Dear visitor, welcome to WesWorld. If this is your first visit here, please read the Help. It explains in detail how this page works. To use all features of this page, you should consider registering. Please use the registration form, to register here or read more information about the registration process. If you are already registered, please login here.
the only remarkable thing was its waterjet, without that its a bog standard light tank.
At risk of pushing what's likely a sore subject by now... I think what Bruce and I keep harping on is that these designs seem to spring ex nihilo, out of nothing. I don't understand where these designs come from because there doesn't appear to be any doctrine to tie it all together. It feels like you just went through Wikipedia and made a list of Cool Stuff I Want. There doesn't seem to be any underlying doctrine that makes it all play nicely together, just a couple of buzzwords thrown about. That doesn't make the designs bad, per se, it just makes them totally incomprehensible.
I'm pretty weary of trying to get this point across without any sign of success, and so I'm going to refrain from commenting on Italian designs in the future.
I'm not sure what all this "doctrine" stuff is about, the vast majority of equipment ever put into service was not the product of some grand strategical and economic vision. Each bit of kit fulfils its own operational requirement, very rarely has any government or Treasury allowed a grand plan to be fully implemented across several items of equipment.
I don't want to cause any further trouble or hijack this thread, but it seems only certain people get targeted by this, Jason just reported the P-80 and P-59 jet fighters and no-one mentioned what the engines were, what the specs were, who designed and built the engines and where the tech to do so came from, the doctrine for a short-ranged jet fighter force when it has no major bomber threat next-door etc. Very different to the questioning of Walter's twin-jet nightfighter a few weeks ago. Kirk went too far the other way and attempted an overly in-depth doctrinal approach and was torn to pieces in the process. No-one has ever questioned me setting out exactly the same kind of common-chassis ideal Snip postulates here either. In fact most of my future Army/ RAF threads get zero comments which either means everyone accepts everything or isn't bothered.
To the best of my knowledge the British were the first to develop effective HESH rounds, and confined their wartime use to bunker busting, not anti-tank use. I think a round is either HEAT or HESH, and wonder if there is justification for introducing a HESH round without foreknowledge.
I totally understand that these are different mechanics at work, I meant only to present the data as I have discovered it with regards to the historic rounds. I am however confident that these are indeed shaped charge warheads of some varity as opposed to a kinetic penetration round.
As stated the rounds I want to develop for the 47mm are examples of HEAT, with the only absolute relation to the historical EPS being that the rounds share a common goal of increased armor penetration capabilities. Given the information available on the EPS shells, the proposed 47mm rounds would likely be more similar to the ahistorical Italian 57mm HEAT rocket in use rather then the EPS round.
The 90mm HESH round was meant to be an evolution of the EPS rounds given the characteristics in the Italian wiki (that of "APHE and subsequent British HESH"), not as a hybrid HEAT/HESH. I intended from the outset for such a round to be more of a multiroll munition as opposed to a dedicated penitrator like the 47mm rounds. It could be more appropriate to refer to the proposed 90mm round as APHE rather then HESH, given the relationship between APHE and the EPS rounds seems to be more grounded then the implied HESH-EPS relationship.
Yes - call it a Armor Piercing High Explosive Round if you wish, but HESH is something entirely different. I also note that the Italian Wiki article that mentions the Effetto Pronto round is entitled "High Explosive Anti Tank", and is caveated as being un-sourced.
"Hollow charge" is in no way an ambiguous term. The Munroe Effect, or the Hollow Charge Principle, is the basis of the modern HEAT round. Use of the term "HEAT" is postwar terminology.
On the basis of the evidence I would consider the EF round to be based on the hollow-charge principle
I'm a bit confused by the above discussion.
It sounds like we've determined the EP and EPS rounds are basically similar to the HEAT rounds invented and used elsewhere, and are not HESH. Is that correct?
Does this determination change any of stated figures in the original post, and if so, how?
Forum Software: Burning Board® Lite 2.1.2 pl 1, developed by WoltLab® GmbH