Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Boys ATR

Sorry iCamp, I don’t recall the details of that inquiry, or where I read it. But I agree that the inquiry was quite possibly looking for tanks actually KO’d, not just immobilized.

Here’s a good site about the Boys ATR:

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_B...Tank_Rifle.htm

The site does say it was effective against tracks and wheels. But you can understand that the MoD was probably not impressed by this.

I wasn’t aware that the Boys was such a monster. It was 5 feet 3.5 inches long and weighed 36 pounds. Compare this to the PIAT which was 3 feet 3 inches long and weighed only 32 pounds.

British Motorcycles

British sidecars were fitted with both Lewis and Bren guns; and Thompson SMGs. The ‘Motley mount’ was used for Bren AA.

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/3...nww2poster.jpg

Here's some Canadian Norton 'Big 4' with sidecar and motley mount:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4...andianserv.jpg

Here's some British troops with sidecar and motley mount:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/796...tleymount0.jpg

I'm sure the Thompson mount was quite rare:

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/7...onthompson.jpg

Here's a better look at the Home guard LMG with drum:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9...4homeguard.gif

Here's a Norton with 3inch mortar:

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/8...0320inch20.jpg

I assume these are British dispatch riders, from 44/45 with stens:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/769...h4445oud05.jpg

This is a Norton Big 4 from France 1940:

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/321...rance20194.jpg

And this is what the boy in me, expects British MC units to be like in SP:

http://img697.imageshack.us/img697/2...0brits20ca.jpg


Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

The mg is probably a lewis without the sleeve?

http://www.royalenfields.com/2009/04...reat-with.html

That shot allegedly in "France 40" looks suspect since they have stens (1941)

Andy

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

I must admit that as I was posting that photo, I did tilt my head to one side and briefly question the Stens in 1940, but was in a hurry...

The helmet style may also date the photo. I'm no expert, but that helmet style may not have been available in 1940.

Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Looks like the regulars got the Brens and the Home Guard got the old Lewis gun. Many of them would have been familiar with it from the First World War. :D

Edit: Yes, Mobhack, the Lewis could be used without its barrel jacket.

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

Here's a better photo of the motley mount:

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/989...nbigfourwd.jpg


Here's a Lewis without the shield:

[IMG]http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/8214/lewisgun.th.jpg[/IMG]

It may have been used on WWI aircraft like this?

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

In SP the Boys ATR has a range of 500yds.

Average penetration:
2 at 50yds
1 at 100yds
0 at 150yds

Maximum penetration:
3 at 50yds
2 at 350yds
1 at 500yds
0 at 550yds

In the Boys Operating Manual it gives these penetration results:


PENETRATIONS
When to fire? This can be decided only by the firer, having a clear knowledge of the penetrative powers of the .55 bullet.

Bullet striking at a

Range... ... ... .. ..direct hit...........angle of 20 degrees................ angle of 40 degrees

Yards.........Inches.......M/M...........Inches..............M/M.............Inches..........M/M.
100 ... ... ... .91 ... ... . 23.2 ... ... ... .67 ... ... ... .... 17.0 ... ... ... .43 ... ... ... 11.0
300 ... ... ... .82 ... ... .. 20.9 ... ... ... .63 ... ... ... .... 16.0 ... ... ... .38 ... ... ... 9.6
500 ... ... ... .74 ... ... .. 18.8 ... ... ... .60 ... ... ... .... 15.3 ... ... ... .35 ... ... ... 8.8

This weapon is also useful for penetrating houses and sandbag emplacements. The maximum penetration to be expected in this form of firing is :
1. Brick walls . . . . 14 inches.
2. Sandbags . . . . 10 inches.


