WW2 Warfare Discussion thread

Here is the German's Tank glider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_321

Cool glider :P. I cant imagine there were that many of them :P

I have a question but wasn't really sure where to put it. Why is it that the Volks in game have a higher ranking symbol than the Grenadiers? It never really made sense to me (and many skin packs and mods change this too). By symbol I mean the little icon picture that appears in the black box when you slect them.

Trannyhunterx wrote:
What about ww2 :3?

---

Post Merge: [time]1318151783[/time]

---

Why is it Sherman tanks have the .50 cal MG behind the tank commander ???. In the pictures I've seen, the MG is at the back of the turret. How is anyone suppose to fire that without stepping outside ???

Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPYFU4hXDg4  8)  skip to 6:06. yes, I realise this is 8 pages old. But cmon, its badass.

Don't like that bit of BoB. The thought of being slowly squished by a StuG makes me feel ill. :-X

Hey who decides what number a division or company gets? For example, in WWII there was the 82nd airborne and then 101st airborne. Does that mean there are numbers 83rd to 100th airborne that died or were never reported? There is also the 716th German Infantry division. Does that mean there were 715th other German Infantry divisions before this one was made? Someone please clarify how these designations work :P.

Depends on strength of the company, battalion, squad or whatever.

There were also companies just called XXX corps like in Operation Market Garden

Walki wrote:
Depends on strength of the company, battalion, squad or whatever.

There were also companies just called XXX corps like in Operation Market Garden

So simply just random eh?

Yesch.

Walki wrote:
Depends on strength of the company, battalion, squad or whatever.

There were also companies just called XXX corps like in Operation Market Garden

Can I inquire why they were called XXX? Were they special or something?

So only guys who were into the plan were able to know it the company has armour for example.

Trannyhunterx wrote:

Walki wrote:
Depends on strength of the company, battalion, squad or whatever.

There were also companies just called XXX corps like in Operation Market Garden

Can I inquire why they were called XXX? Were they special or something?

IMHO X=10, XXX=10+10+10 ;D. But I can we wrong ;).

Guess roman numerals suck bad.

Bish, you're correct. XXX equals 30 ;)

I = 1
II = 2
III = 3
IV = 4
V = 5
...
IX = 9
X =10
XX = 20
...
L = 50
...
C = 100
...
D = 500
...
M = 1000

So this year for example would look like this in Roman numerals:

MMXII

Or 1943 would be

MCMXDIII

Simple, isn't it? ;)

Just to complement Maxi post, when you read a roman number, you designate how is read by the following rules(more or less):

1) Reads from left to right.

2) Don't have negative numbers.

3) As any common numerical system, it has a progressive count(1,2,3,...,n).

4) If at the right of a number there's a higher number(V=5, I=1 then IV, like in Panzer IV ;)), means there is a substraction, the minor number is substracted from the higher.
      MCMXDIII means  1000(M) + 1000 - 100(CM) + 50 - 10(XD) + 1(I) + 1(I) + 1(I)

5) If at the right of a number there's a minor number(V=5, I=1 then VI, like in Panzer VI "Tiger" ;)), it is added to it.
      MMXII means  1000(M) + 1000(M) + 10(X) + 1(I) + 1(I)

So yes, in this case XXX Corps means 30th Corps.

EDIT: Forgot to mention, romans only used the addition only as basic operation(remember the substraction is not an real operation itself mathematically speaking - or at last that what our math teacher told us - but the additive inverse of a number).

Last edited February 23, 2012 at 5:27 PM by blackbishop

30th Corps was the British Armor group right?

yup. served in north africa.

Cat wrote:
Hey who decides what number a division or company gets? For example, in WWII there was the 82nd airborne and then 101st airborne. Does that mean there are numbers 83rd to 100th airborne that died or were never reported? There is also the 716th German Infantry division. Does that mean there were 715th other German Infantry divisions before this one was made? Someone please clarify how these designations work :P.

Since You asked:

Use of Roman numerals to designate Corps comes from the time of the French Revolution. It reflected the Republican and anti-clerical stance of France at the time by honoring the pre-Christian virtues of the Roman Republic! Napoleon changed the definition of Corps from a group of specialists, (artillery,rifle, cavalry,engineer ...), To a Combined Arms force, of variable size, (Ideally as large as could be handled given the talents of its commander), Which could engage and delay an enemy army for one day; - to allow the rest of the French army to concentrate. It was also a "Division of March".

