Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Land => Topic started by: dy031101 on January 25, 2015, 03:41:00 PM
-
Recently I've been having fun putting 17-pounder and KwK 42 into Inter-war period heavy tanks......
The thing is that those two guns would likely be low on availability during World War 2 unless you are either a British Commonwealth member or a neighbouring ally of Germany.
Bofors has a 75mm AA gun that was copied and then made into a tank gun by Japanese, but it seemed closer to American 76mm gun; it did become comparable to the 75mm gun on the AMX-13 when the Swedes did their own conversion post-WWII for their Strv 74 programme.
Which leaves shaped-charge projectiles that don't need the kind of velocities possessed by the 17-pounder or KwK 42. Finland went down that path, and the result (114mm HEAT projectiles used on BT-42) ended up rather useless- which comes as a surprise to me since Finland copied a German design, and Germany seemed to be an avid user of shaped-charge projectiles precisely to deal with the likes of T-34 and KV-1.
So...... what did it take to make a good HEAT weaponry in World War 2? And who, other than Germany and Soviet Union (which is said to believe in anti-tank capability for their howitzers via HEAT projectiles, too), could be relied on to create serviceable shaped-charge projectiles? Thanks in advance.
-
The Germans were actually rather reluctant users of HEAT rounds according to Ian V. Hogg. Their 75mm and 105mm rounds weren't widely distributed nor used and it took them several goes to get the cones right in both cases. Most nations didn't trust the technology until after WWII when it was widely adopted by NATO. The French in particular became quite enthusiastic users with their Opus-G series of shells which utilised a Teflon driving band to slow or eliminate rotation when fired from a rifled gun. The Swedes adopted a similar concept with their L35a1 Carl Gustav 84mm Rcl. HEAT was the round of choice in NATO's AT ammunition stable until the advent of cheap electronics allowed digital fire control systems in MBTs which could make allowances for environmental variables and ensured higher accuracy for kinetic energy rounds, in the early 1980s. Up until then, the lower velocity, high penetration of the HEAT round made targeting enemy MBTs much easier.
-
The following papers might make for interesting reading:
A Brief History of Shaped Charges (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA497450&ei=hjfFVIi-Lsrk8AWysoLoDw&usg=AFQjCNE8xcFc2PalNws4_QbKkVokUQTtug&sig2=83dHMD6IxtOZ0O393NRXKA&bvm=bv.84349003,d.dGc)
History of the Shaped Charge Effect (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA220095&ei=hjfFVIi-Lsrk8AWysoLoDw&usg=AFQjCNFiFSZHjw-oOW3kJPL1pY9f3jnm_w&sig2=5Eqz-BC62uqgk3oCi23Weg&bvm=bv.84349003,d.dGc)
-
The following papers might make for interesting reading:
A Brief History of Shaped Charges ([url]http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA497450&ei=hjfFVIi-Lsrk8AWysoLoDw&usg=AFQjCNE8xcFc2PalNws4_QbKkVokUQTtug&sig2=83dHMD6IxtOZ0O393NRXKA&bvm=bv.84349003,d.dGc[/url])
History of the Shaped Charge Effect ([url]http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDkQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dtic.mil%2Fcgi-bin%2FGetTRDoc%3FAD%3DADA220095&ei=hjfFVIi-Lsrk8AWysoLoDw&usg=AFQjCNFiFSZHjw-oOW3kJPL1pY9f3jnm_w&sig2=5Eqz-BC62uqgk3oCi23Weg&bvm=bv.84349003,d.dGc[/url])
Both very interesting.
-
You would need some serious Osprey title to see the American work into the field; aren't they the ones to be the "first" impressed when they wrote USN on some steel plate by the Monroe effect circa 1908?
Edit: of which the PDF files suggest to be 1900, on a mere glimpse...