Posted 02 August 2009 - 12:13 PM by Alan Hume
I must be slacking as I just read about the EPS "Effetto Pronto Speciale" round today
it appears to be the italian equivelant of a HESH round
it seems from reading Comando Supremo and elsewhere that only the 47/32 gun and the Semovente 75/18 get this round (did the Semovente 47/32 get it too?)
I dont suppose anyone has any information on this round and where it was employed at all?
Posted 02 August 2009 - 01:18 PM by jwsleser
Alan
The following is from Cappellano appendice 13 (pages 295-200).
The following list are the weapons issued the E.P. rounds, the unit of fire (UNFOC)(quality) per gun and the percetage of E.P. carried in the basic load.
47/32 UNFOC - 250 - 1/3 ordonarie (HE), 1/3 perforanti (AP), 1/3 E.P.
65/17 UNFOC - 250 - 2/3 ordonarie, 1/3 E.P.
75/13 e 75/18-34 UNFOC - 250 - 9/10 ordonarie, 1/10 E.P.
75/18-35 UNFOC - 250 - 1/3 ordonarie, 1/3 perforanti, 1/4 E.P.
75/18 UNFOC - 250 - 3/4 ordonarie, 1/4 E.P.
75/27-06. 11 e 12 UNFOC - 250 - 3/4 ordonarie, 1/4 E.P.
75/32 UNFOC - 250 - 1/3 granate (shrap), 1/3 perforanti, 1/3 E.P.
100/17 mod. 14 e 16 UNFOC - 250 - 1/2 ordonarie, 1/4 E.P. 1/4 a d.e.
There are some notes I need to translate, but I have to attend church. I will get back to this later today.
Pista!
Jeff
Posted 02 August 2009 - 01:39 PM by JeffreyF
I think you are on Italianisti but if not go there and check archives as I guess you have already looked here. I will try to go off memory and apologies if this needs to be corrected.
There are 2 generations of HEAT round at least. EP, EPS and EP42 which may just be EPS. Basically Italian HEAT shell and then Italian HEAT shell with German nose fuse that helped increase angle at which proper jet would form and focus the projectile properly.
EP is the home grown Italian variety of HEAT shell. I think part of the HESH issue is that the EP round, iirc, used a base fuse. The nose of the EP shells from what I have seen in the US tech manual on French/Italian ordnance look overly rounded compared to a traditional shell. In addition standard Italian artillery practice for anti-tank fire was take an HE round and arm only the base fuse so as attempt to increase lethality against tanks when forced to fire HE at tanks. So either an HE shell with a delay base fuse or a poorly formed jet from an EP shell will probably make an observer wonder about what sort of shell was thrown at the tank?
check the description of studies on EP rounds versus captured tanks in North Africa in something like google groups(only seen it in Italian language afaik) it makes it sound this way the Italian EP round did not form a tightly focused slug of metal to punch through the armor. Although in this description it talks about an EP shell of 20mm for the Solothurn at rifle going through both sides of a turret on an captured M2 tank, which I have never heard of being used in combat? I'm a bit sleep deprived so probably just a good laugh at my not remembering the proper tank. It's been some years however I recall the description saying the armor plate was boiled away on a cruiser tank. However there were further tests done in Poland(?) against Soviet tanks and I believe the EPS shell in 100mm rounds was capable of defeating the armor on the turret side of an IS-2 which is 90mm at a 60 degree angle.
Apologies if this leads you astray.
Posted 02 August 2009 - 06:39 PM by jwsleser
First, a small correction. I mixed the terms unit of fire (UNFOC) and basic load in my earlier post. UNFOC is a logistical planning factor that normally indicates the anticipated number of rounds a single example of a type of weapon will fire in a day. If a 75/27 has a UNFOC of 250, this means the army staff is anticipating 250 rounds will be fired by one weapon in one day. It is a planning factor to estimate how much ammunition you have for combat.
Basic load is how many rounds a unit carries with it without any support. A basic load of 200 rounds of 47/32 in the Ariete Armored Division means that the division’s vehicles (tanks, limbers, and supply trucks together) have 200 rounds of 47/32 ammunition for every 47/32 gun in the division. A basic load of 60 rounds for a c.c. battery means that the limbers and any trucks organic to the battery carry 60 rounds per gun assigned to the battery.
To recap, UNFOC is planned/expected consumption over time (normally a day). Basic load is the ability to move (carry) by unit. A UNFOC is normally carried by several echelons of supply vehicles (or more likely stored in dumps). I should not have used both terms in the same sentence.
I will need time to read each gun entry in Cappelano to see when EP and EPS was available. I.e. EP was available for the 100/17 in mid 1942 (June/July), while EPS was available in May 1943. 47/32 EP was available to tank and c.c. units in A.S., and to the artillery units under the command of the 8th Army (in Russia) at the beginning of 1942 (Jan/Feb). By 1 May 1942, there were 12,537 of the 47/32 EP rounds in A.S. For the 75/27 series, EP, EPS and EP M42 were available. By June 1942, both the 75/27 series and the 75/18 for semoventi had 4 UNFOC of ammunition that included EP in A.S.
There is more data (including a lot of technical data on penetration) that will take time to work through. However, there are some other projects I need to get done at this time.
Pista!
Jeff
Posted 02 August 2009 - 10:30 PM by Dili
EPS appears in 43 and it is an evolution of EP.
Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:14 PM by Alan Hume
Hey Jeff
sorry to be a pain again, but I just wanted to ask your opinion
currently I am just going to put a blanket issue date of - available from 1942
on all EP Rounds for all guns
do you reckon this is okay or am I just fudging the issue too much?
