Posted on July 30 2008 at 02:56 PM
The invention of the stern rudder during the 12th century, together with the developments made in sailing during the Crusades, enabled the use of sails to almost completely supersede that of oars. Following the invention of the compass, and with it the possibilities of exploration, the development of sailing ships advanced quickly during the 14th and 15th centuries. Henry VIII dedicated the Great Harry, the first double-decked English warship, in 1514.
In the 16th century, ships were short and high-sterned, and despite Pett's three-decker in the 17th century, English ships did not compare favourably with the Spanish and Dutch ships until the early 19th century.
Definition
The stern is the rear or aft part of a ship or boat, technically defined as the area built up over the sternpost, extending upwards from the counter to the taffrail. The stern lies opposite of the bow, the foremost part of a ship.
The stern area has always been the location near the steering apparatus (rudder, tiller, ship's wheel, etc), and by extension became the domain of the ship's captain and other officers. In particular, the stern was the location of the officers' quarters, and during the age of sail of the ship, with rows of windows, galleries, walkways, and elaborate decorations. This resulted in a certain amount of vulnerability, and the goal of much maneuvering in battle was to achieve the stern rake, in which a ship would pour its entire broadside into the stern.
Other features of the stern included lanterns and the ensign.
In the early part of the 19th century, the stern of larger ships became gradually more rounded, and with the advent of screw-powered vessels, the stern became the location of the equipment, the officers moving elsewhere, though British ships still contained an Admiral's sternwalk until well into the twentieth century.
The Development of the Full-Rigged Ship From the Carrack to the Full-Rigger
Posted on July 28 2008 at 01:26 PM
The Stridsvagn 103 (Strv 103), or S-Tank, was a Swedish tank (although some consider it to be a tank destroyer). It was known for its unconventional turret-less design, with a fixed gun elevated by adjusting the hull suspension and traversed by engaging the tracks. The S-tank was developed in the 1950s and was the first main battle tank replacement to use a turbine engine, later copied by the M1 Abrams. The result was a very low-profile design with an emphasis on defense and heightened crew protection level. S-tanks formed a major portion of Swedish armored forces during the 1960s, 70s, 80s and part of the 90s, but have since been removed from service in favour of the Leopard 2.
History
In the mid-1950s the Swedish army put out a contract tender for a new tank design to replace their Centurions. Although the Centurion was arguably the best tank in the world at the time, its performance lead over contemporary Soviet designs like the T-55 was only marginal, and any future designs would best it. A consortium of Landsverk, Volvo and Bofors responded with a new heavy tank design, known under the codename KRV, fitted with a 155 mm smoothbore gun, but this would be an expensive option.
Sven Berge of the Swedish Arms Administration proposed an alternative in 1956, given the codename S. Noting that the chance of being hit in combat was strongly related to height, he proposed that any new design should be as low as possible. The only practical way to do this was to eliminate the turret, which would also make the tank much lighter and simpler. Note however that its most likely opponent, the T-72, is only 2.2 meters in height with its turret vs. the 2.14 meters of the Strv 103. Occasionally tanks deploy themselves into ‘hull down’ firing positions, either purpose dug or using the crest of a hill, in order to reduce the exposure of the vehicle to enemy fire. In this firing position the distance between the bottom of the gun barrel to the top of the turret or vehicle determines the level of exposure. Because the Strv 103 orientates the entire tank to depress and elevate the barrel, in a hull down position it has a very low apparent height and subsequent visual profile to the enemy. It can also lower the hull 13 centimeters. However such static use of a tank is at odds with the very concept of a tank, i.e. a mobile, protected gun platform able to bring heavy firepower to bear upon the enemy as you attack. Hence the S Tank is really a defensive vehicle.
This is not the first time such a system had been used: it was common during the World War II-era tank destroyers and assault guns for instance, but in the tank role the inability to quickly change aim that a turret provided always proved to be a serious problem. However, some tank destroyers like the Jagdpanther were both relatively cheap to make and very effective in defensive positions. Berge's design tried to solve the aiming problem through the use of a fully automated transmission and suspension system, which would turn and tilt the tank under gunner control. The gun itself would be fixed to the hull. However this made it impossible to use a stabilized gun, as a result the tank could not move and fire at the same time (at least not with any accuracy).
Other features of the tank were also quite radical. The gun, a Bofors L/62 (and able to use the same ammunition as the British L7 105 mm) would be equipped with an autoloader, allowing the crew to be reduced to two (though a third man was added for psychological reasons). Most designs of the era used a crew of four, while the S-tank would eliminate the loader and gunner. One of the three left was the rear driver, who was facing the rear of the tank equipped with a complete setup for driving. This allowed the tank to be driven "backwards" at the same speed as forwards, keeping its frontal armor pointed at the enemy.
The Commander and gunner/driver both had the same set of sights and controls to fire the gun and drive the tank. Additionally the tank was powered by two engines, a 240 hp Rolls-Royce K60 diesel for cruising and turning the tank for aim, and a 300 hp Boeing 502 turbine for "dashing" at high speed.
The concept was interesting enough that Bofors was asked to build a prototype of the suspension/drive train, which they completed successfully. In 1958 a follow-on contract called for two full prototypes, which were completed in 1961. By this point the army was so happy with the design that they had already placed an order for an initial pre-production run of 10 in 1960. With minor changes the S-tank was adopted as the Strv 103 (103 from the fact that it was the third tank with a 10 cm gun) and full production started in 1967 and ended in 1971 with 290 delivered. The changes included a new gyrostabilised commander's cupola armed with a 7.62 mm FN MAG, and upgraded frontal armour. A "fence" was available to help defeat HEAT rounds; however, it was kept secret for many years and was only to be fitted in the event of war. The Strv 103 was fully amphibious. A floatation screen could be erected around the upper hull in about 20 minutes, and the tracks would drive the tank at about 6 km/h in water. One tank in each platoon was fitted with a blade under the front hull that allowed it to dig itself into the ground for added protection.
The Stridsvagn 103 never saw combat and so its design remains unproven. It is the case that every other deployed main battle tank has a turret. On Discovery Chanel's "Greatest tanks ever" they ranked the Stridsvagn 103 as number 6. In 1967 Norway carried out a two week comparative observation test with the Leopard 1 and found that with closed hatches the 103 spotted more targets and fired faster than the Leopard. In April to September of 1968 two 103s were tested at the British armored school in Bovington and reported that "The turretless concept of the "S"-tank holds considerable advantage over turreted tanks". In BAOR 1973 the 103 was tested against the Chieftain. Availability never fell under 90% and the final report stated "It has not been possible to prove any disadvantage in the "S" inability to fire on the move.". In 1975 two 103s were tested at the American armor center at Fort Knox. The result was that the 103 was more accurate than the M60A1E3, but fired on an average 0.5 seconds slower.
Strv 103B
As the weight of the Strv 103 had increased compared to the pre-production tanks the 103 turned out to be underpowered. Hence a more powerful version of the same gas turbine, manufactured by Caterpillar, was introduced after the first 80 produced tanks. The early version was soon upgraded to B-standard.
Strv 103C
An upgrade program was started in 1986 to fit all vehicles with dramatically improved fire control systems. Also, each S-tank was fitted with a dozer blade, rather than just one per platoon. A further upgrade in 1987/88 replaced the Rolls-Royce engine with a newer 290 hp (216 kW) Detroit Diesel with additional fuel tanks, and added a new laser rangefinder. There was some consideration of adding both reactive armor and/or additional armorplates in the early 1990s, but in the end the S-Tank was instead phased out of Swedish service in favour of the Leopard 2, which started arriving in 1997. The last year in which the S-tank were used to train tank crews was 1997.
Strv 103D
In the mid-1990s, along with testing programs running for a new main battle tank for the Swedish armed forces, some upgrades took place for the 103C version. The designation was Strv 103D and only one prototype was ever made. The major changes were the installation of fire-control computer, thermal viewers for both the gunner and the commander, making the crew able to fight during night-time and in bad weather conditions, and the installation of passive light enhancers for driving. Some minor changes to the suspension system and engine were also made.
