large numbers.....
Last edited:
Munroe effect was published in 1900 in the Popular Science Monthly - so the possible application of it in a warhead should peek the interest of the people tacked with punching the holes in steel (and in whatnot).
Davis gun was a know thing before ww1, have the counterweight mass to be from sand and the delivery system for the HEAT warhead is there.
Also this from Wikipedia:
Meanwhile, Henry Hans Mohaupt, a chemical engineer in Switzerland, had independently developed a shaped-charge munition in 1935, which was demonstrated to the Swiss, French, British, and U.S. militaries.[25]