Napoleon's Chief of Staff - Berthier, probably instituted XXX/2Aus/4(bde)/23(rgt)/2(bt)/b(co) nomenclature to allow commanders to write clear orders concisely.

Ramses II divided the Egyptian army into 4 Divisions of March, When he invaded Canaan prior to the Battle of Kadesh, (c1200 BCE), IIRC they were named after the Gods Ammon, Pta, Ra and Set. These divisions of march, traveled by different routes and nominally joined together to fight as a whole. (At Kadesh PTa was diverted by the Hittites and never joined the battle).

The nomenclature used to describe military Formations is mostly a matter of logistical organization. Armies must be raised -regiments and companies); maneuvered, fed and marched to battle - divisions and corps); and Fight -Brigades and Battalions).

In raising armies the magic numbers seem to be 100 and 1000. Before Universal Conscription a man would raise a regiment, (~1000m). To do this he will employ leutenants to raise companies of 100 men. A successful Leutenant, (ie one who can raise ~100m) becomes a Captain. Regiments are named by sucessful Colonels, frequently after themselves or the region the group was recruited from.  When regiments are mustered into service they are numbered in consecutive order of muster, (frequently with a regional affiliation tacked on); and organized into brigades. Brigades seem to have generic numbers assigned that are mutable until a brigade sized unit performs a deed of valor that allows it to be named. Divisions are fixed in number by peacetime policy considerations. Corps and Armies are normally wartime constructs; unless the Standing army is very large.

In England the naming convention worked  a little differently because the nobility raised the regiments. Thus John Churchill raised a regiment to fight against Monmouth in his Rebellion. it bore his name. He was later in disgrace, (out of favor), and Feversham? took over the campaign, Churchill's Regiment was instrumental in defeating Monmouth, which according to legend occurred near a fast running stream; received the valor name Black Torrent. It was still Churchill's Regiment though. When Churchill was elevated to the Peerage and received the Title of Duke of Marlborough:  the regiment became Marlborough's Black Torrent. Churchill went into disgrace again, (and again, and again), The regiment was not disbanded but was stationed at The Tower of London, (to guard the mint), and became known as the Black Torrent Guards. Eventually acquiring the name The Queen's (Anne) Own Black Torrent Guards. Then The King's (George) Own B.T.G.s etc. Berthier had a good idea!
Sometime in the 18th century English Regiments were renumbered consecutively. I don't know what number the QOBTG was given, But the Black Watch Became the 42 Blackwatch Regiment, The Cameron Highlanders became the 52 Cameroon Highland, etc. During the 20th century when many divisions were required during wartime the 42 Highland Division, 51 Lowland Division and 52 Highland Division (all Scottish), acquired the Valor names of their core Regiment, probably as a Morale Measure. British Military organizations also shrink. June 13(25? -the day after Mussolini declared war), 1940 the Western Desert Defense Force attacked Italian Outposts around Bardia. Its Core element that the 7 RTR, (Royal Tank Regiment), As fighting intensified the 7 RTR, (Desert Rats) was expanded to the 7 Armored BDE, (Jerboa=desert rat) then the 7 Armored Division(Jerboa), the core unit of XXX, (30) Corps,core unit of 8th Army, (Desert Rats)! -I don't think there were 30 Corps in the British Army during WWii. I think this was a subterfuge, the Brits can be a sneaky lot. After the war XXX Corps was dissolved. In 1954(?) the 7 Armor Division was disbanded, 7th Armor Bde remained, 7RTR are still Desert Rats, but the Bde patch is the Jerboa, with each Regiment using a different color.

In the Heer Corps, Divisions and Regiments were numbered consecutively. Regiments from former days using the British style conventions were placed among the order. During wwii there were ~ 4 million men in the Wehrmact. If a corps is 30,000 men; 4,000,000/30,000= CXXXIII corps. (OT the Luftwaffe had ~6000 fighter pilots during the war. ~100 survived). The Heer numbering system originated during Bismark's era, when the General Staff was formed. Armies were assigned letters. Corps Roman numerals, Divisions Arabic numerals; (although regional designations were retained), ...in order to make things clear on planning maps. Look at a map of the Schlieffen Plan -very orderly!

