Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
In the real world of the time the infantry wanted a truly man manhandle able AT gun and the 2Pounder was adequate and much more easily man handled than a larger weapon but conceived solely as a AT gun.
The 76mm ZIS-3 and even the 122mm M-30 could be moved by hand - there are plenty of photos. The problem with heavy anti-tank guns (e.g. PaK-40) was that the recoil spades buried during firing, and a tractor was necessary to pull them out.The 57mms were pretty much the upper limit on moving by hand.
I am not sure about the reason. Not saying that the artillery didn't get the AT guns but the exact reason/s may be different. Might be more of a turf war than figuring out which branch of the service had better resources (trucks) for moving the guns. A bit like many of the 20mm AA guns the Germans had were in Luftwaffe units than traveled with the army because the Luftwaffe controlled everything that had to with the air.The 2pdr was pretty heavy for infantry to handle it, so it went to the artillery branch. Infantry was being outfitted with the French 25mm ATGs once in France.
Very true. The actual gun and breech block were fairly light.The nominally larger AT guns were often lighter than the 2pdr, and by hundreds of kilos - like the Czech and Austrian/Italian 47 mm AT guns, as well as the Soviet 45mm M1932 ATG.
Not sure where this comes from.new infantry 2 Pounder and the smoke/HE job could be done with the existing mountain howitzer so would not finance the putative 6 Pounder so the design lay on the shelf
They were certainly being moved by human force. Trick is that it is easy to move a gun on a dry and even ground, while it is much harder to do it on and uneven ground where it rained a day or a week ago - and such a terrain is only to be expected in the NW & Central Europe.The 76mm ZIS-3 and even the 122mm M-30 could be moved by hand - there are plenty of photos.
Rolling ZiS-3s and M-30s by hand to support advancing infantry was a standard artillery technique throughout the war in any weather on any ground. The difference was that in some cases the crew could do it by itself, and in other cases infantrymen assistance was required.it is much harder to do it on and uneven ground where it rained a day or a week ago - and such a terrain is only to be expected in the NW & Central Europe.
...and because of this earned the ironic nickname of "Farewell to the Motherland!" among artillerymen (it means the inevitable tragic death of the crew).Russians had purchased/licensed the German 37mm gun and then designed a 45mm barrel for it and plunked the bigger barrel on the same carriage. It was not a Pak 38 but it penetrate at around 900 meters what the 37mm could do at 400 meters. Considering the "standard" German armor of 30mm (a bit heavier in the front) this was pretty good even if not outstanding.
I'm not sure that Soviets were issuing the APDS shots back in ww2....and because of this earned the ironic nickname of "Farewell to the Motherland!" among artillerymen (it means the inevitable tragic death of the crew).
The problem for the Soviets was the quality of the shells. And it was technologically easier to provide the required quality of an armor-piercing discarding sabot with a larger diameter (>=57 mm).
Rolling ZiS-3s and M-30s by hand to support advancing infantry was a standard artillery technique throughout the war in any weather on any ground. The difference was that in some cases the crew could do it by itself, and in other cases infantrymen assistance was required.
I'm not sure that Soviets were issuing the APDS shots back in ww2.
I haven't heard any particular complaints about rolling of 1000 kg guns. Again, the ZiS-3s successfully rolled behind the infantry throughout the war. And with a lighter carriage, I'm afraid, it is impossible to provide sufficient durability when towed by a vehicle/tractor.That is the catch - the 500-600 kg gun can be rolled in the desired spot by a far smaller manpower required, and despite the circumstances.
I haven't heard any particular complaints about rolling of 1000 kg guns. Again, the ZiS-3s successfully rolled behind the infantry throughout the war. And with a lighter carriage, I'm afraid, it is impossible to provide sufficient durability when towed by a vehicle/tractor.
Armor-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) is a type of spin-stabilized kinetic energy projectile for anti-armor warfare. Each projectile consists of a sub-caliber round fitted with a sabot. The combination of a lighter sub-caliber projectile with a full-caliber propellant charge allows for an increase in muzzle velocity compared to full-caliber rounds, giving the round increased armor-penetration performance. To further enhance their armor-penetration capabilities, APDS rounds typically feature a hardened core made from tungsten or another hard, dense material.bf109xxl - neither of these is/was with a discarding sabot.
Alternative guns weighing 500-600 kg would only be able to be rolled by hand. Or, at best, by horse.I also haven't heard any complaints.
I don't recall me suggesting that the ZiS-3 should've been outfitted with a lighter carriage, either.
