If the Germans were aware of the T-34 and KV-1

Boy, am I glad I didn't get involved in this.

I know. The website goes offline for 12 hours and when I come back to check the threads I'm following, this is the only one that's being updated.

I think I'll start a new thread about German carriers leading to a successful Sealion just to break the cycle.
 

Deleted member 1487

I know. The website goes offline for 12 hours and when I come back to check the threads I'm following, this is the only one that's being updated.

I think I'll start a new thread about German carriers leading to a successful Sealion just to break the cycle.
Man you're really a glutton for punishment.
 
It's a funny thing. Hurricane IID performance seems totally documented, in that the number of tanks destroyed is a finite number, as well as the percentage of bullets that hit the target, and the number of Hurricanes lost in the endeavor, plus the fact that Vickers S guns were ineffective against Tiger. No such documentation seems to have accumulated on the Eastern front, or with any other tank-buster. Typhoon tank-busting legend seems to have withered with time, but 60 years had to pass before the revelation of two confirmed successes at Falaise. An Hs-129 blunting of a Soviet armor spearhead with 40-50 smoking tanks in a field has turned into 11 tanks destroyed, and the Soviets didn't "turn back" but only regrouped for a vodka break. I don't know the truth, and I doubt it will ever be known, but I wouldn't look for it in Wiki. I've read many histories with anticipation, and my ardor wilts when I find the first mistake. Wiki quotes don't impress me much.
 
As to uranium production do you have a source on their production, I haven't seen that.
http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/...cle_31fe9466-e919-11e4-a524-cf93ff37471f.html

Between 1942 and 1946, scientists at Iowa State College, as the university was then called, devised a method to produce pure uranium metal for the Manhattan Project, and eventually produced 1,000 tons of uranium for the war effort.

...
In September 1942, the Ames Project finally succeeded in producing an 11-pound block of pure uranium. Spedding and Wilhelm personally delivered it to the metallurgical project in Chicago, where it was received with shock.

“[Their] eyes bugged out when they saw an 11-pound piece,” Wilhelm said. “They paid $10,000 for a two-pound piece and here they got this free of charge.
By December 1942, two tons of uranium had been produced and shipped from Ames to Chicago, where it was added to the nuclear reactor, or “pile.” Finally, on Dec. 2, the scientists used the pile to successfully conduct the first ever nuclear chain-reaction.
...
Soon, 18 tons of uranium per week were being shipped from Iowa State to the Manhattan Project’s new secret reactor in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
 

Deleted member 1487

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/...cle_31fe9466-e919-11e4-a524-cf93ff37471f.html

Between 1942 and 1946, scientists at Iowa State College, as the university was then called, devised a method to produce pure uranium metal for the Manhattan Project, and eventually produced 1,000 tons of uranium for the war effort.

...
In September 1942, the Ames Project finally succeeded in producing an 11-pound block of pure uranium. Spedding and Wilhelm personally delivered it to the metallurgical project in Chicago, where it was received with shock.

“[Their] eyes bugged out when they saw an 11-pound piece,” Wilhelm said. “They paid $10,000 for a two-pound piece and here they got this free of charge.
By December 1942, two tons of uranium had been produced and shipped from Ames to Chicago, where it was added to the nuclear reactor, or “pile.” Finally, on Dec. 2, the scientists used the pile to successfully conduct the first ever nuclear chain-reaction.
...
Soon, 18 tons of uranium per week were being shipped from Iowa State to the Manhattan Project’s new secret reactor in Oak Ridge, Tenn.
And how about the Germans? Plus the US was the focal point of all Allied nuclear research so they got the entire Allied production of uranium ore and that includes 1946, when production would have been higher than any other year previous. Beyond that the Germans did supposedly capture 1200 tons of uranium in Belgium in 1940
 
And how about the Germans? Plus the US was the focal point of all Allied nuclear research so they got the entire Allied production of uranium ore and that includes 1946, when production would have been higher than any other year previous. Beyond that the Germans did supposedly capture 1200 tons of uranium in Belgium in 1940

From what I understand, they had a few tons of Uranium metal in 1945 for their test reactor that never went critical. I think it works out that from a given weight of Uranium Oxide, refines down to 1% metal, depending on how good that ore was.

That pile at Haigerloch supposedly had 1500kg of Uranium Metal in it in 1945
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

From what I understand, they had a few tons of Uranium metal in 1945 for their test reactor that never went critical. I think it works out that from a given weight of Uranium Oxide, refines down to 1% metal, depending on how good that ore was.

That pile at Haigerloch supposedly had 1500kg of Uranium Metal in it in 1945
Enrich uranium for the reactor, not all the uranium metal they had at their disposal. Plus they lost a bunch in an accident in 1942 or 1943 due to a flood IIRC.

Edit:
no it was a leak in the experimental reactor where the water moderator seeped in and caused a problems, the uranium caught fire. It was in June 1942:
https://books.google.com/books?id=c...ge&q=June 23 1942 uranium heavy water&f=false
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Question, would the 20mm Hispano 404 have been a decent tank buster?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hispano-Suiza_HS.404
It was L80 with a good muzzle velocity and with tungsten AP ammo it might have been a solid option for chewing up top/rear armor.