This prototype was used during the trials for the new main battle tank system for the Swedish armed forces alongside all the other tanks tested. For a few years this prototype was even tested under remote control. The only Strv 103D ever built is today is on display at the Axvall armor museum, together with some 103C models. They are all still in running status.
|
Variants |
|
|
|
• Strv 103
|
Posted on July 25 2008 at 03:04 PM
The
282°Squadriglia Autonoma A.S. (Aerosiluranti/Torpedo Bombers)
was based at Gerbini Airport (Sicily) during summer
1941.
241°Sq./98°Grp./43°Stormo B.T.
Role: Bomber/Torpedo-bomber
Manufacturer: Savoia-Marchetti
First flight: 5 June 1940
Introduction: 1941
Retired: 1945
Primary user: Regia Aeronautica
The Savoia-Marchetti SM.84 was an Italian bomber aircraft of the Second World War. It was designed by Savoia-Marchetti as a replacement for its successful SM.79, and shared its three-engined layout. However, although it entered service with the Regia Aeronautica in 1941, it never replaced the SM.79, being retired from service before it.
Development
Development of an aircraft to replace the SM.79 started in 1939, with Savoia-Marchetti choosing to produce an improved development of the SM.79, using the same wing as its predecessor, but with a new fuselage and more powerful engines.[1] The first prototype flew on 5 June 1940,[2] just 5 days before Italy's entry into the Second World War.
It was hoped to replace the SM.79s in service, which were fast, but obsolescent, and yet to be adapted as torpedo-bombers. The main improvement was the adoption of new and more powerful engines, giving a total output of 3,000 hp. The machine was put into production at the end of 1940.
Design
It shared the basic design of a three-engined mixed construction monoplane as the SM.79. Wood was used for the wings, supported by three spars. Steel tubing was used as a skeleton for the fuselage, covered by metal (forward), fabric and wood. The new fuselage housed a crew of 5-6, with the pilots sitting side-by-side. Behind them there were a radio-operator and flight engineer. They enjoyed a large windscreen and eight windows in the fuselage.
The armour was much improved compared to the almost nonexistent protection fitted to the SM.79; it was said there was a total of 700 kg fitted, however it is unclear if this also included the self-sealing fuel tanks, bullet-proofed up to 12.7 mm rounds. One noticeable difference was the twin tail, which gave a better field of fire to the dorsal gun, and helped to cope with the greater power and weight compared to the SM.79.
Armament was similar to the Cant Z.1007, rather than the SM.79. There was a dorsal Caproni-Lanciani Delta turret, with a 12.7 mm caliber Scotti machine-gun, and 350 rounds. Another Scotti was in the ventral gondola. Other two Scotti were in the flanks with six 120 round belts. It was a theoretical improvement, though Scotti machine guns, even with a slightly higher rate of fire, were much less reliable than the Breda. Another disadvantage was the inability of the turret to fire directly forward, through the propeller's blades, so the aircraft had no defence from frontal attacks.
The bomb bay was in the middle of fuselage. Horizontally mounted, the aircraft could carry two 500 kg, three 250 kg, ten 100 kg, or ten 50 kg bombs. Outside the fuselage it was possible to mount two 500 kg or 800 kg bombs, or two torpedoes, or even smaller bombs like eight 100 kg or 50 kg (but really weighing of 130 kg and 70 kg). Generally the aircraft carried only one torpedo or around 1,000 kg of bombs. The aiming apparatus was a Jozza U3, fitted in the bombardier's nacelle, just below the cockpit. It was retractable when not in use, to reduce drag.
An OMI camera was fitted in the fuselage, while in the tail section it was possible to mount one of three different cameras, like the AGR.90 or 91.
Three Piaggio P.XI RC.40 engines, giving 1,000 hp at 4,000 m were fitted. There were 16 self-sealing fuel tanks inside the wing and the fuselage, six for the central engine (1,070 litres) and five for each wing engine (1,095 litres). Total fuel load was 3,260 litres, which was less, despite the more powerful engines, than previous Italian bombers. It was possible, however, to mount another three fuel tanks: two of 415 litres in the fuselage, and one of 2,500 litres in the bomb-bay.
With these engines, at full load the SM.84 was capable of:
* 400 km/h at 1,000 m.
* 418 km/h at 2,000 m.
* 437 km/h at 3,000 m.
* 456 km/h at 4,000 m.
* 467 km/h at 5,000 m.
* 450 km/h at 6,000 m.
Climb rates to:
* 1,000 m in 2 min 32 sec.
* 2,000 m in 5 min 25 sec.
* 3,000 m in 8 min 2 sec.
* 4,000 m in 10 min 54 sec.
* 5,000 m in 14 min 48 sec.
* 6,000 m in 19 min 18 sec.
The maximum practical ceiling was 8,200 m. At 5,500 m and 397 km/h, it had 5 hour 17 minutes endurance, and a range of 2,040 km. As was expected, the performance of the SM.84 was superior to the SM.79.
Operational history
The first unit to operate the aircraft was 12° Wing, 41° Group, on 2 February 1941. Based at Rodi, the first actions of this Group were not successful, and two aircraft landed in Turkey.
36° Wing received its SM.84s on 7 May 1941, and was based at Decimomannu airbase, Sardinia, from September 1941. On 27 September 1941 twelve aircraft from 108° and 109° Gruppo, 36° Wing took off to attack a British convoy to Malta (Operation Halberd). One aircraft turned back after developing a mechanical fault, but the the remainder pressed on with their attack. The first group, led by Arduino Buri, attacked the British ships and Buri managed to torpedo HMS Nelson, putting her out of action for six months. Of the first section, one aircraft was shot down, and the second section had two aircraft shot down out of three. When Seidl went in with his five aircraft, he was shot down together with another two. While the damage to HMS Nelson was a success, the only one this type that Italian torpedo bombers obtained, it was paid with the loss of six aircraft, and almost all the crews, more than 30 men. The next day a merchant ship of the convoy was sunk by SM.79s with only one loss. The rest of the convoy reached Malta with their supplies.
After these losses, 36° Wing continued in its task to attack enemy ships, and sank the merchant ship Empire Defender in November, and badly damaged HMS Penelope on 9 April 1942.[citation needed] 282° Squadriglia was also involved in such missions, with some success.
7° Wing, based in Sicily, used SM.84s to bomb Malta in July 1941. In mid-October 1941 32° Wing were equipped with SM.84's, one group of torpedo-bombers and the other of bombers, to best optimize the attack against ships. This Wing took part in attacks on the Allied landings of Operation Torch, but by the end of December the unit had lost 20 aircraft and was retired from operations.
In June 1942 fourteen torpedo-bombers of 36° Wing and nine bombers of 4° Gruppo attacked the Malta convoy of Operation Harpoon, with at least two losses to Spitfires, and one downed by Anti-aircraft fire.
During Operation Pedestal in August 1942 ten SM.84s used special torpedoes (MFF), to attack the convoy, losing two aircraft to enemy fighters. Aircraft of 32° and 36° Wing also attacked the convoy, and only five of the fourteen ships of the convoy reached Malta.
While other groups were still receiving the aircraft, 36° and 7° Wing had stopped flying it by December 1942. The decline had already started. The use of the aircraft to resupply troops in North Africa was a failure, as the payload was too small. The aircraft was gradually phased out, replaced by the Z.1007, and even the SM.79. By 10 July 1943 43° Wing, flying from Gioia del Colle, Puglia, was the only unit still flying the SM.84.
In September 1943 there were still 150 SM.84s, with over 100 serviceable. Almost all of these were captured by Germans, though they were little used. Some were sent to the Slovak Air Force, and ten remained with RSI's Aeronautica Nazionale Repubblicana, but were not used. Seven were used by the Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force as transports.
Variants
S.84bis
With several modifications, but not a substantial evolution.
S.84ter
A single aircraft, completed in 1944, fitted with 1,500 hp Piaggio P.XII engines, capable of speeds over 500 km/h. Destroyed by fire during a landing accident in 1946.
