carnevalemanfredonia.it
» » Anti-Tank Weapons

eBook Anti-Tank Weapons download

by Terry Gander

eBook Anti-Tank Weapons download ISBN: 1861262590
Author: Terry Gander
Publisher: Crowood Pr (March 1, 2000)
Language: English
Pages: 192
ePub: 1894 kb
Fb2: 1262 kb
Rating: 4.5
Other formats: lrf docx mbr mobi
Category: History
Subcategory: Military

Anti-Tank Weapons is actually Anti-Tank Warfare, an overview of antiarmor efforts starting with World War I tanks and going through modern days - or at least around the year 2000 when it was published.

Anti-Tank Weapons is actually Anti-Tank Warfare, an overview of antiarmor efforts starting with World War I tanks and going through modern days - or at least around the year 2000 when it was published. It covers briefly in the various weapons devised, from cannon and rifles to grenades and rockets. There is an index but no bibliography and no keying of text to sources making it impossible to judge the validity of statements. There are numerous black and white (grey scale) pictures and some diagrams.

Книга Anti-tank weapons Anti-tank weapons Книги Исторические Автор: . hamberlein,T. Other readers will always be interested in your opinion of the books you've read. Gander Формат: pdf Размер: 21,3 Язык: Английский0 (голосов: 0) Оценка:Справочник по противотанковому вооружению Второй мировой войны. Whether you've loved the book or not, if you give your honest and detailed thoughts then people will find new books that are right for them.

Weapons of the Third Reich: An encyclopedic survey of all small arms, artillery, and special weapons of the German land forces, 1939-1945.

The 40mm Bofors Gun. Terry Gander. PANZER PZKPFW III (Tanks in Detail, 7). Jane's NBC Protection Equipment 1994-1995. Jane's NBC Protection Equipment 1991-92. Weapons of the Third Reich: An encyclopedic survey of all small arms, artillery, and special weapons of the German land forces, 1939-1945. Military archaeology: A collectors' guide to 20th century war relics.

Anti-Tank Weapons book. See a Problem? We’d love your help. Details (if other): Cancel.

Author:Gander, Terry. Anti-tank Weapons (World War Two Fact Files)

Author:Gander, Terry. Anti-tank Weapons (World War Two Fact Files). We appreciate the impact a good book can have. We all like the idea of saving a bit of cash, so when we found out how many good quality used books are out there - we just had to let you know!" See all. About this item.

Author: Peter Chamberlain; Terry Gander. Publisher: New York : Arco Pub. C. Series: World War 2 fact files. Antitank weapons - History.

Other readers will always be interested in your opinion of the books you've read.

Close X. Learn about new offers and get more deals by joining our newsletter.

Download (PDF). Читать. Download (PDF). Light and Medium Field Artillery.

From the experimental ordinance of WWI to the high-tech armaments of present, this illustrated history tells the story of anti-tank weaponry with the help of archival and modern photography and line drawings.
Comments: (3)
Gajurus
There are different two books by the same title with reviews being displayed for both by Amazon's system: the 64 page 1974 World War 2 Fact File volume co-authored by Peter Chamberlain and Terry Gander and a 192 page 2000 Crowood Press book by Terry Gander alone. This review is for the 192 page 2000 book.

“Anti-Tank Weapons” is actually “Anti-Tank Warfare”, an overview of antiarmor efforts starting with World War I tanks and going through modern days - or at least around the year 2000 when it was published. It covers briefly in the various weapons devised, from cannon and rifles to grenades and rockets. There is an index but no bibliography and no keying of text to sources making it impossible to judge the validity of statements.

There are numerous black and white (grey scale) pictures and some diagrams. A few are in error, such as the “57mm M1” on page 70 (the U.S. used neither the muzzle brake nor double thickness shield) and 8cm PwK8h63 on page 101 (which is either the 105mm Panzershreck alluded to on page 95 or “Hammer” of pages 101 to 102).

I learned some new things. The use of old 6-pounders from World War I tanks by the British is rarely mentioned elsewhere, let alone photos provided, for example.

Sprinkled here and there among the useful bits of information are bad facts and conjectures. British (and many American) sources seem to miss-understand the United States efforts of World War II in particular. Writers simply cannot research their data well enough to avoid the conjectures, half-truths and outright lies others have spread so they continue to spread them.

If the U.S. created a 57mm by enlarging the 37mm starting in 1940 that is new to me - the 57mm T2 did exist but was that the date of its origins? U.S. gunners were not disturbed by the weapon’s jump – several other weapons also jumped – as the weight, with the powers that be forcing the lightweight 37mm cannon on the Army because they felt a more maneuverable cannon was good no matter its ballistics.

The 57mm T48 half-track (the only US self-propelled 57mm mount I am aware of) was built with the British in mind and shipped to the British who then shipped them off to the Soviets. The Soviets had the 57mm ZIS guns of their own design and did not desire U.S. towed cannon but did use the T48s. Despite awesome muzzle velocities, the only quotes for the 57mm ZIS indicate it was no better if not inferior to the 6-pounder (the most common unqualified quote for penetration tossed about for it is for the APCR round, not standard AP round).

The muzzle velocity of 853 meters per second for the 57mm M1 is not only out of date (it was increased to 2,900 fs/885 ms and the M86 was only 2,700 fs/825 ms) but incorrectly converted to feet per second. The APDS round had a velocity of around 4,000 feet (1,220 feet) per second. Despite being “obsolete”, U.S. accounts indicate that the 57mm was indeed used to knock out a number of German tanks – even without APDS – but it was not the weapon the U.S. Army wanted for the job.