Operating manual found here:
http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Enfield_B...fle_Manual.htm


I also found the following in the Boys Small Arms Training Pamphlet:

3. Penetration of the anti-tank rifle
Although the bullet will penetrate the armour of light A.F.Vs. up to 500 yards, and inflict casualties on the crew, fire should be withheld until the range is well within 300 yards. The angle of impact of the anti-tank rifle bullet on the armour has a greater influence than the range at which it is fired. For example, while the penetrative power is only 10 per cent. less at 300 yards than at 100 yards, it is 25 per cent. less when the angle of impact is over 20 degrees, and 50 per cent. less at over 40 degrees at the Lett r range. (For further details see the Appendix.) The exact moment of fire must therefore be decided by the firer's determination to hit the selected part of the tank fair and square, rather than by range only. As a general rule the •55-in. anti-tank rifle bullet will penetrate all parts of the Pz. Kw. Mk. I light tank, and the sides and rear of the hull and turret of the Pz. Kw. Mk. II light tank, at 250 yards range at an angle of impact of 20 degrees or less. It does not penetrate the armour of heavier tanks except in certain points such as the rear of the turret and cupola of the Pz. Kw. Mk. IV at very short range. When shooting at German tanks of the Pz. Kw. Mk. III and larger tanks fire should be aimed, if it is possible, at vulnerable points, especially on the junction point of turret and hull and gun mantle, to cause burring over of working surfaces and thus produce jamming.http://<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /...le_SAT_No5.htm

Ellis says................................. 21mm at 300yds
Chamberlain and Gander say...... 21mm at 300m
Hogg 1977 says................... ... 20mm at 500m at 0 deg
Hogg 1997 says........................ 21mm at 330yds
Labbett and Brown say Mk1...... 16mm at 100yds at 20 deg
Labbett and Brown say Mk2...... 19mm at 100yds at 20 deg
Weeks say.............................. 14mm at 300yds

Based on those numbers perhaps the Boys penetration could be tweaked a little.

I also wonder if the Boys maximum range could be increased? It clearly wasn’t much good against armour over 500yds, but there’s several references to its ability against soft targets at greater ranges, because it was an accurate weapon.

Regarding the spelling Boys/Boyes, apparently there was confusion about this even during the war. So there are many docs that refer to it as the Boyes, and the Germans – who captured quite a few at Dunkirk – often called it the Boyes. But it was named after Captain H C Boys.


Cross

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

I'll put this on the list to investigate at some point. I already see one unrelated issue with ATR's in general. A case could be made for increasing the range a little bit to bring the critical 200 - 300 yard pen perhaps a tiny bit closer to reality but we are splitting hairs here. We deal in CM of armour and CM of penetration and when the armour and pen are down around 1 and 2 there's not much that can be done

FYI some good info here LINK

as well as the comment......."the Soviets were so unimpressed for their poor armour penetration capabilities that they never bothered to issue them" :re:

In this case I think it should be good luck to knock out or at least damage ( ** ) something like a SdKfz 222 at 200 yards but not completely impossible and increasing the range to 12 or 13 along with all the other ATR with 10 range now, might be what's needed but I'm busy with other matters ATM



Don

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

This may be something to do with its very low Pen value but most guns up close with accuracy of 80+ or so give extra pen reasonably often, not sure if I have ever had an over penetration with the Boys even banging away with 95% hit chance, think yes but very rare indeed.
If it did this would near enough fall in with Pen values & report posted by Cross.
This type of shot represents both the square hit it stresses is important & shooting at particular parts of the tank so damage only occurs with a well aimed shot.
It would still slightly under perform but those are ideal conditions when achieving penetration is marginal anyway even a couple of degrees can make the diffrence plus its a light projectile velocity is nothing special so probably more prone to richochet.

Re: British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?
 

I just damaged a German captured T34 tank with a Boys Rifle, so thought I'd better report it.

Lt Appleton's (British Light Infantry) section was facing a German T34 at 50yds. His section was trading fire with the tank, but Appleton kept rallying his men, and then they hit the T34 at a weak spot (+5) and damaged it (*).

A Cruiser tank moved forward and put another shell into it for ** damage, and then the pioneers moved forward and brewed it up. Some crew got out, but Lt Appleton finished them off.

So it's at least possible to damage a 'real' tank with a Boys.

I think to hit a weak point, you have to have over 80% hit chance.



Cross