Operators
* Italy
o Regia Aeronautica
o Italian Co-Belligerent Air Force
* Germany
o Luftwaffe
* Slovakia
o Slovak Air Force
Specifications (SM.84)
Data from World Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft [3]
General characteristics
* Crew: 5
* Length: 17.93 m (58 ft 10 in)
* Wingspan: 21.10 m (69 ft 7 in)
* Height: 4.59 m (15 ft 1 in)
* Wing area: 61.0 m2 [2] (656.6 ft2)
* Empty weight: 8,846 kg[2] (19,502 lb)
* Loaded weight: 13,288 kg (29,330 lb)
* Powerplant: 3× Piaggio P.XI RC 40 14-cylinder air-cooled radial engines, 746 kW (1,000 hp) each
Performance
* Maximum speed: 432 km/h (233 knots, 268 mph) at 4,600m (15,000 ft)
* Range: 1,830 km (1,041 nm, 1,137 mi)
* Service ceiling 7,900 m (25,900 ft)
Armament
* Four × 12.7 mm Scotti machine guns (One in dorsal turret, one in ventral position and two in waist positions
* 2,000 kg (4,400 lb) of bombs or 2 torpedoes
Comparable aircraft
* CRDA CANT Z.1018
* Cant Z.1007
References
Notes
1. Tringali, Sebastiano. "Italian Torpedo Bombers". Regia Marina Italia.
2. a b c Donald 1997, p.825
3. Angelucci 1981, p.261
Bibliography
* Angelucci, Enzo, ed. World Encyclopedia of Military Aircraft. London: Jane's Publishing. 1981. ISBN 0 7106 0148 4.
* Donald, David, ed. The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. Aerospace Publishing. 1997. ISBN 1-85605-375-X.
* Lembo, Daniele, S.84, il fratello stupido dello Sparviero, Aerei nella storia magazine, Westward editions, n.24. pag.10-32.
Posted on July 23 2008 at 08:33 AM
AW.650 & AW.660 Argosy
Armstrong-Whitworth AW.650 Argosy
Role: cargo
Manufacturer: Armstrong Whitworth
First flight: 8 January 1959
Number built: 74
The Armstrong Whitworth Argosy was a British post-war military transport/cargo aircraft and was the last aircraft produced by Armstrong Whitworth Aircraft. Although given different type numbers, the AW.650 civil and AW.660 military models were both called "Argosy" and for practical purposes are basically the same design.
Development
The Argosy came from the Air Ministry "Operation Requirement 323" (OR323) which resulted in a specification issued in 1955 for a medium range freight aircraft capable of lifting 25,000 lb and that had a range of 2,000 nmi (3,700 km) with 10,000 lb (4,500 kg). This led AW to develop a twin engined design for the military, the AW.66. The potential for civil sales led to a civil design AW.65. The 1957 Defence White Paper would show the lack of funding available for military work but AW had revised the design for the civil market alone as a 4 engined aircraft.
Operational history
The Argosy was used by the Royal Air Force for its capability to accommodate 69 troops, or 48 stretcher cases or 29,000 lb (13 tonnes) of freight. This meant it could carry military equipment such as the Saracen or Ferret armoured cars, or artillery such as the 105 mm howitzer or Wombat.
The earliest deployments were in 1962 to 105 Squadron in the Middle East and 114 and 267 Squadrons at RAF Benson. The following year 215 Squadron received its Argosies when based at RAF Changi, Singapore. The squadron was disbanded on New Years Eve 1967 and the aircraft went to 70 Squadron at RAF Akrotiri, Cyprus. This was the last squadron to operate the aircraft when it disposed of them in February 1975 in favour of Lockheed Hercules.
The E.1 version of the Argosy was with 115 Squadron from 1968 to
1978, most of the time based at RAF Cottesmore.
Variants
Armstrong Whitworth AW 650 Argosy (1959)
The Armstrong Whitworth Argosy was a high winged four-engined general purpose transport aircraft supplied to a number of civil operators. First flown on 8 January 1959, a total of 17 were built for civil operators Riddle Airlines (Series 101) and British European Airways (series 102 and 222).
The Argosy was powered by four Rolls-Royce Dart 526 turboprop engines driving Rotol four-blade propellers. The tailplane was on twin booms from the inner engine nacelles leaving the cargo doors at the rear of the fuselage clear for straight-in loading. This unusual "pod and boom" structure would earn it the nickname "The Whistling Wheelbarrow".
It had a maximum weight of 97,000 lb (44,000 kg) and a payload of 28,000 lb (12,700 kg or 12.5 long tons). Cruising at 210 knot (speed)s (390 km/h), it had a range of 3,000 nautical miles (3,450 statute miles or 5550 kilometres) and could seat 65 passengers. Two aircraft operated later by SAFE Air in New Zealand as the main link between the Chatham Islands and the mainland, were fitted with a pressurised "passenger capsule".
Ten Series 101 and 102 aircraft were built. Eight Series 200 aircraft were built, the series 200 had a larger freight hold and enlarged front and rear doors to enable it to carry standard size cargo pallets. The series 200 also had a lighter redesigned wing increasing the maximum range and Rolls-Royce Dart 532/1 turboprops.
The last flight by a New Zealand Argosy was made by operator SAFE AIR in 1990, that aircraft now being preserved in Blenheim, New Zealand.
Armstrong Whitworth AW 660 Argosy C Mk 1
The military Argosy C.1 was designed as a replacement for the Vickers Valetta as a medium range transport, paratroop and supply aircraft. The 660 was based upon the AW.650 Argosy civil transport which had flown 27 months previously. The first production military Argosy first flew in March 1961. The military version had the nose door sealed to take a weather radar radome, the rear doors were changed to 'clam shell' style with an integral loading ramp, and two doors were fitted on the starboard side to enable paratroopers to exit. The strong tricycle landing gear of the original design allowed take-off and landing on rough or unprepared airstrips.
The military Argosy had four Rolls-Royce Dart 101 turboprops and had twice the range of the civil Series 100.
Production of the Argosy for the RAF totalled 56 aircraft which served in six squadrons; three in the UK and one each in Aden, Cyprus, and the Far East. The Argosy was withdrawn from service in 1975 as an economic measure. Those aircraft not scrapped or retained were sold to commercial operators.
Hawker Siddeley Argosy E Mk 1
In 1963, Hawker Siddeley Group dropped the names of its component companies, rebranding its products under the Hawker Siddeley banner. To meet a requirement for a RAF flight inspection aircraft nine Argosy C.1s were modified in 1971 as the Argosy E1. These were a regular sight at British airfields operated by 115 Squadron until replaced by the Hawker Siddeley Andover in 1978.
Hawker Siddeley Argosy T Mk 2
After the removal of the Argosy C.1 from the cargo/transport role it was decided to modify several aircraft as Navigation Trainers for the RAF Training Command. Two aircraft were modified as the Argosy T2, but they were not successful and the programme was abandoned due to defence cuts. XP411 (see below) is was one of these.
Military operators
* Royal Air Force
o No. 70 Squadron RAF (based in Cyprus)
o No. 105 Squadron RAF (based in Middle East)
o No. 114 Squadron RAF (based in United Kingdom)
o No. 115 Squadron RAF (based in United Kingdom with the Argosy E1)
o No. 215 Squadron RAF (based in Singapore)
o No. 267 Squadron RAF (based in United Kingdom)
o No. 242 Operational Conversion Unit RAF
o No. 6 Flying Training School RAF
Specifications (Argosy C Mk.1)
General characteristics
* Crew: Four
* Capacity: up to 69 troops or 28,930 lb (13,150 kg) of cargo
* Length: 45 ft 3 in (27.18 m)
* Wingspan: 115 ft 0 in (35.05 m)
* Height: ()
* Wing area: 1,458 ft2 (135.5 m2)
* Empty weight: 10,200 lb (4,630 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 103,000 lb (46,700 kg)
* Powerplant: 4Ă Rolls-Royce Dart RDa.8 Mk 101 turboprops, 2,440 hp (1,820 kW) each
* Propellers: 4 blade Rotol propeller, 1 per engine
Performance
* Maximum speed: 234 kn (269 mph, 433 km/h)
* Range: 2824 nmi (3,250 mi, 5,230 km)
* Service ceiling 18,000 ft (5,500 m)
Bibliography
* Jefford, C.G., RAF Squadrons. Shrewsbury: Airlife Publishing, 2nd edition, 2001. ISBN 1-84037-141-2
Posted on July 21 2008 at 01:51 PM
The SA6 "Gainful" low altitude surface to air missile (SAM), was first designed at Tushino in 1956 but was not seen in public until 1967 and entered full service in 1970.
