admin | 
07 29th, 2009| 
The Reverend Alexander John Forsyth, M renniance ebony cupboard italian antique.A brother furnitures (cupboard)., minister of the parish of Belhelvie in Aberdeenshire, was an enthusiastic shot 1940s art deco rocket sofa. Ile was fortunate, therefore, in that near the manse where he was -born, and where in due course he had succeeded his father as minister, was a loch which was a favourite resort of wild geese, duck and other water fowl loiu xiv antique laquer dresser. In addition to the hours which he spent on the shores of the loch with his long I 2-bore flintlock, the Reverend Alexander had ‘another hobby sheraton 18th century dresser. In the grounds of the manse was a little garden house which he had converted into a workshop or laboratory robert jupe table. His neoclassic furniture. parishioners knew it as the ‘Minister’s Smiddy’, and in it he pursued the taste for mechanics and chemistry which he had acquired at antique mahogany drum tables library tables writing tables. King’s College, Aberdeen antique tilt top table inlay design.
It was natural that one hobby should help the other antique music lyre chair. After getting into position for a perfect shot on the loch, Forsyth had frequently been exasperated by the fact that geese, warned by the flash of the flintlock, had time to take flight before the gun actually fired pel tubular steel side chairs. This tendency of a flintlock to ‘hang fire’ was, of course, well known, and, as shown in the last chapter, it was taken account of in military musketry instruc, tion italian wood armchairs. It only became of importance, however, in the case of a fleeting target, or, as in the case of the Reverend Alexander’s geese, a very alert one small round breakfast table. Forsyth first tried to get over the difficulty by designing a sighted hood, which fitted over the flintlock and would, he hoped, conceal the flash from the geese bugatti furniture range. The results, however, were not entirely satisfactory chinese ebony and marble table.
He next turned his attention to the possibility of obtaining an instantaneous explosion of the powder art nouveau furniture shop france. It may have been the researches of a Frenchman named Berthollet which finally led Forsyth to ‘detonation’ as the only answer to the problem; that is, in exploding a substance by hitting it with a hammer antique napoleon furtiure.
That certain substances, such as the fulminates of silver and mercury, would detonate when struck, and had great explosive power, had been known to scientists for many years gateleg table oak drop leaf rectangular. Samuel Pepys, for instance, records in his diary of the i ith November 1663:
`At antique holophane lighting.noon to the Coffee-House, where, with Dr drop front desks. Allen, some good discourse about physick and chymistry black alvar aalto stool 60 finmar. And among other things I telling him what Dribble, the German doctor, do offer of an instrument to sink ships; he tells me that which is more strange, that something made of go!d,, which they call in chymistry Aurum Fulminans, a grain, I think he said, of it put into a silver spoon and fired, will give a blow like a musquett, and strike a hole through the silver spoon downwards, without the least force upward; and this he can make a cheaper experiment of, he says, with iron prepared decoration metal bureau table desing.’
The difficulty about the fulminates was their great power antique dresser with turned leg. It was quite impractical to use them as the propellent for a bullet as they would have blown the gun up hunting chest french 18th century. Berthollet in 1788 tried to get over the problem by mixing potassium chlorate (which had lately been found to have the same property of detonation) with other components to make a gunpowder which would give a more powerful, and, at the same time, more rapid explosion than could be obtained with saltpetre as the principal ingredient carved frame desk chair. However, Berthollet’s new powder proved far too dangerous either to make in large quantities or to use with firearms spanish pottery 16th century. Further attempts by Berthollet to find a solution were prevented by -the French Revolution tableware expensive.
Forsyth’s first idea was to use a powder containing potassium chlorate or fulminate of mercury as a primer in an ordinary flintlock cheverton reducing machine. He certainly got an instantaneous flash in the priming pan, but it was so instantaneous and so little heat was, generated that the charge in the gun was not ignited at all antique fashion engravings. He then tried adding ordinary powder to the mixture in the pan, but the rapid flash scattered the gunpowder without giving it time to ignite antique cigar chair with wood arms.
After these failures Forsyth came to the conclusion that he must try a change in the method of ignition imperial,gate leg. His trials had already shown that the fulminates exploded far more violently when struck than when ignited by fire rare antqiue marbels. Experiments on these lines at last met with success furniture designersgerman. Forsyth succeeded in modifying one of his flintlock fowling-pieces to percussion ignition and used it on his loch during the winter of 1805-06 how to detect silver cutlery. The satisfactory rise in the geese casualty rate proved to the Reverend Alexander that an answer to the problem had indeed been found art deco kneeling dancer lamp.
It was soon apparent to dither Forsyth or his friends that there was a far wider scope for the new lock than in the destruction of the Belhelvie geese; and early in i 80 he journeyed to London antique mahogany card table, imperial.
Forsyth was armed with letters of introduction to some of the distinguished sportsmen in London telescopic pie crust table. It is likely that he antique japanese ko imari. also had in mind the possible use of his lock for antique light yellow dresser. military arms valueof1800’slibrarytable. In any case, one of these sportsmen showed the converted flintlock fowling-piece to Sir Joseph Banks who in turn showed it to Lord Moira, at that time Master-General of the Ordnance 1930 walnut art deco style furniture. Moira was much impressed with the invention and, sending for Forsyth, urged him to carry out further experiments in the Tower of London louis 16th style furniture. Forsyth eventually agreed on the condition that his expenses were- paid and that he should be provided with an ordained assistant to take charge of his parish during his absence drop leaf table stable base. This was arranged, Moira authorizing an initial payment-of ico and obtaining leave of absence for the minister of Belhelvie from the Aberdeen Presbytery medieval “reading slope”.