The USA adopted a 4 Bde/Division TO&E around the time of wwi. At that time the regimental numbering system was fixed. 28PA(national guard) division contained the US 109,110,111,112 regiments. During wwii the USA used a 3rgt/division TO&E but the regimental numbering system didn't change. If you talk about the 116 Regimental Combat team (4th regt of 29VANG in wwi), , I know you are talking about the 29VA(NG) Division which assaulted Omaha Beach on 6.6.44. (as seen in the opening scene of "Saving Private Ryan"). I also know the 4VA regt of CSA was a member of the Stonewall brigade. If you ask any member of the 29th USA division what the valor name of the 116th is they  will tell you "Stonewall" -even though the relationship is really only a traditional one.

Otto wrote:

Cat wrote:
Hey who decides what number a division or company gets? For example, in WWII there was the 82nd airborne and then 101st airborne. Does that mean there are numbers 83rd to 100th airborne that died or were never reported? There is also the 716th German Infantry division. Does that mean there were 715th other German Infantry divisions before this one was made? Someone please clarify how these designations work :P.

Since You asked:

Use of Roman numerals to designate Corps comes from the time of the French Revolution. It reflected the Republican and anti-clerical stance of France at the time by honoring the pre-Christian virtues of the Roman Republic! Napoleon changed the definition of Corps from a group of specialists, (artillery,rifle, cavalry,engineer ...), To a Combined Arms force, of variable size, (Ideally as large as could be handled given the talents of its commander), Which could engage and delay an enemy army for one day; - to allow the rest of the French army to concentrate. It was also a "Division of March".

I didn't quote the whole thing but did you just write all this yourself?

Afraid so. I even edited it down. Didn't use wikipedia either. ;D

Edit: BTW airborne regiments and tank battalions use a different system in USA. Sort of like Heer Heavy Panzer battalions allways being in the 500s. - The krauts also used another numbering system for Hvy PZ Btn  the 500s were the last AFAIK.

Last edited April 7, 2012 at 6:29 PM by Otto Halfhand

This project really caught my eye.

Name: The Zveno Project
Developed by: Soviet Union
Date Developed and Ended: 1930 - 1942
Bomber Aircraft Used: Tupolev TB-1, Tupolev TB-3
Parasite Fighter/Bomber Used: Tubolev I-4, Polikarpov I-5, Grigorovich I-Z, Polikarpov I-16

This project started in the 1930's it involved mounting "Parasite" Aircraft's on a Bomber aircraft, they were either mounted on top of the wing's or mounted below the wings, they also performed the first mid air docking. Though a request was made on  the 16th of August 1941 for more AM-34FRN-engined TB-3s from the Air Force so that they could be converted into Zveno-SPB carriers, the request was denied by Stalin due to the the losses sustained by the Soviet Air force early on in the War. The limited action the Zveno Project saw was very successfull they were tasked in dive bombing certain facility's and a bridge, after roughly only 30 combat missions they were withdrawn from service in 1942, due to fears of the German Air Superiority and Aircraft.

Configuration's of the Zveno Project

Zveno-1
Tupolev TB-1 and two Tupolev I-4 on top of the wings. The normally sesquiplane I-4s had the bottom wings removed (with no ill effect on flight characteristics) due to clearance problems with TB-1 propellers. First flight 3 December 1931. The TB-1 was piloted by A. I. Zalevskiy and A. R. Sharapov, the I-4s were piloted by V. P. Chkalov and A. F. Anisimov. Vakhmistrov himself flew in the front gunner's turret.

Zveno-1a
TB-1 and two Polikarpov I-5 on of the wings, first flight September 1933. The TB-1 was piloted by Stefanovskiy, the I-5s were piloted by Kokkinaki and Grozd.

Zveno-2
Tupolev TB-3 and three I-5, the third aircraft was attached over the fuselage. First flight August 1934. The TB-3 was piloted by Zalevskiy, the I-5s were piloted by Altynov, Suprun, and Suzi.

Zveno-3
TB-3 and two Grigorovich I-Z under the wings.

Zveno-5
TB-3 and a single I-Z under the fuselage which attached and detached in the air as there was not enough ground clearance for the fighter. On 23 March 1935, TB-3 piloted by Stefanovskiy and I-Z with Stepanchenok at the controls performed the world's first mid-air docking between two aircraft.