Type:
Medium-range, ground-based, ramjet-powered, theatre defence missile.
Development:
Development of a divisional air defence missile system, known as the ZRK-SD Kub (Kvadrat), was begun by the Toropov's OKB-134 design bureau at Tushino in 1959. The system was intended to replace the S-60 57 mm radar-directed guns used by the former Soviet Ground Forces. For several reasons, development of the Kub fell behind schedule in the early 1960s, one of these being that the design bureau had also received a contract in 1959 to study the possibility of copying the US AIM-9B Sidewinder on the basis of two examples obtained from China. As a result of this, and certain development problems, prototype testing of the missile (Kub 9M9) did not take place until 1965. Initial deployment of trials units followed in 1967, but continuing problems prolonged the acceptance phase. In spite of the problems, the Kub system was first publicly seen in Moscow in November 1967 and it received the NATO designation SA-6 `Gainful'. The SA-6 `Gainful' is sometimes referred to as Kvadrat (Quadrant) in foreign service. However, it is unclear whether this is the name given to the export model of the system, or whether Kvadrat is the name of the 9M9 missile rather than the whole system. The SA-6 `Gainful' first saw action during the 1973 Middle East war with Syria and Egypt. The Israeli Air Force appreciated the vulnerability of the engagement radar and the possibilities of saturating the system. The Russian Ground Forces PVO already had a new system, the ZRK Romb, entering service, which remedied this problem by providing each TEL (Transporter-Erector-Launcher) with an engagement radar, resulting in TELAR (Transporter-Erector-Launcher And Radar). This system, the SA-8 `Gecko', was to become the new Russian divisional air defence missile system. As a result, an SA-6 follow-on with comparable range and a TELAR launcher was eventually fielded in 1982 as the SA-11 `Gadfly'. The SA-11 programme had prolonged difficulties with the missile, leading to the decision, around 1976, to develop a stopgap system combining SA-6 `Gainful' and SA-11 `Gadfly' features. The result, designated SA-6B `Gainful' Mod 1 by NATO, mated a derivative of the proven SA-6 missile (9M336) with the SA-11 `Gadfly' TELAR. These began to appear in 1979 and were first spotted in the Military District opposite Afghanistan. From that time on, the deployment pattern appears to have been to issue a single SA-6B `Gainful' Mod 1 TELAR per Kub battery, rather than to deploy regiments entirely equipped with the new vehicle. This process apparently continued into the mid-1980s, by which time the SA-11 `Gadfly' was coming into service.
Description:
The SA-6 is quite different from other Russian SAMs, in that it has four long slender tube air inlet ducts mounted mid-body between the wings. At mid-body, there are four clipped movable triangular wings for pitch and yaw control. Just forward of the jettisonable boat-tail are four in-line clipped delta fins with ailerons for roll control. The missile is 5.8 m long, has a body diameter of 0.34 m and with a 59 kg HE fragmentation warhead, weighs 600 kg at launch. The missile is fitted with a G/H-band transmitter beacon mounted on the tail to assist the engagement radar in tracking the missile. The guidance system of the missile relies on Continuous Wave (CW) illumination of the target by the 1S91 `Straight Flush' engagement radar. In mid-course, the radar communicates via an I-band command uplink to a reference antenna receiver on the missile tail. In the terminal phase, the `Straight Flush' radar provides the CW target illumination for the semi-active radar seeker. Up to three missiles can be guided towards the same target by the engagement radar, which has a TV tracker for use in heavy Electronic Counter Measures (ECM) conditions. A laser rangefinder has been added to later SA-6 systems. The early versions of the missile did not have the prominent fin antenna, but were fitted with interferometer antennas on the central fins. These may have been associated with proximity fuzing rather than missile guidance, since a gimballed seeker is fitted in the missile nose. The propulsion system uses a solid fuel integral rocket/ramjet. On launch, the solid propellant boost motor in the rear of the missile fuselage is ignited. The booster has a duration of 4.1 seconds, boosting the missile to a speed of M1.5. At this point, the nozzle of the boost motor falls away, caps over the four air inlet ports are removed and the ramjet system is activated. The chamber which had contained the solid propellant booster motor acts like an afterburner chamber. The ramjet propulsion boosts the missile speed to M2.8 and burns for 22.5 seconds. The warhead is detonated by contact or radar proximity fuzes and has a lethal radius of 5 m against a typical fighter-sized target aircraft at low level. The complete mobile SA-6 system is known as Kub in Russia; this consists of a 2P25 TEL carrying three missiles, a 2T7M transloader with three reload missiles, and a 1S91 `Straight Flush' radar vehicle. The 2P25 TEL has a crew of three and is a tracked vehicle with a weight of 1,400 kg, length of 7.4 m, width of 3.2 m and a maximum road speed of 45 km/h. Each regiment has an HQ vehicle, early warning and heightfinder radars and five SA-6 batteries. Each battery has a `Straight Flush' radar, four SA-6 TEL and four transloaders. Several surveillance radars have been used with SA-6 `Gainful' batteries, including `Scoreboard A', `Flat Face', `Spoon Rest', `Long Track' and the height-finder `Thin Skin B'. In addition, the lower parabolic antenna on `Straight Flush' is for surveillance and has a range of 55 km against fighter aircraft targets. SA-6 has range limits of 3 to 25 km and an altitude engagement envelope of between 30 to 15,000 m. SA-6 missiles have been fired using only passive electro-optic sensors for surveillance and acquisition, providing command guidance until about five seconds before impact, when the engagement radar is switched on to allow the semi-active radar seeker in the missile to locate the target.
*
*
Operational Status:
SA-6 `Gainful' entered operational service in 1970. This was
followed in 1979 by an updated version, the SA-6B `Gainful' Mod
1. The system is believed to have remained in production
throughout the 1980s, at around 800 missiles per year. In 1992,
there were reported to be 850 SA-6 triple missile TELs in service
in Russia. The first known action was by Syria and Egypt, during
the first few days of the 1973 Middle East war, when it proved
highly effective against Israeli aircraft. It has seen subsequent
combat service in the war between Iran and Iraq and in Lebanon
during 1982. Additionally, it has been used by both the Polasario
Front and Algeria in border skirmishes with Morocco, destroying
at least five aircraft. It was used by Libya against US aircraft
in 1986 and against French aircraft in the battles in northern
Chad in 1986 and 1987. An American F-16 was hit by a SA-6 missile
over Bosnia in 1996 and Iraq used SA-6 missiles against US and UK
aircraft in December 1998.
|
Specifications: |
|
|
Length: 5.8 m Body diameter: 0.34 m |
|
|
Launch weight: 600 kg Warhead: 59 kg HE fragmentation |
|
|
Guidance: Command and semi-active radar |
|
|
|
|
|
Associated radars |
|
|
Surveillance/Engagement: `Straight Flush' (IS 91) Frequency: 4-6 and 6-8 GHz (G/H-bands) Range: 55 km surveillance and 30 km engagement |
|
|
Peak power: n/k |
|
Posted on July 16 2008 at 04:39 AM
The last B-50A was to have been redesignated YB-50C and modified as an enlarged B-50 that was redesignated YB-54. Orders were placed for 43 B-54A and RB-54As, but all were canceled.
The last aircraft on the original B-SOA order, 46-60, was to be redesignated VB-SOC, a stretched and heavier development of the B-SOA. However, because of the extensive differences, it was redesignated YB-S4. The fuselage was lengthened to 111 feet, the span was increased to 161 feet 2 inches, and the engines were 4,500hp R-436051 s. The Air Force ordered seven B-S4As and 23 RB-54As in May, 1948, but all were canceled, along with the uncompleted YB-54.
