Tanks or Aircraft, An alternate-history poll

Iama, dont use Wikipedia anymore. Use Britannica or other encyclopedias. Wikipedia is a parody. Anyone can type in anything and if it looks credible enough is taken for granted...

But this antitank rifle is real. Some things about her are even in this forum.

Iama

Yes, back in the depths of my brain I think I knew that. Was it the attack on Eben Emael? I should have been more specific to say projectile weapons, not demolition charges.

Wow. I had no idea. So they could have been used in WW1!

Wow. I had no idea. So they could have been used in WW1!

Maybe SiG could give us his source... that would mean shaped charges were invented in 1890! That seems much too early.

Look what I found:

http://www.arl.army.mil/wmrd/Legacy/LS2/body_ls2.html

I gave the source, but it's a German site (www.panzerlexikon.de) I haven't yet found an English source saying the same thing, but i'll try.
Note that the technology of the shaped charge isn't very complicated so they could have been invented in 1890, only that the people back then wouldn't have found any use for it. Even in ww1, the armor of the early tanks could be defeated by a simple field gun, so no need for specialized anti-tank wheapons. Imperialist, maybe what your source is saying is that in the 1930's was discovered the utility of the shaped charge as an armour-piercing wheapon?
I'll try to find more info and be right back!
Bye!

There it was: http://guns.connect.fi/gow/nitro.html

Just do a google search and you'll find out even more.

Thanx for the new link. The previous one, from that German site did not work yesterday. (blank page/error message)

This could easily explain the 50-year gap. There is quite a difference between discovering a principal and applying it in a practical way.

It does seem as though they would have had value in World War I as demolitions, even if there was no way (or reason) to use them in a projectile weapon.

In the Navy the need to penetrate armour was present even before the tank made its entry. That could have been a domain in which the appliance of the shaped charge principle would have payed off.

It does seem like it would have been useful, but I have not heard of shaped charges being used in armor-piercing anti-ship weapons. They just depended on larger guns, or striking where the armor was not so strong (torpedo, mine, high-angle gunfire, dive-bombing for example)

I know, but I meant to say I find it weird in a way that if the need was there, and the principle behind shaped charge was already discovered, it had to wait until the 30s for someone to apply it to armor-piercing use.

Yes, that's what I understood you meant. I wonder if there is some reason? Something about shaped charge warheads that make them unsuitable, or a less-than-best choice for naval warfare?

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Munroe_effect

The question is, is a shaped charge the same with an armour piercing shell? because the latter were in use in the Navies of the time...

edit -- I think there is a difference, and I am surprised that the naval people at the time did not realise the qualitative improvements a shaped charge would bring.

This post has been edited by Imperialist on July 08, 2005 10:40 pm

Jeff,

The website containing the link you higlighted also mentions the Russian portable rocket, able to aim at 6 kilometers. It was supposed to be used by the Russian paratroopers.
It was invented in 1936, well before anything tried by the Germans, the Finns or the Americans. You'll also find there that 2 pieces were captured by the Finns during their 1939-1940 war with Soviet Union, and Finnland sent one to Germany, to be studied. The Germans never return it back to the Finns.

The fact that they disappeared soon from battlefields means the answer is "No".

The evolution of tanks and airplanes in WWII was like the Darwinist evolution of live species.
Interesting enough, the navy inventory did not evolve spectacular, with the exception of using welding for fast assembly and the installment of Radar on battleships.