hipper
Banned
In Korea, Tankers drained out the Glycol to reduce weight, and found that the drained bins prevented fires just as well. No more wet stowage, it was unnecessary
Something new every day. ta
In Korea, Tankers drained out the Glycol to reduce weight, and found that the drained bins prevented fires just as well. No more wet stowage, it was unnecessary
In 1940? The 2lber had better anti tank performance than any german tank gun hardly puny.
'Infantry' tanks that the anti infantry effect supplied by a MG or two.
Though you could use the 2 pdr as a giant sniper rifle, and try to pick off AT crewmen one at a time.
Infantry tank should have had the 18 or 25 pdr with a 15mm BESA, not a great hole puncher.
the 2 pdr was slightly above average in the 37-40mm class of 1939, overlooking that the 2 pdr shot shot tended shatter against Nazi face hardened plate
In 1939 no German tank (or any other) had face hardened plate, that did not occur untill 1941 the British Discovered they were using face hardened plate in 1942 and had ballistic capped ammo in 1943
Infantry tank should have had the 18 or 25 pdr with a 15mm BESA, not a great hole puncher.
IIRC from the book they tallied up total write offs and only counted total write off Tigers (the 5:1 includes German write offs of broken down units that had to be abandoned and missing, it is about 10:1 if they only count total combat losses). Will check later when I get home.
Polish TP7 had FHA in 1938.
Panzer II had RHA with surface heat treatment, but not full FHA. Per _German Tanks od World War II_ by von Senger, the Mk III and IV were FHA, Turrets FHA and RHA
In the Desert, 8th Army reported how 25 pdr HE was cracking the FH plates on the Mk III and MkIV, and the AP 2pdr shot was ineffective due to the shot shattering on impact, and later how much better the APC for the 6 pdr worked than the earlier AP, and same for the 75mm on the Grant, to the point where they would pull the M72 projectile and use captured German 75mm APCBC, modified to work in the US cannon and cartridge
From the start, it seemsThe polish tank info was new, however When did they give heat treatment to the panzer II, all german tanks were uparmoured during the course of the war.
There is a doctrinal wrinkle here: one of the roles of the Infantry tanks was defensive, protecting the infantry against immediate counterattack by tanks, as getting anti-tank guns to the frontline would be difficult. Fire support for the infantry, using high-explosive shells was primarily a Royal Artillery role, who didn't have tanks.
Quoting from the book I cited before (leaving out the table for each battalion due to formatting issues on the forum for copy-paste jobs):Hard to ensure that you only count tanks destroyed by tanks in that case. Which renders the whole 5:1 ratio thing pointless.
If you count British tanks cruser destroyed Vs German tanks destroyed in 1940 I’m sure the ratio will be much better than 5:1
The Germans kept detailed records on the loss of each Tiger and on the number of enemy tanks they destroyed. The claims of American and British tanks destroyed have been confirmed, to various degrees of reliability, from available records. For Soviet losses, very few records are available to confirm the German claims. In these instances, the German claims are generally accepted without the benefit of verification. Whatever mission heavy tank battalions were given, their primary task was to destroy enemy tanks. In so doing, they were undeniably successful. The kill ratio of heavy tank battalions when measured against Tigers lost in direct combat is an impressive 12.2 to 1. The ratio as measured against all Tigers lost, regardless of reason, is still a credible 5.4-to-l kill ratio.9 Although the last ratio is based upon the total annihilation of every heavy tank battalion, it is probably the most accurate considering that a certain percentage of kills claimed by Tigers must certainly have been repaired and returned to service in the same way that Tigers were returned to service after being damaged, (see table 5) As would be expected, some heavy tank battalions were more successful than others in destroying enemy tanks. Some battalions were able to destroy close to 13 enemy tanks for the loss of each Tiger and others were able to achieve only a one-for-one exchange. Variables that could account for this include the terrain, enemy, leadership, and missions assigned. Of these, the mission assigned to heavy tank battalions was the one area that the Germans could most influence. In general, heavy tank battalions were most successful when they were concentrated for offensive missions and dispersed behind the front for defensive missions. Even though results differ greatly from battalion to battalion, when taken as an overall average, heavy tank battalions were undeniably effective at destroying enemy tanks.1 0
Notes: Of all of the unit's claims, SS-Heavy Tank Battalion 503's is the most difficult to verify, but if accurate, the most impressive. This battalion was never fully equipped and only fought from January 1945 until the end of the war. Committed to the Eastern Theater, it was split apart to many different areas under many different commands. Its records are incomplete and cannot be verified. This battalion fought in places like Küstrin, the Seelow Heights, and in Berlin, in addition to many others. It is difficult to imagine how the battalion destroyed more than 500 Soviet tanks in a little over three months of combat.
Sources: Schneider, Tigers in Combat I, 47, 78, 100, 144-45, 173, 226-27, 242, 263, 279, 311, 323, 344, 357, 372, 381, 408, 421, 439, 447, 456; idem, Tigers in Combat II, 56, 83, 268, 320, 336, 365, 375, 398
I really don't think you need the 15mm BESA and should drop it for size and weight reasons, a 25pdr (with a rifle calibre MG coax) in a turret will make this a monster if available early war, it will also be very large for the time....the 18 or 25 pdr with a 15mm BESA
25 pdrs were used in the AT role frequently in NA with AP, and that penetrated more than the 2pdr. The 18/25 pdr fired a 20 pound Shot at 1550 fps, the 25 pdr mk2 with the muzzle brake could use supercharge, and get 2000fps
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/#
shows the 18/25pdr AP@1550fps penetrating the MkIVF2 out to 1300 meters frontally vs Hull or Turret, and 2000 every other aspect. That's the heaviest armored tank they had in the desert, save for the few Tigers late in Tunisia, 91mm for the 18/25pdr, with 119mm penetration for the 25 pdr Mk2 with supercharge.
A tank with a 18/25pdr in 1940 would have filled the panzertruppen with fear
...
I really don't think you need the 15mm BESA and should drop it for size and weight reasons, a 25pdr (with a rifle calibre MG coax) in a turret will make this a monster if available early war, it will also be very large for the time....
The 25pdr could then be lengthened to serve the rest of the war into something like the Garrington gun?
Are these not very different guns in very different weight and recoil classes! (13lb v 25lb and twice or more the MV)I feel the A10 could have had a 18/25 pdr mounted. OTL, it had the 3.7" mountain howitzer
Are these not very different guns in very different weight and recoil classes! (13lb v 25lb and twice or more the MV)
but chassis of that size have mounted the M3 75mm
There was a book written about the effectiveness of the Tiger I tank and the conclusion was that even counting in mechanical losses, which accounted for nearly half of lost Tiger Is, it still had a 5:1 kill ratio against Allied tanks.
https://www.amazon.com/Sledgehammers-Strengths-Flaws-Tiger-Battalions/dp/0971765022
At least it and the Char B1 didn't run out of fuel as often as the Centurion, so they weren't a total failure in mobility. Not that it prevented the French from paying dearly for having such thirsty tanks in 1940 or that it prevented Germany from paying dearly for the same reason in 1943-1945- they were still very poor in fuel requirements.On Tiger heavy version aka Königstiger
General Patton praised this tank as "The best road blockade the German ever build" mocking its problem of running out of fuel do its thirsty engines...
Yeah Wallies is a term used a lot here.<snip>
*sorry WAllies = Western Allies (I'm new here)