The Boeing B-54A was the planned production version of the YB-50C. The purpose of the project was to maximize the performance of the basic B-50 design. The standard Pratt & Whitney R-4360 radial engines were to be replaced by the improved R-4360 Variable Discharge Turbine (VDT) radial engines. The wing span was increased by about 20 feet, which required additional outrigger landing gear in the number one and four engine nacelles, to stabilize the aircraft on the ground. The fuselage length was increased by more than 10 feet to provide the increased structural strength necessary to carry the loads imposed by the new wing. The lengthened fuselage also allowed for a larger bomb load. Large fuel tanks under the outboard wing section were required to carry an additional 3,000 gallons of fuel to reach the intended 9,300 mile range.
Because of the extensive design changes required for the YB-50C, the planned production model was redesignated B-54A. A photo reconnaissance variant was also planned and designated RB-54A. Although the project would have maximized the performance of the basic B-50 design, newer jet powered bomber already being planned, tested and built promised much better performance than the B-54A. This resulted in the cancellation of the entire B-54 program. The YB-50C was never built and production of the B-54A and RB-54A never begin
The project was cancelled due to the development of
better-performing jet aircraft. Construction of the prototype
B-54A was started at Seattle but never completed. The contract
was cancelled on 18 April 1949.
|
Type |
Number built/ |
Remarks |
|
YB-50C |
0 |
B-50A modified with P&W VDT engines |
|
B-54A |
0 |
Production version (canceled) |
|
RB-54A |
0 |
Reconnaissance version (canceled) |
Serial numbers: YB-50C from B-50A: S/N 46-061
(canceled); B-54A: 49-200 to 49-206, 49-1757 to 49-1770
(all canceled); RB-54C: 49-207 to 49-229, 49-1771 to
49-1799 (all canceled)
SPECIFICATIONS (as designed):
Span: 161 ft. 2 in.
Length: 111 ft. 0 in.
Height: 32 ft. 8 in.
Weight: 230,000 lbs. (estimated maximum takeoff
weight)
Armament: 14 .50-cal. machine guns and 36,000 lbs. of
bombs
Engines: Four Pratt & Whitney R-4360-51 Variable
Discharge Turbines (VDT) of 4,500 lbs. hp each
PERFORMANCE (estimates as designed):
Maximum speed: 430 mph
Cruising speed: 305 mph
Range: 9,000 miles
Service ceiling: 40,000 ft.
Posted on July 11 2008 at 09:05 AM
The original T-34 Model 1940 can be recognized by the low-slung barrel of the L-11 gun, below a bulge in the mantlet housing its recoil mechanism. This particular vehicle is a pre-production A-34 prototype, recognizable by the small driver's hatch and single-piece front hull.
Model 1940 (German designation: T-34/76A) - Production model built in 1940, armed with L-11 76.2 mm tank gun, welded or cast two-man turret. Due to a shortage of new V-2 diesel engines, the initial production run from the Gorky factory was equipped with the BT tank's MT-17 gasoline-powered engine, and inferior transmission and clutch
T-34 production in 1940
The first two prototypes of the T-34 were completed in January 1940 and that "series production of the T-34 Model 1939[1] was scheduled to begin in June 1940 at the KhPZ tank plant in Kharkov, and in October at the Barrikady Tractor Plant in Stalingrad. Only three T-34 tanks had actually been delivered to the Red Army by September 1940"
[1] Some Russian historians use different names: they refer to the first T-34 as the T-34 Model 1939 instead of 1940.
Posted on July 10 2008 at 11:11 AM
A comparative study of Ottoman hand firearms used by the Janissaries, that is, the Sultans’ elite infantry troops, shows that they were similar to the muskets the Ottomans’ Spanish and Venetian opponents used. For instance, the Ottomans adopted the Spanish miquelet lock. Despite these similarities, however, the chapter also reveals important differences, and argues that one field where the Ottomans lagged behind their European opponents was the lack of standardization. While standardization was hardly accomplished by the Europeans in general, the Austrians, and especially later the Russians, had considerably fewer caliber types within a certain class than the Ottomans did. This certainly made supply of ammunition a more difficult task in the Empire, and also hindered tactical reforms.
Glossary
tüfenk (also tüfeng/tüfek, Ottoman handgun "any firearm used from the shoulder")
metris tüfeği Ottoman handgun with miquelet lock
tüfenkçi (Ottoman arquebusier, musketeer)
Military Power and the Weapons Industry in the Ottoman Empire
Posted on July 10 2008 at 08:17 AM
Schwerer Panzersp채hwagen SdKfz 231 armed with a 20-mm (0.787-in) cannon. This pre-war design used a truck chassis as its basis, but the overall weigh t made the vehicle unsuitable for prolonged cross-country use.
The schwerer Panzersp채hwagen SdKfz 231 6x4 heavy armoured car had its origins at the Kazan test centre established in the Soviet Union during the 1920s. There the German automobile industry developed an 8x8 armoured car chassis that proved to be too expensive for further development, so a 6x4 chassis was tried instead. This model used a truck chassis as its basis, and originally this was a Daimler-Benz product but later Bussing- NAG and Magirus chassis and engines were employed. These chassis were fitted with suitable armoured hulls and turrets, and modifications were made to allow steering from either end of the hull. Early trials demonstrated the need for stronger front axles and revised radiators, and the resulting vehicle was issued to German army units during 1932. Production continued until 1935, by which time about 1,000 had been produced.
The 6x4 armoured cars were not a great success but they were produced at a time when the German army lacked experience in the use of armoured vehicles, and were thus invaluable as training and preparation equipments. Using lorry chassis carrying armoured hulls that were really too heavy for their supporting structures, the six wheeled armoured cars were underpowered and had only limited cross-country capabilities, But when used on roads they were as good as anything else available, and they were used to good effect during the occupations of Austria and Czechoslovakia during 1938 and 1939, and were also used in combat in Poland and France. Their very appearance had great propaganda impact, and they were accordingly given great media coverage at the time. After 1940 they gradually faded from front-line use and were relegated mainly to training roles.
Early examples of the six-wheeled armoured cars had provision for only one 7.92-mm (0.31-m) MG 34 machine gun in the turret, but the version used mainly by the heavy platoons of the German army motorized units was the SdKfz 231. This had a turret mounting a 20-mm cannon, originally the KwK 30 but later the KwK 38 with a higher rate of fire. Mounted co-axially with this cannon was a 7.92-mm (0.31 -in) MG 34, and there was provision for an antiaircraft machine-gun on the turret roof. The SdKfz 231 was used as a tactical vehicle (undertaking a combat role in direct fire support of motorized infantry units mounted on trucks or later on halftracks), but at times it was also used in support of light reconnaissance units for Panzer formations, Another vehicle that was very similar to the SdKfz 231 was the SdKfz 232, which was basically a Sdkfz 231 fitted with a long-range radio set that required the fitting of a large and prominent frame aerial above the turret and over the hull rear, the turret acting as a support for the forward part of the aerial. Another similar vehicle was the SdKfz 263, which also had a large frame aerial, though on this vehicle the turret was fixed and had provision for a single machine-gun only. The SdKfz 263 was used as a command vehicle.
Specification
SdKfz 231
Crew: 4
Weight: (in action) 5.7 tonnes
Dimensions: length overall 5.57 m (18 ft 6 3/4 in); width 1.82 m (5 ft 11 1/2 in); height 2.25 m (7 ft 4 3/5 in)
Powerplant: one Daimler-Benz, Bussing-NAG or Magirus water-cooled petrol engine developing
between 60 and 80 bhp (45 and 60 kW)
Performance: maximum road speed 65 km/h (40 mph); maximum road range 250 km (150 miles); maximum cross-country range 200 km (125 miles); gradient 20째; fording 0.6 m (24 in)
Posted on July 09 2008 at 10:06 AM
In 1923 the Vickers Medium Tank Mark I appeared; this was the first British tank with a 360degree traversing turret to be adopted by the British Army. Originally classified as a light tank, this was later changed to medium when the small light tanks were introduced. The Medium Mk I and its successor, Medium Mk II, formed the backbone of the Army's tank strength until 1938, by which time they were obsolete. Excellent designs, they appeared in many forms and sub variants.
