Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

[Urmel]

Double layer though, spaced armour effects. It's more that there isn't much to hide behind. German light tanks and armoured vehicles other than tanks were usually only supposed to be SmK protected. Not sure if that meant SmK(H) or simple SmK, and also not sure if gun shields bad the same requirement.

[Sheldrake]

If BESA was so effective at 2,000 yards in WW2 then why was I taught in the 1980s on my All Arms Tactics Course that the effective range of co-ax was 1,100m at tracer burn out except where the terrain permits accurate observation of ground strikes, the same data as appears in the US Combat leaders handbook?

Not sure if that's meant for me, or not, but I've got a response.

By the 1980's, I guess using MG's for unobserved indirect fire missions must have been stopped. It certainly hadn't stopped during WW2. (1)

I read the Osprey book on Vicker's MG's and they were claiming the main replacement for the Vickers wasn't the FN MAG, rather it was the 3inch(???) mortar.

You often get people complaining about the British Army being unprepared for WW2, less often do they mention that the British army was very well trained for WW1, during WW2, and could still do some quite tricky stuff i.e. using MG's as area denial weapons/ machine gun barrages.
Pretty sure British tank crews would have had some excellent MG skills in WW2.(2)

The post war GPMG in the Sustained Fire role on a tripod with indirect sights is/was quite capable of being used in the indirect fire. This role had been subsumed within the infantry battalion post war, but was still known and practised in the 1980s.

Indirect fire is a capability that requires technology, procedures and training. These were not the main stream task for armour in the way they were for the gunners and infantry support weapons specialists. I spent ten years working with British armour. It wasn't at the forefront of their brains. I suspect the NCOs of the regular army of the 1980s had far more time to absorb clever tricks than the conscripts of WW2.

[Urmel]

But you're just guessing now and applying 40-years later experience. This could be solved quite easily by digging out training manuals for the blokes operating the co-ax and the tank commander.

[Juha Tompuri]

it is considered that units equipped with BESA guns should be allowed a certain scale of GERMAN A.P. and A.P. Tracer ammunition and advised to re-pack belts on the scale of five per tank to include 1 A.P. and 1 A.P. tracer in every four rounds."[/i]

He suggested that each unit be allocated 10,000 rounds each of AP and AP Tracer, as:

Two questions:
1) Do I understand correctly that five belts of BESA ammo per tank were repacked to contain 50% of German origin AP-ammo?
2) What is the unit size (how many tanks) mentioned twice at the report?

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

captured German 7.92mm AP was added to Besa belts in a ratio of 1 in 4

Do you know when (and how much) German AP-ammo was captured?
From German depots or from example from captured/destroyed tanks?

I also think that the Germans used the same ammunition in tank and infantry machine guns in 1941, so destroyed tanks would not have been the only source in any case.

The from example covering other land army branches, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine captured AP-ammo.

Regards, Juha

[Don Juan]

1) Do I understand correctly that five belts of BESA ammo per tank were repacked to contain 50% of German origin AP-ammo?

It's not clear - it could be 1 x AP and 1 x AP both within a group of four rounds (i.e.50%), or it could be 1 x AP or 1 x AP within each group of four rounds (i.e. 25%). The former interpretation seems the more likely, but the original recommendation by Lt.Col. J.A. Barlow was the latter.

Each belt held 225 rounds, although this is a 1945 or 1946 figure.

2) What is the unit size (how many tanks) mentioned twice at the report

52 tanks per regiment or battalion.

By my calculation, they would have needed 29,250 rounds if packing at 50%, or 14,625 if packing at 25%.

So the advice to allocate 10,000 rounds each of AP and AP tracer is more suggestive of a 25% issue.

[Juha Tompuri]

Thanks,

But... as I (with my limited english) understand that 1 and 1 in every 4 rounds is 50%.

1 A.P. and 1 A.P. tracer in every four rounds

Regards, Juha

[Don Juan]

Thanks,

But... as I (with my limited english) understand that 1 and 1 in every 4 rounds is 50%.

Yes, but 1940's military English tends not to be as straightforward as it ought to be.

[Juha Tompuri]

Hmmm.... strange.

But does the five belt either 25/50% AP-ammo filling match to the earlier mentioned (total) ratio?

so captured German 7.92mm AP was added to Besa belts in a ratio of 1 in 4 in order to make up this particular deficiency.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p2026910

Regards, Juha

[Don Juan]

I think it matches the 1 in 4 allocation, because at that ratio they needed 14,625 rounds to provide 5 belts for each tank of a unit of 52 tanks, and each unit was to be provided with 20,000 rounds (10,000 AP and 10,000 AP Tracer) which would have easily covered that number.

Why are you so interested in this ratio Juha?

[Juha Tompuri]

Why are you so interested in this ratio Juha?

Because of the captured AP-ammo availlable compared to the British tank mg-ammo filling.
That is that if I understand correctly we are now talking about ca. 1000 tanks at that time(?), having mg ammo of which being of 25% captured AP-ammo?

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

Why are you so interested in this ratio Juha?

Because of the captured AP-ammo availlable compared to the British tank mg-ammo filling.
That is that if I understand correctly we are now talking about ca. 1000 tanks at that time(?), having mg ammo of which being of 25% captured AP-ammo?

so captured German 7.92mm AP was added to Besa belts in a ratio of 1 in 4 in order to make up this particular deficiency.

Regards, Juha

[Don Juan]

Think its much less than 1000 tanks because a lot of tanks in British possession were American, which had Browning machine guns (0.30" calibre).

Plus only a fraction of the tanks in the theatre were at the front line at any time.

[Sheldrake]

But you're just guessing now and applying 40-years later experience. This could be solved quite easily by digging out training manuals for the blokes operating the co-ax and the tank commander.

No I am not. I know how the system works. Its my regimental family and we have a way of doing things. Manuals mean little unless people read them and use them. I have trunks full of them.

MG AP at 2000 yards stinks of gamers's arguments.

Here is another reductio ad absurdem. The ability to punch through light armour has been very important ever sn=ince the invention of the APC. Why would the NATO armies bother with the cost of developing 20-30mm light cannons for their MICV if the same resuklt could be achieved by adding rifle calibre AP rounds to coax and SF machine guns?

[Urmel]

Sorry mate, your argument is entirely unconvincing in the face of documentation. It just doesn't stack up. Adding entirely unrelated things into it such as 1970s light armour does only obfuscate.