Search this Topic:
Mar 12 17 2:30 PM
Mar 12 17 3:16 PM
Mar 12 17 6:01 PM
Mar 12 17 6:28 PM
ChrisPat wrote:We had a quote of an M42 Duster SPAAG shoot a while ago that mentioned a similar interlock to balance out recoil blows. Given that RoF also depended on elevation the book figures can only be approximations.
Fabric belts certainly varied with humidity, British army Vickers crews soaked theirs in water for a few hours before loading them for action if they could. That said I think the belts on Force Z would have been metal. Maybe humidity affected the oil or maybe it was the temperature but something about the climate seems to have caused some problems. Only a guess but I'd say just the oil evaporating faster than normal; that would seem likely to lead to split cases.
Mar 12 17 6:29 PM
Mar 12 17 6:45 PM
lesa wrote:Mark I think you will find that by 41/42 the 8 barrel were not controlled weapons any longer. Secondly the failure of ammunition is often not a failure of the rounds its a failure of the gun and certainly Andy01's postings seem to confirm that these guns had inherent maintainability and reliability issues which are a product of design and are not ammo related. Indeed I just checked the navweaps site itself and it confirms this.
Mar 12 17 6:47 PM
Throd wrote:I recall reading somewhere that one of the reasons behind the pom pom was that the UK had over 2,000,000 rounds for it left over from WW1. If this is true you cannot help wonder if this had any impact on the PoWs problems, could it have been carrying 25 year old ammunition?
Mar 12 17 6:59 PM
Mar 12 17 7:02 PM
TOS1956 wrote:advanced, complex weapon which demanded careful and attention-to-detail maintenance for optimum performance. This is not a design flaw, it is inherent in all weapons at all periods in history
It is a design flaw, the PzKw VI Tiger is widely criticised exactly for that reason, even though it often terrified it's opponents when it worked, low maintenance and training requirements are extremely desirable qualities in a weapon system. So it's a matter of degree, were the maintenance and training requirements so high that the weapon's serviceability was affected? from the number of recorded failures, even mid war, it looks like the answer is yes.
Low velocity is a big limitation for an AA weapon, as it limits the effective engagement range, range, the HV came just before the war but never fully replaced the LV and was itself obsolescent by 1944. Range for light AA is not very meaningful (and 37 and 40 mm were likely to use self destructing shells anyway to avoid "blue on blue")
Mar 12 17 7:09 PM
Mar 12 17 7:26 PM
Mar 12 17 8:00 PM
Mar 12 17 8:52 PM
Mar 12 17 9:00 PM
Mar 12 17 9:56 PM
Mar 12 17 9:59 PM
Throd wrote:The 2 million rounds were relatively more important in the early days when even a BB only carried a couple of pom poms. Especially to a cash starved RN.
Mar 12 17 10:48 PM
Mar 12 17 11:00 PM
Tony D wrote:Hi Mark,
I haven't read through this entire thread, so at the risk of missing some essential comment, may I state a few items regarding the 2-pdr?
* Maintenance - Fully agree with your comment. The 2-pdr was a complex weapon designed at a time that ~40mm fast firing weapons was new technology. Most new technology require a high degree of continuous maintenance in order to keep working properly. Newer generations refine the design and (usually) greatly reduce the required levels. Jet engines when first introduced in the 1940s were notoriously fragile, today we think nothing of flying thousands of miles using them. The 2-pdr was not particularly different from other automatic/fast-firing weapons of the early-1930s in this regards. See the USA's 1.1" and 37mm designs. The 2-pdr Mark VIII did have a higher maintenance requirement in that it was used in an octuple mounting and so needed more work than a twin or quad.
* Controlled & Automatic - The Mark VIII used a hand-crank for the quad and octuple mountings as originally designed. In 1939, a prototype octuple was developed and put into production that eliminated the crank gear entirely and allowed fully automatic firing, i.e., no synchronization. For the quad mounting, an electric motor was added to the crank gear sometime during the war (do not have an exact date). I have found no records of the quad mount ever being produced in an automatic version. The USA version of the twin Bofors had an interlock that prevented the second gun from firing until the first gun had reached the recoil position. You can see this in films of twin & quad mounts firing.
* Humidity - Agree with your comments. High humidity caused belt rounds to become loose and rounds to fall out or slide out of alignments, causing feed stoppages. I have seen similar problems with other fabric belt weapons such as the US army's 0.30 caliber MG which had the same problem in the Philippines. Which is why the USA developed the metal-link belts for MGs.
* Tracers - I haven't found any records of tracers being issued to naval ships prior to 1942, I have found comments that tracers were not available in the early war years. May I ask the source and dates for where you found tracers issued to naval ships?
Mar 12 17 11:40 PM
Mar 12 17 11:46 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.