VICKERS MEDIUM TANK MK I Development of this vehicle was begun in 1922, and the first production models were delivered as Light Tank Mk I to the army during 1924. This was the first British service tank to have all-round traverse and geared elevation for the gun. Sprung suspension gave the Vickers tank higher speeds than had been possible with earlier designs. The armament consisted of a 3pdr QF gun and four Hotchkiss machine-guns mounted in the turret, and two Vickers .303 machine-guns carried in ball mounts either side of the hull. With the adoption of a lighter class of light tank into the service, the Light Tank Mk I was reclassified as Medium Tank Mk I, the designation by which it is best known. 11.7tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF gun, 4 Hotchkiss and 2 Vickers .303 MG; armour 6.5mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong-Siddeley V-8; 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 9ft 3in.
Medium Tank Mk IA: Produced in 1924 by Vickers-Armstrong Ltd as Light Tank Mk IA and later re-designated Medium Tank Mk IA, this model was similar to the Medium Mk I but with various modifications which included an increase in armour thickness, a redesigned driver's cowl with flaps that opened to the left and right instead of folding backwards as on the Mk I, and a bevel in the rear of the turret for mounting a Hotchkiss machine-gun for the AA role. 11.9tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF gun, 4 Hotchkiss and 2 Vickers .303 MG; armour 6.5mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong- Siddeley V-8. 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 8ft 10in.
Light Tank Mk IA Special (L) India: Two female versions were designed for use in India and produced in 1926 similar in design to the Mk IA, the difference being that four machine-guns in the turret constituted the main armament. Special efforts were made to improve the cooling of the fighting compartment by the extensive use of linings of asbestos and circulating fans. These vehicles were not reclassified as Medium Tanks.
Medium Tank Mk IA*: This was the basic Mk IA fitted with a co-axial Vickers .303 machine-gun instead of the Hotchkiss .303 MG. The turret was fitted with a commander's cupola. 11.9tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF gun, 3 Vickers .303 MG; armour 8-6.25mm; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 9ft 10in.
Medium Tank Mk I.C.S: Development of the Mk IA as a close support weapon to accompany tanks and be capable of firing smoke. With this version the 3pdr QF gun was replaced by a 15pdr mortar.
Medium Tank Mk I Wheel-and-Track: Built by Vickers-Armstrong Ltd during 1926, this was a standard Mk I converted to wheel and track drive. The object was to provide increased road speed and reduce track wear on hard roads. Change from wheels to tracks was achieved by engine power in one minute. The design was not successful due to excessive pitching when running on wheels. 13.7tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr and 1 .303 Vickers MG; armour 8mm; 10mph on track, 20mph on wheels; height 9ft 6in on wheels, length 21ft with wheels raised.
Medium Tank Mk I (Ricardo C.I.): This was an experimental installation of a 90hp 4-cylinder water-cooled Ricardo Diesel engine in a Medium Mk I.
MEDIUM TANK MK II The Medium Mk I was followed in 1925 by an improved type, the Medium Mk II which possessed the following improvements: thicker armour but increased weight, the driver placed further forward giving a better vision, suspension protected by armoured skirting plates. Armament as for Mk IA. The Mk II was in service until 1939 and was then used for training. 13.2tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF, 4 Hotchkiss and 2 Vickers .303 MG; armour 8.25mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong-Siddeley V-8; 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 8ft 10in.
Medium Tank Mk II*: As for Mk II but with co-axial Vickers machine-gun in the turret, and the elimination of the Hotchkiss machine-guns, and the addition of a commander's cupola. 13.5tons; crew 5; 1 3pdr QF gun, 3 Vickers .303 MG; armour 8-6.25mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong-Siddeley V-8; 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x H 10ft.
Medium Tank Mk II**: During the year 1932, 44 Medium Mk IIs were converted by the installation of twin mountings for the 3pdr gun and a Vickers .303 machine-gun together with a commander's cupola on the turret roof. In addition to this, armoured containers for a wireless set were fitted to the backs of the turret. The converted vehicles were redesignated Mk II**.
Medium Tank Mk IIA: Medium Mk IIA was produced in 1930 by Vickers-Armstrong Ltd and 20 were built. The bevel was removed from the rear of the turret and a command cupola was fitted. The left ventilator was protected by an armoured box open, at the top. The 3pdr gun and Vickers machine-gun were co-axial. The hull Vickers machine-gun ejected the empty cases to the outside of the tank. Other improvements included better suspension units with rearranged track return rollers.
Medium Tank Mk IIA*: Similar to Mk IIA, but fitted with an armoured wireless container.
Medium Tank Mk IIA.C.S: Similar to Mk IIA, but adapted to the close-support role by the fitting of a 3.7in howitzer. 14tons; crew 5; 1 3.7 Howitzer and 3 Vickers .303 MG; armour 8mm; engine 90hp air-cooled Armstrong-Siddeley V-8; 15mph; L 17ft 6in x W 9ft 1.5in x 10ft.
Medium Tank Mk II (Tropical): Five Mk II tanks were specially modified and fitted to meet tropical conditions. They were sent to Egypt in 1928. The chief modifications were sun screens consisting of woven asbestos fitted outside the upper surfaces and sides of the tank with an air gap of 1-1.5in between the sheeting and the armour plate. The Rackham steering clutches and control levers were also insulated.
Medium Tank Mk II (Bridge carrier): Developed during 1927, this Mk II was fitted with side brackets to carry bridge girders to construct an 18ft bridge. The bridging sections were assembled by the tank crew.
English Workman: Based on the Medium Mk IIA, this modified version was built in limited quantity for the Soviet Government during 1931 and was known to the Red Army as the 'English Workman'.
Medium Mk II Command Tank: Developed during 1931, this was an Mk II with a dummy gun in a fixed turret, in which were fitted two wireless sets. A wireless mast was carried on the right of the vehicle. Otherwise it was externally similar to the standard vehicle.
Medium Tank Mk II (Special): Delivered to Australia during 1929, these were modified Mk II Mediums differing in having a co-axial Vickers MG on the left of the 3pdr gun and a separate ball mounted Vickers MG on the right.
Posted on July 07 2008 at 12:17 PM
Based upon Petlyakov's Pe-2 bomber, the Pe-2I fighter was designed by Vladimir Myasishchev.
In late August 1941 yet another fighter version of the Pe-2 tactical bomber was in existence. This development was the work of the design staff of aircraft Plant No.22. It was called the Pe-2I (I - Istrebitel, fighter), and had more powerful armament. A ShVAK twin-cannon mounting with of 160 rounds per gun was installed in place of the Pe-2 bomb bay. The nose armament was not changed, and consisted of ShKAS and UBK machine guns.
Like the Pe-3, the Pe-2I was two-seater. A fuel tank of 52.7 gallons (240 litres) capacity was installed in the radio operator/gunner's cockpit, and the capacity of the centre-section fuel tanks was increased by 15.3 gallons (70 litres). Even so, the total internal tankage was insufficient for the specified range of 1,242 miles (2,000km), and, for the first time on a Petlyakov designed aeroplane, two ex- PETLYAKOV internal 39.5 gallon (180 litre) drop tanks were fitted to the shackles of the under fuselage bomb racks.
Another upgrading was similar to that made in the Pe-3 fighter, but instead of a ShKAS machine gun in the tailcone, the Pe-2I had a large calibre UBT machine gun installed in the fairing, in the position occupied by the radio operator/gunner. As a result of flight tests it was recommended that a remote- control system be designed for the UBT.
The greatest weakness in the Pe-2I's design was the absence of frontal armour for the crew, but it was thought that its installation would not be difficult. The Pe-2I was more updated than its direct competitor from Plant No.39, especially regarding armament, it was faster by 6.2mph (10km/h) at all altitudes, and it took 30 seconds less to climb to 16,400ft (5,000m).
