tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post741084270219482027..comments2024-03-20T11:41:56.776-04:00Comments on Tank Archives: Schwere Panzerbuchse 41Peterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-14812399452078015512013-09-30T00:29:44.165-04:002013-09-30T00:29:44.165-04:00AFAIK the 2-pdr was in the vicinity of 40mm calibe...AFAIK the 2-pdr was in the vicinity of 40mm caliber whereas the Panzerbüchse was 28/20mm; unless the Germans made the barrel out of uranium or something the latter oughta been a decent bit lighter pretty much by default.<br />As for the tungsten thing, well, that buried all of the other bright taper-bore projects too. Being under a continental blockade does that kind of thing and it was hardly the only important material the Germans started running desperately short of.Kellomiesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-57485541618928144102013-09-29T16:02:04.133-04:002013-09-29T16:02:04.133-04:00Oh, and you did not have to use valuable tungsten-...Oh, and you did not have to use valuable tungsten-carbide for the AP or APCBC.cwjian90https://www.blogger.com/profile/16395697660805862122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-53457314717075321822013-09-29T16:00:58.396-04:002013-09-29T16:00:58.396-04:00IIRC most of the 2-pdr's weight came from the ...IIRC most of the 2-pdr's weight came from the unnecessarily complicated carriage. The barrel itself was not that heavy. That and the fact that it too had its own squeezebore modification (the Littlejohn) which was a lot better than the sPzB 41.cwjian90https://www.blogger.com/profile/16395697660805862122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-64049082341208814082013-09-29T13:19:51.364-04:002013-09-29T13:19:51.364-04:00And the QF was four times as heavy and fired a muc...And the QF was four times as heavy and fired a much larger shell. So what's your point? :PClarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-52472407003413438262013-09-28T15:41:15.305-04:002013-09-28T15:41:15.305-04:00The Ordnance QF 2-pounder gave roughly the same pe...The Ordnance QF 2-pounder gave roughly the same performance at 500 m (37 mm with AP, 54 mm with APCBC).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-5872568748326214402013-09-28T10:19:39.222-04:002013-09-28T10:19:39.222-04:00It was a mistake inserted to make sure people do r...It was a mistake inserted to make sure people do read the text!<br /><br />Alejandrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05537203226584815118noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-39968565273311782552013-09-28T10:00:03.853-04:002013-09-28T10:00:03.853-04:00Oh no, I have accidentally published top secret ma...Oh no, I have accidentally published top secret materials from the forgotten battles of WWIII!Peterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09622237223229485503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-31349942578747092862013-09-28T08:02:19.701-04:002013-09-28T08:02:19.701-04:00I've noticed this too, i was curious wheter so...I've noticed this too, i was curious wheter someone caught this typo :pAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-34249903207126276682013-09-28T06:58:09.846-04:002013-09-28T06:58:09.846-04:00Well, the SPzB 41 was really more of a light antit...Well, the SPzB 41 was really more of a light antitank gun anyway - and in that category it was actually fairly potent for its size and weight (the sources the Wiki quotes give 40 to 52mm of penetration at 30 degrees from vertical at 500m). Saw a fair bit of use in light recon vehicles due to that I gather.Kellomiesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5030145265861917845.post-89270527986563297582013-09-28T04:36:42.928-04:002013-09-28T04:36:42.928-04:00I had no clue that the Russians attacked in the 19...I had no clue that the Russians attacked in the 1950s!<br /><br />(Seriously, though, you might want to edit this post, as you made a typo on the date. I assume you mean 9.4.1942, not 1952.)RedShocktrooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03933355981690295909noreply@blogger.com