Package guns (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

the italian M13 tank family was enough good for fight the british cruiser tank, also if the italians was slowest, only the late Crusader give a good advantage on they (it's true that 2 pdr it's a best ATG of 47mm but this was not important saw the armour of cruiser tank, and the 47 give antiinfantry capability). if you can out italian medium with ATR you can make same with british cruiser.
 
With 6-42mm armouring of a simple riveted construction the M13 was still very prone to heavy MG and anti-tank rifles as small as 7.92mm, I'd still feel much more comfortable in a nice armoured car which would run rings around it for speed and mobility and the 4.7cm gun is only hull mounted much like the Lee, so most of the time the M13 had to rely upon twin 8mm MGs in the turret and we're talking about 12mph cross country performance.

A Daimler, Humber or SdKfz 222 is still a much better proposition. Hell I'd take a jeep with a Boys mounted in preference. But even in the Desert these were often scarce so indeed notably Australian formations made use of captured M13 tanks in at least three tank squadrons.
 
With 6-42mm armouring of a simple riveted construction the M13 was still very prone to heavy MG and anti-tank rifles as small as 7.92mm, I'd still feel much more comfortable in a nice armoured car which would run rings around it for speed and mobility and the 4.7cm gun is only hull mounted much like the Lee, so most of the time the M13 had to rely upon twin 8mm MGs in the turret and we're talking about 12mph cross country performance.

A Daimler, Humber or SdKfz 222 is still a much better proposition. Hell I'd take a jeep with a Boys mounted in preference. But even in the Desert these were often scarce so indeed notably Australian formations made use of captured M13 tanks in at least three tank squadrons.


the rivet build it's sure inferior, and sure ATR can make some damge (i've some doubt on hmg almost hmg in european sense), but this is valid also for the british cruiser also if not rivet. the 47 gun was in turret. i never told that were fast, i told alreay was slowest of british cruiser, and can add also of german tanks.
 
The Italian M13 was a bit slower than the Panzers and a lot slower than the Cruisers. You also have to compare how much of each tank was covered with what thickness of armor. A simple max-min doesn't say much if one tanks MAX only covers a very small percentage of the tank. The British 2pdr was superior in armor punching ability and it's higher velocity/flatter trajectory meant it had a longer usable range than the Italian tank. The M13 did have HE ammo however. This did help them out considering the rather inconvenient MGs they used. 24 round box magazines just don't give the volume of fire that 225 round belts from BESA guns do.
 
The Italian M13 was a bit slower than the Panzers and a lot slower than the Cruisers. You also have to compare how much of each tank was covered with what thickness of armor. A simple max-min doesn't say much if one tanks MAX only covers a very small percentage of the tank. The British 2pdr was superior in armor punching ability and it's higher velocity/flatter trajectory meant it had a longer usable range than the Italian tank. The M13 did have HE ammo however. This did help them out considering the rather inconvenient MGs they used. 24 round box magazines just don't give the volume of fire that 225 round belts from BESA guns do.

speed true. armour this is valid also for the british tanks. true but effective range was near. the M-13 had standard 2592 ammo for their mgs, this is less of that on british cruiser but saw the short endurance of tanks in the desert, and the common overload, i think this not give commonly a scarce of ammos.
 
the M-13 had standard 2592 ammo for their mgs, this is less of that on british cruiser but saw the short endurance of tanks in the desert, and the common overload, i think this not give commonly a scarce of ammos.

