Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

Reader mode

JWilly48519

MattII said:
I'm not sure the ~1 kg shell those fired would have an appreciable effect on a bunker unless, by some miracle, they went through the firing port.
Click to expand...
My argument would be that, while direct HE certainly is a viable approach, putting smoke in front of the bunker face and sending sappers forward will work, too, and with less risk to the weapon system that would fire the heavy HE if that particular bunker is cannon armed.

And, the 2 inch mortar was a highly effective means of placing tactical smoke. Even better than rifle grenades, if it was vehicle mounted, because foot soldiers didn't have to haul the smoke ammo.
 
Last edited:

JWilly48519

Carriers were functionally much more the equivalent of a smaller, more-agile M3 halftrack.

The British had fewer homegrown small-military-truck options than USA, so UCs often were used by the Brits on pavement in situations where USA would use 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, 1, 1.5 or 2.5 ton (payload) trucks. On-road, UCs had no particular advantages other than their light armor protection, and were disadvantaged in regard to speed and/or payload, and maintenance requirements.

Carriers of course had a number of advantages over wheeled vehicles when operating off-road. The advantages of carriers over US tracked APCs/utility haulers like the M3 halftrack when operating off-road mostly pertained to being smaller and more agile. OTOH, the bigger M3 had more payload and towing capacities.
 

MattII

JWilly48519 said:
My argument would be that, while direct HE certainly is a viable approach, putting smoke in front of the bunker face and sending sappers forward will work, too, and with less risk to the weapon system that would fire the heavy HE if that particular bunker is cannon armed.

And, the 2 inch mortar was a highly effective means of placing tactical smoke. Even better than rifle grenades, if it was vehicle mounted, because foot soldiers didn't have to haul the smoke ammo.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, if you have the luxury of time. How long would it take a sapper team to disable a bunker though?
 

lgkmas

MattII said:
Fair enough, if you have the luxury of time. How long would it take a sapper team to disable a bunker though?
Click to expand...
An interesting situation.
Anyone here familiar with fixed lines/fixed limits?
Despite Hollywood trying to push the line that a MG was simply a rifle that fired faster, the Canadians in WW1 (as an ANZAC it pains me to credit the canucks !!<gr>) had developed the idea that a MG was NOT a faster firing rifle. It was an area denial weapon. You did not have to see your target. You simply worked out the interlocking arcs of fire and set your limits on gun traverse to cover your arc. Therefore, it did not matter if you could not see your target. You simply squeezed the trigger and rocked the MG back and forth across the arc, within your allocated limits.
If the Japanese had adopted this concept ( and I do not know if they did or not) then smoking a Bunker slit would do nothing except warn them that an assault troop was on the way. So the natural response by trained MGers would be to open fire on the fixed lines/fixed limits, Just because a mg is smoked does not mean it is now rendered harmless.
 

MattII

lgkmas said:
An interesting situation.
Anyone here familiar with fixed lines/fixed limits?
Despite Hollywood trying to push the line that a MG was simply a rifle that fired faster, the Canadians in WW1 (as an ANZAC it pains me to credit the canucks !!<gr>) had developed the idea that a MG was NOT a faster firing rifle. It was an area denial weapon. You did not have to see your target. You simply worked out the interlocking arcs of fire and set your limits on gun traverse to cover your arc. Therefore, it did not matter if you could not see your target. You simply squeezed the trigger and rocked the MG back and forth across the arc, within your allocated limits.
If the Japanese had adopted this concept ( and I do not know if they did or not) then smoking a Bunker slit would do nothing except warn them that an assault troop was on the way. So the natural response by trained MGers would be to open fire on the fixed lines/fixed limits, Just because a mg is smoked does not mean it is now rendered harmless.
Click to expand...
That's more thought than I put into it. I was more thinking of how long it would take the sapper team to set the charges, lay the lines, etc, compared to how long it takes to load a Blacked Bombard, aim, and pull the trigger. I mean, sure, it won't penetrate the bunker, but I'm assuming that a projectile, even a slow one, with more filling than a 25-pounder shell is going to rattle the people inside when it goes off.
 

