.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $8.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPWW2 > TO&Es
Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 18th, 2010, 11:17 AM
Cross's Avatar

Cross Cross is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK / USA
Posts: 895
Thanks: 32
Thanked 276 Times in 121 Posts
Cross is on a distinguished road
Default Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

Boys ATR

Sorry iCamp, I don’t recall the details of that inquiry, or where I read it. But I agree that the inquiry was quite possibly looking for tanks actually KO’d, not just immobilized.

Here’s a good site about the Boys ATR:

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_B...Tank_Rifle.htm

The site does say it was effective against tracks and wheels. But you can understand that the MoD was probably not impressed by this.

I wasn’t aware that the Boys was such a monster. It was 5 feet 3.5 inches long and weighed 36 pounds. Compare this to the PIAT which was 3 feet 3 inches long and weighed only 32 pounds.

British Motorcycles

British sidecars were fitted with both Lewis and Bren guns; and Thompson SMGs. The ‘Motley mount’ was used for Bren AA.



Here's some Canadian Norton 'Big 4' with sidecar and motley mount:



Here's some British troops with sidecar and motley mount:



I'm sure the Thompson mount was quite rare:



Here's a better look at the Home guard LMG with drum:



Here's a Norton with 3inch mortar:



I assume these are British dispatch riders, from 44/45 with stens:



This is a Norton Big 4 from France 1940:



And this is what the boy in me, expects British MC units to be like in SP:




Cross
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old January 18th, 2010, 11:30 AM
Mobhack's Avatar

Mobhack Mobhack is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dundee
Posts: 5,371
Thanks: 106
Thanked 1,338 Times in 922 Posts
Mobhack is on a distinguished road
Default Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

The mg is probably a lewis without the sleeve?

http://www.royalenfields.com/2009/04...reat-with.html

That shot allegedly in "France 40" looks suspect since they have stens (1941)

Andy
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old January 18th, 2010, 11:42 AM
Cross's Avatar

Cross Cross is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK / USA
Posts: 895
Thanks: 32
Thanked 276 Times in 121 Posts
Cross is on a distinguished road
Default Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mobhack View Post
That shot allegedly in "France 40" looks suspect since they have stens (1941)

Andy
I must admit that as I was posting that photo, I did tilt my head to one side and briefly question the Stens in 1940, but was in a hurry...

The helmet style may also date the photo. I'm no expert, but that helmet style may not have been available in 1940.

Cross
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old January 18th, 2010, 12:20 PM
redcoat2's Avatar

redcoat2 redcoat2 is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 233
Thanks: 21
Thanked 52 Times in 42 Posts
redcoat2 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cross View Post
Here's a better look at the Home guard LMG with drum:


Looks like the regulars got the Brens and the Home Guard got the old Lewis gun. Many of them would have been familiar with it from the First World War.

Edit: Yes, Mobhack, the Lewis could be used without its barrel jacket.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old January 18th, 2010, 12:33 PM
Cross's Avatar

Cross Cross is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK / USA
Posts: 895
Thanks: 32
Thanked 276 Times in 121 Posts
Cross is on a distinguished road
Default Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

Here's a better photo of the motley mount:




Here's a Lewis without the shield:

[IMG][/IMG]

It may have been used on WWI aircraft like this?

Last edited by Cross; January 18th, 2010 at 12:41 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old January 18th, 2010, 01:50 PM
Cross's Avatar

Cross Cross is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK / USA
Posts: 895
Thanks: 32
Thanked 276 Times in 121 Posts
Cross is on a distinguished road
Default Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHale View Post
As a side issue - has anyone ever killed anything using a Boys anti-tank rifle? Was it really as useless as modelled in the Game?
In SP the Boys ATR has a range of 500yds.

Average penetration:
2 at 50yds
1 at 100yds
0 at 150yds

Maximum penetration:
3 at 50yds
2 at 350yds
1 at 500yds
0 at 550yds

In the Boys Operating Manual it gives these penetration results:


PENETRATIONS
When to fire? This can be decided only by the firer, having a clear knowledge of the penetrative powers of the .55 bullet.

Bullet striking at a

Range... ... ... .. ..direct hit...........angle of 20 degrees................ angle of 40 degrees

Yards.........Inches.......M/M...........Inches..............M/M.............Inches..........M/M.
100 ... ... ... .91 ... ... . 23.2 ... ... ... .67 ... ... ... .... 17.0 ... ... ... .43 ... ... ... 11.0
300 ... ... ... .82 ... ... .. 20.9 ... ... ... .63 ... ... ... .... 16.0 ... ... ... .38 ... ... ... 9.6
500 ... ... ... .74 ... ... .. 18.8 ... ... ... .60 ... ... ... .... 15.3 ... ... ... .35 ... ... ... 8.8

This weapon is also useful for penetrating houses and sandbag emplacements. The maximum penetration to be expected in this form of firing is :
1. Brick walls . . . . 14 inches.
2. Sandbags . . . . 10 inches.


