Weapons Quiz - Page 2

Mahross · #26 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2003, 03:25 PM

If it is not that it must be the Ram OP/Command based upon the MkII.

Vermillion · #27 (**permalink**) August 12th, 2003, 05:40 PM

DING! Correct!

The Canadian Ram Cruiser Tank was a unique Canadian evolution of the American M3 Medium (Grant/Lee). It had been acknowledged as early as August 1940 that the British would be unable to meet our requirements for cruiser tanks, and Montreal Locomotive Works (a subsidiary of American Locomotive Co., which was already building tanks) was designated as the Canadian Tank Arsenal. It was judged that the excessive height and inferior armament configuration of the M3 series could be improved upon locally, and a new tank was designed around the excellent M3 engine and drivetrain.

Unfortunately, during the process of design, the British specification for cruiser tanks mounting a 2 pdr gun was adhered to, and the 60-inch turret ring of the Grant was retained, thus restricting the Ram from ever being upgunned beyond 6 pdr. [then] Colonel Worthington himself had argued for the minimum of a 75mm main gun, but was overrulled by the Interdepartmental Tank Committee under the influence of the British Tank Mission. While this was happening, however, British experience on the battlefield was already dictating the necessity for a heavier main gun, and the early 2 pdr Ram did at least get a turret with a readily detachable frontpiece, which could be removed with gun in place and replaced by a 6pdr assembly.

The prototype Ram rolled off the assembly line in June 1941, and general production of the Ram I began that November. Within three months the line had been changed to Ram II production, which continued until July 1943, at which point the decision had been taken to re-equip British and Canadian units with the abundant and better-armed U.S. Sherman. A total of 1948 Rams of all marques were produced, the last 84 of which were the O.P. variant carrying a dummy gun and two No. 19 Wireless sets for use by the FOOs (Forward Observation Officers) of the Sexton-mounted artillery regiments then being formed.
In its cruiser configuration, and limited by its small turret ring and 6 pdr gun, the Ram never saw combat, but was used instead for the training of armour crews in Great Britain. By late-summer 1944, with the war raging in Northern Europe, even that function had all but ceased, but the Ram found new life, and went on to do yeoman service, in a number of variants including the Kangaroo armoured personnel carrier, Badger flame tank, Wallaby ammunition tank, armoured gun tower (for the 17 pdr towed AT gun) and ARV. Sadly, most of the Rams which survived the European war ended their time as hard targets on a variety of tank ranges, and few examples remain.

Kai-Petri · #28 (**permalink**) August 13th, 2003, 05:51 AM

Mk I

Mk II

Mahross · #29 (**permalink**) August 13th, 2003, 08:29 AM

Name the vehicle and the army it is serving with:

Don't worry it is WW2 era.

Martin Bull · #30 (**permalink**) August 13th, 2003, 04:13 PM

A wild, crazy, lets-have-a-go stab at ... Commercial light Tank Vickers Carden Loyd 4-Ton in Siamese service ?

Juha Tompuri · #31 (**permalink**) August 14th, 2003, 10:42 AM

hmmm...Vickers E type 6 ton tank...Bolivia...?

Regards, Juha

[ 14. August 2003, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: Juha Tompuri ]

Juha Tompuri · #32 (**permalink**) August 14th, 2003, 01:02 PM

...I think Martin is right. I vote for Siam too. Is it a Carden-Loyd tankette (Mk VI?) at background?

Regards, Juha

Mahross · #33 (**permalink**) August 15th, 2003, 09:41 AM

Martin right army wrong tank . . .

Juha you are right for the one in the back. The one on the front isn't a type E . . .

Juha Tompuri · #34 (**permalink**) August 15th, 2003, 09:53 AM

Siam, Vickers 6 ton type B

Regards, Juha

Mahross · #35 (**permalink**) August 15th, 2003, 09:54 AM

Yes that right. your turn . . .

Juha Tompuri · #36 (**permalink**) August 16th, 2003, 07:47 PM

Mahross,

Thanks for the help.
My question:
"What makes the 7.92mm German Panzerbüchse AT-rifle ammo unique ?"