ArtosStark

lgkmas said:
as an ANZAC it pains me to credit the canucks !!<gr>
Click to expand...
If it makes you feel better, it was an idea a bunch of armies were moving towards at the same time. Pretty sure we worked it out either in parallel or (more likely) in cooperation with the British.

That said, fixed lines depends somewhat on ballistics. In WW1 it was generally done at 600 yards or more with guns firing in parabolic trajectory. That is difficult to do from within a bunker. If you mean firing based on preselected range and bearings that is definitely possible. Its just hard to tell whether your selected ranges and bearings are effective.
 

jlckansas

MattII said:
That's more thought than I put into it. I was more thinking of how long it would take the sapper team to set the charges, lay the lines, etc, compared to how long it takes to load a Blacked Bombard, aim, and pull the trigger. I mean, sure, it won't penetrate the bunker, but I'm assuming that a projectile, even a slow one, with more filling than a 25-pounder shell is going to rattle the people inside when it goes off.
Click to expand...
Charges would be already made up, satchel charges and other types, with caps inserted and fuzes ready to go. You would not use an electrical blasting cap for this but a regular blasting cap to set it off the charge. How long you cut the fuze would depend on who is doing the job of setting the charge, where they set the charge and how close they have cover from the explosion. You don't have to set a big charge if you have a way to drop something in the bunker, either from the back or in a firing slit. Example of a WP grenade put into a slit of the bunker means you just have to be out of the way of the slit, satchel charg
 

Mike D

If you've put smoke in front of the bunker you don't even need Sappers really - if you can get a couple of lads to the bunker unseen they can throw a couple of grenades through the firing slits. A couple of explosive/fragmentation will take care of the immediate threat and a smoke/phos might even show you where the bunker exit(s) are and make clearing them a bit easier.

Obviously the occupants blind firing through the smoke makes life a little sportier for the enthusiastic volunteers making their way to the bunker but if you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined.
 

JWilly48519

In any case, I'd fully agree that a force that's prepared to use smoke-then-point-assault against bunkers is best served to also have a direct-fire HE or incendiary capability as well...and other capabilities if possible. (A tank? An armored bulldozer? Man-carried flamethrower? A choking/blinding-gas generator, such as WP grenades/shells?) You definitely don't want your opponent to know in advance what, specifically, you're going to do.
 

Monty Man

Those poor Japanese are going to be very light on Ammo. They just don't have the logistics to support this intensity for long.

As for Rate of Fire - They aren't the Germans when it comes to use liberal use of fast rapid firing light tactical MGs. More like the British , but with even fewer. Japanese have just switched rounds to Rimless 7.7mm in 39/40.. They've the Bren Gun like Type 96 , but not in the numbers or down to squad level as per the Brit/Can/Aus use.

Japanese MG is the , somewhat ancient looking and Hotchkiss derived Type 92. Basically the Hotchkiss M1914. Which the US replaced with the M1917 then were busy replacing with M1919 by WW2 (although like the water cooled Vickers the M1917 still saw extensive service and held the line many times in WW2 ( no replacement for displacement when it comes to thermal dissipation and pouring fire on and on and on...) Japanese 92 is air cooled, Heavy, and used like a water cooled Vickers/ M1917 eg static position BUT without the active cooling or the Belts. A slow rate of fire, 30 round clips at a time . More of a heavy Lewis Gun. In fact the performance is almost exactly that of a Lewis gun - just more unwieldy. Basically they were 2 Generations behind albeit with a more modern rimless round. Type 72 was very reliable, which given the environment they are mostly fighting in, is a huge plus. But as WW2 MGs go - it's more WW1. Oh they also copied the actual Lewis gun and , if you thought US tank naming was bad -M4 anyone? - called it the Type 92. So they had Type 92 and the totally different Type 92.
 