To study aerial combat tactics using twin-engined fighters, simulated combats were flown by a Pe-2I with an SB bomber and a MiG-3 fighter. The Pe-2I's greater speed allowed it to overtake and attack the SB from any direction, but owing to its inferior manoeuvrability in the horizontal plane dogfighting during turns was not recommended. In its clash with a MiG-3 the Pe-2I found itself in trouble. Two aerial combat tactics were recommended for Pe-2I crews in such a situation: either attack head-on or escape in a steep descent at full throttle.
The Pe-2I did not go into production. The twin-engine fighter version was reconsidered some time later, alter Vladimir Petlyakov's tragic death.
Posted on July 06 2008 at 08:14 AM
The centre-battery ship was a major warship and a development of the ironclad ships. The man behind the design was the newly appointed Chief Constructor of the Royal Navy, Edward James Reed. The centre-battery ships had their main guns concentrated to the middle of the ship in an armoured citadel. The concentration of armament amidships mean the ship could be shorter and handier than a broadside type like previous warships. In this manner the design could maximize the armour in a limited space while still carrying a significant broadside. These ships meant the end of the full deck broadside warships.
The development of major warships in the latter half of the 19th century was extreme. New designs were obsolete by the time of commissioning. The first centre-battery ship was the HMS Bellerophon of 1865. The previous Royal Navy ironclad design, represented by the HMS Warrior, had proven to be seaworthy, fast under power and sail - however, when under sail alone, she had left much to wish for in terms of seagoing qualities.
The disadvantage of the centre-battery was that, while more flexible than the broadside, each gun still had a relatively restricted field of fire and few guns could fire directly ahead. The centre-battery ships were soon succeeded by turreted warships.
Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino had its origins in a private shipyard founded by Giuseppe Tonello at San Marco, on the coastline west of Trieste, in 1838. In 1857, the shipyard was merged with a local manufacturer of marine engines to become STT. A second shipyard was also acquired, at San Rocco near the town of Muggia just south of Trieste.
STT was the largest and most important shipbuilder in the Austrian Empire and its successor state, the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The company built most of the Austro-Hungarian Navy's capital ships, as well as many merchant vessels. In the 1860s and 1870s, STT built five of the Austro-Hungarian Navy's seven centre-battery ships (a forerunner of the battleship), as well as a number of ironclads, cruisers, frigates and corvettes.
Posted on July 06 2008 at 07:11 AM
LANDWIRTSCHAFTLICHER SCHLEPPER (La.S) (KRUPP L.K.A.I) Pz.Kpfw I prototype Prototype for a light tank in the 5ton class to meet a Heereswaffenamt (War Department) requirement for the rearmed Reichswehr, 1933. Selected for construction from designs tendered by Rheinmetall, Daimler-Benz, MAN, Henschel, and Krupp, the L.K.A.I being the Krupp model. Designation La S meant 'agricultural tractor' to conceal true purpose. This small vehicle was based largely on the layout of the Carden Loyd Mk I tankette chassis, a sample of which was purchased as a gun carrier from Britain in 1932. Turret had twin coaxial MGs. Used for trials only. Crew 2; mild steel; engine (gasoline): 25mph.
Pz.Kpfw I Ausf C (VK.60I): Prototype for an uparmoured version of the Pz.Kpfw I for the reconnaissance and airborne roles. Kraus-Maffei/Daimler-Benz design, 1939-40. Order for 40 vehicles never completed and the project was abandoned in 1941 after only the prototype was built. Had a 20mm gun and 7.92mm MG instead of the twin MGs of earlier models. Interleaved wheels with centre track guides. 8tons; armour 10-30mm; engine (gasoline) l50hp; 40mph. Other details as Pz.Kpfw I.
Pz.Kpfw I neuer Art verstark (VK.I80I): Project put forward in December 1939 for vehicle based on Pz.Kpfw I but heavily armoured for infantry support role (neuer Art (verstarkt) â uparmoured new model). Prototype built in June 1940 but the project was later abandoned. Interleaved wheels, but suspension heavier than VK.601. Also known as Pz.Kpfw I Ausf F 18tons; armour 30-80mm; 15mph; 14.3ft x 8.6ft x 6.75ft. Other details as VK.60I and Pz.Kpfw I.
Flammpanzer I: A small number of the Ausf A version were converted in the field by the Afrika Korps to the role of flame-throwers. The right machine gun was removed from the turret and replaced by the projector of the light portable infantry flamethrower Model 40, the cylinders for fuel and compressed air was also installed inside the turret.
Pz.Kpfw Ib, Ladungsleger I: Conversion for use by assault engineers with gantry and platform for carrying and placing explosives in demolition work
The Pz.Kpfw I was mainly intended as a cheaply produced training vehicle for the newly formed German armoured divisions. They were, however, still in wide service in the early part of World War II. Production vehicle was derived from the Krupp L.K.A.I prototype.
Production of this Krupp-designed tank began in July 1934, and it was the principal vehicle of the tank units. In service between 1935 and 1940, its armament was two MG 13s mounted in a turret with a 3600 traverse. It was fully tracked, and weighed 5,487 kg. Its armour was 15 mm thick, and the air-cooled engine was a Krupp M305.
It was soon realized, however, that the engine design was inadequate, and modifications not only with regard to the engine, but also in its hull were made (these changes to the Ausf A resulted in the Pz Kw 1 Ausf B).
The Ausf A (and Ausf B model) were first used during the Spanish Civil War, but with the onset of the Second World War, the deficiencies in both versions were apparent, and the Pz Kw I was withdrawn almost completely by 1941.
Posted on July 03 2008 at 04:39 PM
From the end of the 1940 war year on, German naval leadership concerned itself-at least partially as a result of the successful British carrier-plane attack on the Italian fleet at Tarento with considerations as to how to remedy the lack of aircraft carriers most quickly. Subjects under discussion concerned not only the reconstruction of existing large warships, but also the adaptation of merchant ships, insofar as they seemed suitable in terms of size and speed. Included in these considerations were the battleships SCHARNHORST and GNEISENAU, as well as the heavy cruisers LUTZOW (ex-pocket battleship "Deutschland") and ADMIRALSCHEER on the one hand, and the three passenger ships EUROPA, POTSDAM and GNEISENAU of the North German Lloyd line on the other.
The three passenger ships were the only ones that met the basic requirements: the EUROPA was the largest, since the loss of the BREMEN to fire, weighing nearly 50,000 tons, and had a suitable top speed of 27 knots, while the POTSDAM and GNEISENAU, of only about 18,000 tons and a speed of 21 knots, were somewhat less well-suited though still usable. In addition, the rebuilding of the heavy cruiser SEYDLITZ, about 90% finished, seemed feasible, as opposed to the battleships of the SCHARNHORST class and the heavy cruisers LUTZOW and ADMIRAL SCHEER, which were dropped from these considerations.
The creation of aircraft carriers was one of the main points in the Commander of the Navy's report to Hitler at the latter's headquarters on May 13, 1942. Thereupon Hitler decided that the 'EUROPA, GNEISENAU and POTSDAM should be rebuilt into auxiliary carriers. In a further report taking place on August 26, 1942 a further possibility was suggested: this involved the French cruiser DE GRASSE, lying on the slipway in Lorient, the rebuilding of which into an aircraft carrier seemed feasible.
The rebuilding plans for these ships were begun at once. In the process it was learned that the task had obviously been strongly underestimated and the difficulties that would necessarily arise in the construction of these ships, intended as they were for fully different purposes, had gone unrecognized. It was chiefly their form and weight stability and their inner division that were insufficient. It was believed that these problems could be mastered by applying a thick "armor plate" of heavy cement and building on side bulges, but this could not be achieved in a really satisfactory way and, in addition, brought about a limitation of their speed, which was not that great to begin with. The EUROPA-now designated "Auxiliary Aircraft Carrier I"-was to be rebuilt by Blohm & Voss in Hamburg-her builders-but this did not transpire: as early as November 25, 1942 the work of planning was halted and the rebuilding was cancelled even before the work had begun. The reason for this was the lack of stability even with the bulges built on, the problem of rigidity caused by the lowering of the hangar deck into the main formation deck, which could not be done any other way, and finally the expected very high fuel consumption when the ship was in use again.
