WesWorld

Novosti News Service – Belgrade – Monday, 9 October 1939

The office of Minister without Portfolio Boris Furlan announced today that the Government has placed orders with the British Austin Motor Company for five hundred of its K30 medium trucks, for assembly by the new Austin works at Priboj. These vehicles will be completed as mobile surgeries, ambulances, surgical support vehicles and as bookmobiles, and will be used to support the Government’s network of rural clinics and the Volunteers in Service to the Nation programme.


The Oxford Times – Oxford, England – Wednesday, 18 October 1939

It was announced today that His Highness, Prince Peter of Yugoslavia, will enter Queens College here, commencing with the Martinmas term. It is reported that His Highness will read classics.


Novosti News Services – Bar – Saturday, 21 October 1939

The chartered steamer Westernland docked today, arriving from New York bearing 530 Americans of Serb, Croat and Slovene descent, recruited by the Yugoslav Government to serve as school-teachers and other vocational instructors. It is expected that these individuals will supplement the recently-established Volunteers in Service to the Nation programme to boosting rural education, agriculture and health initiatives.


Novosti News Service – Belgrade – Tuesday, 7 November 1939

The Defence Ministry has announced that it has selected the Russian M1938 122mm Field Howitzer to complement the Vickers M40 87mm Gun Howitzer in reequipping the divisional artillery regiments of the active army. Some four hundred pieces are to be delivered under the terms of the contract with the Russian Federation Arms Export Agency, together with their fire control and direction equipment and artillery ammunition. A spokesman for the Defence Ministry further stated that production of ammunition for the new weapon will be pursued under licence. The acquisition of this new and powerful piece of artillery is the capstone of the Defence Ministry’s programme to reform and revitalize the capability of the Army to respond to potential threats abroad and to fulfill its new requirements under the recently-concluded mutual defence pact.


Hospodarske noviny – Prague – Friday, 17 November 1939

The growing value of the Yugoslav market to the Czechoslovak metallurgical industry received confirmation today with the publication of export statistics by the Selling Agency of the United Czechoslovak Iron Works. For the years ending 30 September exports to Yugoslav customers amounted to:

Spiegeleisen: 1937 – 475 tons; 1938 – 455 tons; 1939 – 430 tons
Thin Steel Plates: 1937 – 1,000 tons; 1938 – 1,665 tons; 1939 – 1,000 tons
Thick Steel Plates: 1937 – 7,440 tons; 1938 – 11,670 tons; 1939 – 12,875 tons
Tinplate: 1937 – 935 tons; 1938 – 580 tons; 1939 – 1,915 tons
Pig Iron: 1937 – 4,425 tons; 1938 – 4,730 tons; 1939 – 5,825 tons

The success of Czechoslovak steel works in competing not only with the growing Yugoslav domestic industry but with the far more advanced steel industries of Britain, France, Germany and Belgium confirms the competitiveness of our metallurgical industry and the high regard with which its products are held throughout the world.


Novosti News Services – Belgrade – Wednesday, 22 November 1939

Minister of Industrial Development Zoran Simic announced today the conclusion of an agreement with the Transall Corporation to develop at an aluminium mining and processing plant at Mostar. The venture includes plans for mining bauxite, construction of an alumina processing plant, and, eventually an aluminium reduction and rolling plant. It is estimated that the first phase of the project – the bauxite mine – will commence operations sometime in the middle of 1940.


Goteborgs-Posten – Stockholm – Sunday, 10 December 1939

The Royal Nordmark Academy of Sciences announced today its decision to award the 1939 Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Adolf Friedrich Johann Butenandt of Germany for his work on sex hormones, and to Lavoslav Ruzicka of Yugoslavia for his work on polymethylenes and higher terpines.


Novosti News Service – Belgrade – Friday, 22 December 1939

At a special ceremony at the White Palace His Royal Majesty King Aleksandr invested Lubomir Ilic, Kosta Sivcev and Stepan Zmic with the Order of Saint Sava, Civil Division, for their work in designing the Jastreb single-seat fighter aircraft that will soon enter service with the Royal Yugoslav Air Force. It is reported that the successful design team have already begun the work to create a replacement for the Jastreb.


Novosti News Services – Belgrade, Thursday, 28 December 1939

The Yugoslav Ministry of Defence issued a formal announcement that it would conduct a series of military maneuvers in the spring of next year, to be known as Exercise Zapad 40. Details of the planned exercise were not forthcoming at this time.

