Tank Busting Armaments... Whats The Best Setup???

trackend · Mar 3, 2005

hi fellas (Lanc) Thermite welding is still used as the standard method for CWR (continuous welded rail) exspansion joints are used to allow for rail temperature variations
(RG) As far as the constuction of bombs I was refering to the standard german variaty of ww2 device that was used in the blitz ect.
B2.2EZ Incendiary CONSTRUCTION:

Anonymous · Mar 3, 2005

Trackend,

Yes that kind of incendiary was used in the blitz. However the Germans also used a lot of "oil bombs", which is nothing more than a can of oil/lard (used) with an ingniter. These were usually fitted in a standard 250 or 500 kg bomb case and usually used an HE charge for ignition. They were not very reliable, often failing to ignite the oil, and were withdrawn after a while. They were called "FLAM" or "FLAMMENBOMBEN" or something like that.

=S=

Lunatic

MP-Willow · Mar 3, 2005

Well now are we all ready to go burn and pillage

After reading I remember reading eltswhere that the USAAC used Napalm over Japan. It was mixed with small bombs to help spread the flames and create the fire storms.

Did the RAF use this sytem over Germany? Also were cities outside of Japan, Germany, China, and England fire bombed? Or is that question for another topic?

trackend · Mar 3, 2005

I agree RG that they used oil bombs infact one was dropped in my old home town of Brentwood as you say they where not very reliable this one failed to explode landing on a crossroads but it made one heck of a mess with vehicles and people sliding all over the place before it was cleared up however for every one oil bomb dropped the number of incenderies like the b2.2ez where vast, containers full of them with mixed H.E to follow thus spreading the inferno even further.

Anonymous · Mar 3, 2005

MP-Willow said:
Well now are we all ready to go burn and pillage

After reading I remember reading eltswhere that the USAAC used Napalm over Japan. It was mixed with small bombs to help spread the flames and create the fire storms.

Did the RAF use this sytem over Germany? Also were cities outside of Japan, Germany, China, and England fire bombed? Or is that question for another topic?

The RAF developed the system against Germany. I think Russia was also firebombed some too - but not as much as they didn't have as many fire-vulnerable cities. Firebombing works best against large dense cities, and to be effective you need to have a fair number of bombers so the firefighters of the target are totally overwhelmed.

=S=

Lunatic

the lancaster kicks ass · Mar 4, 2005

the most common lancaster bomb load, codenamed "usual" consisted of a 4,000lb cookie and 12 SBC (small bomb containers), and so was able to carry up to 2,832x4lb insendry bombs, and that's allot of fires.........

and just for you CC, my source was "The Avro Lancaster" by Francis K. Mason, 1990...........

Erich · Mar 4, 2005

napalm was used extensively in the eto by the 422nd and 425th nf squadrons during 1945 ............

Anonymous · Mar 4, 2005

Napalm was used to bomb cities in both the ETO and PTO.

The British employed 1477.7 tons of high explosive bombs and 1181.6 tons of incendiary bombs -- all aimed against the Dresden city area. Military records indicate that about half of the bombs that rained on Dresden were napalm bombs.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary.htm

It was heavily used against Japan - on the night March 9/10, 1945, 1,665 tons of napalm were dropped on Tokyo by 279 B-29's, killing about 84,000 and seriously injuring another 41,000. It was more devastating than the A-Bombs!

As for napalm effectiveness vs. tanks, the topic of this thread,

Whereas pilots had to hit an enemy tank with a rocket, they found that a napalm burst as much as 50 yards short would burn off tank treads and usually explode its internal fuel and ammunition. One 110-gallon napalm bomb would spread over a pear-shaped area about 275 feet long and 80 feet wide, and, burning with a 1500° flash, would normally devastate the area. Tests conducted by the 49th Fighter-Bomber Group, in conjunction with the FEAF Operations Analysis Office, showed that two 110-gallon bombs would cover an area of approximately 50 by 50 yards and that four would burn an area of some 50 by 85 yards. It was concluded that to insure a kill when a tank was the target, the impact of two napalm tanks should be 50 to 100 feet short, while four might be dropped as much as 200 feet short.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/history/korea/no71-67.htm

Patton's Third Army's air support dropped 17,486 tons of bombs, 3,205 napalm tanks, and launched 4,599 rockets, so clearly it was pretty heavily used in the ETO against tactical targets.