Operating manual found here:
http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_B...fle_Manual.htm


I also found the following in the Boys Small Arms Training Pamphlet:

3. Penetration of the anti-tank rifle
Although the bullet will penetrate the armour of light A.F.Vs. up to 500 yards, and inflict casualties on the crew, fire should be withheld until the range is well within 300 yards. The angle of impact of the anti-tank rifle bullet on the armour has a greater influence than the range at which it is fired. For example, while the penetrative power is only 10 per cent. less at 300 yards than at 100 yards, it is 25 per cent. less when the angle of impact is over 20 degrees, and 50 per cent. less at over 40 degrees at the Lett r range. (For further details see the Appendix.) The exact moment of fire must therefore be decided by the firer's determination to hit the selected part of the tank fair and square, rather than by range only. As a general rule the •55-in. anti-tank rifle bullet will penetrate all parts of the Pz. Kw. Mk. I light tank, and the sides and rear of the hull and turret of the Pz. Kw. Mk. II light tank, at 250 yards range at an angle of impact of 20 degrees or less. It does not penetrate the armour of heavier tanks except in certain points such as the rear of the turret and cupola of the Pz. Kw. Mk. IV at very short range. When shooting at German tanks of the Pz. Kw. Mk. III and larger tanks fire should be aimed, if it is possible, at vulnerable points, especially on the junction point of turret and hull and gun mantle, to cause burring over of working surfaces and thus produce jamming.
http://<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /...le_SAT_No5.htm

Ellis says................................. 21mm at 300yds
Chamberlain and Gander say...... 21mm at 300m
Hogg 1977 says................... ... 20mm at 500m at 0 deg
Hogg 1997 says........................ 21mm at 330yds
Labbett and Brown say Mk1...... 16mm at 100yds at 20 deg
Labbett and Brown say Mk2...... 19mm at 100yds at 20 deg
Weeks say.............................. 14mm at 300yds

Based on those numbers perhaps the Boys penetration could be tweaked a little.

I also wonder if the Boys maximum range could be increased? It clearly wasn’t much good against armour over 500yds, but there’s several references to its ability against soft targets at greater ranges, because it was an accurate weapon.

Regarding the spelling Boys/Boyes, apparently there was confusion about this even during the war. So there are many docs that refer to it as the Boyes, and the Germans – who captured quite a few at Dunkirk – often called it the Boyes. But it was named after Captain H C Boys.


Cross
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old January 18th, 2010, 03:03 PM
DRG's Avatar

DRG DRG is offline
National Security Advisor
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: GWN
Posts: 9,928
Thanks: 2,032
Thanked 3,081 Times in 1,549 Posts
DRG will become famous soon enough
Default Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

I'll put this on the list to investigate at some point. I already see one unrelated issue with ATR's in general. A case could be made for increasing the range a little bit to bring the critical 200 - 300 yard pen perhaps a tiny bit closer to reality but we are splitting hairs here. We deal in CM of armour and CM of penetration and when the armour and pen are down around 1 and 2 there's not much that can be done

FYI some good info here LINK

as well as the comment......."the Soviets were so unimpressed for their poor armour penetration capabilities that they never bothered to issue them"

In this case I think it should be good luck to knock out or at least damage ( ** ) something like a SdKfz 222 at 200 yards but not completely impossible and increasing the range to 12 or 13 along with all the other ATR with 10 range now, might be what's needed but I'm busy with other matters ATM



Don

Last edited by DRG; January 18th, 2010 at 03:42 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old January 18th, 2010, 05:11 PM
Imp's Avatar

Imp Imp is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Uk
Posts: 2,976
Thanks: 68
Thanked 420 Times in 335 Posts
Imp is on a distinguished road
Default Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

This may be something to do with its very low Pen value but most guns up close with accuracy of 80+ or so give extra pen reasonably often, not sure if I have ever had an over penetration with the Boys even banging away with 95% hit chance, think yes but very rare indeed.
If it did this would near enough fall in with Pen values & report posted by Cross.
This type of shot represents both the square hit it stresses is important & shooting at particular parts of the tank so damage only occurs with a well aimed shot.
It would still slightly under perform but those are ideal conditions when achieving penetration is marginal anyway even a couple of degrees can make the diffrence plus its a light projectile velocity is nothing special so probably more prone to richochet.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old January 24th, 2010, 04:55 PM
Cross's Avatar

Cross Cross is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK / USA
Posts: 895
Thanks: 32
Thanked 276 Times in 121 Posts
Cross is on a distinguished road
Default Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnHale View Post
As a side issue - has anyone ever killed anything using a Boys anti-tank rifle?
I just damaged a German captured T34 tank with a Boys Rifle, so thought I'd better report it.

Lt Appleton's (British Light Infantry) section was facing a German T34 at 50yds. His section was trading fire with the tank, but Appleton kept rallying his men, and then they hit the T34 at a weak spot (+5) and damaged it (*).

A Cruiser tank moved forward and put another shell into it for ** damage, and then the pioneers moved forward and brewed it up. Some crew got out, but Lt Appleton finished them off.

So it's at least possible to damage a 'real' tank with a Boys.

I think to hit a weak point, you have to have over 80% hit chance.



Cross
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2019, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.