Last edited:

yulzari1

diesal said:
Just on the subject of Rifles, surely the British if they wanted a Semi Automatic rifle in a calibre they used would want to develop something in 7.92 so it had the same supply chain as the Besa machine guns. Whilst you can make a semi automatic rifle that shoots rimmed ammunition why would you want to. With the additional industrial capacity that will be available from not suffering the string of calamities seen in 40-42 the British could re-equip some significant fraction to a semi automatic rifle.
Click to expand...
That would be the SLEM and genuine thought was given to making the 7.92mm the replacement round for the .303”. It came from FN in Belgium and returned there after the war and morphed into the FN1949 and ultimately the FAL.
 

MattII

Monty Man said:
...and , if you thought US tank naming was bad -M4 anyone? - called it the Type 92. So they had Type 92 and the totally different Type 92.
Click to expand...
Sorry, no, with three weapons and five vehicles designated as 'M3', the US has no room to complain about other powers' systems of identification.
 

Mike D

MattII said:
How many of those were locomotives?
Click to expand...
That's just military designations

  • L1A1 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle (SLR) (Also referred to as the L1A1 7.62mm Rifle)[4][31][3][32][33][27][30]
  • L1A1-A4 Bayonet (For use with the SLR)[3][1]
  • L1A1/A2 Blank Firing Attachment (For use with the SLR)[31]
  • L1A1/A2 .50 inch Machine Gun (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun)[34][35]
  • L1A1 .50 inch Anti-Aircraft Machine Gun Mounting (For use with the L1A1 MG)[34]
  • L1A1 Vehicle Stand (For use with the L1A1 MG)[34]
  • L1A1/A2 84mm AT4 (CS) HP Rocket System (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 Interim Light Anti-tank Weapon (ILAW))[35]
  • L1 120mm rifled gun - used on Conqueror tank
  • L1A1/A2/A3[36] 66mm HEAT Rocket and Launcher (Also referred to as the L1 66mm Section Anti-Tank Rocket)[37][38]
  • L1A1 66mm Sub-Calibre 21mm Adaptor (Training adaptor for L1 66mm HEAT Rocket)[37]
  • L1A1/A2/A3 Irritant Anti-Riot Hand Grenade[39][40]
  • L1A1 Straight Sighting Telescope (Modified No. 32 Mk 3 Sighting Telescope as used with the L42A1 rifle)[41][42]
  • L1A1 Illuminating Hand Thrown Flare[43]
  • L1A1 Necklace Demolition Charge[44][9][45]
  • L1A1 94mm HEAT Rocket System[9]
  • L1A1 8 kg Linear User Filled Demolition Charge[46]
  • L1A1 12 kg Conical User Filled Demolition Charge[46]
  • L1E1 Area Defence Projector[47]
  • L1A1-A4 Handheld Pressurized Irritant Canister[48][9]
  • L1A1 Fuze Setter Head, NSN 1290-99-967-0882
  • L1A1 IR Torch[31]
  • L1A1 IR Section Torch[49]
  • L1A1 Small Arms Bore Cleaning Brush[16]
  • L1A1 Instantaneous Fuze[9][50][51][21][52]
  • L1A1/A2/A3 Safety Fuze[53][9][54][55][21]
  • L1A1 Detonating Cord[56][9]
  • L1A1/A2 Non-Electric Demolition Detonator (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 Plain Detonator[45])[56][9][57][58][21][52]
  • L1A1 Smoke Generator[59][60]
  • L1A1/A2 9mm Magazine (Magazine for use with the L2 submachine gun; L1A1 magazines were manufactured by Sterling while L1A2 magazines were variously manufactured by ROF Fazakerley, Royal Laboratories Woolwich, Rolls Razor, and Mettoy)[61]
  • L1A1/A2/A3 Image Intensified Weapon Sight (Also referred to as the L1 Individual Weapon Sight (IWS), L1 Image Intensified Weaponsight, or L1 Individual Weaponsight)[5][62][63]
  • L1A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Mount for L1 IWS to be used with the L7 GPMG)[5][62]
  • L1A1 Safety Unit (Attached to L44A1)[24]
  • L1A1 7.62mm Machine Gun Tools and Accessories Roll (L7 GPMG tool roll)[64]
  • L1A1 Small Arms Cleaning Rod[64]
  • L1A1 Small Arms Collimator (For use with SUSAT and CWS on the SA80 series)[2]
(from Wiki)
 