Zveno-6
TB-3 and two Polikarpov I-16 which were attached on the ground with the landing gear retracted. First flight August 1935, with the TB-3 piloted by Stefanovskiy, and the I-16s piloted by Budakov and Nikashin. I-16s could only detach, not re-attach, in flight.

Zveno-7
TB-3 and two I-16s, all docked in the air. First flight November 1939, pilots Stefanovskiy, Nyukhtikov, and Suprun. Fighters could re-attach in flight due to two retractable trapezes, one under each wing. Docking, while possible, was deemed too difficult to be practical.

Aviamatka (Airborne mothership)
TB-3 with two I-16s under the wings, two I-5s on top of the wings, and one I-Z attached under the fuselage in mid-air. First flight 20 November 1935. The TB-3 was piloted by Zalevskiy, the fighters piloted by Stefanovskiy, Nikashin, Altynov, Suprun, and Stepanchenok. Vakhmistrov also worked on a larger Aviamatka with eight I-16s. In this scheme, the TB-3 would get airborne with two I-16s under the wings and the remaining six would attach in the air. Not all eight would attach at one time, but would rotate in and out during the flight, detaching and re-attaching as needed. These six aircraft could also refuel from the mothership. Although a few successful mid-air dockings and fuel transfers were performed in 1938 these being the Zveno 6 and 7, the eight-fighter configuration was never completed.

SPB (Sostavnoi Pikiruyuschiy Bombardirovschik - Combined Dive Bomber)
TB-3-4AM-34FRN and two I-16s under the wings, each armed with a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) FAB-250 bombs. Used operationally in World War II with good success.

Operational History

In 1938, Vakhmistrov devised Zveno-SPB (SPB: Sostavnoi Pikiruyuschiy Bombardirovschik, Combined Dive Bomber) which consisted of a Tupolev TB-3-4AM-34FRN mothership and two Polikarpov I-16 Type 5 fighters. Each of the fighters was armed with a pair of 250 kg (550 lb) FAB-250 high-explosive bombs. Although an I-16 Type 5 could get airborne on its own with no more than 100 kg (220 lb) of bombs, once hoisted in the air by the TB-3 it could reach 410 km/h (220 knots, 255 mph) at 2500 m (8,200 ft), had a service ceiling of 6800 m (22,310 ft), and could dive at up to 650 km/h (350 knots, 405 mph). Once the bombs were dropped, the SPB-launched I-16s performed like conventional Type 5s. The three-aircraft Zveno-SPB had a total takeoff weight of 22000 kg (48,500 lb), a top speed of 268 km/h (145 knots, 165 mph), and a range of 2500 km (1,350 NM, 1,550 mi). The use of a mothership increased the range of the I-16s by 80%.

The SPB first flew in July 1937, with TB-3 piloted by Stefanovskiy, and I-16s piloted by Nikolayev and Taborovskiy. Following the successful test program in 1938, Zveno-SPB was accepted into service. By 1 February 1940, Soviet Air Force was supposed to receive 20 TB-3s and 40 I-16s, with the same number going to the Soviet Navy. Vakhmistrov was also asked to investigate the possibility of using Tupolev TB-7, Tupolev MTB-2, and GST (PBY Catalina) as the motherships, as well as arming I-16s with 500 kg (1,100 lb) bombs. By 1939, the government support for the project had waned, the Navy canceled all of its orders, and the Air Force reduced the number of fighters from 40 to 12. However, Soviet military observers noted the success of the Luftwaffe Junkers Ju 87 dive bombers in the opening stages of World War II. As the Soviet Union had no dive bombers, it was decided to resume low-scale work on the Zveno-SPB. Testing of the first production Zveno began in June 1940. It differed from the prototype in using the much more powerful I-16 Type 24 fighters. A total of six mothership-fighter combinations (six TB-3s and twelve modified I-16 Type 24s) were completed. All were attached to the 2nd Special Squadron of the 32nd IAP (Fighter Regiment) of the 62nd Aviation Brigade of the Black Sea Fleet Air Force stationed in Eupatoria. Mirroring the nickname of the Zveno experiments, the squadron was dubbed Shubikov's Circus (Цирк Шубикова) after its commander Arseniy Shubikov.