The task before Forsyth was somewhat different to the problem which he had originally set out to solve 19th century louis xv mahogany french chest of draws floral inlaid wood with marble top and glass cabinet with cabriole legs. In the case of the Belhelvie geese the speed of discharge was the important factor, and an occasional misfire was of no great matter canadian desk with drawers. For the military arm the certainty of ignition was of far greatef importance than its speed windows 1930. The flintlock misfired often, and its open mechanism was particularly susceptible to damp 18th century antique sofa collectors. The percussion arm with its enclosed lock and powerful priming action seemed to offer some certainty of ignition, and it was this aspect which must have appealed especially to Moira 19th century chinese chamber pots.
There were many difficulties art deco game tables. The original fowling-piece lock was unsuitable, and when a better enclosed lock was designed the original detonating mixture proved too powerful small antique french writing cabinet. Forsyth had originally preferred a powder with fulminate of mercury as the main ingredient, since it was cleaner than other detonating mixtures italian glass fronted display cabinets. It was found, however, that with accurately machined locks detonating mercury always burst or distorted the part which contained it antique silver candelabra screw. Since other mixtures were too foul Forsyth had to find something else round gateleg table. Moreover, several chemists having already been damaged by accidental explosions of fulminating compounds, Forsyth found it impossible to find any of them who would do more than provide him with the ingredients value of empire style china closet 1910. He therefore had to carry out all experiments himself antique jugend style cupboard.
Eventually he was successful gate leg drop leaf table. He produced a detonating powder which answered all requirements, and a lock the principle of which was approved by Lord Moira in April 1807- At this juncture, however, there was a sudden change of Ministry, which swept Moira from office and reinstalled Lord Chatham as Master-General of the Ordnance antique silver serving platter with peacock emblem on back. Chatham’s reaction to Forsyth’s experiments was to direct their author to render an account of his expenditure, return all Government property in his possession, and remove himself and his `rubbish’ from the Tower chippendale antique tables. In addition the new M wheat antique dresser.G porcelain relief herons and swans.O sphinks console tables. refused to allow the payment of the assistant at Belhelvie as part of Forsyth’s expenditure,
Forsyth left the service of the Government, therefore, not only without reward for his invention, but out of’ antique czechoslovakia porcelain vase.pocket on his expenses extending console table. If the stupid and incompetent Chatham thought little of the percussion lock, there were others who grasped its potentialities scandinavian octagon dining table. Napoleon conveyed to Forsyth the enormous offer of Z2o,000 for the use of his lock mannerist carved table. Forsyth’s outright rejection of this italian rococo style antique three arch gilded mirror.offer may possibly have saved his country the loss of the war neo-rococco cabinet.
It would not have been surprising if the Reverend Alexander had now returned to his Scottish parish blacks, meissen, porcelain. He was, however, a determined and very courageous man, and, furthermore, he had an implicit faith spanish antique table. in his percussion lock french display cabinet south eastern area. He decided therefore that if the Government would have nothing to do with his invention he would put it on the market as a private venture art deco vases. His first step was to take out a patent, and to help him to draw up the specifications he consulted the famous engineer, James Watt value clawfoot drop leaf table. The resulting document was quite a masterpiece, since the very general terms in which it was phrased covered the manufacture of all gun-locks on the percussion principle antique bedside tables marble tops. It read as follows:
`First, as to the chemical plan and principles thereof, instead of permitting the touch-hole or vent of the pieces of artillery, fire-arms, mines, chambers, cavities or places to communicate with the open air, and instead of giving fire to the charge by a lighted match, or by flint and steel; or by any other matter in a state of actual combustion applied to a priming in an open pan, I do close the touch-hole or vent by means of a plug or sliding piece, or other fit piece of metal or suitable material or materials, so as to exclude the open air, and to prevent any sensible escape of the blast or explosive gas or vapour outwards, or from the priming or charge, and as much as possible to force the said priming to go in the direction of the charge, and to set fire to the same, and not to be wasted in the open air; and as a priming I do make use of some or one of those chemical compounds which are so easily inflammable as to be capable of taking fire and exploding without any actual fire being applied thereto, and merely by a blow, or by any sudden or strong pressure or friction given or applied thereto without extraordinary violence; that hat is to say, for example, the salt formed of dephlogistigated marine acid and potash (or potasse), which salt is otherwise called oxymuriate of potash; or I do make use of such of the fulminating metallic compounds as may be used with safety: for example, fulminating mercury, or of common gunpowder mixed in due quantity with any of the before-mentioned compounds; and these compounds, or mixtures of compounds, I find to be much better for priming than gunpowder used alone, which cannot be made to explode without some sparks or actual fire applied thereto, or else without such a degree of extraordinary and violent percussion as cannot conveniently be made use of in gunnery, or with any of the firearms or artillery that are in most general use arabesque vertical plate racks. But it is to be observed that I do not lay claim to the invention of any of the said compounds or matters to be used for priming, my invention in regard thereto being confined to the use and application thereof to the purposes of artillery and firearms as aforesaid; and the manner of priming and exploding which I use is to introduce into the touch-hole or vent, or into a small and strong chamber or place between the said touch-hole and vent, and the plug or sliding piece, or other piece by which the communication with the external air is cut off, a small portion of some or one of the chemical compounds herein-before mentioned (for example, as for priming to a musket, about the eighth part of a grain), and when the required discharge is to be made I do cause the said chemical compound or priming to take fire and explode by giving a stroke or sudden and strong pressure to the same, communicated by and through the said plug or sliding piece; or other piece before mentioned or described, in consequence of which the fire of the priming is immediately communicated to the contents or charge placed within the said piece of artillery, fire-arm, mine, chamber, cavity, or place, and the discharge accordingly follows czechoslovakia old furniture.’