Deliveries this quarter under FY38 procurement contracts

Explosia – Cordite – 100 tonnes
Explosia – Trotyl – 100 tonnes
First Brno – Rifle Barrels – 13,000
First Brno – Rifle Receivers – 13,000

Deliveries this quarter under FY39 procurement contracts

Skoda 6LT 2-ton Truck – 475
Skoda 6ST 4-ton Truck – 248
Skoda VL2 2-ton Trailer – 123
Tatra 93 2-ton Truck – 475
Tatra 111 10-ton Truck – 129
Ford 91 1-ton Chassis – 360
General Motors CC-453 3-ton Truck - 400

FlaK33 88mm Heavy AA Gun (M39) – 106
Krauss Maffei Half Track Tractor – 106
Krauss Maffei Half Track Service Vehicle – 14

M34 75mm Mountain Howitzer (Skoda) - 16
M35 105mm Heavy Field Gun (Skoda) - 14
M37 150mm Heavy Field Howitzer (Skoda) – 14

Panzer IVD – 34 (ex. Heer)

Deliveries this quarter under FY40 procurement contracts

Skoda 6LT 2-ton Truck – 10
Skoda 6ST 4-ton Truck – 4
Tatra 93 2-ton Truck – 10
Tatra 111 10-ton Truck – 3
Ford 91 1-ton Chassis – 200
General Motors CC-453 3-ton Truck - 250
Skoda Superb 3000 Tender – 9
Raba 38M Botond Prime Mover – 5
Saurer 4CT1D 4.5-ton Truck – 4
Skoda 6VD 5-ton Truck – 3

M40 87mm Gun Howitzer (Vickers) – 50
M38 122mm Divisional Howitzer (Russia) – 102

Domestic Ground Ordnance Production

M35 Service Pistol - 3,000
M29 Service Rifle - 49,500
M28 Machine Rifle - 1,500
M32 Machinegun - 825
M37 Submachinegun - 7,650
M39 Aircraft Machinegun - 220
M37 Tank Machinegun - 230
M35 Mortar - 240
M27/31 Mortar - 180
M34 Antitank Rifle - 90
M36 Antitank Gun - 150
M30 Light Antiaircraft Gun - 90
M36 Light Antiaircraft Gun - 60
M34 Infantry Gun - 50
M32 Hand Grenade - 87,000
Small Arms Ammunition (up to 15mm) - 38,200,000
Artillery Ammunition (20mm or greater) - 239,000

Domestic Vehicle Production

Skoda 6LT 2-ton Truck - 24
Skoda 6ST 4-ton Truck - 12
LT.38 Light Tank - 90
Lazar Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle - 24



Aircraft Deliveries

Focke Wulf Fw190A-4 - 25
Ikarus IK-2 - 18
Bucker Bu181 - 26
LWS-Nakajima L2N1 - 19
Noorduyn Norseman - 19

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Novosti News Service – Belgrade – Tuesday, 7 November 1939

The Defence Ministry has announced that it has selected the Russian M1938 122mm Field Howitzer to complement the Vickers M40 87mm Gun Howitzer in reequipping the divisional artillery regiments of the active army. Some four hundred pieces are to be delivered under the terms of the contract with the Russian Federation Arms Export Agency, together with their fire control and direction equipment and artillery ammunition.

Rather amusing, seeing as Bulgaria's buying the same gun from Atlantis.

Quoted

Originally posted by Brockpaine

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
Novosti News Service – Belgrade – Tuesday, 7 November 1939

The Defence Ministry has announced that it has selected the Russian M1938 122mm Field Howitzer to complement the Vickers M40 87mm Gun Howitzer in reequipping the divisional artillery regiments of the active army. Some four hundred pieces are to be delivered under the terms of the contract with the Russian Federation Arms Export Agency, together with their fire control and direction equipment and artillery ammunition.

Rather amusing, seeing as Bulgaria's buying the same gun from Atlantis.

Merely good planning - this way we don't overload any single factory and assure that there are no delays in delivery.

Proving Grounds, Cepotina Military Cantonment, 16 December 1939

The Royal Yugoslav Army unveiled a new antitank weapons system that will soon enter service. Developed by the Zastava Ordnance Works the M40 antitank rocket launcher was demonstrated for a group of senior military officers and selected members of the press.



The new weapon is operated by a two-man team, one of whom operates the weapon and the second loads it from the rear.



While short-ranged compared with conventional antitank weapons, the new device packs considerable power. A redundant Gothia Legionnaire tank was subjected to a live-fire demonstration, with the impressive results.



Data for the weapon was not immediately released.

Hold up on the panzerschreck..... seems a bit early for that piece of equipment to be rolled out, since the requisite HEAT rounds haven't done so yet and neither has it's progenitor, the US bazooka.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
Hold up on the panzerschreck..... seems a bit early for that piece of equipment to be rolled out, since the requisite HEAT rounds haven't done so yet and neither has it's progenitor, the US bazooka.

No - I see no reason to do so.