I know what is the APDS. The 'DS' part means 'discarding sabot' - ie. sabot falls after the shot leaves the barrel, while the core continues towards the target.Armor-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) is a type of spin-stabilized kinetic energy projectile for anti-armor warfare. Each projectile consists of a sub-caliber round fitted with a sabot. The combination of a lighter sub-caliber projectile with a full-caliber propellant charge allows for an increase in muzzle velocity compared to full-caliber rounds, giving the round increased armor-penetration performance. To further enhance their armor-penetration capabilities, APDS rounds typically feature a hardened core made from tungsten or another hard, dense material.
The design of the BR-XXXP projectiles fully meets this definition.
Alternative guns weighing 500-600 kg would only be able to be rolled by hand. Or, at best, by horse.
Although the definition doesn't specify exactly where the sabot should separate, I agree that the more correct term would be "armor piercing composite rigid". But that doesn't change the point.I know what is the APDS. The 'DS' part means 'discarding sabot' - ie. sabot falls after the shot leaves the barrel, while the core continues towards the target.
The AP shots made by the Soviets were not APDS, since the sabot and core were travelling together until the impact happened. Same as the German PzGr 40 shots and American HVAP.
For an anti-tank gun, the ability to be moved by the crew is not important. Much more important (if not crucial) is the possibility of high speed transportation by vehicle/tractor. On the position, the ability to turn the gun will be important, which will be determined by the recoil force and the design of the recoil devices - and the lighter the latter are, the more the recoil spades will be buried in the ground and the harder it will be to turn the gun.I have no problems with historical guns being transported by motor transportation as well. YMMW.
It certainly changes the point.Although the definition doesn't specify exactly where the sabot should separate, I agree that the more correct term would be "armor piercing composite rigid". But that doesn't change the point.
The optimization criteria for anti-tank and light infantry support guns are quite different.
Armor penetration does not refer to the gun, but to the gun/ammunition combination, and is highly dependent on the angle at which the projectile meets the armor. In addition, armor penetration will also be determined by armor parameters - at a minimum, hardness, viscosity and how hardness/viscosity varies with thickness. Therefore, the optimization criteria were also different for German and Allied artillery projectiles. The Germans needed to provide high armor penetration of inclined armor, while the Soviets needed to penetrate armor rather at low angles. For German AP projectiles, normalization at the moment of penetration was already achieved by the use of either non-uniform hardening or welding a high hardness cap on (a big surprise for the Soviets in 1941), while for the Soviet AP projectiles, optimization of the shape (break off grooves) was required.it penetrate at around 900 meters what the 37mm could do at 400 meters.
It doesn't change anything, since at the time APCRs provided a higher armor penetration than traditional armor-piercing projectiles anyway. In 1943, production of this ammunition was of the highest priority for Soviet industry.It certainly changes the point.
It was absolutely unrealistic to foresee all armor changes (thickness, thermal treatment, mounting angles) before the war. Therefore, it was impossible to avoid rearmament during the war. There was not so much sense in optimizing pre-war AT guns. Thus, thee Soviets had to improve projectiles for the existing 45-mm guns, while the Germans had to increase the caliber. For the Germans, the Soviet 57mm gun would be absolutely perfect, providing armor penetration against any Soviet tanks until the end of the war.
As above, Germans became aware of the bad state of their mainstay guns wrt. armor piercing more than a year before they faced the new Soviet tanks.n fact, I believe the Germans had the most difficult task - there was too little information about the new Soviet tanks, which were still at the beginning of deployment, and their characteristics were clearly underestimated.
It doesn't change anything, since at the time APCRs provided a higher armor penetration than traditional armor-piercing projectiles anyway.
It is not true. At least the T-34 could be penetrate by 37mm German projectiles into the side - it happened quite frequently. There are some statistical data for the period of the Battle of Moscow. 21 out of 83 studied KV and T-34 had through or dangerous armor penetrations from 37-mm. In addition, 31 tank had penetrations from projectiles of unspecified caliber, a considerable part of which may be 37-mm.The 37mm gun was not going to penetrate a T-34 or KV with cored shot unless very lucky and suicidally close.
The huge difference was that the APCR shot offered higher performance (armor penetration) and relatively short ranges. This is some what caliber dependent. The larger the caliber the longer the distance the APCR shot has an advantage over normal shot.It doesn't change anything, since at the time APCRs provided a higher armor penetration than traditional armor-piercing projectiles anyway. In 1943, production of this ammunition was of the highest priority for Soviet industry.
And optimizing the projectile was probably more important task than possible improvements of the gun itself - that was the point.