The rebuilding of the other passenger ships was to be entrusted to the naval shipyards at Wilhelmshaven (GNEISENAU) and the Howaldt Works of Hamburg (POTSDAM; what with the cancellation of the rebuilding of the EUROPA, the contract for the POTSDAM was transferred to Blohm & Voss in November of 1942). With them too, problems of a very similar kind arose, especially in terms of stability, which were addressed with the same means-building on bulges and applying heavy concrete "armor plate." But since these measures were, in the end, not able to make much change, the work on the GNEISENAU was halted on November 25, 1942, so that only the POTSDAM remained.
According to a decision made on the same day, this was to be set up as a training aircraft carrier. The work actually began that December: in Kiel they began to remove the passenger cabins. In the midst of this work, it all came to an abrupt end on the basis of the aforementioned "Fuehrer’s Command."
The work of planning for the conversion of the uncompleted French heavy cruiser DE GRASSE, which began in April of 1942 under the designation "Auxiliary Aircraft Carrier II", led to this project being given up, as it was shown to be too expensive in terms of work and materials, was under ever· increasing danger of air attack, and finally, second thoughts about what from the German standpoint was an unsatisfactorily divided power system could not be allayed. At the beginning of February 1943 the planning work was halted.
After the spring of 1943 the navy thus had no possibility of any realizable construction of aircraft carriers.
Posted on July 03 2008 at 08:51 AM
The photo of LZ41 in the experimental camouflage “bunte Kuh" = " multicoloured cow."
The first flight was on June 7, 1915
Written off on April 25, 1917
Flew 31 reconnaissance missions
During the 12 raids on England it dropped 15,543 kg. bombs.
Type: "p"
Four engine capacity of 154 kW. Volume: 31,900 cu. м. m.
Carrying capacity: 16.2 tons.
Length: 163 m.
Maximum speed: 96 km / h.
The maximum diameter: 19 m.
The Battle of the Skagerrak
THE SITUATION ON THE MORNING OF JUNE 1
"L" 11, 13, 17, 22 and 22 had gone up during the night for an early reconnaissance. At 5.10 A.M. "L 11 " reported a squadron of twelve English battleships, numerous light craft and destroyers on a northerly course about the centre of the line Terschelling—Horns Reef, and immediately afterwards enemy battleships and battlecruisers north of the first unit. The airship was heavily fired at but kept in touch until compelled to retire and lost sight of the enemy in the thick atmosphere. The airship's reports taken from its War diary are as follows:
Reconnaissance Trip of " L 11 " on June 1, 1916
"On June 1 at 1.30, after midnight ' L 11' went up at Nordholz with the following orders: As fourth airship to cover flank of High Sea forces, course N.W. to W. by Heligoland. Full crew on board, fresh south-westerly wind, visibility limited owing to ground fog and later to a fog-like atmosphere high up extending over 2 or at most 4 nautical miles. Heligoland was not visible through the fog. At 5 A.M. clouds of smoke were seen north of the ship in Square O 33 B and were made for. At 5.10 it was possible to make out a strong enemy unit of twelve large warships with numerous lighter craft steering north-north-east full speed ahead. To keep in touch with them ' L 11 ' kept in the rear and sent a wireless report, circling round eastwards. At 5.40 A.M. east of the first unit the airship sighted a second squadron of six big English battleships with lighter forces on a northerly course; when sighted, they turned by divisions to the west, presumably to get into contact with the first unit. As this group was nearer to the Main Fleet than the first one, ' L 11 ' attached itself to it, but at 5.50 a group of three English battle-cruisers and four smaller craft were sighted to the north-east, and, cruising about south of the airship, put themselves between the enemy Main Fleet and ' L 11.' Visibility was so poor that it was extremely difficult to keep in contact. For the most part only one of the units was visible at a time, while, apparently, the airship at an altitude of 1,100—1,900 m. was plainly visible- to the enemy against the rising sun.
"At 5.15, shortly after sighting the first group of battleships, the enemy opened fire on the airship from all the vessels with antiaircraft guns and guns of every calibre. The great turrets fired broadsides; the rounds followed each other rapidly. The flash from the muzzles of the guns could be seen although the ships were hidden by the smoke. All the ships that came in view took up the firing with the greatest energy, so that ' L 11 ' was sometimes exposed to fire from 21 large and numbers of small ships. Although the firing did not take effect, that and the shrapnel bursting all around so shook the ship's frame that it seemed advisable to take steps to increase the range. The firing lasted till 6.20 A.M. At that time the battle-cruisers bearing down from S.W within close distance of ' L 11 ' forced her to retire to N.E. to avoid their fire. At the same time the visibility became worse and the enemy was lost to view.
"' L 11 ' again took a northerly course and went as low down as 500 metres, in the hope of better visibility. It was impossible to see beyond 1 to 2 nautical miles, and as under these conditions no systematic plan for keeping in contact could be made, N. and S. course was followed so as to keep between the enemy and our own Main Fleet. The enemy did not come in sight again.
" At 8 A.M. the Commander-in-Chief of the High Sea Fleet dismissed the airship, and ' L 11 ' returned. On the way back the ship came across a number of our own torpedo-boats exchanging bases, and messages were given for further transmission. The airship remained close to those boats as far as Sylt. Landed at Nordholz at 2 P.M."
At 4 A.M., 50 nautical miles west of Bovbjerg, "L 24" sighted a flotilla of enemy destroyers, was fired at and returned the fire with bombs, then got away further north, and at 5 A.M. discovered a unit of twelve ships in Jammer Bay, steaming rapidly to the south. It was impossible to keep in contact for further reconnaissance as there was a bank of cloud as low down as 800 m.
From the Main Fleet itself no signs of the enemy were visible at daybreak. The weather was so thick that the full length of a squadron could not be made out. In our opinion the ships in a south-westerly direction as reported by "L 11 " could only just have come from the Channel to try, on hearing the news of the battle, to join up with their Main Fleet and advance against us. There was no occasion for us to shun an encounter with this group, but owing to the slight chance of meeting on account of visibility conditions, it would have been a mistake to have followed them. Added to this the reports received from the battle-cruisers showed that Scouting Division I would not be capable of sustaining a serious fight, besides which the leading ships of Squadron III could not have fought for any length of time, owing to the reduction in their supply of munitions by the long spell of firing. The Frankfurt, Pillau and Regensburg were the only fast light cruisers now available, and in such misty weather there was no depending on aerial reconnaissance. There was, therefore, no certain prospect of defeating the enemy reported in the south. An encounter and the consequences thereof had to be left to chance. I therefore abandoned the idea of further operations and ordered the return to port.
From Adm. Scheer's History
GERMANY'S HIGH SEA FLEET IN THE WORLD WARPosted on July 03 2008 at 06:00 AM
Soviet KV-1a 753(r)
Soviet T-34 747(r)
Soviet KV-1a 753(r) rearmed with a
7.5-cm KwK 40 L/48
American M3(a)
British Valentine Mk. III 749(e)
Thanks to the efforts of Werner Regenberg in concentrating his 30 year research career on Beute-Panzer used by the German army in WWII, this book is loaded with new information on the history, organizational structure, unit strength, tactics, and types of Beute-Panzer issued to each unit. Having contacted veterans from practically every Beute-Panzer unit, Werner Regenberg has compiled a massive archive of original documents and photographs directly linked to each unit. Photos with unique unit markings have been included for representative units with captions that correctly identify the Beute-Panzer units. In accordance with our high standards, the text and data are based solely on primary sources. The real value of the Beute-Panzer can be learned by reading the translated wartime reports written by unit commanders close to the time when the actions occurred. 70 clean/rare photos illustrate this 60 page book.
© 2010 Air-Land-Sea Weapons. Powered by the DevHub Website Builder