The patent was granted in July 1807, and in the following year Forsyth opened a gun shop at No antique engraved drawings. io Piccadilly under the title of ‘Forsyth & Company, Patent Gun Makers’ the period preceding art deco. The name of the assistant whom he engaged is probably now better known than that of his master, for it was none other than James Purdey, formerly with Joseph Manton and later founder of the famous firm of James Purdey & Sons dutch rococo walnut cupboard. The wares of the new company were advertised as follows:
`The Forsyth patent gunlock is entirely different from the common gunlock green wedgewood plant pots. It produces inflammation by means of percussion and supersedes the use of flints boulle tabel. Its principle advantages are the following: The rapid and complete inflammation of the whole charge of gunpowder in the chamber of the barrel india brass table tray. The prevention of the loss of force through the touchhole antique brass leg knee mount french. Perfect security against rain or damp in the priming antique table collectors. No flash from the pan and less risk of accidental discharge of the piece than when the common lock is used antique card table collectors. The charge of gunpowder to be from one third to one fourth less than when the flintlock is used meubles art antique american.
The lock which was fitted to the guns sold at io Piccadilly was of the same design as that perfected by Forsyth during his time at the Tower names of art deco furniture makers. It -was) however, of finished and decorative workmanship, as compared with the rough models which he made for military trials queen anne antique bureau photo. At approximately the same place where the flash-pan is on a flintlock gun, a steel plug was screwed into the side of the barrel 18th century drum tables. The plug was drilled through the centre with an-inch hole which gave access into the breech and to the powder charge sideboard plinth. Mounted on, and pivoting on, the plug was the container which held the priming charge: This container was, on account of its shape, described as the `scent-bottle’ type meissen candlesticks. It was divided horizontally into two halves, the lower of which was filled with detonating powder austere style. On the upper surface of the plug was a small ‘flash-pan about * inch wide and -’16 inch deep, and from the bottom of this a very narrow vent of about pin-size diameter led to the central hole of the plug antique jugend style cupboard. (The outer end of this central hole was closed by the screw- which held the container in position greek neoclassical porcelain.) When the container was turned through i8o degrees a small amount of the detonating powder dropped into the flash-pan francaise antique. Reversing the container to its original position brought a striker into line with the flash-pan antique mahogany dolphin table. When the trigger was pulled a hammer was released which hit the striker and detonated the priming powder american made old french style chairs. The flash-pan being enclosed the flame was forced down the vent with great force, causing an instantaneous discharge of the gun ruhlmann chair.
The lower half, or magazine, of the container held enough priming powder for about twenty shots antique rectangle drop leaf table cabinet. In addition, part of the equipment of the gun was an ivory flask in which was carried spare powder to refill the magazine biedermeier canape.
The new lock was an immediate success, and between i8o8 when Forsyth opened his business until 1821 when his patent expired nearly 4000 locks were made dutch 18th century walnut chest on chest. Some of these were attached to newly manufactured guns and pistols, and others were sold separately for fitting to converted flintlocks social origins of art deco. Use of percussion sporting arms became widespread britannia silver candlesticks. A well-known and very keen sportsman, Mr paul follot chair. H 1900th century furniture. Baring, M 1840s wooden chest.P coalbrookdale neptune dish., wrote to Forsyth in’ 1814 saying, ‘I think I may now congratulate you on having made your Patent lock perfect and I venture to predict that in a few years nothing else will be used by sportsmen in this country kotahya pottery. I have shot with your guns for the last four years entirely, and under their different stages of improvement, and few persons can be better qualified than myself to form a practical opinion of them antique chinese display cabinets black oak. I shoot every day it is possible to go out from the beginning of the season to the end and I am often in the predicament of firing my gun as often as my barrels will bear to be fired in one day 1940’s art deco black and gray lacquer bedroom set prices.’
Nevertheless the `scent-bottle’ lock had one serious weakness scroll planter table y chair. The loose detonating powder in the magazine sometimes exploded owing to the flame from the flash-pan leaking through to it “goldscheider mark”. A later Forsyth design, incorporating a magazine which slid forward on rollers over the flash-pan, was open to the same objection console tables tubular uk.
Some of the other gunmakers had ideas as to how the difficulty might be surmounted, but Forsyth’s porcelaine antique motif ming. all-embracing patent protected him from any competition in Great Britain antique bullock’s 8′ sofa. A Genevan gunsmith of Paris, Pauly, however, arrived at the same solution in 18 12 which had already occurred to one or two dinning table carved like an animal. British gunsmiths austrian mirrored tables. This, in short, was to put the detonating mixture in a pellet, thus avoiding the danger of the loose powder parquetry specimen top. Pauly’s pellet was much the same as the present-day cap used for toy pistols walnut beaconsfield wardrobe. It consisted of a mixture-of potassium chlorate with sulphur and charcoal, to which was added a small amount of gum arabic antique pembroke table, inlay design. This was moulded into a hard pill and enclosed between two paper discs steele art deco chair wood arm rests.
In 18 16 Joseph Manton, younger brother of John Manton who had been foreman to Twigg, took a risk and patented a percussion pellet lock antique octagonal table small. This embodied a hammer with a hollow head in which the pellet was first inserted, and then the striker “chinese screen” and “mother of pearl”. The striker was drilled down its centre with a very narrow hole, and had a cavity cut in its outer surface antique trestle refectory table. When the trigger was pulled the forward movement of the hammer brought the striker into contact with a nipple, which fitted into the cavity and had a vent communicating with the powder charge cassone furniture -chris -vincent -antonio -gabriele. The force with which the hammer hit the nipple drove the striker back against the pellet, and the resulting flame travelled down the central hole in the striker and thence via the vent in the nipple to the powder japanned antique chest-how to strip lacquer. Though an ingenious idea, Manton’s lock was clearly an infringement of Forsyth’s patent, and was hardly an improvement on it since the striker had to be removed after each shot lambeth ingredients.