It is not the quantity of ammo in the tank but the fact that the Italian MGs are good for about 2 seconds of fire before they need a magazine change. The Belt feed British guns are good for 20-25 seconds before they need a new belt. Firing in short bursts will double the firing time of both guns. Italian twin MGs may be about offering some degree of sustained fire as opposed to actually doubling the fire power. Please note that the German MK I panzer with twin MG 13s in the turret was no better.:)
 
It is not the quantity of ammo in the tank but the fact that the Italian MGs are good for about 2 seconds of fire before they need a magazine change. The Belt feed British guns are good for 20-25 seconds before they need a new belt. Firing in short bursts will double the firing time of both guns. Italian twin MGs may be about offering some degree of sustained fire as opposed to actually doubling the fire power. Please note that the German MK I panzer with twin MG 13s in the turret was no better.:)

this is a good point the 24 ammo magazine give a shorter burst of belt feed of british but italian mg was air cooled so it's good they firing with short burst, the besa on british tank were water cooled?


i'm sorry i the previous post i've not understand that your point was on 24 rounds magazine (idk because but i've read as 24 magazines for rounds)
 
Last edited:
this is a good point the 24 ammo magazine give a shorter burst of belt feed of british but italian mg was air cooled so it's good they firing with short burst, the besa on british tank were water cooled?

i'm sorry i the previous post i've not understand that your point was on 24 rounds magazine (idk because but i've read as 24 magazines for rounds)

I got this info on the Besa from good old Wikipedia (note the 15mm version - quite a weapon)


( see also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Besa_machine_gun )


The gun came into use because an air-cooled, and therefore lighter, replacement was wanted for the Vickers machine gun. ......


[then later on in the article]


...... In an emergency, the BESA could use stocks of captured German ammunition because it fired the same cartridge as the Kar98k rifle and MG-34 and MG-42 machine-guns.


The Mark II version entered production in 1940. It now had a selector to give high (around 800 rounds per minute) or low (around 500) rates of fire. As the war progressed the design was modified to be more economical to produce and speed production resulting in the Mark III version. This came as either an "L" (for low) or "H" (high) firing rate models.[1]


A larger, heavier (at 57 kg (125 lb)) 15 mm version, also belt-fed, was developed by BSA from the Czechoslovak ZB vz.60 heavy machine-gun as vehicle armament. It could be fired in semi-automatic mode as well as fully automatic. It was used on the Light Tank Mk VIC and on armoured cars such as the Humber Armoured Car Mark III


.
 
Depends what British tanks are we talking about. Infantry tanks (Matilda, Valentina, Churchill) were far better then anything Italians fielded. But any tank that comes free is a good tank.

The Churchill had good Armour and mounted a not-too-bad gun, really, as the 6 pounder then 75mm - and then the Crocodile Flame-thrower could roast-em quite nicely.

You can see one at the Muckleborough collection in North Norfolk [England not Virginia]

Watch the clip at the main page and you will see the Churchill for a short while [honest - but you have to watch carefully]

The Muckleburgh Collection - UK's largest privately owned working Military Museum


I heard that it was also very good at Climbing Hills - incredibly. Low gear box ratios probably and high traction from their 'splayed' tank tracks.

BTW have you noticed we are talking about Tanks again ? Its amazing the combined knowledge power of this site.

.
 
Just came across this in Freeman's "B-26 Marauder at War" P.127 about British use of the Marauder in No.24 Squadron in 1944 .
"After bombing shipping in Portolago Bay Crete, on 25 February, four Marauders were intercepted by fighters; Captain A. F. Shuttleworth seeing an opportunity to reverse the situation, left formation and blasted an FW 190 out of the sky with the full weight of the Marauder's forward firing package guns."
Nice going! I guess an empty Marauder was nimble enough in the right hands. Looks like the package guns were used in European combat!
 
I am pretty sure that the RAF didn't use the package guns on the B25 or B26, certainly No 14 squadron didn't. My understanding as that 24 squadron was a transport unit hence my emphasis on 14 squadron
 
Last edited:
One of the reasons the B-17 was used in Europe was that it routinely flew 1 mile higher than B-24s so was a little further away from the AA.
.

The B-17 flew at 22000 to 26000 in the 1943 to late 1944 timeframe. The B-24 flew at 20000 to 22000 for most of the ETO experience but more often than not the B-17 typically flew about 2000 to 3000 ft abobe the normal operational level of the B-24s in the ETO.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back