1. The weapon is within the general +3 years rule The fact that I chose the particular form of the Rakatenwerfer over the Bazooka is immaterial.

2. The Swiss ordnance engineer who developed HEAT ammunition, Henri Mohaupt, has been employed by the Zastava Ordnance Works for the past two-plus years developing the HEAT round.

3. The hollow-charge principle, upon which the HEAT round is based, is also known as the Munroe Effect, which as been investigated since 1880.

4. The concept of a man-portable rocket weapon has been known since the work in 1918 by Robert Goddard and Charles Hickman.

Although there is little reason not too, we tend to hold on Man portable AT weapons with rocket power.

Quoted

Originally posted by Marek Gutkowski
Although there is little reason not too, we tend to hold on Man portable AT weapons with rocket power.

Given the conventions of the game for developing weapons, the proliferation of other rocket powered weapons in some of the nations of Europe and the development effort cited, I see no reason to do so.

IMHO its not the rocket that's the problem just the warhead. We've covered this ground many times now but I must admit as WW tanks get thicker and heavier armour most nations by now like GB, Germany, Russia etc would be looking into shaped-charge warheads. Whether someone would make that mental leap to join one tech with another is another matter.

HEAT weapons, because they have not been needed, have not been put on the +3 year track, so in 1939 they're JUST coming out of the lab and being standardized as shells (and they're not very good ones, either). We've had this discussion before, with Howard.

IHEAT weapons so far haven't appeared because there's been no war to clearly point out the inadequacy of AT rifles. Also, lacking a shooting war with lots of tanks, no one really sees the necessity of having powerful anti-tank weapons down to the company/platoon level: battalion level AT guns (or regimental guns distributed to the battalions) are seen as plenty, and they have a far longer accurate range than rocket-propelled weapons.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hrolf Hakonson
HEAT weapons, because they have not been needed, have not been put on the +3 year track, so in 1939 they're JUST coming out of the lab and being standardized as shells (and they're not very good ones, either). We've had this discussion before, with Howard.

If this is the case, is there a list somewhere of the 'prohibited articles' that are not on the +3 year track? I would like to know so that I can adjust my own planning and pay heed to the efforts of others.

Despite prior consultations with other players, this is the first I have heard of HEAT rounds being on list of 'prohibited articles'.

In OTL, shells on hollow-charge principles were offered for commercial sale by Swiss engineers as early as 1938 - which is why I chose to take one such into Yugoslav employ. The first OTL weapon on hollow-charge principles appeared in 1940, in the UK.

The argument is fallacious that a 'need' must be demonstrated in actual combat before provoking a response. The appearance of the AT/TT-37 and AT/TT-36 heavy tanks, the posited appearance of the German Panzer VI, and other heavy tanks would give any nation reason to examine options to combat such vehicles. An antitank rifle, even one of 20mm calibre, is patently useless against such.

Further, I do not appreciate being tarred with the same brush as Howard. I believe that I have demonstrated a reasonable development process; I have not 'created' an individual out of thin air to accomplish a task.

We have allowed intermediate-calibre semiautomatic and automatic weapons; radar development and deployment is far in advance of the OTL. Tank development I have already mentioned. How is the deployment of hollow-charge rounds any different?

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
The argument is fallacious that a 'need' must be demonstrated in actual combat before provoking a response. The appearance of the AT/TT-37 and AT/TT-36 heavy tanks, the posited appearance of the German Panzer VI, and other heavy tanks would give any nation reason to examine options to combat such vehicles. An antitank rifle, even one of 20mm calibre, is patently useless against such.

You know, I really must agree with this. There's been some significant tank combat in the South American War and the Persian Civil War, all with tanks that are pretty well immune to 20mm AT guns. The Chinese tanks which are so vaunted in the Persian War aren't even as heavy as the new German, Italian and Russian tanks coming out, and they're pretty much invincible versus AT rifles.

So far as I see it, we either need to roll back the technology of tank development to keep AT weapons the same, or we need to let the AT weapons catch up to the tanks.

I have to agree with Brock and Bruce. The tanks used in the Persian Civil War by the Chinese could be considered equivalent to middle 1942 German tanks. Why AT weapon development could not be at par with that. Then the new Atlantean and Italian tanks are pushing the envelope even further.

I've to applaud Hrolf by trying to keep it realistic but the events in WW IMO are forcing everyone to move faster than expected. Even Dr. Noah in his Himalayan retreat is thinking how to resolve the same problem but I wasn't ready for bazookas yet because IMO India is just digesting the lessons of the 1936 to 1939 combat experience.

So IMO those weapons should be in the testing stage at the most. The nations are at peacetime so why rush designs while in peacetime bugs can be corrected at a leisured pace. For example the weapon been designed by Dr. Noah.

