Black Diggers

headwards said:
That's a shame for a genuine collector that it is such a hassle to bring automatic weapons in here, are there any requirements once you have succeeded? such as not having ammunition for it or anything?
I suppose you would not want to fire a weapon so expensive and time consuming to get!

It would be very cool to see and handle all that stuff in real life, my friend recently hung out with Peter Jackson for a day or so. He has accumulated a lot of stuff for the dambusters movie and bought it along to the omaka airshow. I can only imagine the hassle he had with bringing tanks and military vehicles into the country. I get a new appreciation now that I know the value of some of this stuff.
Click to expand...

It is an expensive hobby and to be honest the only reason I got the licenses was because my father and a uncles some how got a few German and Italian weapons back into the country when they returned from WW2 and as they passed on I inherited them which left me the option of having them destroyed or making them legal, I went with the legal option.

The hard part of being a collector is getting the initial endorsements (I have B, C and E) I would imagine that Jackson would have got a temporary import license which are not that hard to get (some can be obtained from the airport after arrival) and last for 12 months.

One of the fun aspects of having a collectors license is that it allows you to take part in displays and re-enactments which is the primary reason for buying operational equipment.

84RFK said:
Well Monty, seems like we've got an explaination for the somewhat unorthodox appearnace of the MG34 then.
And you're absolutely right, the MG34 had a milled construction, while the MG42 was stamped sheet construction.

But the MG42 is just as easily adapted to the role mounted in a vehicle as the MG34, maybe even better suited due to the easy barrel change.
I suppose you knew that the barrel change on the MG34 is connected to the large hinge right in front of the reciever.
Click to expand...

Indeed it all appears explained, as for the MG-34/42 I am no expert on the weapon and really only know what I have read about them as they are few and far between here (I know of 1 in the country), I will learn more in a couple of months I hope.
:)


Prapor said:
Old mine-thrower. Incomplete, work-in-progress, at the time.
Click to expand...

I think he means the item that looks like a Panzerfaust on the shelf behind the MG-34

272095.jpg
 
Last edited:
Oh yes that makes sense, I just did not understand the terminology. I see panzerfau written on the side so It must be a panzerfaust. I hope explosives do not become unstable after time! Also I would hate to have to try to get in range to use one of those.
Didn't Canadians have spring launched grenades with even lower ranges? I would be interested to see a comparison between the two.
 
Prapor said:
Yes, I know. I'm not sure myself, but I was told it is a old grenade/mine thrower. Like your American 'bazooka'.
Click to expand...

It looks more like this to me...

Panzerfaust

The Panzerfaust simply meant, “Tank Fist”. The concept behind the development of the Panzerfaust was to provide infantry with the ability to knock out enemy tanks in close combat. It was a single shot weapon; meaning it was discarded after use. Several variants existed, the Panzerfaust 30, 60, 100 and 150. They all had the same penetration capability of 200mm of armor at 90 degrees, the difference being their effective range. The Panzerfaust 30 had an effective range of 30 meters, while the Panzerfaust 60 was effective up to 60 meters. The 100 and 150 versions were effective up to 100 and 150 meters respectively.

Consisting of two basic parts, the Panzerfaust was made up of a projectile and cartridge, similar in concept to a bullet, which consisted of a slug and shell. The entire length of the weapon was about 104cm (42 inches) and weighed approximately 5.1kg (11.23 lbs). Later versions such as the Panzerfaust 100 weighed more at 6.8kgs (15 lbs), but the length remained largely unchanged.

pz_line_drawing.jpg





http://www.worldwar2aces.com/panzerfaust.htm


headwards said:
Oh yes that makes sense, I just did not understand the terminology. I see panzerfau written on the side so It must be a panzerfaust. I hope explosives do not become unstable after time! Also I would hate to have to try to get in range to use one of those.
Didn't Canadians have spring launched grenades with even lower ranges? I would be interested to see a comparison between the two.
Click to expand...

Wow you can read that on the side of it as well, Prapor must have a pretty impressive camera to get that sort of detail.

The Commonwealth equivalent was the PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti Tank) which by all accounts was not that effective unless you were inside the tank you were firing it at.


PicPiat1.JPG


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PIAT
 
Last edited:
Far out, It does not look like shaped charge (unguided)technology has come all that far in the last 70 years, its pretty much the exact same as our m-72
 
headwards said:
Far out, It does not look like shaped charge (unguided)technology has come all that far in the last 70 years, its pretty much the exact same as our m-72
Click to expand...

Have to remember the M-72 was released around 1963-65 barely 20 years after WW2 so the technology is similar just refined.
 
Oh yep. But if anything better had been engineered since then wouldn't be used? By that I mean is the shaped charge still the most advanced technique people have to penetrate steel? It seems like only the delivery systems have changed, e.g stinger missiles coming down on top of tanks where there is less armour.
Also thanks for the link on the PIAT, yep it sure doesn't look very effective. Like a flat trajectory mortar.
 
Last edited:
headwards said:
Oh yep. But if anything better had been engineered since then wouldn't be used? By that I mean is the shaped charge still the most advanced technique people have to penetrate steel? It seems like only the delivery systems have changed, e.g stinger missiles coming down on top of tanks where there is less armour.
Also thanks for the link on the PIAT, yep it sure doesn't look very effective. Like a flat trajectory mortar.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that several LOSAT (Line Of Sight Anti-Tank) systems have been developed (although I have no idea whether any have been deployed) which has no explosive warhead. It carries a long-rod penetrator and destroys the target by punching its way through the armour.

It is considered a KEM (Kinetic Energy Missile).

LOSAT test fire
 
WOW far out! So is the explosion is caused by it penetrating the fuel tank and ammunition onboard? It must be hauling ass when it hits! Dam I want to do some reading about it but with a history exam tomorrow that's going to have to wait.
 
First Soviet anti-tank weapon was the RPG-2, which entered the ranks in 1949
rpg-7(1).jpg

rpg-2.main.21548.jpg


It was based on captured German technology, and is actually still in use today, along with newer version, RPG-7, etc
all_246.jpg

rpgsoldierandsquad.jpg


RPG is the most common brand of Russian 'bazookas'. The AK of launhers, so to speak. Like AK, it has fallen into bad hands at times
103109ap_taliban_800.JPG


:)
 
Ah where would the world be without cheap, easy to use, reliable and effective Russian weaponry.
 
Last edited:
Hey MonyB I did some reading on the LOSAT. They look pretty effective but I read on some site that they weren't cost effective and blind for the first second after launching?
Do you think they would be significantly better then a TOW missile? Not for lethality which I understand they are mostly overkill but for cost/effectiveness. Especially mounted on something like a hummer? It seems like the hummer crew wouldn't have a chance against multiple enemy- even infantry and they would stick out pretty bad with a big smoke trail?
 
It is an interesting question that I really can't answer without knowing a bit more about the KEM systems.

If essentially you are just firing a metal penetrator at an extreme velocity then it is hard to imagine how they aren't cost effective especially when they are supposedly 100% effective against all armour types.

However they must have some drawbacks or every man and his dog would be fielding them.

But as I pointed out I don't know enough about them to really speculate.

One thing to remember here as well is that these were test systems they would have been refined to other uses and mounting systems had they continued development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top