Zveno-SPB saw limited but successful combat use during the German-Soviet War. In the opening stages, the Black Sea Fleet Air Force was tasked with destroying industrial targets in Nazi Germany-allied Romania. The most important of these was the King Carol I Bridge over Danube which carried the Ploieşti-Constanţa oil pipeline. After several failed attempts to destroy the heavily protected bridge with conventional bombers, the task was given to the Zveno squadron. As a combat test, it was decided to first attack the Constanţa oil depot. On 26 July 1941, two Zveno-SPB aircraft performed a successful attack on the depot in broad daylight with no losses. The fighters disconnected 40 km (22 NM, 25 mi) from the target and returned to the home airfield under their own power.

The first of the two bridge raids took place on 10 August 1941. For this mission, the I-16s were fitted with additional 95-liter (25 US gal) underwing fuel tanks for an additional 35 minutes of flight time. Of the three Zveno-SPBs, one had to turn back due to mechanical problems. The other two launched their fighters 15 km (8 NM, 9 mi) from the Romanian coastline. The fighters successfully dive-bombed from the altitude of 1800 m (5,900 ft) and returned home with no losses despite heavy anti-aircraft fire. The second raid took place on 13 August 1941. This time, all three Zveno-SPBs reached the target. The six fighters scored five direct hits on the bridge and completely destroyed one of the spans. On the way back, the fighters strafed Romanian infantry near Sulina and returned to Eupatoria with no losses. Following the successful sorties, two additional Zveno-SPB were brought to operational status, bringing the total to five. The main limiting factor was the lack of high-output Mikulin AM-34FRN engines, as the other versions were not powerful enough to get the aircraft airborne. On 16 August 1941, Admiral Kuznetsov asked Joseph Stalin for additional AM-34FRN-engined TB-3s from the Air Force so they could be converted to Zveno-SPB carriers, but the request was denied as the Air Force had suffered heavy losses in the opening days of the war. In the meantime, the five aircraft continued flying operational sorties, destroying a dry dock in Constanţa on 17 August and a bridge across the Dnieper River on 28 August, losing one I-16 in the process. During the repeat attack the next day, four Zveno-launched I-16s engaged several Messerschmitt Bf 109s, shooting down two. Despite the high success rate, Zveno missions ended by 1942 due to high vulnerability of the obsolete TB-3s and I-16s in the face of enemy air superiority. It is estimated that Zveno-SPB flew at least 30 combat missions.

Very impressive Killer. Where did you get the source material from? I've been looking for Soviet era sources since the berlin wall went down but had little success.

Got most of it off Wikipedia but also backed it up by searching the Project and getting various information from other websites including:

Image's - from http://www.picsearch.com/pictures/Vehicles/Aircrafts/Aircrafts%20U-Z/Vakhmistrov%20Zveno%20project.html

Model and a little more Information - http://www.swannysmodels.com/Zveno.html

Also I found it on the first Forgotten Hope: Secret Weapon mod for Battlefield 1942 - http://www.moddb.com/mods/forgotten-hope-secret-weapon/images/render-zveno-project

Pretty neat! Reminds me of that the Americans did something like this themself in the 20ths I think? But in the form of an airship/ Zepelin .

Yep, they were test airships. The information from the first one led to advances that came in handy when the second crashed 3 years later :P

They used Curtiss Sparrowhawk bi-planes as parasite fighters. The USS Akron and Macon were US Navy airships, the largest helium-filled craft in the world. Neither lasted very long, as a number of accidents led to the loss of both. The last surviving Sparrowhaw lives at the Air and Space Museum's big ol' hangar. I have a picture of it saved in my phone. :P

Last edited April 27, 2012 at 1:19 AM by Trooper425

Having read up on it extensively as part of a novel I've been writing for a while and as part of a "why the hell not, I'm bored" mod I recently started tinkering with for CoH, I've read some pretty conflicting accounts about A Company, 2/116/29 ID (2nd Btn, 116th 'Stonewallers', 29th Infantry). Most accounts register the company (which is featured as the one the player controls for the first 2 missions of the original Company of Heroes, oddly enough--which is fairly silly since the CoH developers gave the riflemen in the opening cinema an Armored Division's logo for their assault jackets, but that's me be being a stickler) as sustaining a ~90% casualty rate during D-Day, after it was mashed together with elements of the 2nd Ranger Battalion during the landing. Other reports I've read indicate it was merely part of the 2nd battalion that pushed ahead and established the first command post in occupied europe on (date might be off, typing this late at night) D-Day +5, 6/11/44. Maybe some clarification on this subject from Mr. Halfhand would be due?