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Then the new Atlantean and Italian tanks are pushing the envelope even further.

Really? The Italian M39 is basically the same as the Panzer IV here.

We're probably getting ahead of ourselves for large scale deployment of bazookas etc. I would have thought that more powerful anti-tank guns would come first. One main problem is that early HEAT shells don't really work that well. It's really mid/late war before they start to be able to penetrate much more than 1 calibre thickness.

There are many examples of where you can find weapons invented many many years before they were adopted in large scale. There are usually pretty good reasons for the delay.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Quoted

Originally posted by perdedor99
Then the new Atlantean and Italian tanks are pushing the envelope even further.

Really? The Italian M39 is basically the same as the Panzer IV here.

We're probably getting ahead of ourselves for large scale deployment of bazookas etc. I would have thought that more powerful anti-tank guns would come first. One main problem is that early HEAT shells don't really work that well. It's really mid/late war before they start to be able to penetrate much more than 1 calibre thickness.

There are many examples of where you can find weapons invented many many years before they were adopted in large scale. There are usually pretty good reasons for the delay.

The principal reason that the High Explosive Anti Tank shell is so problamatic is the fact that the spin of an artillery shell dissipates the the hollow-charge effect, whereas a non-rotating hollow charge projectile does not suffer from this defect. The introduction of HEAT shells for rifled artillery was naturally delayed because of this, as means had to be developed to overcome the spin of the shell.

The armor penetration achieved by the early bazookas was more than adequate to pierce the armour of their targets.

As to large scale introduction, has any indication been given that the weapon has entered wide service? No there has not. Will it enter service? We are discussing that very point.

As far as need, it has been argued that in an era of peace there is no 'need' for such a weapon, and the model of the OTL is cited. Wesworld has progressed far beyond the OTL in terms of its tank technology - the introduction of many different types of medium and heavy tanks - and in the ubiquity of tanks in the armies of Europe, the Americas and Asia. Mention has been made of the Chinese tank force; there is that of India; of Britain, which has seen wide deployment in the Middle East.

The development of an infantry antitank weapon effective against contemporaty tanks is a logical progression on the part of antitank defenses. How reasonable would it be to argue that the infantry must be content with antitank rifles while the armored troops deploy the WW equivalents of the Tiger, the KV-1 and the T-34?

What I am hearing is special pleading from those nations with substantial tank forces, who have pushed their own tank development and acquisition programs far beyond the OTL. As has been commented on, either tank development should be rolled back or antitank defense allowed to progress.

You can't ignore the anti-tank gun.

Germany is just starting to develop the 75mm and 88mm types and Britain soon will have to go down the 17pdr route.
Surely conventional AT guns with tungsten rounds etc are going to offer a lot more in the interim period that HEAT, HESH etc etc.

Quoted

Originally posted by BruceDuncan
The principal reason that the High Explosive Anti Tank shell is so problamatic is the fact that the spin of an artillery shell dissipates the the hollow-charge effect, whereas a non-rotating hollow charge projectile does not suffer from this defect. The introduction of HEAT shells for rifled artillery was naturally delayed because of this, as means had to be developed to overcome the spin of the shell.

Even the unspun projectiles were pretty sucky. The understanding and empirical proof just isn't there. You've got all sorts of parameters like cone angle, material, standoff distance etc. that need to be looked at before getting an effective weapon. Those things took time.

Yugoslavia has recently acquired large numbers of 88mm guns. Why not use them in the dual purpose role?

Building a bigger and heavier armoured tank is pretty easy when it comes down to it. Researching, developing and producing an entirely new weapon system is rather more difficult.

Quoted

Originally posted by Red Admiral

Even the unspun projectiles were pretty sucky. The understanding and empirical proof just isn't there. You've got all sorts of parameters like cone angle, material, standoff distance etc. that need to be looked at before getting an effective weapon. Those things took time.

Building a bigger and heavier armoured tank is pretty easy when it comes down to it. Researching, developing and producing an entirely new weapon system is rather more difficult.

The original US 2.36-inch rocket launcher is cited as having an armor penetration of 4.7 inches at 0 degrees - I do not consider that 'sucky' performance.

As for researching, developing and producing a weapons system, I have indicated the length of the development cycle, under the leadership of the the Swiss engineer who did the development work for the first effective hollow-charge round.

What I am now hearing is that the problem is that Yugoslavia has done it, and not any other nation.

Quoted

Originally posted by Hood
You can't ignore the anti-tank gun.

Germany is just starting to develop the 75mm and 88mm types and Britain soon will have to go down the 17pdr route.
Surely conventional AT guns with tungsten rounds etc are going to offer a lot more in the interim period that HEAT, HESH etc etc.

If Yugoslavia were to introduce a medium calibre antitank gun with high performance, what would then be said?