Military rounds

[Mr. Zorg]

Here's an interesting article on the USA B29 & the USSR TU-4.

https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/made-in-the-ussr-38442437/?all

 

[Mr. Zorg]

Both the USSR / Russia and the UK made their final repayments to the USA to settle debts for WWII Lend-Lease in 2006 (after dissolution of the USSR). Russia finished a few months ahead of the UK; the UK's final repayment was in Dec. 2006.

 

[Nyati]

@Mr. Zorg , actually, the discovery of the Flak 18 dual capacity as an anti tank gun was during the Spanish Civil War.

Subsequent versions of this field gun were the 36, 36/42 ,37 ,37/41 and 41.

 

[Nyati]

Back to the subject at hand, I wonder what the nations that prohibit military round would say if you listed your ammo as .223 Remington in stead of 5.56 or .308 Winchester instead of 7.62 NATO?

The argument being that the .223 Remington and the .308 Winchester are civilian rounds and not military like their metric brothers.

They are not that stupid !

 

[perttime]

Which countries actually have these "no military cartridges" laws?
Spain, France, Italy, I think.
Which others?

 

[Mr. Zorg]

@Mr. Zorg , actually, the discovery of the Flak 18 dual capacity as an anti tank gun was during the Spanish Civil War.

Subsequent versions of this field gun were the 36, 36/42 ,37 ,37/41 and 41.

Link?

 

[mark-hunter]

Link?

I am definitely not expert on artillery, having interest only in small arms, and their history.
However, quick internet search came up with this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41#First_generation:_Flak_18,_36_and_37

from wiki source, then:
Widespread production started with the Nazi rise to power in 1933, and the Flak 18 was available in small numbers when Germany intervened in the Spanish Civil War. It quickly proved to be the best anti-aircraft weapon then available.[citation needed] The flak detachment with 88s proved accurate and versatile in combat against mainly land targets, the high muzzle velocity and large caliber making it an excellent long-range anti-vehicle and anti-bunker weapon. This experience also demonstrated a number of minor problems and potential improvement opportunities.

 

[CBH Australia]

@perttime I read somewhere once New Caledonia has that rule so a .308 was out for the writer who went down the 7mm-08 route.

 

[Nyati]

Link?

Link ? A few books I´ve read about the Spanish Civil War.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

Thanks for the info. I'm certainly not a PhD expert in WWII history, but I mostly focused on AFV's. Perhaps the Rommel legend is correct on using the Flak 88 on AFV's for the first time. The AFV's used on both sides of the Spanish Civil War were thinly armored compared to later WWII models, and were certainly vulnerable to penetration of the 37mm to 47mm "proper" anti-tank guns of the period.

https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=191741

The Matilda which entered UK servoce in 1938, slow as it was as a "proper" infantry tank, was one of the most thickly armored AFV's of its heyday, rendered obsolete with production ceasing in 1943 due to the turret not being capable of accomodating an anti-tank role main gun larger than the 2-pounder in its turret.

 

[Nyati]

Conclusive and definitive proof about the use of the Flak 18 as an anti tank in the Spanish Civil War, I don´t have. I do remember reading it was used against Russian T-26 tanks in the battle of Jarama Feb 1937, but can´t remember where, book or history magazine.

I called a friend who is an artilleryman, he could not give me any precise information, but told ma that 36 guns went to the Spanish Artillery, while 16 remained under control of the Condor Legion.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

I don't think anyone has such definitive proof, as the discussion involved in the last hyperlink I posted makes clear to me. Even there, it's demonstrated that inaccuracies can occur in translations of accounts from the language they were written, with both subconscious subjectivity and in some real-life cases, deliberate subjectivity. This is why I framed my postings with the term "legend" as anything available to read on these topics in English that don't have objective definitive support may have subjective bias injected by the translators / authors, subconsciously or deliberately.

YMMV, as always.

 

[Mr. Zorg]

I see Wikipedia includes the combat at Arras in France in the writeup of the Matilda tank, but doesn't specify if this was the first use of the Flak 18 vs AFV's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matilda_II

Same with the more detailed write-up of that battle here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arras_(1940)

 

[Mr. Zorg]

After years of purchasing books with descriptions of the brave tankers of the USSR deliberately ramming Axis vehicles with their own during the battle of Prokhorovka, including painted artists'depictions of that, and seeing animated recreations of that televised in documentaries l, this comes along. History is (mostly) written by the victors, at least until they're outlived, going back through ancient Egypt.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48963295

One of the Axis tankers who had an impressive number of vehicle kills to his credit, disabled first the lead, then the tail, vehicles in a convoy traveling single file along a mountain roadway in Italy IIRC from a hull down position in his vehicle. Not a particularly difficult scenario to envision, nor extend to a bridge crossing.

 

[TheGrayRider]

Fewer military arms for the French military and their citizens to stack during their subsequent surrenders to invading armies.

 

[spike.t]

Fewer military arms for the French military and their citizens to stack during their subsequent surrenders to invading armies.

Well I see that when you fell off your high horse that you landed head first in a pile of sh*t, and are now regurgitating it....you really are a classic example of an American that gives a reason to people in other countries to think on a whole that all Americans are arrogant, uncouth, self centered arseholes.....whereas from the majority of ones I have met this is certainly not correct.... But you are definitely a ring piece of note.....I see you are an attorney at law.....well god help your clients having such a bigoted, narrow minded sack of sh*t like you as their lawyer.....

 

[Red Leg]

Fewer military arms for the French military and their citizens to stack during their subsequent surrenders to invading armies.

That is frankly fairly ignorant as well. I have actually served which French forces - superb. There special operations folks have bailed us out several times in Africa and the Levant over the last few decades. They carried the brunt of the First World War and their forces in WWII were hardly the first to enter a fight with the wrong doctrine or equipment - our lads at Kasserine or the A Shau come to mind. And of course the Napoleonic campaigns remain a centerpiece of military history study everywhere.

 

[Wheels]

Fewer military arms for the French military and their citizens to stack during their subsequent surrenders to invading armies.

Charles Martel seems to have done fairly well against invading armies.

Western Civ would be completely rewritten if not for the Franks at Tours.

 

[Bob Nelson 35Whelen]

Along with the .303 British Enfield! I have a Mark 2. Great rifle, accurate and mechanically dependable! Same with the Russian Mosin Nagant rifle. I believe both were used in the two World Wars and were highly successful combat rifles.

@CoElkHunter
Here in Australia especially in New South Wales it was illegal to own a rifle chambered for the 303 unless you were a member of a full bore rifle club. To over come the problem a smart gunsmith cut a thread off the barrel so the 303 couldn't be chambered. The result was the 7.7x54. This went on to become a semicomercial round.
These silly laws were repealed in the 1960s from memory.
Just my bit of info on military cartridge bans.
Bob

 

[Alistair]

Charles Martel seems to have done fairly well against invading armies.

Western Civ would be completely rewritten if not for the Franks at Tours.

People always seem to forget that France is, and pretty much always has been a top tier military power.

These days they're likely the strongest military force in Europe (beating Britain and Germany) and whilst their geography does mean they tend to get a kicking in any pan-European conflict, they're not push overs. People get too hung up on WW2 whilst, whilst an ignominious defeat, doesn't give a fair representation of the actual military prowess of the nation. Bad tactical and strategic decisions, not a lack of fighting resources. The only real difference between Britain and France in WW2 was our superior navy and a thin stretch of open water at our borders. Not much of a differentiator really.

Al