It is unclear to me why it would be unfilled.Juha Tompuri wrote:Thanks,
So, the M61 at the "Cairo test" was of a similar design as the "hybrid" K.Gr.rot.Pz shell, but with lesser after armour effects, because of being fired as a non-HE shot?
Regards, Juha
75mm German, US and composite AP shots and shells
-
- Member
- Posts: 6349
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Richard C. Anderson Jr.
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11562
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Richard Anderson wrote:It is unclear to me why it would be unfilled.
Did I decipher the text correctly?Juha earlier wrote:At the a little blurry text at Cairo test report it is mentioned that the M61 was fired "less bursting charge".
If so, does less mean here without or lesser?
http://www.panzer-war.com/page43.html
-
- Member
- Posts: 6349
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Yes you did. In this context "less" means "without". I was simply remarking I have no idea why they would do such a thing, since it would require them to unfill a high-explosive shell, which can be a tricky operation prone to sudden "bangs" and much lamentation. What was the point? What would they achieve in a test that was important? What the M61 would do if the fuze didn't function? But that would be inaccurate, because the dynamics of the projectiles performance would be changed by the change in weight?Juha Tompuri wrote: Did I decipher the text correctly?
If so, does less mean here without or lesser?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
"Terminal Ballistics" Didn't yield anything, what did you think that I might find?
-
- Member
- Posts: 6349
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Sorry, I should have looked, I forgot they only tested Standardized materiel and by that time M72 was Substitute Standard. I know there are many different docs from BLR and APG floating about...at least one for M72 AP-T should be available. I'll see what I can dig out.David W wrote:"Terminal Ballistics" Didn't yield anything, what did you think that I might find?
Richard C. Anderson Jr.
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Thanks Richard.
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11562
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Well, perhaps it was the British interest towards the solid block kinetic energy penetrators, and their belief at it's after armour effects. The "Cairo test" revealed the reality (known to many beforehand), but strangely seems that nothing was learned, when writing the report posted here earlier:Richard Anderson wrote: I was simply remarking I have no idea why they would do such a thing, since it would require them to unfill a high-explosive shell, which can be a tricky operation prone to sudden "bangs" and much lamentation. What was the point? What would they achieve in a test that was important? What the M61 would do if the fuze didn't function? But that would be inaccurate, because the dynamics of the projectiles performance would be changed by the change in weight?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 3#p1997896ClintHardware wrote: following from WO 195/4639
Regards, Juha
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
An empty burster cavity M61 AP shot appears to have been a factory product: cf. page below from TM 9-1901, Artillery Ammunition, 1944-06-29. Maybe related to the known teething troubles Americans had with AP shell base fuzes causing premature bursts before penetration.Richard Anderson wrote:Yes you did. In this context "less" means "without". I was simply remarking I have no idea why they would do such a thing, since it would require them to unfill a high-explosive shell, which can be a tricky operation prone to sudden "bangs" and much lamentation. What was the point? What would they achieve in a test that was important? What the M61 would do if the fuze didn't function? But that would be inaccurate, because the dynamics of the projectiles performance would be changed by the change in weight?Juha Tompuri wrote: Did I decipher the text correctly?
If so, does less mean here without or lesser?
Markus
-
- Member
- Posts: 6349
- Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
- Location: Bremerton, Washington
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Ah! Of course, that makes sense. Thanks Markus.peeved wrote:An empty burster cavity M61 AP shot appears to have been a factory product: cf. page below from TM 9-1901, Artillery Ammunition, 1944-06-29. Maybe related to the known teething troubles Americans had with AP shell base fuzes causing premature bursts before penetration.
Markus
Richard C. Anderson Jr.
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Just a small note from that pdf that spare tracks expediency as external armor seems it can be effective against those AP rounds.
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Some M72 AP shot data below from TM 9-1901, Artillery Ammunition; At 1000 yd a bit better penetration against homogeneous, considerably worse against face-hardened armour than M61 APCBC shot last page (same penetration figures also given for M61 and M61A1 APCBC shells)David W wrote:I know that it is a bit arbitrary, but do you know of any penetration figures that illustrate the difference between AP M72 & APC M61?
Markus
- Attachments
-
- Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 18.15.33.png (394.77 KiB) Viewed 848 times
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11562
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
I guess that "lacklustre" shell being one of (if not the) the best tank anti-tank shot/shell the British had at that moment.Urmel wrote:Ah okay. That would explain the lacklustre AP performance I guess.
Regards, Juha
- Attachments
-
- http://www.panzer-war.com/page43.html
- cairotests.jpg (212.51 KiB) Viewed 835 times
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Re: M61 and M72, in War Office tests by way of http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3016709 the latter apparently had slightly worse performance against homogeneous armour also:
- Attachments
-
- Screen Shot 2016-02-27 at 22.23.15.png (185.81 KiB) Viewed 833 times
Re: 2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell
Thanks for the above, but lots of questions....
1. From what date were 6pdr MkIV & MkV available?
2. From what date was APC available for the 6Pdr MkII & MkIII?
3. From what date was APCBC available for the 6Pdr MkII & MkIII?
4. From what date was APC available for the 6Pdr MkIV & MkV?
5. From what date was APCBC available for the 6Pdr MkIV & MkV?
6. I wonder why no M3 AP Vs FH @ 30 degrees?
Kind Regards,
David.
1. From what date were 6pdr MkIV & MkV available?
2. From what date was APC available for the 6Pdr MkII & MkIII?
3. From what date was APCBC available for the 6Pdr MkII & MkIII?
4. From what date was APC available for the 6Pdr MkIV & MkV?
5. From what date was APCBC available for the 6Pdr MkIV & MkV?
6. I wonder why no M3 AP Vs FH @ 30 degrees?
Kind Regards,
David.