Also wondering if it would be considered accurate to follow the 29th through the norman hedgerows and have them assaulting a hill somewhere abouts the location of Hill 400, which was featured in Call of Duty 2, as part of the novel I mentioned. I realised that they link up with advancing Soviet forces after assaulting the Ruhr heartlands and crossing the Elbe river in-tow with the also assaulting 2nd Ranger Battalion, and was wondering if anyone knew if the 13th Guards Rifle Division ended the war anywhere near Mönchengladbach, the last commonly registered area where the 29th ID also ended it's tour on active (non parade ground) duty in Europe.

Any clarification on the 29th's relationship with the 2nd Ranger Battalion would also be appreciated, since the two units seem to fight relatively close to each other during the greater part of the normandy conflict, and even beyond that into the Ruhr and across the Elbe river.

Last edited April 29, 2012 at 5:24 AM by TheVolskinator

All right Volks,
As a suggestion for your novel. Jeff Shaara novelized the Stonewallers during the Civil War in a couple of novels. You could use the family names from that series for your 20th century counterparts in the 116 RCT. The name Walker strikes a chord.

What is your source material for the 2 rgr bttn and the 29/116? Sadly I've lost contact with my main source a guy I used to work with from the 230 Artillery Bn.

I am a bit sketchy on operations of the 29th Division during WWII. (much more Knowledgible of the 28th and 30th Divisions, but they were all 1st Army so lets see). THe 116 was engaged on D-Day as go so graphically described. During Cobra they took part in the Capture of St Lo. After that the 29th raced across Brittany with 8th? corps. BTW could you Identify the ARmor patch 4th or 6th Div? brest was entered around the end of August, 1944. By September 23 the 1st Army was engaged around Aachen and the Hertengen Forrest. meaning they marched through Belgium. My father in law was with the 30th Old Hickory and always said the Belgian Girls were very friendly. THe 30th was at Aachen so the 29th was probably in the flooded Hertengen forrest. THe germans had blown the dams there. To the best of my knowledge the 29th had little involvement during the Bulge. Operations ended around the end of February in Aachen. You have stated the 29th crossed the Elbe so that would be around the 25th of April?

I do not know anything about the 2nd Rangers.

I may get to the Carlisle War College library next month and maybe down to Staunton VA where the 116th is headquartered now. (In a library no less). If I find out anything more I'll post it.

The names I've already solidified, as well as some high points in the plot. The majority of the names I basically pulled out of my ass, and some of them aren't too well thought out and sound a tad childish, last names like;

Raph
Halloom
Kajser
the O'Shaunessy brothers
Parker
Southgate
Ingham
Peterson.

I am well aware of the 29th's involvement in operation Cobra and their bloody street to street combat to take St. Lo, as well as later being stationed in the Hertengen Forrest around the time of the assault on the Seigfried Line. Yes, to my knowing the 29th crossed the Elbe sometime after the 2nd Rangers made their waterborne assault, though I haven't the foggiest on dates. Many thanks on your feedback. The name suggestions are also great, I'll definately take a look into those.

I have seen a number of pictures where Soviet infantry will hold their PPSH's by the magazine rather than the front part. Just out of curiosity why did they do this? Was it more accurate? Did the barrel heat up or something? Was it awkward to hold the frontal grip?

Did the barrel heat up or something? -> jupp.
More accurate and better for your hands xDD

Can someone explain how the MP44 curved barrel worked? I would imagine the bullet would simply go through the curved part and just keep traveling straight. Was it ever used in real combat?

It was certainly used, and there was an episode of Mythbusters where they try something similar with a long tube which they continuously curve until they almost make a whole circle. As for how it works, I'm no physics nut but I'm fairly sure centrifugal forces come into play. However they only lasted around 90 shots (even less for some of the angles, they made 60°, 45°, 30° barrels). At some point the metal in the point where they hit became too brittle and they would break.

I read somewhere that some Elefant tanks were equipped with this as somekind of coaxial Mgs. Especially because the bullet ( of what I heard!) most of the times broke when firing cuz of the curved barrel. And that made it more of a auto shotgun then assault rifle. Good to have if you are being overun by infantry.

