Romanian Military History Forum - Part of Romanian Army in the Second World War Website



Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5   ( Go to first unread post ) Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> Tanks or Aircraft, An alternate-history poll
 
Would WW2 Romania have been better off with a modest tank industry? Or the aircraft industry it had?
The aircraft industry which actually existed. [ 7 ]  [25.93%]
A tank industry along the lines of Czechoslovakia or Poland. [ 13 ]  [48.15%]
Split the difference -- repair and license-building of both. [ 7 ]  [25.93%]
Total Votes: 27
Guests cannot vote 
Imperialist
Posted on July 07, 2005 09:25 am
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Iamandi @ Jul 7 2005, 07:38 AM)
Or, let's imagine something more real to be happen: when polish troops have retreat into Romania, a military group or one secreat service member/team from polish govern give to romania http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle_wz.35 this. Some nomber of this antitank rifle, blue prints, etc.
More about that can be find in this forum.

Iama

Iama, dont use Wikipedia anymore. Use Britannica or other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is a parody. Anyone can type in anything and if it looks credible enough is taken for granted...
PM
Top
Iamandi
Posted on July 07, 2005 10:39 am
Quote Post


General de divizie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1386
Member No.: 319
Joined: August 04, 2004



But this antitank rifle is real. Some things about her are even in this forum.

Iama
PMUsers WebsiteYahoo
Top
Jeff_S
Posted on July 07, 2005 08:43 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 270
Member No.: 309
Joined: July 23, 2004



QUOTE (SiG @ Jul 7 2005, 06:52 AM)
Shaped charges were first used  in combat by German soldiers in 1940.

Yes, back in the depths of my brain I think I knew that. Was it the attack on Eben Emael? I should have been more specific to say projectile weapons, not demolition charges.

QUOTE
Apparently, they had been invented 50 years before!


Wow. I had no idea. So they could have been used in WW1!
PMYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted on July 07, 2005 09:14 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jul 7 2005, 08:43 PM)


QUOTE
Apparently, they had been invented 50 years before!


Wow. I had no idea. So they could have been used in WW1!

Maybe SiG could give us his source... that would mean shaped charges were invented in 1890! That seems much too early.

Look what I found:

QUOTE
The "shaped charge" was introduced to warfare as an anti-tank device in World War II after its discovery in the late 1930s.
PM
Top
SiG
Posted on July 08, 2005 02:42 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Member No.: 616
Joined: June 29, 2005



I gave the source, but it's a German site (www.panzerlexikon.de) I haven't yet found an English source saying the same thing, but i'll try.
Note that the technology of the shaped charge isn't very complicated so they could have been invented in 1890, only that the people back then wouldn't have found any use for it. Even in ww1, the armor of the early tanks could be defeated by a simple field gun, so no need for specialized anti-tank wheapons. Imperialist, maybe what your source is saying is that in the 1930's was discovered the utility of the shaped charge as an armour-piercing wheapon?
I'll try to find more info and be right back!
Bye!
PMEmail Poster
Top
SiG
Posted on July 08, 2005 02:47 pm
Quote Post


Fruntas
*

Group: Members
Posts: 86
Member No.: 616
Joined: June 29, 2005



QUOTE (SiG @ Jul 8 2005, 02:42 PM)
I gave the source, but it's a German site (www.panzerlexikon.de) I haven't yet found an English source saying the same thing, but i'll try.
I'll try to find more info and be right back!
QUOTE
"Shaped charges" of armor-penetrating warheads or mines were designed just before 2nd World War and applied for armor-piercing during WW 2. Hand-carried (portative) shaped blasting charges were first used by Germans in 1940 for capturement of besieged French Maginot Line strongholds. Principle of shaped charge was discovered by American powder chemist Munroe in 1880s and improved by German Neumann in early 1900s, but military applications came several decades later.


Just do a google search and you'll find out even more.
PMEmail Poster
Top
Imperialist
Posted on July 08, 2005 03:03 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (SiG @ Jul 8 2005, 02:47 PM)

There it was: http://guns.connect.fi/gow/nitro.html


Just do a google search and you'll find out even more.

Thanx for the new link. The previous one, from that German site did not work yesterday. (blank page/error message)
PM
Top
Jeff_S
Posted on July 08, 2005 03:41 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 270
Member No.: 309
Joined: July 23, 2004



QUOTE
Principle of shaped charge was discovered by American powder chemist Munroe in 1880s and improved by German Neumann in early 1900s, but military applications came several decades later.


This could easily explain the 50-year gap. There is quite a difference between discovering a principal and applying it in a practical way.

It does seem as though they would have had value in World War I as demolitions, even if there was no way (or reason) to use them in a projectile weapon.
PMYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted on July 08, 2005 03:58 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jul 8 2005, 03:41 PM)


It does seem as though they would have had value in World War I as demolitions, even if there was no way (or reason) to use them in a projectile weapon.

