WWII Trivia

[Pistolenschutze]

Nope, it was armed, Polish, though it was "suggested" that if all else failed, they were to ram the bombers and hopefully bail out before the impact.

The aircraft I had in mind here was the Bachem Ba349 (BP-20) "Natter"
VTO Intercepter. I must admit, it was a pretty wacky idea, and the life expectancy of a any pilot would have been pretty short. They came up with the idea after Allied attacks on Lufwaffe airfields made it difficult for them to maintain a decent fighter force. Himmler, of SS fame, liked the idea and actually funded the project through the SS.

Ba349B
Length : 5.72m
Wing Span: 3.60m
Hight : 2.20m
Wing Area : 3.60 Square meter
All-Up Weight : 2,250Kg
Main Engine : Walter HWK109/509D-1 (1,700kp) X 1
Auxiliary Rocket : Schmidding 109/533 (1,000kp) X 4
Max Speed : 1,020Km/h
Range : 90Km
Service Ceiling : 16,000m
Crew : 1
Amament : Föhn 73mm Rocket X 24

[polishshooter]

You know, the 163 pilots MUST have either had stones the size of punkins OR were just plain fanatics too...when that rocket started, much less all that volatile fuel "bouncing" down the runway, AND the chance the jettisoned wheels bounce back UP into the fuel tank, there was a 50/50 chance the darn thing would BLOW gloriously before it got much off the GROUND.....


THEN about 8 minutes of screaming full throttle, going ballistic almost STRAIGHT up to 35000 feet, maybe time for TWO white knuckled screaming passes at the B17s or 24s at 550 or 600mph,, before the rocket flamed out, THEN a gravity ride deadstick descent almost as fast as you came UP, with the glide angle of a aerodynamic BRICK, to a dead stick belly flop on a SKID, all the while PRAYING that EVERY drop of rocket juice got burned up, and a couple of pounds or so WASN'T sloshing around in the tank just WAITING to blow when you were skidding out of control at about 100mph down the concrete runway or autobahn, IF you were lucky enough to find one around in time while in your "glide...."

Sorry, I don't see MUCH difference between the idea of the "kamikaze" as a last ditch weapon, and the Komet.....well, besides I guess at least the INTENTION was the pilot do it all again TOMORROW....

[Pistolenschutze]

OK, here's one for ya, Polish:

While the term "Polish Navy" might sound to some like an oxymoron or the beginning of another bad joke, there actually was such an organization at the beginning of WWII. What kind of ships did it contain in its order of battle?

[polishshooter]

Well, the most FAMOUS was the Submarine Orzel, had some GREAT and wild exploits including torpeoing a German transport and I THINK a warship on the way to Norway AND warned the RN about it, but they didn't listen...I think it got sunk later in the war though...I think they had 2 or 3 other subs...


Then they ALSO had about 4-5 DDs I THINK, l know several of them served admirably in the Battle of the Atlantic with several Uboat kills...

Other than that I'm not sure....other than lend lease ships???

[Pistolenschutze]

Basically correct, Polish. The Poles had four or five destroyers, a few rather obsolete subs, and the rest basically costal defense and riverine craft, that's all. And yes, the destroyers escaped when the Krauts invaded and did serve admirably in the Battle of the Atlantic against the U-boats.

[polishshooter]

DIdn't the Orzel play some kind of major role in getting the Polish Enigma machine to England after the war started? And maybe take out some of the Polish Intelligence guys to show the Brits what they had?

Just think, if the Poles trusted the FRENCH the entire Ultra Secret may have been blown in 1940...and I'd hae hated to see what effect that would have had on the war....

I kow the Orzel had a BRIEF but glorious run, like 6 months, and did more damage to the German navy than the entire RN in that time....and I THINK it got caught on the surface by a German aircraft, and damaged, and I seem to recall it MIGHT have been finally sunk by the Brits by mistake....

[Pistolenschutze]

Yup, Orzel had a rather brief but spectacular career patroling mostly in the North Sea and the Baltic off Norway, Polish. She was ultimately lost, most likely to collision with a German or British mine field, though possibly to a German aircraft bomb. No one is certain.

Interestingly enough, she was not built in Poland, but by the Dutch, one of a class of two vessels laid down in 1936 and launched in 1938.

[17thfabn]

Polish, two unsung and little known weapons of the U.S. Army in WW II:

The M3 105mm infantry howitzer.

The M-1 57mm Anti-tank gun.

Although both weapons were issued in large numbers to American infantry Divisions, they are little known.

The M3 105mm infantry howitzer is NOT the same weapon as the M2 105 howitzer.

The M2 was assigned to the three light artillery battalions of an infantry division (12 howitzers per battalions X 3 battalions = 36 M2 105mm howitzers per division). It was also assigned to light seperate howitzer battalions. This weapon was well known, and was the most common American field artillery of WW II. This weapon is well known and much is written about it.

The M3 105mm infantry howitzer is not nearly as well known. There was supposed to be one cannon company with six of these weapons per regiment, for a total of 18 of these guns in each infantry regiment. (many cannon companies had the 75mm pack howitzer instead, or other weapons) The M3 was much lighter than the standard M2, and was intended for us as a direct fire weapon to take out pinpoint targets. It is hard to find much info on this weapon or the cannon companies that used them in books or websites. From what little I could find on them in my uncles regimental history book (304th Infantry, 76 Infantry division) they were used mostly in the indirect fire mode like the normal howitzers.

There were a total of 57 57mm anti-guns in each U.S. infantry division. These guns were also used by armored infantry battalions. Here again little is written about these weapons, that were issued in large numbers. I've read the daily diary of the anti-tank company of the 304 Infantry, 76th Infantry Division. This unit got into the war only in the last 90 days of fighting in Europe. From their diary they never faced tanks. They were used as infantry support weapons firing high explosive rounds. They had one incident when they got the jump on a German 88mm battery and took them out. They were also very proud that they mounted their 57mm into the back of their trucks and used them as field improvised self propelled guns.

[17thfabn]

In honor of passing the 100 mark on this thread, here is a web site from the 100th Infantry Division (the Century Division)

This site is handy reference for looking at the typical lay out of a late WW II U.S. Army infantry division.

http://www.100thww2.org/100org/100org.html

[polishshooter]

Great site, 17th...

You are right, I never heard of the M3...Thanks!

I DO know we used direct fire when needed...like when we needed to breech the walls in Cherbouge, and took a 155mm to point blank...

The Germans actually COMPLAINED about it through the Swiss, like they did WHENEVER we did something THEY couldn't do...like TOT..."Unfair!, Unfair!"

[Xracer]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

17th, I've been kicking around in my head ideas for my "first" book for years, and one of them would be titled "The Never Intendeds...." or something like that.... Kind of a catalogue of military weapons DESIGNED for some purpose that were then used effectively for something TOTALLY different, especially if they were never used or even FAILED at what they were intended to do in the first place, as designed....

Hey Polish.....how about the U.S. M9 Pistol? Designed as a military sidearm....and makes a great paperweight (at least in comparison to the M1911).

[Pistolenschutze]

X, I heard that Polish secretly wants to write a book about the glories of the Glock pistol and the Mauser rifle, and then plans a second volume about the Tiger tank.

[17thfabn]

Polish some sites will tell you that the M-3 105mm Infantry Howitzer was designed as a airborne weapon. It was used as this, but it was originaly designed as a infantry support weapon. The crews that manned it were considered to be infantry not artillery.

In Korea, my fathers 8" howitzer went into the front lines on occasion to take out key targets.

Xracer, I wonder how many enemies have been shot with the M-9. Any one who knows they are going into a fire fight should bring some thing better than a pistol be it a 9mm or .45. Of course there are personnel who are not normaly expected to fight, but are issued side arms. And of course in this type of war you never know when you can be in the thick of things. I wonder how often tales of the enemy not going down when shot were due to personnel thinking they had gotten hits when they in fact have missed? Several years ago a Ohio Highway patrol man had a shoot out with a thug that was only as far as the width of a car. Both sides fired several shots but all missed. Under stress of a real shoot out accuracy is often poor.

[polishshooter]

17th, I HAD heard of an "Airborne" 105 in WWII, not the same lightweight one they used in Vietnam....but I didn't know it was an "Infantry gun"

MOST European Armies, especially pre-WWII had "Infantry guns" and "Artillery" that were slightly different, shorter barreled or lighter models of the same field piece...but I didn't know WE did...like the Russian 76mm "Infantry gun," vs the 76mm howitzer...

I KNEW we had the 37mms and 57mms, and even the 3" AT guns used by the Infanttry, but didn't know they had "pocket" Arty!

[Pistolenschutze]

The 105 was a mainstay for a lot of years. I remember their use in Vietnam quite well indeed. Relatively light, easy to serve, and highly effective. My dad served with the 155s during WWII, and while they were excellent guns, they were much more cumbersome, mostly due to the fact that they did not use fixed ammo like the 105s.

[17thfabn]

This is a picture of a standard W.W. II U.S M2 105MM howitzer:

https://www.infantry.army.mil/museum...s/us_105mm.htm

Here is a picture of the U.S. M3 105mm infantry howitzer:

http://www.bragg.army.mil/18abn/images/M3.jpg

And finaly a picture of a U.S. 75mm pack howitzer:

http://www.bragg.army.mil/18abn/images/M1a1.jpg


The M2 is much larger, and has a longer range. It was the most common U.S. artillery piece of WW II.

The M3 is lighter but has a much shorter range. It was built for use by U.S. infantry regiments, manned by infantry rather than artillery crews It was intended to be used for direct fire. It was modified for use by the airborne units.

The 75mm pack howitzer and M3 105mm infantry howitzer are of similar size but the M3 is heavier due to it's heavier barrel.
The 75mm pack howitzer was used as a mountain gun, (by the 10th Mountain Division). As a pack howitzer for jungle fighting. (The marines made heavy use of this handy weapon). And it too was modified for use by airborne units. It was the most used artillery piece of the airborne units, U.S. and British.

[polishshooter]

Actually, PS, maybe 17th can help here, BUT I thought the 155 howitzer DID use fixed ammo, the largest one that DID.

I was reading somewhere that is why it is and will probably always be the most popular artillery piece in virtually every army...the largest round that can be handled (barely) by one man....


By coincidence, my Dad served with a new towed 105 unit forming at Bragg in 44 that never went over, as a number 4. But until the day he died, when he had JUST enough to drink, his BAD rendition of "The Caissons Go Rolling Along" was bound to happen....

[Pistolenschutze]

Nope, Polish. The 155mm howitzer used a shell plus packaged powder. My dad was a crewman on the 155s in North Africa, Sicily, and Italy during WWII.

[polishshooter]

Yeah, I believe you are right. What I read was from "Dirty Little Secrets," and they said the 155 was the largest round at 90lbs. that could be "manhandled," which is why it is so popular all over the world, and compares it to the 105 which was most popular among every army in War two, and the 75 in War I, BUT I just read too much into it, I guess they meant just the projectile, because the COMPLETE round when loaded is over 100..

For some reason I thought the howitzer fired semi-fixed, and the gun or "Long Tom" fired with the bags...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

For some reason I thought the howitzer fired semi-fixed, and the gun or "Long Tom" fired with the bags...

Interesting you should mention the Long Tom, Polish. My dad used to talk about those long-barrel 155s. He said the shell that was used for them was slightly different than the howitzers in that it had two "rings" on it that flew off when the shell was fired. They made a very distinctive sound apparently.

[17thfabn]

The 155mm has seperate loading ammunition, e.g., the projectile is loaded then the powder bags. A variable number of bags can be loaded dependent on range.

The 105mm howitzer round is not fixed ammunition, it is semi-fixed. The semi-fixed ammunition looks like a fixed round such as is used by tank guns, but the charge can be adjusted by pulling off propellent bags. Rounds can be loaded more rapidly, one crew member sets up the ammunition so it is ready.

I'm not sure but I believe the British 25 pounder in WW II used semi-fixed ammunition for it's high expolsive rounds, and fixed for it's anti-tank shot.

When I was in the Army in the late 70's and early 80's we had 105mm, 155mm, 175mm and 8" (203MM) howitzers.
The 175mm had a heavier round and longer range than the 8" but was considered to be inacurate and was being phased out of serivce.

It seems like the Army has decided to have the 155mm self propelled as their standard gun. It can fire high explosive, white phosphorus, smoke, and I.C.M. (improved conventional rounds), and copper head rounds.

The I.C.M. rounds come in several types all firing sub-munitions:
There is a anti-personnel type with a hand grenade type sup-munition.
Anti-armor with shaped charge submunitions.
There is round that can deliver several anti-tank or anti-personnel mines.
There is a smoke I.C.M. with smoke sub-munitions.
Think of the I.C.M. rounds as the artillery's cluster bomb.

The copper head rounds can be directed onto a target by a lazer designator, used by a forward observer.

I believe that the mech-infantry and armor divisions now only have 155mm s.p. artillery and multiple launched rockets as their artillery. This would simplify supply.

The airborne (82nd Airborne Division), air assault (101st Air Assault Division) mountain (10th Mountain Division) need lighter equipment. They still have a lighter 105mm and towed 155mm for their use.

Pistolenshutze, I thought the WW II 155mm howitzer and 155mm gun (long tom) used the same projectile. The 155mm gun (long tom) had a longer range due to it's longer barrel, and being able to take a larger propellent charge.

Polish, and Pistolenshutze, my father was also a Army Artillery man. He was trained in amphibious warafare as a duck driver. When he went to Korea they had already landed at Inchon, and he was reassigned to the 17th Field Artillery, which had 8" howitzers.

Pistolenshutze, how have you in less than a year had 2,000 posts, while I in over three and 1/2 years havn't even reache 300?

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by 17thfabn

Pistolenshutze, I thought the WW II 155mm howitzer and 155mm gun (long tom) used the same projectile. The 155mm gun (long tom) had a longer range due to it's longer barrel, and being able to take a larger propellent charge.

My understanding, 17th, is that the Long Toms could use the same ammo as the howitzers, but that they also had a specially made round for them with the two rings that was used as well. This was supposed to have something to do with the increased range of the piece as opposed to the howitzer. To be honest, I have no personal knowledge of it one way or the other. Just going by what my dad mentioned when I was a kid.

Originally Posted by 17thfabn

Pistolenshutze, how have you in less than a year had 2,000 posts, while I in over three and 1/2 years havn't even reache 300?

Loquaciousness? Exposure to the Blarney Stone at a young age? I have it! It's all Polishshooter's fault! It's my lot in life to keep him honest. It's a very tough job, nearly impossible at times, but somebody's gotta do it!

[17thfabn]

Pistolenshutze, loquaciousness? You made me break out the dictionary!

Pistolenshutze I'm not sure why the 155mm projectile for the long tom would have an extra band on some rounds. Maybe special ammo was used when they were firing the heaviest charges, extra bands were needed to contain the pressure? And regular ammunition would be used for shorter ranges with smaller charges?

Here is another odd ball U.S. artillery piece from World War II:
The 4.5" gun. The gun was of British design, and used the same carriage as the U.S. 155mm howitzer. This weapon was handy, but the projectile was not very efficent. The projectile for the 4.5" gun weighed 55 pounds, but had only 4.5 pounds of explosive, compared to a 105mm projectile which weighed 33 pounds and had 4.8 pounds of explosives. Seventeen seperate U.S. Army field artillery battalions used the 4.5" gun in Europe. Sorry, I couldn't find a picture of this weapon.

[polishshooter]

Yeah, EVERYTHING I say seems to draw a response (nay, ARGUMENT! ) from PS...

But what you got is a couple of impassioned HistoryNuts who respect the bejeezus out of each other's knowledge, and I only hope he has learned as much from ME as I have from him....


BTW, 17th, is it true what Nofi and Dunnigan said in 'Dirty Little Secrets?" That the MAIN reason the 155 is the most popular artillery piece is that it's about the biggest round that can be manhandled by ONE gunbunny?

It kind of makes sense, as the rate of fire would seem to take longer, plus you'd need a LOT more room in an enclosed SPG, for TWO guys or a crane....

I HOPE it makes sense, they are among my favorite writers.....

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

But what you got is a couple of impassioned HistoryNuts who respect the bejeezus out of each other's knowledge, and I only hope he has learned as much from ME as I have from him....

On that, my Polish friend, we most certainly and completely agree. I could not have said it better myself.