Türk porno yayini yapan http://www.smfairview.com ve http://www.idoproxy.com adli siteler rokettube videolarini da HD kalitede yayinlayacagini acikladi. Ayrica porno indir ozelligiyle de http://www.mysticinca.com adli porno sitesi devreye girdi.
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910
Results 136 to 150 of 150

Thread: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

  1. #136
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    It is wondering why the germans didn't use a panzerbüchse + MG in the Panzer I, instead of two MG's. These weapons didn't use to much energy and space and would've given the panzer at least some battle value against enemy light tanks.

  2. #137
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Actually there was a sort of...the Panzer I with Breda 20mm automatic gun, only saw some service in spanish Civil war because was locally converted by the Nationalist no in germany.



    The italian Breda used the same 20x138b ammo of the Solos S-18-1000-1100 and Flak 30/38.
    Last edited by Panzerknacker; 10-28-2009 at 08:46 AM.

  3. #138
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Quote Originally Posted by steben View Post
    It is wondering why the germans didn't use a panzerbüchse + MG in the Panzer I, instead of two MG's. These weapons didn't use to much energy and space and would've given the panzer at least some battle value against enemy light tanks.
    The P1 was intended as a training vehicle, and a development platform to establish the parameters for production of later models. It was never intended for use in combat, though that didnt stop it from ending up there. The #1's turret is very small, and though an A.T. rifle of some sort could have been shoehorned in, it is probable that it was better to incorporate that feature in the #2. The armor was very thin on the #1,( no more than 1/2 inch) and aside from the structural concerns of long term use of a 20x138 mm weapon, its presence on the #1 would leave it unable to protect itself from the attention that weapon would attract. Though this is only my opinion.
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 10-27-2009 at 10:26 PM.

  4. #139
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    The P1 was intended as a training vehicle, and a development platform to establish the parameters for production of later models. It was never intended for use in combat, though that didnt stop it from ending up there. The #1's turret is very small, and though an A.T. rifle of some sort could have been shoehorned in, it is probable that it was better to incorporate that feature in the #2. The armor was very thin on the #1,( no more than 1/2 inch) and aside from the structural concerns of long term use of a 20x138 mm weapon, its presence on the #1 would leave it unable to protect itself from the attention that weapon would attract. Though this is only my opinion.
    German panzers were underarmed when put next to their enemies with the same weight. Simple comparison tells a lot. Think of BT en T26 tanks at the time.
    The II was again a little bit underarmed and the 37mm semi auto would have been the better gun. The stuborn decision to put 37mm in all what seemed to encounter enemy armor (Panzer III, halftracks, AT units) simply because the 37mm gun was available should have been stressed into the Panzer II, while giving the III the 50mm.

    Attention: I get your point, yet I's were shot up in vast numbers anyway.
    Last edited by steben; 10-28-2009 at 02:18 AM.

  5. #140
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    I'm sure they had their reasons. Designing a tank is more than a matter of mix n' match. Having the ability to design, manufacture, (on a large scale) and transport the thing is just the first consideration. Allocation of raw materials, production facilities, man power, truck, and rail services, all of that. And before all of that stuff there comes the committees, the meetings, from the guy who scribbled some pictures on a napkin, to materials development, not every material is sitting on a shelf waiting to be needed. What standardized parts may be used, what will be an all new component, (each also needing all of the above things) Then on to production processes, sorting out allocations for strategic materials,a stronger weapon will need stronger steel where do we find enough of it? Identifying, and reducing bottlenecks in production,, it makes one's head spin. Not to mention the mountains of paperwork, and record keeping for the record happy Reich.
    One may want to field a Tiger, but the complex process to get it under a soldier's bum is the deciding factor in most cases, leaving you with the Panzer II. This outline is very simple, the actual process is immensely more complex.