In the Navy the need to penetrate armour was present even before the tank made its entry. That could have been a domain in which the appliance of the shaped charge principle would have payed off.
PM
Top
Jeff_S
Posted on July 08, 2005 06:40 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 270
Member No.: 309
Joined: July 23, 2004



QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 8 2005, 03:58 PM)

In the Navy the need to penetrate armour was present even before the tank made its entry. That could have been a domain in which the appliance of the shaped charge principle would have payed off.

It does seem like it would have been useful, but I have not heard of shaped charges being used in armor-piercing anti-ship weapons. They just depended on larger guns, or striking where the armor was not so strong (torpedo, mine, high-angle gunfire, dive-bombing for example)
PMYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted on July 08, 2005 06:53 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jul 8 2005, 06:40 PM)

It does seem like it would have been useful, but I have not heard of shaped charges being used in armor-piercing anti-ship weapons. They just depended on larger guns, or striking where the armor was not so strong (torpedo, mine, high-angle gunfire, dive-bombing for example)

I know, but I meant to say I find it weird in a way that if the need was there, and the principle behind shaped charge was already discovered, it had to wait until the 30s for someone to apply it to armor-piercing use.
PM
Top
Jeff_S
Posted on July 08, 2005 08:32 pm
Quote Post


Plutonier
*

Group: Members
Posts: 270
Member No.: 309
Joined: July 23, 2004



QUOTE (Imperialist @ Jul 8 2005, 06:53 PM)
I know, but I meant to say I find it weird in a way that if the need was there, and the principle behind shaped charge was already discovered, it had to wait until the 30s for someone to apply it to armor-piercing use.

Yes, that's what I understood you meant. I wonder if there is some reason? Something about shaped charge warheads that make them unsuitable, or a less-than-best choice for naval warfare?
PMYahoo
Top
Imperialist
Posted on July 08, 2005 10:06 pm
Quote Post


General de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 2399
Member No.: 499
Joined: February 09, 2005



QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jul 8 2005, 08:32 PM)

Yes, that's what I understood you meant. I wonder if there is some reason? Something about shaped charge warheads that make them unsuitable, or a less-than-best choice for naval warfare?

QUOTE

The Munroe effect refers to the partial focussing of blast energy caused by a hollow or void cut into a piece of explosive, a property which is exploited by a shaped charge.

It is named after Charles E. Munroe, who discovered it in 1888. Whilst working at the Naval Torpedo Station at Newport in the United States etc.

In 1910, Egon Neumann of Germany discovered that TNT containing a conical indentation would cut through a metal plate which would normally only be dented by that quantity of explosive. However, the military usefulness of this effect was not appreciated until the Second World War, the first application possibly being the British No. 68 rifle grenade which entered service in May 1940.


http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Munroe_effect

The question is, is a shaped charge the same with an armour piercing shell? because the latter were in use in the Navies of the time...

edit -- I think there is a difference, and I am surprised that the naval people at the time did not realise the qualitative improvements a shaped charge would bring.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 08, 2005 10:40 pm
PM
Top
Florin
Posted on July 09, 2005 02:28 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jul 6 2005, 10:45 AM)
.............
Pre-war thinking on man-portable AT weapons seemed to focus more on AT rifles, just depending on high velocity and the weight of the round rather than an explosive effects. Obviously these would not have been much help against a T-34. My father spoke of seeing the Finnish Lahti AT rifle at gun shows in the USA after the war. My impression is that it was one of the best of its type. The 20mm Lahti AT rifle.

Jeff,

The website containing the link you higlighted also mentions the Russian portable rocket, able to aim at 6 kilometers. It was supposed to be used by the Russian paratroopers.
It was invented in 1936, well before anything tried by the Germans, the Finns or the Americans. You'll also find there that 2 pieces were captured by the Finns during their 1939-1940 war with Soviet Union, and Finnland sent one to Germany, to be studied. The Germans never return it back to the Finns. ;)

PM
Top
Florin
Posted on July 09, 2005 02:37 am
Quote Post


General de corp de armata
*

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Member No.: 17
Joined: June 22, 2003



QUOTE (Jeff_S @ Jul 6 2005, 10:28 AM)
........
Were any of these "AT gun in turret/field gun in hull" tanks successful?


The fact that they disappeared soon from battlefields means the answer is "No".

The evolution of tanks and airplanes in WWII was like the Darwinist evolution of live species.
Interesting enough, the navy inventory did not evolve spectacular, with the exception of using welding for fast assembly and the installment of Radar on battleships.
PM
Top
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

Topic Options Pages: (5) 1 2 [3] 4 5  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

 






[ Script Execution time: 0.0221 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]