In 1818 Joseph Manton tried-again antique ceramic dish in silver stand. This time, instead of using a pellet he had designed a `tube-lock’, which he thought to be outside the scope of the Forsyth specification walnut side tables and lowboys. In this lock one end of a copper tube filled with fulminate of mercury was inserted :into the vent communicating with the charge 18th century amboyna card table. There it was held by a spring cover, and was struck by the hammer through a hole in the cover art deco furniture in united state. This was a very successful design, for it was simple and gave a certain discharge commedia del arte wallendorf. However, Forsyth was successful in a lawsuit, and Manton was unable to proceed with his lock deco porcelain spanish dancers female.
This lawsuit came almost at the end of Forsyth’s active interest in his company antique 17th century drop leaf tables. The patent had only two years to run, and in 1819 the Reverend Alexander returned to his parish, where he was to continue to officiate until his death in 1843, In the same year the company moved to 8 Leicester Street, Leicester Square, and finally ceased operations in 1826 george bullock collectors cabinet.
Forsyth received little public recognition during his life-time etruscan pottery price offer. In 1842 the Treasury granted him X2oo, on the recommendation of the Master-General of the Ordnance, ‘for remuneration as the original inventor of percussion firearms’ antique cigar chair with wood arms. This was four years after the first issue of percussion arms to -the Army, and was presumably the parsimonious reflection of the stirring of the official conscience antique pottey work table. About four months after Forsyth’s death the M antique occasional table inlaid roses.G baluster leg draw leaf table.O popular art techniques and their origin. represented that the previous reward was inadequate, with the result that Forsyth’s three surviving relatives received the’further sum of ki000 to divide between them mid century modern spider leg coffee table.
The expiration of Forsyth’s patent, of course, resulted in the appearance of a large number of new designs of percussion locks 1740’s art dining. Joseph Manton’s tube-lock reappeared, and became a great favourite for the big punt guns used against wildfowl regency furniture history.
b
It gave the particularly powerful flash which was required to ignite the large charge of coarse powder with which these guns were customarily loaded 18th century drinking glasses.
A number of new pellet locks were also devised; but although a few were used for a time on fowling-pieces, they had no lasting influence on the design of percussion locks, and they cannot be claimed as being in the line of development which led to military percussion arms jacobian furniture.
The invention which really made the percussion lock a practical military proposition was the copper cap expensive antique utensils. This extremely simple device had results of such far-reaching importance that there were several claimants to the honour of having invented it 1880s cooking utensils. The cap was a thimble-shaped piece of copper with a charge of detonating mixture inside-its crown five legs two leaf oak antique dining table. This was placed on a nipple having a central vent which cominunicated with the charge of gunpowder in the chamber of the gun antique empire candlestick. All that was required to fire the gun was the blow of the hammer on the cap antique pedestal regency sideboard.
It seems now to have been established beyond doubt that the inventor of the cap was an English landscape painter named Joshua Shaw, who emigrated to America in 1816 antique chinese scroll coffee table.
Shaw designed his first lock in 1814 art deco reproductions clock. This was an early form of the ultimate design weisweiller furniture. The cap, however, was of steel, and the priming mixture was inserted separately into the crown of the cap as a pellet antique table with enamel top and cup design. Unlike the final copper cap, this steel cap was not thrown away after firing, but was- used again with a fresh pellet robert jupe extending circular table copy. A gun with a lock of this design was made for Shaw by Roantree, a Durham gunsmith directoire napoleon furniture. Forsyth’s monopoly, however, prevented Shaw from securing a patent austria furniture company. Nevertheless he carried on his experiments, first replacing the steel cap with an expendable one of pewter; and ultimately, in 1816, with the copper cap joan klock, amsterdam, clockmaker. It may have been his inability to manufacture his copper-cap lock’ in England which caused Shaw to go to America antique bentwood rocking chair. There his invention was successful, and eventually he was employed by the United States Government in making percussion caps for experimental military arms tecnical drawings antique. Whilst engaged on this work in 1831 an explosion disabled his left hand late classical pier table. Shaw put in a claim for compensation, which was recognized by Congress; but it was not till sixteen years later that Congress awarded him a sum of $ x 6,000 for past and future rights in his invention kent extending antique table.
In the meantime it appears that in England Joseph Manton had obtained some knowledge of Shaw’s copper cap antique korean porcelain. Possibly he had heard of it before the latter’s departure for America malard furniture. In any case about 1818 he made such a cap; and as soon as Forsyth’s patent had expired he started selling arms with the copper-cap percussion lock louis 16th style furniture. Manton had an enthusiastic backer in Colonel Peter Hawker of Longparish, Hampshire, a famous spprtsman, author of a well-known book called Instructions to Toung Sportsmen, wounded in the Peninsular campaign, and Lieutenant-Colonel of the North Hampshire Militia antique frnech empire furniture. In his book Hawker claimed that he ‘was a patron of Joseph Manton and made many field trials of his guns, and contributed to the design and inventions of Joseph Manton’ wm iv 3 pedestal dining room table. He goes on to say that he suggested the idea of the copper cap -to Joseph Manton when he was engaged on his tube bloomsbury london arts and crafts. lock, and that the latter reluctantly agreed to try it antique drop front desk. Manton certainly labelled his first gun fitted with a lock of this type ‘Made from the Original Design of Colonel Peter Hawker’ antique ceramic indian elephant end table. Writing some time after the event the recollection of this gesture by Manton may have coloured Hawker’s memory antique tea table carved japanese.