German equivalent, if we look the perceived anti-armor capability (ie. muzzle velocity x shot weight x shot quality) was the 2cm Flak and 2cm Kwk. The HS 404 and 2cm Kwk were making a similar muzzle energy. The best-performing AP shot used by Kwk was the '2 cm Panzergranate 40', a 100 g shot with Tungsten core, fired at 1050 m/s, supposed to pierce (at 30 deg against vertical) 40mm at 100m, and 20 m at 200m. 'Ordinary' AP shot was supposed to penetrate 23mm at 100 m at 30 deg from vertical; weight 148 g, fired at 780 m/s.
The MV and hence AP performance should've increase a bit with longer barrel of the Flak 30 or 38.
 

Deleted member 1487

German equivalent, if we look the perceived anti-armor capability (ie. muzzle velocity x shot weight x shot quality) was the 2cm Flak and 2cm Kwk. The HS 404 and 2cm Kwk were making a similar muzzle energy. The best-performing AP shot used by Kwk was the '2 cm Panzergranate 40', a 100 g shot with Tungsten core, fired at 1050 m/s, supposed to pierce (at 30 deg against vertical) 40mm at 100m, and 20 m at 200m. 'Ordinary' AP shot was supposed to penetrate 23mm at 100 m at 30 deg from vertical; weight 148 g, fired at 780 m/s.
The MV and hence AP performance should've increase a bit with longer barrel of the Flak 30 or 38.
Might that be your motor cannon armor buster? Light and small enough to fit in the nose of a fighter with extra armor against ground fire. That could even punch through the roof of the IS-2, but it would require a close and accurate shot. It should rip up T-34s quite easily from behind/top. You should even be able to mount them on the wings of aircraft in gondolas, even the HS129 or HS123.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_cm_KwK_30
The KwK 30 also served as the basis for the 20 mm C/30, an aircraft varient that was mounted experimentally in some Heinkel He 112 fighters and proved to make an excellent ground-attack weapon during the Spanish Civil War. Direct ground-attack was not considered a priority for the Luftwaffe, however, and the cannon was not used on other designs.
Apparently it was a subcaliber munition too on German wikipedia...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Might that be your motor cannon armor buster? Light and small enough to fit in the nose of a fighter with extra armor against ground fire. That could even punch through the roof of the IS-2, but it would require a close and accurate shot. It should rip up T-34s quite easily from behind/top. You should even be able to mount them on the wings of aircraft in gondolas, even the HS129 or HS123.

Good idea. There was actually the airborne version of the KwK, the 20 mm C/30, installed on a few He 112 (Jumo 210 engine) as a motor-cannon, and used in the Spanish Civil War (for anti-air work there). The Hs 129 with a pair of those might still be able to carry some bombs in the same time, and similarly the Ju 87 with such a motor-cannon can still do the bombing.
 

Deleted member 1487

Good idea. There was actually the airborne version of the KwK, the 20 mm C/30, installed on a few He 112 (Jumo 210 engine) as a motor-cannon, and used in the Spanish Civil War (for anti-air work there). The Hs 129 with a pair of those might still be able to carry some bombs in the same time, and similarly the Ju 87 with such a motor-cannon can still do the bombing.
A Me109 with one in motor cannon mount with two in the wings could be a solid tank buster. It would probably require special armor like the FW190F ground attack model or the A1 Skyraider. I know IOTL in areas with limited bomber assets the Germans used Me109s with 3x 20mm (two in wing gondolas, 1 in nose) for ground attack missions against dug in Soviet infantry to good effect; the E-series Mf109s had two 20mm MG-FFs in the wings, so a special version of the Me109 either within the wings or gondola mounted 'long' 20mm cannons, plus one in the nose in MK mounting could then go tank busting by shooting up T-34s from behind/above. Even the HS123 could take wing mounted 20mms IOTL so it too could just have two for the same role, plus a fuselage bomb.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henschel_Hs_123#Specifications_.28Hs_123A-1.29
  • 2× 7.92 mm MG 17 machine guns, 400 rpg (field modification of 2× 20 mm (0.79 in) MG FF cannon)

Edit:
Seems like a 25mm gun like the Bushmaster would be an ideal compromise between the 20 and 30mm weapons in terms of size, mass, and ability to have enough propellant behind it to penetrate the necessary armor from the rear/sides/top while still being able to be fitted to the aircraft of the day without overloading them...while using less precious tungsten than the 30mm and up guns.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good idea. There was actually the airborne version of the KwK, the 20 mm C/30, installed on a few He 112 (Jumo 210 engine) as a motor-cannon, and used in the Spanish Civil War (for anti-air work there).

I know of He-112 V6. It hit the ammunition car of a train making quite a spectacle. What other fews were there?
 
...
Edit:
Seems like a 25mm gun like the Bushmaster would be an ideal compromise between the 20 and 30mm weapons in terms of size, mass, and ability to have enough propellant behind it to penetrate the necessary armor from the rear/sides/top while still being able to be fitted to the aircraft of the day without overloading them...while using less precious tungsten than the 30mm and up guns.

Using the modern-day ammo for ww2 thought excercises skews the comparisons quite a bit. There was plenty of ww2 ammo that would've made possible a powerful, but still not too awkward airborne AT cannon. Eg. Soviet 23mm, French/Japanese and Soviet 25 mm, US 28mm (1.1 in). The VYa-23 was historically used as primarily airborne gun. With enough of money, Tungsten and foresight, the autocannon based around the German
28/20 mm ammo would've been amazing.
 
Top