Tony Williams‘Rapid Fire’ is now available as a softback for considerably less money than the hardback, yet the production quality is the same, which makes it a real bargain!
In the UK the publishers, Crowood, sell at a discount – see: http://www.crowoodpress.co.uk/780/book_details.asp?ISBN=1+84037+435+7
And of course there’s always Amazon….
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsTony WilliamsOriginally posted by Aidan
The point remains that the term has fallen out of use everywhere except for the UK (and even then its been challenged-see earlier example), so, for you, it may be a ‘fact’, for many other people, its ‘history’.
I have no interest in what geographical terms people in other countries may choose to use – that’s their business. However, as I am in the UK I try use my own language accurately. If others don’t, that just reflects badly on them.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsBelieve it or not, it’s the English language we are discussing – and corresponding in. The OED is the arbiter of that language and the definitions used in it. You may prefer the facts to be different, but that’s what they are.
Tony Williams
Tony WilliamsI quote from the Oxford English Dictionary, latest on-line edition (and a vastly more authoritative source than any government pronouncement):
“British Isles: a geographical term for the islands comprising Great Britain and Ireland with all their offshore islands including the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands”
I rest MY case…
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsOriginally posted by Aidan
British Isles is a GEOGRAPHICAL oneIts not a geographical one, its an ethnic/nationalistic one, and one only really used in Britain. So draw your own conclusions. Its an informal term, and lacks precise definition; at one stage it may even have been accurate, but since at the present time, 5/6ths of one of the ‘Isles’ has nothing to do with Britain or ‘Britishness’, the term is completely out of date.
The term is not used by the UK government anymore either, with ‘The Isles’ being the replacement. The phrase the ‘British Isles’ is currently taken to mean, in official terms, Britain, Orkney (and other Scottish Islands), Isle of Man, Isle of Wight and Channel Islands.
Even in the full name of the UK; “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, Britain and Ireland are separated , if Ireland was to be included in the British Isles, one would think that it would be included in the name …
Brittania is the latin name for Britain, Hibernia is that for Ireland. Britain is the English translation for one, Ireland the English translation for another. Two Islands, two separate names, one very confused Disk Jockey.
The description used currently by British historians and geographers to describe the two islands together is also ‘The Isles’, see ‘The Isles, A History’, by Norman Davies for a simple explanation, the title alone giving you a fair idea.
Speaking as a British geography graduate and former geography teacher, that is a wonderful example of revisionism in the interests of political correctness. In other words, rubbish.
The British Isles has been the geographical description of the entire group of islands, of which Great Britain is the largest, for centuries. I have just checked my ’21st Century World Atlas’ and yep, they’re still there: the British Isles.
This is entirely consistent with the use of the term ‘Great Britain’ in the country’s official title – also a geographical term, referring to just one of the islands and therefore distinct from Ireland.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsTony WilliamsThe two US 75 mm guns – the M4 and T13 (later designated M5) – used the same 75 x 350R ammo and had the same performance. The M4 was simply the Sherman tank gun; the M5 was specially developed for aircraft so it was much lighter. It was later adopted by the Army for a light tank (M24 IIRC).
The BK 7,5 did have the advantage of an autoloader, whereas the US guns were manually loaded. The gun was based on the PaK 40, the standard anti-tank gun, and fired the same 75 x 714R ammo, which was considerably more powerful than the US round (muzzle energy was about 75% greater). I have examples of both of these cartridges sitting by my desk at the moment.
Incidentally, the US 75 x 350R cartridge was first developed for the famous French ’75’ filed gun of the 19th century.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsErr – that’s exactly what I said in the quote you posted – that it’s a geographical description!
Tony Williams
Tony WilliamsIt is true that P-47 pilots carried out such attacks, and believed that bouncing the bullets off the roads would enable them to penetrate the thinner belly armour (but not to flip the tank over – that would take a near miss from a large bomb or battleship shell!). However, there is no evidence that I’ve seen that this ever worked, and good reason to suppose that it didn’t, e.g.:
1. Penetration of the .50 inch was up to 20 mm if it hit at 90 degrees, but at 30 degrees it was only 5 mm – and the angle couldn’t be more favourable than that if it was bounced off the road first.
2. Hitting the road would have destabilised the bullet, probably sending it tumbling, which would have further reduced the penetration.
3. The road would have to be harder than the armour plate, otherwise the bullets would just drill into the road…
In any case, the belly armour of tanks was around 10mm, about the same as the roof. So I can’t see any way that would have worked.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsThe effect of anti-tank gun fire was really a matter of luck, whether the guns were fired from the air or the ground. First, whether or not the projectile penetrated could depend on several factors which might give different results (either way) than the textbooks would have you believe. Assuming that they did penetrate, it was a matter of what they hit. The effect could vary from a straight-through penetration which did no damage and caused no injuries, to ignition of the ammunition and catastrophic detonation, blowing off the turret. The most common result was probably crew casualties combined with a damaged but repairable tank. Of course, the bigger the projectile, the more the damage; which was why the BK 7,5 was so effective.
This extract from ‘Flying Guns: World War 2’by Emmanuel Gustin and myself might be of interest:
“The Hurricane IID saw most of its use with No.6 Squadron in North Africa between May 1942 and May 1943, although it was also used by Nos. 5, 20 and 184 and by No.7 Squadron South African Air Force, and about three hundred were built. It proved both accurate and effective, attacking with devastating effect whenever tanks were caught in the open, away from FlaK cover. To give one example, on March 10th 1943, 19 aircraft were used to attack a strong German column of tanks, armoured cars and supply vehicles advancing on General Leclerc’s position near Lake Chad. The column was effectively destroyed by the Hurricanes. Their effectiveness was also acknowledged by the Germans, who became demoralised by the sight of the planes. One prisoner reported the loss of six out of twelve tanks to 40 mm cannon fire in one attack, although it should be noted that the other six were also hit and penetrated but survived the experience (the crews had taken cover away from the tanks so were not injured by the steel fragments flying around inside).”
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Tony WilliamsYes, the B3 did carry a BK 7,5 cannon. For information about WW2 airborne anti-tank cannon and aircraft, see: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/tankbusters.htm
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsRe: Last Question
Originally posted by HuntingHawk
I’ve seen this on television a lot
Why do some British members of parliament stand up and then sit down when a fellow member is making a speech ?
They stand up to show the Speaker (who manages the debate) that they want to speak in the debate. They sit down again when he chooses someone else (they aren’t allowed to speak unless he invites them to).
And, to repeat a point I made at the start of this thread (why do some people bother to contribute to threads without reading earlier posts?) the ‘Great’ in GB is simply a geographical name for the largest island in the British Isles, and has nothing to do with status.
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsOriginally posted by Indian1973
heres something that might be of interest….http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=52365
National Security Index Ranks China 2, India 8
These sort of exercises are always fun but just that – exercises. The end result directly depends on the assumptions which are put into the calculations, and these are often no more than a matter of opinion – or sometimes, just blind guesses. To give just one example, how do you assess the ‘combat efficiency’ of armed forces which haven’t engaged in a any serious combat for generations – like China’s?
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum
Tony WilliamsNot exactly illustrations, but: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Collection1.jpg
Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum
Sign In