Manton, however, was not the only English gunsmith to make a copper cap in 1818 architect jon monteith gates. Joseph Egg of Piccadilly may even have preceded Manton, and he was making guns with the cap percussion lock at the same time banquet table antique middle ages. Furthermore, he was labelling the cases with the manifestly inaccurate legend, ‘Inventor of the Percussion Cap’ can decorative moulding be antique bookcase.
By the x 8 2o’s, then, percussion arms were a commonplace amongst sportsmen 18th empire furniture. It was to be many years yet before they were to be placed in the hands of the soldiers flemish refectory table.
The German Super-Guns of the WWII
The German super-guns
The heaviest field equipments seen during the war were the German self-propelled howitzers generically known as ‘Karl Morsers’. These were of two calibres, 540-mm and 600-mm, mounted on the same type of carriage. Six carriages were made and the exact disposition of barrels between them is in some doubt; the carriages were numbered I to VI; Vehicle V was captured by the US 1st Army and found to have a 540-mm barrel, yet photographs captured later showed this same carriage to have a 600-mm barrel. It is probably safe to assume that three of each calibre were made. The date of introduction is also a little vague, but it seems fairly certain that the 600-mm version was introduced in 1942 and the 540-mm in 1944.
The carriage of ‘Karl’ was a simple rectangular box, divided into three compartments. The first held the Mercedes-Benz engine and transmission; the second carried the gun; and the third held the carriage raising and lowering gear. After driving into position on its tracks the engine was used to drive the lowering gear, which rotated the anchorages of the suspension torsion bars so as to allow the chassis to be lowered to the ground until the suspension and track were relieved of the weight. For long-distance moves the gun and recoil system were removed from the carriage, dismantled, and loaded on to spec,a -,a e•s, the carriage was then winched on to a special tank-transpor-er. For very long distances the complete gun and carriage assembly could be slung between two railway flat wagons by means of special trusses.
In the use of railway artillery Germany virtually had the field to herself. This class of weapon is really the prerogative of the Continental nation with a well-developed rail system by which it can readily deploy them to any front. In contrast, Britain and the USA, while possessing railway guns. used them solely as mobile coast defence units, since the problem of transporting two or three hundred tons of railway mounting across the Channel was not a trick to be undertaken lightly. Indeed, the British and American weapons were almost entirely relics of the First World War which had been in mothballs. 1940 saw a few more mountings hastily cobbled together from available spares and hurried to cover the Channel, just as in similar fashion American guns were mobilised and deployed in 1941. In 1944 reports from France indicated that heavy railway artillery might be of use in demolishing strongpoints to be expected in the final assault in Germany, and designs were hastily prepared by the Americans for a number of 16-inch guns, but within a few weeks it was seen that heavy artillery of this class had been rendered superfluous by the quality and quantity of air support available, and the demand was cancelled.
The German army had a vast range of railway guns from 150-mm upwards, but two were really outstanding and deserve closer examination. The first was the 28-cm K5(E)—Kanone, Model 5, Eisenbahnlafette —which became their standard super-heavy railway gun and was probably the finest design of its k;nd in the world. The basic arithmetic and paperwork had been done in the late 1920s and early 1930s, and work began on the gun in 1934. (It is worth noting that every German railway gun was designed and built by Krupp— Rheinmettal did design two, but they were never made.) First, a 150-mm barrel was produced for tests; it had been decided that to obtain the great range demanded, a conventionally rifled barrel was out of the question. A design was prepared with 12 deep grooves and having a shell carrying 12 ribs, or splines, to match. The theory behind this was that the engraving of a conventional copper driving band on the shell gave rise to very high pressure in the gun chamber; by using the spline and groove method to spin the shell, this resistance was removed, and the shell would step off more smartly, allowing a bigger propelling charge to be used without over-straining the gun. The 150-mm test barrel proved that the theory was right, and a full-calibre 280-mm barrel was built.
The mounting was a simple box-girder assembly carried on two six-axle bogies, with the front bogie slung so as to allow the front of the box-girder to be swung across it for aiming the gun. For large angles the whole weapon was mounted on a special portable turntable built at the end of a short spur of track laid at the desired firing point. Each gun was supplied with a special train which included wagons for carrying the turntable, light-antiaircraft guns for local defence, air-conditioned ammunition wagons, living quarters and kitchen for the gunners, and flat wagons to carry their entitlement of motor transport.
By 1940 eight of these complete equipments were in service, and production continued throughout the war, 25 being built in all. The German gunners called them ‘Slim Bertha’, but to the Allies in Italy one at least became famous as ‘Anzio Annie’.
With the 561-pound pre-rifled shell the gun could reach to 68,000 yards. A rocket-assisted shell was later developed which increased this range, with a certain loss of accuracy, to 94,000 yards. Finally, the Peenembride Research Establishment designed a 300-pound dart-like projectile which was fired from a special 310-mm smooth-bore barrel and which ranged to 170,000 yards. Although coming too late for general issue, these ‘PeenemOnde Arrow Shells’ were issued for troop trials in the field, and some were fired against the US 3rd Army at ranges of about 70 miles.
The second railway gun, ‘Gustav’, was the biggest gun the world has ever seen —the Krupp-designed 800-mm Kanone. The idea was conceived in 1937 of a pair of super-guns; they were of quite conventional design, except for their immense size. Too large to be moved in one piece, they were transported piecemeal in special trains and assembled at the selected sites by travelling cranes. When assembled, the mounting straddled two sets of standard-gauge rails, with 80 wheels taking the 1,350-ton weight. An armour or concrete-piercing shell of 7 tons was propelled by a 13/4-ton charge to a range of 23 miles, or a 5-ton high-explosive shell to 29 miles. The first equipment, ‘Gustav’, was proved at the Rugenwalde range in March 1943, in Hitler’s presence. The only record of its use was at the siege of Sebastopol; the gun was sited at Bakhchisary and fired some 30 to 40 rounds. One shot is recorded as having penetrated through 100 feet of earth to destroy a Soviet ammunition dump at Severnaya Bay. The subsquent history of the gun is unknown (it was presumably captured by the Red Army).
