British OOB June 1944 - additional formations?

[JohnHale]

Thanks!

[DRG]

Roughly 25 % - 30 % smaller

[Cross]

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.



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



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



I'm sure the Thompson mount was quite rare:



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



Here's a Norton with 3inch mortar:



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



This is a Norton Big 4 from France 1940:



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




Cross

[Mobhack]

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

[Cross]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

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

Andy

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

[redcoat2]

Originally Posted by Cross

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

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.

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

[Cross]

Here's a better photo of the motley mount:




Here's a Lewis without the shield:

[IMG][/IMG]

It may have been used on WWI aircraft like this?

[DRG]

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"

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

[Imp]

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.