The U.S. Tank Destroyer concept had nothing with U.S. tanks fighting hostile tanks. It was based entirely on countering German panzer divisions with masses of anti-tank guns held in reserve and sent to deal with panzer division attacks (the underlying doctrine and reasoning for it are high sophistry at best, the pet project of idiots). Tanks were in fact expected to destroy enemy tanks they encountered. The idea that they should not engage hostile armor was entirely the opinion (not army doctrine) of a few officers – the same sorts who felt the light 37mm was a better anti-tank weapon than a heavier cannon no matter how obsolete the 37mm was. From the very start others argued that tanks – not some special mumbo-jumbo nonsense - would be best for the job but they were not in charge.

“Tank destroyers” were not an aspect of logical thought but economics: when a nation could not provide enough well-armed, well-armored tanks they resorted to cheaper, easier methods of putting a cannon on wheels or tracks to motorize it. Throwing away the turret and using thin armor were simple expedients. That is the origin of every “tank destroyer” of the time – except the United States M10, M18 and M36 gun motor carriages, which were designed to try to make them “not tanks” as a conscious effort to avoid the idea that (in the end) they were tanks and yes indeed tanks were the better option for dealing with hostile tanks, whether individually or en mass.

U.S. combat units did not want to push around big, towed anti-tank guns because it made no sense to them to do so when the tank was better at the job and could carry a more effective gun and was mobile and the United States had plenty of manufacturing and money to supply enough tanks. But they were not in charge.

So, you see, the history of the 3-inch Gun M5 is bogus as given: it was never a field gun. Work began in 1940 not 1941 using the 3-inch AA gun. The only people who wanted it were Lesley McNair (the high fool of the Army Ground Forces in some cases but brilliant in others) and some key combat commanders like Omar Bradley, who forced it on the U.S. Army, and then for the equally unwanted Tank Destroyer units. None of the Lend Lease nations needed such an overweight, under-powered abomination, nor did the majority of the combat commanders in the U.S. Army. Nor did they want towed 90mms, 105mms, 76mms, etc. They wanted tanks to lug the cannon around.

One can guarantee that being a foot (30.5 centimeters) taller than other vehicles made the M10 and M36 amazingly hard to conceal let alone far easier to hit (Not at all! Only lazies quoting other lazies keep repeating that sort of nonsense).

The wartime British never referred to the M10 as the “Wolverine” – to them it was a self-propelled gun, not a tank, either 3-inch or 17pounder, and when any name was used it was “Achilles” for both, either 3-inch or 17pounder. Hint: the M18 was “Hellcat” so someone made up the fiction of calling the M10 the “Wolverine” by pattern matching, using a name the British would not have used.

Of the 2,507 M18s produced only 1,857 were built as gun vehicles, the rest as armored utility vehicles, and only at most 550 or so saw combat use at any given time (varying by month).

The wretched description of the 76mm Gun M1 on page 108 illustrates how so many writers cannot be bothered to do research. R.P. Hunnicutt provides a clear and simple explanation of the 76mm M1 in “Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank” of 1978 - 22 years earlier. It did not fire "derated" 3-inch rounds having the same velocity and projectiles.

The 37mm Gun Motor Carriage was used in combat as a ”light tank destroyer” in Tunisia in 1942-43 and was still seen here-and-there in the Pacific and Europe after that, up to 1945. At least the complete lie that the U.S. copied the German 37mm Pak35/36 to make the 37mm M3 is avoided – only someone like John Weeks of “Men Against Tanks” who has not bothered to research the U.S. 37mm guns’ origins and characteristics could spread that sort of incorrect data (it was an entirely different cannon based on the U.S. 37mm M1 AA gun, even the cartridge case).

A foot or so longer than the basic combat rifle, the bazooka was hardly a major burden for airborne troops or jungle troops. They did not carry it around in combat in two parts – the break down concept was handy for transport - but before said modification occurred the men in combat found the bazooka to be a dandy weapon for many assault uses. The 3.5 inch M20 was not built in emergency conditions for the Korean war. It was already in production before the war started.

Aside from hero worship and a complete lack of research by scholars, the main issue with the 5cm Pak38 (page 65) was that it was slightly lighter than the 6-pounder but far less effective. About the equivalent of a well designed 47mm gun but nowhere as light weight.

Armor Piercing Capped used a softer metal cap not "hardened" cap.

As can be seen, mixed in with the many good facts and ideas will be bits and pieces of bad data due mainly to the tendency of too many writers to do their work for money, quick and dirty, not with the deep research needed to inform the reader. Overall, it is a decent if outdated work that lacks thorough research in some areas but does well in others. If you have the money and want an overview with an assortment of tid-bits, go for this book. But beware: quoting a fool is to be a fool, so do your own research before quoting "facts" from this and similar books.
Simple
This book is by far the best reference I have seen on the evolution of anti-tank weapons. I use the term evolution intentionally. As in evolutionary theory, species must adapt or die. Well, first there was the tank, then there were rudimentary ways to defeat it, the tank manufacturers adjusted, and so did the infantry, and so on. This book details it beautifully. The British always seem to have the best books on these subjects.
Unde
Good book but my copy did not have the German "Hafthohlladung" or "Panzerknacker" ("breaker of Tanks", German - "cracker of Safe") HHL-3 H.E.A.T. Magnetic Grenade in it, which was quite an interesting weapons.