The second equipment, ‘Dora’. so far as is known, never left the proving ground, though what happened to it at the end of the war is a minor mystery (some ammunition and a spare barrel were found at Krupp’s proof establishment at Meppen near the Dutch border).
The detachment necessary to man. maintain, and give local protection to Gustav was 4,120 men strong. commanded by a major-general. The actual fire-control and operation of the gun demanded a colonel and 500 men, and the construction or dismantling of the weapon took between four and six weeks. A long-range ‘PeenemOnde Arrow Shell’ was developed for Gustay. but, so far as is known, was never fired. This was to weigh 2.200 pounds and range to 100 miles. There was also a proposition to mount a 520-mm gun on the same carriage to fire rocket-assisted shells and ‘PeenemOnde Arrow Shells’ to a range of 118 miles for cross-channel bombardment, but this never got past the drawing-board.
If it is accepted that it is not a good idea to tamper with a good gun design in the middle of a war, then the only way to render the gun more effective is to improve the ammunition, and this technique was frequently adopted during the war. And in no field is this seen to greater effect than in the battle against the tank. The reason for this is fairly self-evident: personnel targets remain more or less the same—once the anti-personnel projectile is perfected it can stay as it is. On the other hand, once a new anti-tank projectile appears, it is only a matter of time before the enemy put thicker armour on his tanks.
At the outbreak of war there were two types of anti-tank projectile: the armour-piercing (AP) shot, and the AP shell. The difference is basic. Shot are solid, with no explosive filling, and rely purely on their speed to smash through the armour and do damage inside the tank by their impact, the fragments of plate they knock off during penetration, and their own effect when they penetrate the plate and bounce around inside the tank. AP shells, on the other hand, have a small cavity filled with high explosive and are fitted with a fuse in the base. The shell penetrates, similarly to shot, by brute force, but the fuse is activated by the impact and, after a short delay to allow the shell to pass through the plate and enter the tank, the explosive is detonated, shattering the shell into fragments and adding to the shot-like damage already caused. On paper the shell is the better proposition, since there is the bonus of the explosive filling. But paper figures tend to be deceptive, and in fact the shot is probably the more practical projectile, because the high-explosive (HE) cavity weakens the shell, and the fuse is precariously supported against the hammer-blow of impact. Britain held firmly to the shot theory for anti-tank work, though many years of experience in producing AP shells for naval use was available. Several other nations preferred AP shell, bewitched by the HE bonus.
Most of the belligerents entered the war with a plain shot or shell and relied on throwing it hard enough to penetrate the opposing tanks. So long as the target was relatively lightly armoured this was successful; but, naturally, each side began to increase armour thickness on each succeeding generation of tank. The quick answer to this was to increase the gun charge or even the calibre, and thus throw the projectile harder, but there comes a time when the impact is too much for the projectile, and instead of piercing, it merely shatters on the outside of the target without doing any damage.
The answer to this was to protect the tip of the shot or shell with a softer cap, which tended to spread the impact stresses over the shoulders of the projectile, instead of concentrating them into the tip. This preserved the piercing action to higher velocities, and the gun was again winning the battle. The next move belonged to the tank designers who made their armour thicker, and so it went on until the projectile was once more shattering, cap or no cap. At this point the projectile designers were faced with a new problem: if it was futile to throw the projectile harder, might it not be possible to throw a harder projectile? And what was harder than an armour-piercing projectile? Tungsten carbide, a diamond-hard alloy, provided an answer, but it was about one-and-a-half times as heavy as steel, so that it could not easily be made into a projectile. Furthermore, it was expensive and in short supply.
The first application of tungsten to an anti-tank projectile was by the German army in their 28-mm Schwere Panzerbuchse 41, a weapon with a unique tapered barrel. The shot consisted of a small core of tungsten carbide held in a light alloy casing of 28-mm calibre. As the shot was fired down the gun barrel, so the calibre diminished and the light alloy casing was ground down, until it emerged as a 21-mm shot. This squeezing enhanced the velocity and changed the ratio of shot diameter to weight. The velocity reached was 4,000 feet per second, and, on impact with the target, the hardness of the core was impervious to impact shock and penetrated successfully.
About the same time—late 1940—a similar idea had been put forward by a Mr Janacek, a Czechoslovakian weapon designer working in England. While his idea was still under consideration, a specimen of the German weapon was captured in North Africa and flown home for trials: the idea was seen to be feasible. The British version was in the form of a taper-bore adapter to be fitted to the existing 2-pounder gun, together with a special tungsten-cored shot, known under the code name of ‘Littlejohn’, an Anglicised version of Janacek. The advantage here was that the adapter could be removed to permit firing normal explosive shells, but could be refitted quickly for the special shot, whereas the German design required a special pattern of high-explosive shell to be developed, a difficult feat in such a small calibre. The ‘Littlejohn’ attachment and its shot were not used in towed artillery, since by the time they were ready for service the anti-tank units were armed with 6-pounders, but it was used on 2-pounder and American 37-mm guns mounted in armoured cars.