  6. #141
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    I'm sure they had their reasons. Designing a tank is more than a matter of mix n' match. Having the ability to design, manufacture, (on a large scale) and transport the thing is just the first consideration. Allocation of raw materials, production facilities, man power, truck, and rail services, all of that. And before all of that stuff there comes the committees, the meetings, from the guy who scribbled some pictures on a napkin, to materials development, not every material is sitting on a shelf waiting to be needed. What standardized parts may be used, what will be an all new component, (each also needing all of the above things) Then on to production processes, sorting out allocations for strategic materials,a stronger weapon will need stronger steel where do we find enough of it? Identifying, and reducing bottlenecks in production,, it makes one's head spin. Not to mention the mountains of paperwork, and record keeping for the record happy Reich.
    One may want to field a Tiger, but the complex process to get it under a soldier's bum is the deciding factor in most cases, leaving you with the Panzer II. This outline is very simple, the actual process is immensely more complex.
    Precisely for these reasons, the Pz I should have been fielded as a light combat tank, not because it was a good one, but because it was useful. Putting a more potent gun (the 20mm is ideal) in the little thing was possible without enormous effort and resources.
    And yes, the II was a logical step as well. very true. I'm not promoting the Tiger. I'm simply telling that not putting a 37mm gun on the II ("too much engineering"?!) and deliberately putting it on the III ("we simply have the 37") which is designed to take a 50mm one is a very awkward way of decision making. Of course, the true reasons were not logistics and resources at that point in history, yet internal politics...

  7. #142
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    you would have to take that up with the Reich's ministry that deals with such things, otherwise, its pretty much a game of woulda, coulda, shoulda. Though it seems that you have answered your own question.
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 10-28-2009 at 06:16 PM.

  8. #143
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    you would have to take that up with the Reich's ministry that deals with such things, otherwise, its pretty much a game of woulda, coulda, shoulda. Though it seems that you have answered your own question.
    true...

    What I can make up of this discussion is that I'm not telling bullshit yet it just didn't happen?

  9. #144
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Quote:"I'm not telling bullshit yet it just didn't happen? "
    I'm not getting your meaning here neighbor, "What" didnt happen?
    Last edited by tankgeezer; 10-29-2009 at 08:21 AM.

  10. #145
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    424

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Quote Originally Posted by tankgeezer View Post
    Quote:"I'm not telling bullshit yet it just didn't happen? "
    I'm not getting your meaning here neighbor, "What" didnt happen?
    My suggestions. What I mean is that it seems all I'm saying actually makes sense and was feasable, yet it just didn't happen in history.

  11. #146
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Ah, okay now I get you, Agreed, they could have been more powerfully armed, at the time, I guess they built it as they could, and I'm glad they didnt up gun the early Pz's. Less trouble for the Allies later...
    Retro fitting is a huge painful process, just look how long it took to add the armor packages to the Humvees in the Mid East.

  12. #147
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1

    Red face Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Panzerknacker View Post
    Other hollow charge grenade used in the K-98 was the GGP series.
    The Gewehrgranate zur Panzerbekämpfung ("rifle grenade for fighting tanks") of the company WASAG that was usually referred to under it's abbreviation GGP or GG/P, it also carried the designation GGP 40 or GG/P 40. This larger weapon's shaft could not fit into the SchB so a special spigot was attached to the muzzle in the rifle to fire it. Over this spigot fits the hollow tail-piece of the grenade. It is fitted to the rifle, in the same manner as a bayonet, over the bayonet standard and foresight block, and is locked in position by a spring-loaded bolt.

    On firing the propelling cartridge, the gasses pass out of the barrel of the rifle, through the spigot, and into the hollow tail-piece to propel the grenade.

    The GGP was put in service in mid 1940, weighed 520g and had a length of 23.4 cm. The warhead had a diameter of 60mm and carried a shaped charge of 175g that enabled the GGP to penetrate 40mm of armor.

    As it could not achieve a spin from the Schiessbecher's rifling it had to depend on six stabilizing fins attached to the rear of it's shaft for flight stabilization.
    I apologize for necro-responding on this, but the GG/P-40 is a current research interest.

    The illustration (which I cannot quote-include because I don't have enough posts yet) shows a GG/P-40 loaded onto an infantryman's K98. This of course is from Osprey Elite 124 "WWII Infantry Anti-Tank Tactics".