=S=

Lunatic

cheddar cheese · Mar 4, 2005

the lancaster kicks ass said:
the most common lancaster bomb load, codenamed "usual" consisted of a 4,000lb cookie and 12 SBC (small bomb containers), and so was able to carry up to 2,832x4lb insendry bombs, and that's allot of fires.........

and just for you CC, my source was "The Avro Lancaster" by Francis K. Mason, 1990...........

Wow, a source!

MP-Willow · Mar 4, 2005

Lunitic, where did you find the Patton info?

Anonymous · Mar 4, 2005

MP-Willow said:
Lunitic, where did you find the Patton info?

I pulled it from another post I made, which is why I didn't give a reference.

Here's the reference: http://www.pattonhq.com/textfiles/thirdhst.html

Do a find on "napalm" to locate the data.

=S=

Lunatic

CharlesBronson · Mar 4, 2005

One of the best in the antitank role the VY-23.

This gas operated gun have a rate of fire aroun 550-600 rpm. The cartrigde was 23x152 case with a initial speed almost 900 meters second.
he overral legth of this gun was 2,2 meters and it have a 1,6 meters barrel length . His weight was 68 kg.

In the Il-2 aircraft it replaced the pair of 20 mm ShVak.
The Sturmovik magazine hold 300 round of ammo wich give hive a long burst capacity. Also was installed in some figthers and the experimental Il-2I ( Istribitel= Figther).

Although the AP ammo was not the same quality of westerner, it can pierce 30 mm of armour steel at 400 m in 30 degrees angle.
Usually it used a hardened steel core, and not the more effective tugsten-alloy core.

Here the sides on Panzer 38(T) hit by 200 grams, 23 mm API, with clean penetrations, between 20-25 mm.

Anonymous · Mar 5, 2005

The VYa 23mm was effective against lighter armor, but for medium tanks it was limited to only a few places where it could penetrate, and for heavy tanks it was not very effective. Most German tanks in 1941 and 1942 were not that heavy, so it was quite effective.

Also, it was much more likely to disable a target than to "destroy" it. Against a tank actually in battle, there is very little difference. But for a tank behind the front it makes a huge difference, often it could be repaired (or the crew replaced) and put back into action very quickly.

While the gun was spec'd at a 550 rpm RoF, in practice it was usually 500 rpm or even lower - perhaps this was intentional for attacking of ground targets?

=S=

Lunatic

MP-Willow · Mar 5, 2005

Thanks. Interesting about the 23mm. So is that to say more German armor was killed from the ground and not the air? This is just my question

Anonymous · Mar 6, 2005

MP-Willow said:
Thanks. Interesting about the 23mm. So is that to say more German armor was killed from the ground and not the air? This is just my question

Yes, I think many more German tanks were killed by ground forces. Probably more were killed by artillary pieces than any kind of vehicle, air or land.

=S=

Lunatic

MP-Willow · Mar 7, 2005

thanks. It seems that Artillary would be the hardest weapon to use if the tanks are moving. But then the large formations of Artillary and he use of self propelled guns might make a difference

Anonymous · Mar 7, 2005

MP-Willow said:
thanks. It seems that Artillary would be the hardest weapon to use if the tanks are moving. But then the large formations of Artillary and he use of self propelled guns might make a difference

By artillary, I mean all non-vehicle mounted guns, including anti-tank guns.

=S=

Lunatic

MP-Willow · Mar 11, 2005

ok thanks

Tank Busting Armaments... Whats The Best Setup???

Chief Master Sergeant

Attachments

Anonymous

Guest

Staff Sergeant

Chief Master Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Major General

the old Sage

Anonymous

Guest

Major General

Staff Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Senior Master Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Staff Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Staff Sergeant

Anonymous

Guest

Staff Sergeant

Users who are viewing this thread

Similar threads