To use tungsten in a conventional gun, a different approach was needed. The first attempt, for the 6-pounder, was the ‘AP Composite Rigid’ (APCR) shot, a tungsten core mounted in an alloy sheath of approximately the same dimensions as the conventional steel shot for the gun. By virtue of its light alloy content the APCR shot was somewhat lighter and thus had a higher velocity when fired. Unfortunately the ratio of weight-to-diameter was unfavourable, giving a poor ballistic coefficient or ‘carrying power’, and while the short-range performance was impressive, the velocity soon dropped, and at ranges over 1,000 yards, steel shot was just as good, sometimes better. Some German weapons were also provided with the same type of projectile, and one was designed for use in the Soviet 76.2-mm field gun which the Germans captured in large numbers and converted into an anti-tank gun. Unfortunately for them, by early 1942 the shortage of tungsten in Germany began to be felt, and in the middle of that year a ban was placed on the use of tungsten in ammunition; what scarce supplies there were had been earmarked for machine tool production, not for throwing about the Russian steppes. After strong remonstrations, the 5-cm Pak 38 anti-tank gun was specifically exempted from this ban, since at that time it was the only weapon capable of stopping a Russian T-34 tank, provided it was supplied with tungsten-cored shot.
Although the 6-pounder APCR shot seemed reasonably successful, it was not the ideal answer. The ideal, in fact, sounded ridiculous: what was wanted was a shot which in the barrel was large-calibre and light, so as to pick up speed quickly and leave the gun at high velocity, but which outside the barrel should be small in diameter and heavy, so as to have good ‘carrying power’ and keep up its high velocity for a long range. These two conflicting requirements were fused into one projectile by two British designers, Permutter and Coppock, of the Armaments Research Department. Even before the 6-pounder had received its APCR shot they were at work, and in March 1944 their ‘AP Discarding Sabot’ shot was provided for the 6-pounder. In this design, the tungsten core is contained in a streamlined steel sheath or sub-projectile; this in turn is carried in a light-alloy framework or ’sabot’ of the full gun calibre. On firing, this sabot holds the sub-projectile centralised in the bore and gives the whole thing the combination of light weight and large area which is wanted for velocity. But firing actually ‘unlocks’ the sabot, and as the shot leaves the gun muzzle, so the sabot is thrown clear, allowing the sub-projectile to race to the target at velocities of the order of 3,000 feet per second. Now, since the sub-projectile’s sheath is virtually a skin round the tungsten core, it follows that the weight is high in relation to the cross-section—the ideal condition for good carrying power and thus long-range performance. A similar projectile for the 17-pounder followed in September 1944, and one was under development for the 20-pounder tank gun when the war ended.
The Germans concentrated their armour from the start in special armoured divisions comprising a balanced force of tanks, artillery, infantry, engineers, and administrative services. No consideration was given to the idea behind the French and British ‘infantry’ tanks and the doctrines associated with them. The tanks, supported by their own artillery and infantry, were to operate as a concentrated strategic force directed against the enemy’s weakest spots and well ahead of the main, slower, infantry army.
This tank army, trained as a team, consisting of ten armoured divisions by May 9, 1940, contained at all levels a wealth of experience. Many of its officers and men were members of tank units which fought on Franco’s side in the Spanish Civil War. Here they gained battle practice: they tested new techniques and the mechanical capabilities of their machines; and they saw the fate that befell tank forces that were put into battle dispersed in ‘penny packets’. Moreover, intensive peacetime exercises in Germany had been supplemented by the bloodless occupations of Austria in 1938 and Czechoslovakia in 1939. In rapid, long-distance thrusts through these countries, the armoured forces taught themselves essential administrative lessons without having actually to engage in combat.
In September 1939, when the fighting began, the administration worked well and the armoured divisions outfought the old-fashioned Polish army in a matter of days, showing that the quality of the highly specialised, mechanised forces was master of the quantity mustered by the larger, traditional conscript armies. It also confirmed what had been long understood: that the air arm, working in close cooperation with tanks, conferred a powerful element of heavy fire-support on forces operating deep in the enemy rear. The aircraft were in fact a substitute for heavy artillery.
Singers without song
Thus on May 9, 1940, the relative overall condition of the opposing armoured forces can be summarised as follows. The French, saddled with a technique that was 20 years out of date, and with machines operated by men who lacked experience of the pace and scope of modern battle conditions, were partnered by the British, whose techniques were far more up-to-date, but who were attempting to practise them with too few machines, and with a number of officers and men who had not yet had time to grasp the significance of their new role. Indeed, it was this lack of experience that most seriously bedevilled the fighting quality of the Allies. Their armoured formations, either through reasons of policy, doctrine, or lack of machines, had not practised together. Nor was there close co-operation with the air arm in the forefront of the land battle. So they were in fact singers without a song.
Fatally linked with their limited use of tanks was the failure of the Allied command to understand and make adequate strategic preparations to defeat the German attacks when they eventually came. There was a belief, sincerely held, despite warnings from men of practical experience, that some terrains were naturally tank-proof and others could be made secure by the erection of concrete and steel fortifications. It was thought that mechanised armies would not be able to pass through the narrow lanes, forests, and valleys of the Ardennes; that the Maginot Line would be impenetrable, and that the extensions of the Maginot Line along the Belgian frontier, certain inundations, and large built-up areas would also be serious obstacles to tank action.
Therefore the Allies made no elaborate plans for tank counterthrusts in the localities they had classified as tank-proof. The best, mobile armoured portions of the French army were not deployed in a manner permitting them to launch an immediate, concentrated counterstroke —even if their doctrine had envisaged such action. As we have seen, no such doctrine existed and as a result it was quite conceivable —even probable—that the light mechanised divisions and the new tank divisions could be flung in piecemeal (and therefore outnumbered) against superior enemy formations.