    > The GGP was put in service in mid 1940

    I believe the illustration and quoted comment are incorrect. My understanding is that the Luftwaffe weapon bureau issued the contract to WASAG in late Summer or early Fall of 1940 to develop and manufacture what became GG/P-40, specifically because of the experience of fallshirmjaegers at the three airports peripheral to Hague, Holland. Those troopers were unable to be reinforced by glider or transport borne troops with heavier weapons because of airfield conditions and bombing damage to runways. Supposedly they had landed without PzB AT rifles, which would not fit the then-used containers, and found themselves without an effective anti-armor capability when counterattacked by Dutch armored cars. They were forced off all three airfields, and avoided being overrun only by consolidating and retreating to an area of soft sanddunes where the ACs could not operate effectively, and by the Dutch national surrender due to events elsewhere.

    GG/P-40 hardly could have been available in mid 1940 if it began development in the July to September timeframe. My understanding instead is that GG/P-40 was not available in 1940 and in fact was not available for the 1941 Corinth drop, but was first fielded for the Crete operation in May 1941, in limited numbers.

    It was found to be rather ineffective, not only because of its poor penetration and energy projection but also because the poor aerodynamics resulted in failure-to-fuze or excessively off-normal impact when fired in cross- or trailing breezes, and large dispersion due to the fins being too small.

    As to showing GG/P-40 in use by infantrymen...I believe this is incorrect, in that only Luftwaffe ground units were issued this weapon, not regular army or SS units.

    > As it could not achieve a spin from the Schiessbecher's rifling it had to depend on six stabilizing fins attached to the rear of it's shaft for flight stabilization.

    Actually GG/P-40 had its own rifle launching attachment, a precursor to the later Scheissbecher, intended only for spigot type firing. It had a different sighting system and mounted to the rifle somewhat differently.

    Both GG/P-40 and its launcher were withdrawn by the Luftwaffe in 1942 when the Heer weapons bureau introduced the 30mm rifled system with Scheissbecher launching attachment, thereby overcoming the aerodynamic and fuzing problems and delivering comparable (albeit obsolete) penetration performance even though with a smaller warhead diameter.

    A number of statements posted to WWII discussion websites do say that GG/P-40 was fielded at some point in 1940, and/or used by the regular army or SS, but I haven't been able to find documentary support for any of these. If anyone has such supporting information of a reasonably authoritative nature, I'd appreciate a comment about it.
    Last edited by JWilly48519; 09-26-2010 at 02:17 AM.

  13. #148
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Cordoba-Argentina
    Posts
    6,392

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    No matter how long it takes, every comment in this old weapons systems is apreciated. Now that I think about it is quite likely your post is correct, supossedly the GGP was in service by the attack on France in may 1940, but so far I cant found a single photo of an infantrymen using it in that early date.

  14. #149
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    -
    Posts
    759

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    nice pics

  15. #150
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Up in the land of the Yoopers.
    Posts
    4,301

    Default Re: Antitank Rifles & Machineguns.

    Just to update the thread a bit, I ran across this episode of Weapons of Victory, a Russian TV show, its about the PTRS, and PTRD rifles, showing archival footage, as well as present day information.
    http://youtu.be/d4d7H4J01NU

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Hitler addresses the Reichstag, and declares war on the USA
    By AM_R.A.D.6th in forum 2006 Archive Room
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-17-2006, 06:25 PM
  2. Machine guns
    By George Eller in forum 2005 Archive Room
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 12-08-2005, 08:19 PM
  3. Arisaka rifles. Specially for Gen. Sandworm :wink:
    By Preatorian in forum 2005 Archive Room
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 12-04-2005, 12:03 PM
  4. Leon Degalle's Interview.
    By Hosenfield in forum 2005 Archive Room
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-27-2005, 11:10 PM
  5. Why did Germany invade Poland starting WW2?
    By Commando Jordovski in forum 2005 Archive Room
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 08-09-2005, 08:22 PM

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •