WesWorld

Quoted from "snip"

Breda Uomo EPS

Improved Man-Portable Anti-Armor weapon introduced in 1948. Larger projectile for improved penetration. The current Breda Uomo EP cannot pen the Triarii or Princeps from the side, so there would be concerns that if possible OPFOR designs were to match the side armor on the Italian tanks that they would be unkillable by the Uomo EP anywhere bu the rear armor. Also, the Uomo EP does not give much margin of error on some current possible OPFOR tanks for anything other then a perpendicular impact. Pen is calculated on 150% of boar diameter, lower then a German weapon being introduced 3 years earlier.

Length: 1450 mm
Caliber: 85 mm
Weight: 6.5 kg Unloaded
Warhead: 4kg fin stabilized. HEAT and HE warheads available.
Range, Maximum: 900m
Range, Effective: 300m (stationary target), 170m (moving target)
Crew: 2, operator and loader, tho can be operated by a single man in emergencies.
Penetration : 127.5mm at 0 degree AoI with 85mm EPS Mod.48 HEAT round.

Now that I understand the reference, I can make a proper reply.

I am reluctant to endorse or argue the projected penetration performance of the weapon, but I am leery of using the PaK45 as the sole justification for it. When I proposed the PaK45 - which I still consider under peer review - I was taken to task to provide some armor penetration value for its munitions, and quoted the only immediately available value I could find. I don't know if this was the result of range testing or how it was derived - I provide it from Wikipedia with all the usual caveats.

I researching the question I found this item which touches upon the question of comparing historical armor penetration performance to modern testing methods - which suggests that one should be careful in the use of historical data. The "Rule of 2" - the relationship between warhead diameter and penetration - was worked out in the postwar era, using standard test conditions, and could yield results that differ from historical. I am not an ordnance engineer, I merely hung around a place where they worked.

As the weapon in question is not expected to be fielded until 1948, I see no reason to make that big a deal about it.

No idea what happened with that link.

Quoted from "Hood"

I'm not entirely sold on the breakthrough doctrine. I could see what you've outlined working well in the deserts of Libya or the EAS, but against well dug in Yugoslav positions in mountainous terrain its going to be harder to aim any kind of breakthrough. Southern Europe is not really suited for tank combat, you need more of an all-arms approach with paras etc. The Germans made great gains in 1941 by surprise and strength and parachutists. It took the Allies a lot of effort to get that territory back with air and material superiority, and In WW most of the area is heavily defended with modern weapons and organised armies. Yugoslav forces wouldn't have to react to an armoured thrust if they can delay an Italian advance and make it costly in losses. I can't really envision an opposite scenario where the Yuogslavs would attack Italy, except perhaps as a spoiling counterattack to threaten your northern cities in that area. I think airpower is the going to be the key here, no matter how many APCs you have operating with tank units.

While the terrain of the Northern Italian boarder is not supper conducive to armored warfare, there are still some areas where it will work. As you note, the defensive side has a great advantage and as I have stated previously the Italian doctrine is geared around defensive warfare. Italy knows that if they attack, they will be crushed under far superior numbers. The mechanized elements are not for deep attacks, they are meant to provide a force capable of recapturing the initiative. To some extent, this allows the Italian commander to pick the area best suited for the employment of the mobile forces. The main defense and backbone of the army is still left to typical Infantry formations. In any case, I think OOC we can safely say that Pax Europa is in full force so whether this works in the environment of Southern Europe in practice or not will never be tested. IC however we cannot say that (unless the main European alliance wants to issue a proclamation to that effect), so the weapons used within the doctrine need to continue to evolve until they allow the missions to be carried out in the intended manor.

Quoted from "BruceDuncan"

Now that I understand the reference, I can make a proper reply.

I am reluctant to endorse or argue the projected penetration performance of the weapon, but I am leery of using the PaK45 as the sole justification for it. When I proposed the PaK45 - which I still consider under peer review - I was taken to task to provide some armor penetration value for its munitions, and quoted the only immediately available value I could find. I don't know if this was the result of range testing or how it was derived - I provide it from Wikipedia with all the usual caveats.

I researching the question I found this item which touches upon the question of comparing historical armor penetration performance to modern testing methods - which suggests that one should be careful in the use of historical data. The "Rule of 2" - the relationship between warhead diameter and penetration - was worked out in the postwar era, using standard test conditions, and could yield results that differ from historical. I am not an ordnance engineer, I merely hung around a place where they worked.

As the weapon in question is not expected to be fielded until 1948, I see no reason to make that big a deal about it.

It was not my intent to use the PaK45 as justification for this weapon. They are significantly different in both design and in practical use. I only wanted to note that by the time this weapon enters service that there will have been a more capable round of similar size and intent in use. In retrospect I should have not broached that point until such a time when the comparison was warranted, if at all. I also would like to note that the quoted figures for the PaK45 fall within what I feel are reasonable bounds for the era, and as stated in the PaK45 thread I have no issues with them.

As to the feasibility of the figures itself, the M20 Super Bazooka provided an upper bound on what I aimed to do with the first generation of this weapons ordinance. Most sources I have found quote a figure of 260mm+, the amount varies from there. While I felt that sort of performance was unwarranted for 1948 w/o all the combat experience of the Second World War, it does mean the Uomo EPS can be made more capable later by introducing new ammunition if necessary. The figure of 150% of bore is noted by Wikipedia of being on the low end of HEAT rounds for the era, it states that most WWII-era rounds fell between 150% and 250% of bore (Note, this does not include degradation from being fired out of a rifled cannon). Doing some comparisons of obtainable figures for era weapons (the PaK45 for instance has 175%), this ratio range seem to be correct enough that we can use it as a guide.

EDIT: Because pigs are not fired out of guns.

*Cough*

I know you're sensitive about spelling corrections, but 'boar' is an animal. You want to refer to 'bore'. The repetition has just gotten too distracting for me...