Their opponents, the Germans, lacked neither doctrine, equipment, training, nor experience. They were masters of a new war-winning technique that brought speed and mobility to the battlefield. By a combination of speed, thrust, and shock action they could bring a completely new momentum to the battle. The impact of the German armoured divisions could not be compared with that of the basically cavalry- and infantry-oriented methods of the Allies: they had in fact — with their range and striking power —introduced a new dimension to warfare.
Types of tank
Yet inevitably the balance of material was in favour of the Allies, who had more tanks than the Germans and many that were technically superior. In their ten armoured divisions the Germans had only 627 of the good Mark III and IV tanks, armed respectively with a 37-mm and a 75-mm gun, and protected by armour not more than 30-mm in thickness. The remaining 2,060 tanks were lightly armoured machines, mostly armed only with a 20-mm gun — although 381 of these were the sound Czech light T-38, equipped with a 37-mm gun. In addition to the 2,690 tanks with the armoured divisions, there were some 800 machines, mostly light ones, in reserve.
Against this array the French fielded about 3,000 machines, of which 500 were in units in the course of formation, plus older reserve machines. Of these 3,000 tanks, 1,292 were with the light mechanised divisions and the new tank divisions; the remainder were split up among the infantry armies. To this total should be added the British. On May 9 they had in France
210 light tanks in the light armoured regiments, and 100 ‘1′ tanks in the lst Army Tank Brigade. A further 174 light tanks and 156 of the new cruisers, belonging to the Armoured Division, were ready to cross the Channel as the battle started. Thus the Allies could oppose 3,000 German tanks with something like 3,600 of their own — if they chose.
On balance, the quality of the machines possessed by the two sides was about equal. The best French tank, the Char B, mounted the excellent 47-mm gun in a fully rotating turret and had a 75-mm gun mounted in the hull. The 20-ton Somua had a 47-mm gun, too, and was fast. The armour of these tanks was from 40 to 60 mm thick, compared with the best German armour of 30 mm. There were 800 of these new machines and even the older ones compared well with the German lighter vehicles. The 384 light British tanks were certain to be severely outclassed in a stand-up fight, because their guns could not penetrate armour, although their high speed and small size might serve them well when engaged on reconnaissance. But the 100 infantry tanks, of which 23 were the new Matilda, were covered by immensely thick armour (up to 70 mm) and quite safe from the fire of the German tank guns. And the 2-pounder gun, mounted in the thinner cruisers of the Armoured Division and also on the Matilda, was a weapon capable of penetrating any of the German machines at battle ranges.
But while the German and British machines (with one exception) were designed with two- or three-man turrets, the French machines had a single man in the turret confronted with the difficult task of commanding the vehicle, loading and firing the gun, and sometimes controlling the tactics of sub-units. The single British exception was the Mark I infantry tank, and this too presented terrible problems of combat efficiency and command.
This technical factor meant that the German and most of the British crews would be able to fight as teams within the all-embracing organisation of the armoured formations to which they belonged—but would also give the Germans an important advantage when their tank formations clashed with the French. This would make up for the fact that the majority of their tanks were vulnerable to the enemy tank guns, while their own guns would not penetrate the armour of a large proportion of the Allied tanks.
Leadership
The importance of personal command and direction is far more apparent to the fighting man in a climate of military opinion that insists that the generals should remain in the fore-front of the battle, in close touch with the leading tanks both visually and by radio. The Germans practised this method more than the Allies. The French kept their command posts further to the rear in accordance with the practice of 1918, and in any case did not possess a control system suited to high-speed combat. This fact, when combined with the separation of the tank-crew commander from the rest of his crew, would be liable to foster a drop in morale among the French tank units (there is evidence to support this —noted by British tank crews working alongside the French later in the campaign). It was clear, they said, that when faced by German tanks the French crews became cautious and were almost paralysed; and this exaggerated respect for the enemy was a result of the drubbing they had received in their first encounters with the German tanks. Even if the balance of morale between the contestants was equal on May 9, a week later the defects in organisation, leadership, and tactics had swung the scales irrevocably in favour of the Germans.
The overriding superiority of the Germans over the Allies was inherent in their intention to make use of well co-ordinated, massed, all-arms formations, launched into battle at the critical points, commanded by inspired men of vision and determination. Men of the stamp of Guderian and Reinhardt led the armoured corps from the van of the battle (with Rommel leading one of the divisions) — and this wealth of talent could not fail to overwhelm lesser men with old-fashioned ideas. For on the Allied side, none of the generals of 1940 had
• deep knowledge of armoured warfare; with
• startling lack of foresight, those men who had made a study of the subject had been distributed to positions where their talents lay unused. Martel commanded an infantry division; Broad, Pile, and Lindsay had been sent—some say deliberately—to posts unconnected with armoured warfare; and Hobart had been removed from the Active List, though he was ultimately to be recalled. De Gaulle was only just in the process of assembling a brand new and totally inexperienced tank division.
Let it be admitted that men such as these were not easy to live with. They had learned to be ruthless in the face of long-established tradition, that out-dated rules must be broken whatever the personal and immediate consequences, and that these circumstances applied in all armies. Men insufficiently imbued with spirit failed in the face of military ‘vested interests’; those who stood up to them but were unblessed by fortune were removed—as Hobart was; those who fought, and were lucky, followed their stars to success in war in the forefront of the armoured battle.
In 1940, it was the Germans whose spirit and good fortune had combined — and so they dominated. Most of the French armoured commanders were ineffective, and the grossly outnumbered British tank men could not, except on one outstanding occasion, make a decisive contribution.
In numbers the Allies were superior to the Germans; in quality of equipment they were, on balance, about equal; in strategic and tactical application, they were markedly inferior.
The sheer superiority of German armoured technique ensured the certainty of their victory before the frontiers were crossed.