Look More Closely Later

Mike D said:
That's just military designations

  • L1A1 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle (SLR) (Also referred to as the L1A1 7.62mm Rifle)[4][31][3][32][33][27][30]
  • L1A1-A4 Bayonet (For use with the SLR)[3][1]
  • L1A1/A2 Blank Firing Attachment (For use with the SLR)[31]
  • L1A1/A2 .50 inch Machine Gun (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun)[34][35]
  • L1A1 .50 inch Anti-Aircraft Machine Gun Mounting (For use with the L1A1 MG)[34]
  • L1A1 Vehicle Stand (For use with the L1A1 MG)[34]
  • L1A1/A2 84mm AT4 (CS) HP Rocket System (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 Interim Light Anti-tank Weapon (ILAW))[35]
  • L1 120mm rifled gun - used on Conqueror tank
  • L1A1/A2/A3[36] 66mm HEAT Rocket and Launcher (Also referred to as the L1 66mm Section Anti-Tank Rocket)[37][38]
  • L1A1 66mm Sub-Calibre 21mm Adaptor (Training adaptor for L1 66mm HEAT Rocket)[37]
  • L1A1/A2/A3 Irritant Anti-Riot Hand Grenade[39][40]
  • L1A1 Straight Sighting Telescope (Modified No. 32 Mk 3 Sighting Telescope as used with the L42A1 rifle)[41][42]
  • L1A1 Illuminating Hand Thrown Flare[43]
  • L1A1 Necklace Demolition Charge[44][9][45]
  • L1A1 94mm HEAT Rocket System[9]
  • L1A1 8 kg Linear User Filled Demolition Charge[46]
  • L1A1 12 kg Conical User Filled Demolition Charge[46]
  • L1E1 Area Defence Projector[47]
  • L1A1-A4 Handheld Pressurized Irritant Canister[48][9]
  • L1A1 Fuze Setter Head, NSN 1290-99-967-0882
  • L1A1 IR Torch[31]
  • L1A1 IR Section Torch[49]
  • L1A1 Small Arms Bore Cleaning Brush[16]
  • L1A1 Instantaneous Fuze[9][50][51][21][52]
  • L1A1/A2/A3 Safety Fuze[53][9][54][55][21]
  • L1A1 Detonating Cord[56][9]
  • L1A1/A2 Non-Electric Demolition Detonator (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 Plain Detonator[45])[56][9][57][58][21][52]
  • L1A1 Smoke Generator[59][60]
  • L1A1/A2 9mm Magazine (Magazine for use with the L2 submachine gun; L1A1 magazines were manufactured by Sterling while L1A2 magazines were variously manufactured by ROF Fazakerley, Royal Laboratories Woolwich, Rolls Razor, and Mettoy)[61]
  • L1A1/A2/A3 Image Intensified Weapon Sight (Also referred to as the L1 Individual Weapon Sight (IWS), L1 Image Intensified Weaponsight, or L1 Individual Weaponsight)[5][62][63]
  • L1A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Mount for L1 IWS to be used with the L7 GPMG)[5][62]
  • L1A1 Safety Unit (Attached to L44A1)[24]
  • L1A1 7.62mm Machine Gun Tools and Accessories Roll (L7 GPMG tool roll)[64]
  • L1A1 Small Arms Cleaning Rod[64]
  • L1A1 Small Arms Collimator (For use with SUSAT and CWS on the SA80 series)[2]
(from Wiki)
Click to expand...
That, uhh, must have made life as a quartermaster much much too interesting. ('What do you mean, you wanted a dozen smalls arms bore cleaning brushes, and not a dozen 94mm HEAT rocket systems?')
 