Regards, Juha

Martin Bull · #37 (**permalink**) August 16th, 2003, 09:07 PM

It used a 7.92 cored bullet inserted into a 'necked-down' 13mm case, giving a muzzle velocity of more than 1,200 metres per second....

Juha Tompuri · #38 (**permalink**) August 16th, 2003, 10:46 PM

Martin,

You are right,but...
Actually I´m after of a such feature about the ammo (Patrone 318 SmK H Rs L-Spur or the same without the"H") that makes it totally unique(AFAIK) among any other AT ammo during the WWII. The Poles had nearly similar, if not a "necked-down" a "over size" case at their 7.92mm wz.35-Marosczek AT-rifle, but the answer is found at the bullet.

Regards, Juha

Stefan · #39 (**permalink**) August 16th, 2003, 11:24 PM

As I remember it is in the designation, SmK standing for (checks sources) 'Spitzgeschoss mit Kern' (translated as 'Pointed bullet with core), R for Reizstoff (meaning 'irritant', it had a pellet of tear gas in side that was supposed to help knock out the tank crew, unfortunatly the pellet was so small that the allies had no idea it was there until they captured some of the ammo) and Lspur for Lechtspur ('light tracer'). I suspect that the round was unique because of the 'Reizstoff', if I am allowed a second guess then I would say it was the core which was hardened steel, a lot of sources claim it was tungsten carbide but this seems to be incorrect as tungsten was in short supply and not used for this type of ammunition.

So, am I right?

Juha Tompuri · #40 (**permalink**) August 17th, 2003, 08:20 AM

101% correct Stefan.
The 0.4 grain tear gas capsule was the one I was after.
http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/817...aust6.htm#ammo
Stefan, it´s your turn now.

Regards, Juha

Martin Bull · #41 (**permalink**) August 17th, 2003, 08:33 AM

( Many thanks for that one, I really had never heard of the 'tear gas' thing...)

Stefan · #42 (**permalink**) August 17th, 2003, 09:30 PM

Right, a question about the Vickers Gun, below are the official designations of two models of the same gun, can you please tell me what was perculiar about this mark of gun and what the difference between the tow models is:

Gun, Machine, Vickers .303" Mk. VI A
Gun, Machine, Vickers .303" Mk. VI B

Hopefully this will REALLY challenge some of you folks...

Martin Bull · #43 (**permalink**) August 18th, 2003, 06:16 AM

Like the Vickers Mk IV, the Mk VIA was designed for use inside AFV's.

These models featured a revised cooling system and a pistol grip. The Mk VIA was a refinement of the Mk IV in that it had a self-contained water-jacket and more efficient barrel removal system.

The Mk VIA had right-handed belt feed, and the Mk VIB had left-hand belt feed....

Stefan · #44 (**permalink**) August 18th, 2003, 02:26 PM

Ok, maybe it wasn't challenging enough, well done Martin, I will find something better for next time.

Martin Bull · #45 (**permalink**) August 18th, 2003, 04:39 PM

Sorry, Stefan ! I have to confess I went straight to Richard Fisher's brilliant website ; -

http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/index.html

OK, next up : -

The US Defence Supply Corporation ordered 15,000 submachine guns in 1942-4, most of which went to the OSS, the Russians, and partisan groups.

What was this gun called ?

Juha Tompuri · #46 (**permalink**) August 18th, 2003, 06:48 PM

I know two US smg types that were lend leased to USSR. Reising Model 50 is the other. And my guess.

Regards, Juha

Martin Bull · #47 (**permalink**) August 18th, 2003, 08:58 PM

100,000 Reisings were made, so it must be the other one...

Steve · #48 (**permalink**) August 18th, 2003, 09:31 PM

Hi Martin, High Standard patented SMG known as the UDM '42 with the prototypes done in .45 ACP. VOlume production was undertaken by Marlin in 9mm with sales rights going to United Defence Supply Corp.