British WWII BESA tank MG question

.

Hosted by John Prigent and Steve Zaloga, this is a discussion group dedicated to the armoured forces of the many Allied nations of the Second World War.
Joined: March 9th, 2012, 4:57 pm

July 10th, 2018, 9:21 pm #21

No,

we have a difference between military terms (as befitting a military-themed DG) and the perceived general usage of sporting ammunition terms.

"Handy" had me smiling, as that is the German term for a mobile phone, I think you were aiming for mobile and cell(ular) phone.😉 Auto is, in my experience, more used in print than actually as a spoken word, but that may have changed - although the USAF SPs I met a few weeks ago did refer to their patrol car as a car.
Information not shared is information lost.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 11th, 2005, 1:07 pm

July 11th, 2018, 7:31 am #22

Hi Jens
I was merely trying to show how different languages use different words for the same thing and yes I intended handy for mobile as I know it’s what Germans call a mobile phone.

In fairness to Dave they also call 7.92mm ammo the 8mm Mauser ammo in this video on the MG15. 



So whilst not technically correct it does seem the term 8mm Mauser is widely used in the US. 

How many times do we read yellow for Dunkelgelb or panzer grey for Dunkelgrau or even 88mm when the Germans used cm not mm for calibers over 2cm 

Regards
Andrew
Ps liked your comments over on HS in that discussion 😁
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 9th, 2012, 4:57 pm

July 11th, 2018, 10:37 am #23

Ah OK,

I thought you were aiming for same language/different words (hence gas/petrol), since different languages tend to have different words anyways.

Whatever somebody calls something somewhere does not qualify it for use when there is actually already a valid and correct terminology in place. This is especially true when the new names known by "pretty much everyone" only serve to confuse the issue, especially to the layman - this is precisely how myths are generated and we know how difficult to kill those are.

Enough O/T...

Cheers,

Jens

PS: I feel all comments made in the other discussion are in vain, but one tries...
Information not shared is information lost.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 10th, 2016, 11:49 pm

July 12th, 2018, 12:34 am #24

The 8 vs 7.92mm debate seems to me very much like 7.62x51 vs .308 Winchester and 9mm Luger vs 9mm Parabellum, i.e. 9x19mm.  We all know it's the same thing.  Let's move on - and not start ignoring people because we disagree with them.  This isn't Facebook: lets have no trolling and un-friending.  We're all here because we have a common interest and enjoy healthy debate about it.  Some of us have knowledge, and some don't.  That's not a point of ridicule: it's an opportunity to enlighten.  I am more than happy to have my pre-conceptions and inaccurate knowledge re-calibrated.

Even when the BESA was replaced with the M1919 Browning in the 1950's, UK armoured vehicles retained unique ammunition: the Browning was in .30-06 and not .303.  A situation which persisted right into the 1970s, even after 7.62mm was adopted.  Seems a little odd until you remember that 303 is a rimmed round, whereas 7.92mm is rimless and 30-06 is semi-rimmed.  Not everything works well with rimmed ammunition if not originally designed for it.  In 1940 we could make the BESA in 7.92/8mm.  Redesigning and testing it for .303 would have prevented manufacture until probably 1941: setting up a new ammunition line for a well-known round was less risky.  And we really needed an air-cooled belt-fed AFV MG to replace the Vickers, which wasn't ideal and which was desperately needed for infantry use.  Although the proven .303 Browning would seem to be a possible contender, the barely-adequate supplies of those were all earmarked for the RAF.  And it probably needed the cyclic rate reduced for tank use: more mods needing proving.  Don't underestimate how much can go wrong in such an apparently-simple change as a buffer spring or other rate reducer.

The M1919 Browning needed a double-charge with the cocking handle as the first pull only fed the round ready to be chambered.  The 2nd pull chambered it.  A quirk of the action design.

Having the co-axial weapon on the loader's side of the main gun certainly made more sense for clearing stoppages and reloading - the most usual combat activities with it other than firing.  But didn't the Crusader III, Cavalier, Cromwell/Centaur and Churchill mentioned above have the crew positions reversed with the loader now on the left - the most natural side for a right-handed loader to work efficiently?  Meaning the co-ax was still on the loader's side.  I can't think of a British tank where the co-ax was on the gunner's side.  Or have I completely misunderstood the earlier post?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 24th, 2011, 8:17 pm

July 12th, 2018, 5:41 am #25

Sagely put Peter.  As I've been building a full size replica of the inside of a Cromwell for the museum I'm afraid I can confirm that the gunner is on the left of the gun (facing forward).  The main intention seems to have been to see how crowded they could make that side of the mantlet.  In 1940 the Besa was pretty jam-prone but they'd slowed it down and refined the engineering a bit  (thanks to Czech engineers coming in to problem solve) but by 1942 there would appear to have been fewer complaints.  The mount stemmed from the 2-pdr then 6-pdr mountings which were meant to be controlled by the gunner's right shoulder in a sort of stirrup affair.  The idea there being that the gun could be fired on the move as if it were a shotgun.  It has one scratching ones head after this space of time - much like the rest of British wartime tank design.  I guess we got there in the end with the Cent...
All the best
Dan
Dan Taylor Modelworks

"My life is like my room - I'm sure it was tidy two days ago" Alphonse Tram in the film 'Buffet Froid' 1979
Quote
Like
Share