MattII

Mike D said:
That's just military designations

  • L1A1 7.62mm Self Loading Rifle (SLR) (Also referred to as the L1A1 7.62mm Rifle)[4][31][3][32][33][27][30]
  • L1A1-A4 Bayonet (For use with the SLR)[3][1]
  • L1A1/A2 Blank Firing Attachment (For use with the SLR)[31]
  • L1A1/A2 .50 inch Machine Gun (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 12.7mm Heavy Machine Gun)[34][35]
  • L1A1 .50 inch Anti-Aircraft Machine Gun Mounting (For use with the L1A1 MG)[34]
  • L1A1 Vehicle Stand (For use with the L1A1 MG)[34]
  • L1A1/A2 84mm AT4 (CS) HP Rocket System (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 Interim Light Anti-tank Weapon (ILAW))[35]
  • L1 120mm rifled gun - used on Conqueror tank
  • L1A1/A2/A3[36] 66mm HEAT Rocket and Launcher (Also referred to as the L1 66mm Section Anti-Tank Rocket)[37][38]
  • L1A1 66mm Sub-Calibre 21mm Adaptor (Training adaptor for L1 66mm HEAT Rocket)[37]
  • L1A1/A2/A3 Irritant Anti-Riot Hand Grenade[39][40]
  • L1A1 Straight Sighting Telescope (Modified No. 32 Mk 3 Sighting Telescope as used with the L42A1 rifle)[41][42]
  • L1A1 Illuminating Hand Thrown Flare[43]
  • L1A1 Necklace Demolition Charge[44][9][45]
  • L1A1 94mm HEAT Rocket System[9]
  • L1A1 8 kg Linear User Filled Demolition Charge[46]
  • L1A1 12 kg Conical User Filled Demolition Charge[46]
  • L1E1 Area Defence Projector[47]
  • L1A1-A4 Handheld Pressurized Irritant Canister[48][9]
  • L1A1 Fuze Setter Head, NSN 1290-99-967-0882
  • L1A1 IR Torch[31]
  • L1A1 IR Section Torch[49]
  • L1A1 Small Arms Bore Cleaning Brush[16]
  • L1A1 Instantaneous Fuze[9][50][51][21][52]
  • L1A1/A2/A3 Safety Fuze[53][9][54][55][21]
  • L1A1 Detonating Cord[56][9]
  • L1A1/A2 Non-Electric Demolition Detonator (Also referred to as the L1A1/A2 Plain Detonator[45])[56][9][57][58][21][52]
  • L1A1 Smoke Generator[59][60]
  • L1A1/A2 9mm Magazine (Magazine for use with the L2 submachine gun; L1A1 magazines were manufactured by Sterling while L1A2 magazines were variously manufactured by ROF Fazakerley, Royal Laboratories Woolwich, Rolls Razor, and Mettoy)[61]
  • L1A1/A2/A3 Image Intensified Weapon Sight (Also referred to as the L1 Individual Weapon Sight (IWS), L1 Image Intensified Weaponsight, or L1 Individual Weaponsight)[5][62][63]
  • L1A1 Image Intensified Weapon Sight Mount (Mount for L1 IWS to be used with the L7 GPMG)[5][62]
  • L1A1 Safety Unit (Attached to L44A1)[24]
  • L1A1 7.62mm Machine Gun Tools and Accessories Roll (L7 GPMG tool roll)[64]
  • L1A1 Small Arms Cleaning Rod[64]
  • L1A1 Small Arms Collimator (For use with SUSAT and CWS on the SA80 series)[2]
(from Wiki)
Click to expand...
I don't have time for all of them, but the M2 Browning isn't right, as that's an L11, not an L1.
 

Mike D

MattII said:
I don't have time for all of them, but the M2 Browning isn't right, as that's an L11, not an L1.
Click to expand...
Only as the ranging gun on tanks originally. It was the L1 as a stand-alone weapon until fairly recently.

1711819694013.png


(image taken from an archived page from the Army's website).
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top