Search results

We are drifting off topic - but leasurely designing something in peacetime from scratch with "inspired by" making part of process is different than reverse engineering something from captured specimens during a war. Especially as the Germans made the copying more difficult by not using US...

Mid 1942 is waaaay too late - to get the Bofors and its ammo into mass production for Khalkin Ghol you need a license around '34 or '35. Reverse engineering stuff is not easy - look at the USA - it failed to copy the MG42 ... or was it the MG 34?

The McLean indeed looks like that it was too early to be viable in WWII and used a technology which was never (?) made to work satisfactorily. If you want to give the Japanese a good AT cannon for '39 clashes with Soviets - PAK 3,7cm or Bohler 47mm (canone 47/32). Both available in early '30s...

The ROF looks too low for AA. Maaaaaaaaaybe acceptable for 1918, but not in the 1930s. Compare with Pom-pom, its contemporary. In 1918 a HMG would be just/almost as good and much lighter and cheaper. I don't like the "tap gas at muzzle" mechanism. Tried several times but I don't know of any...

Be carefull when comparing cannon. Barrel length aside there is the quantity of propelant to consider. Here case length is a rough guide, where longer=better (spot male bias). But some cases were fatter than typical for their length (Yes! Girth Matters!). being designed for use inside those...