However, dont quote me on it because it can ofc be all made up.

Yea even the StG curved barrel was quite the same. It resulted in a one time shotgun effect.

Sommarkatze wrote:
I read somewhere that some Elefant tanks were equipped with this as somekind of coaxial Mgs. Especially because the bullet ( of what I heard!) most of the times broke when firing cuz of the curved barrel. And that made it more of a auto shotgun then assault rifle. Good to have if you are being overun by infantry.

However, dont quote me on it because it can ofc be all made up.

This is what I heard as well. The stress of the bullet being forced away from its normal trajectory meant it shattered into smaller pellets, like a shotgun and was excellent for clearing the area surrounding the tank as russians tried to get close to plant bombs etc.

Sir wrote:
I have seen a number of pictures where Soviet infantry will hold their PPSH's by the magazine rather than the front part. Just out of curiosity why did they do this? Was it more accurate? Did the barrel heat up or something? Was it awkward to hold the frontal grip?

There are several tech reasons possible here: Heat of barrell could come into play but more as it reduced accuracy (it doesn't take much to throw off your aim and doctrine sais you only fire 3-4 round bursts. In this regard barrel chatter would act as a similar distraction. I have talked to several GIs who had this bitch with the M1 carbine too). There is another possibility here as well. The photographer may have posed the picture this way! It is clearly a posed shot. BTW Fish could you send me a copy or upload this pic. It is great. Especially the log cabin deatails.


Curved barrel on MP44: The curved barrel is a special attachment for sighting and shooting around corners, from concealment. The engineering characteristics were/are terrible. The barrels would last between 160 to 300 rounds depend on the barrel bend. Angles of 30 to 90 were issued.  The shotgun effect was not the intent. Shooting around corners was. I have seen pictures of M3 grease guns with similar attachments.

Question: Were any of the MP43/44/STV44 series issued with soft jacketed or lead pistol ammo? - This would make the curved barrel last longer.

Edit: As far as I can tell the soldier front right has a molotov/ vodka bottle in left hand too!

Last edited August 23, 2012 at 12:13 AM by Otto Halfhand

There was a comic of the Japanese about tanks in WW2, what is its name?

Panzertales. It is sadly out of print

Thanks anyway :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGhrsmFrOoI&feature=g-vrec

Just a cool video about weird and funny looking Axis weapons ;D. There is an Allied video too but I have to find it :P

Hey was the 88 flak cannon ever used as an artillery piece like a M7 Priest or was it simply confided to AT and AA work?

During the last months Flak 88 was used in indirect fire combat. A number of 88 gun batteries e.g. bombarded us front lines at the morning of the 16th December 1944 ;)

The 88 was used indirect fire combat, on the eastern fornt early in the war, not just in 1944/45

The Flak 88 was used for combat support as fire brigades, I remember reading accounts of the 1940 camaign and in Western Desert so stating. Von Luck in particular used 88s in N.Africa to support the operations of his rcce battalion.

GIs in France called the 88 the Screaming Meemie. The sound of "incoming" was greatly feared by the infantry. Indirect evidence perhaps.

I think the Nebelwerfers were called Screaming Memies, not the 88 flak gun

You are quite right Fish, Screaming Memies were Nebelwerfers.

Otto, the 88 Flak sounds almost like an artillery piece (Possibly exactly like one)

I believe you are right.  :) I must have confused the knickname. I believe I got the reference from "The Execution of Private Slovik", although it could have been from The Victors or Slaughterhouse Five. In any case I believe the 88 has a distinctive sound.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

How often would an 88 actually hit a plane? It seem extremely unlikely :P

You'd have to take into account that the 88 would most likely be firing at masses of airplanes in the first place

Well flak guns (like the 88) use ammunition designed to detonate at a certain altitude. These shells were also built like Hi Ex rounds rather than Anti-Tank ones. So a gun battery would range in on a flight of planes (usually big ones that neither changed altitude, nor tried to evade) and set fuses for that altitude. Then they just tried to blanket the sky. If you're looking for a percentage of shells that actually hit an airplane, it would probably be real low. However, just looking at the number of aircraft downed, the numbers are probably higher than you may imagine. If it didn't work well, why was it used so often?