Posted 12 August 2009 - 12:50 AM by Dili
65mm i have APR42 and a "?"
75mm i have late 41 but most rounds went initially for Semovente 75/18 so 42 is okay
100mm JUL42
105mm MAR43
all above EP not EPS
Posted 12 August 2009 - 01:20 PM by jwsleser
Alan
I basically agree with Dili. I feel 42 is okay for the major AT systems.
None of the A.A. systems were issued AT/EP rounds as part of their unit of fire. I need to check each individual weapn to see if a A.T. type round was developed. What I an reading supports that AA weapons had to use their standard AA round against vehicles if pressed to defend themselves.
Pista!
Jeff
Posted 13 August 2009 - 01:43 AM by Dili
Enjoy.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/TM/pdfs/TM9-1985-6-Italy.pdf
Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:03 PM by Alan Hume
Er,
sorry but I'm actually thrown here,
-----------------------------------------
65mm i have APR42 and a "?"
75mm i have late 41 but most rounds went initially for Semovente 75/18 so 42 is okay
100mm JUL42
105mm MAR43
all above EP not EPS
----------------------------------------
Dili, do you mean by this list that those guns didnt get EPS?
Did anyone get EPS?
Posted 15 February 2010 - 12:30 PM by david
Reading the above, can we confirm that the first deliveries of EP suitable for the 75/18 Semovente in N.A were in June 1942?
Or earlier?
Posted 16 February 2010 - 12:13 AM by Dili
I have late 41, but no source listed.
Posted 04 May 2015 - 09:56 AM by david
Guys, was there any EP ammunition for the 77/28?
Are there any tables here on this site, or the internet that give detailed penetration figures comparing EP to standard AP?
Thanks.
Posted 16 June 2015 - 12:22 AM by Dili
I don't think so.
Detailed data about penetration of EP rounds. I would also like to know the Italian tests with them, but i only saw what i call "guesses" based on assumptions.
Posted 04 October 2015 - 08:40 AM by david
Has anyone got any information of any quality about the penetration capabilities of 47mm, 65mm & 75mm EP please.
The rest is missing
I must be slacking as I just read about the EPS "Effetto Pronto Speciale" round today
it appears to be the italian equivelant of a HESH round
it seems from reading Comando Supremo and elsewhere that only the 47/32 gun and the Semovente 75/18 get this round (did the Semovente 47/32 get it too?)
I dont suppose anyone has any information on this round and where it was employed at all?
Posted 02 August 2009 - 01:18 PM by jwsleser
Alan
The following is from Cappellano appendice 13 (pages 295-200).
The following list are the weapons issued the E.P. rounds, the unit of fire (UNFOC)(quality) per gun and the percetage of E.P. carried in the basic load.
47/32 UNFOC - 250 - 1/3 ordonarie (HE), 1/3 perforanti (AP), 1/3 E.P.
65/17 UNFOC - 250 - 2/3 ordonarie, 1/3 E.P.
75/13 e 75/18-34 UNFOC - 250 - 9/10 ordonarie, 1/10 E.P.
75/18-35 UNFOC - 250 - 1/3 ordonarie, 1/3 perforanti, 1/4 E.P.
75/18 UNFOC - 250 - 3/4 ordonarie, 1/4 E.P.
75/27-06. 11 e 12 UNFOC - 250 - 3/4 ordonarie, 1/4 E.P.
75/32 UNFOC - 250 - 1/3 granate (shrap), 1/3 perforanti, 1/3 E.P.
100/17 mod. 14 e 16 UNFOC - 250 - 1/2 ordonarie, 1/4 E.P. 1/4 a d.e.
There are some notes I need to translate, but I have to attend church. I will get back to this later today.
Pista!
Jeff
Posted 02 August 2009 - 01:39 PM by JeffreyF
I think you are on Italianisti but if not go there and check archives as I guess you have already looked here. I will try to go off memory and apologies if this needs to be corrected.
There are 2 generations of HEAT round at least. EP, EPS and EP42 which may just be EPS. Basically Italian HEAT shell and then Italian HEAT shell with German nose fuse that helped increase angle at which proper jet would form and focus the projectile properly.
EP is the home grown Italian variety of HEAT shell. I think part of the HESH issue is that the EP round, iirc, used a base fuse. The nose of the EP shells from what I have seen in the US tech manual on French/Italian ordnance look overly rounded compared to a traditional shell. In addition standard Italian artillery practice for anti-tank fire was take an HE round and arm only the base fuse so as attempt to increase lethality against tanks when forced to fire HE at tanks. So either an HE shell with a delay base fuse or a poorly formed jet from an EP shell will probably make an observer wonder about what sort of shell was thrown at the tank?
check the description of studies on EP rounds versus captured tanks in North Africa in something like google groups(only seen it in Italian language afaik) it makes it sound this way the Italian EP round did not form a tightly focused slug of metal to punch through the armor. Although in this description it talks about an EP shell of 20mm for the Solothurn at rifle going through both sides of a turret on an captured M2 tank, which I have never heard of being used in combat? I'm a bit sleep deprived so probably just a good laugh at my not remembering the proper tank. It's been some years however I recall the description saying the armor plate was boiled away on a cruiser tank. However there were further tests done in Poland(?) against Soviet tanks and I believe the EPS shell in 100mm rounds was capable of defeating the armor on the turret side of an IS-2 which is 90mm at a 60 degree angle.
Apologies if this leads you astray.
Posted 02 August 2009 - 06:39 PM by jwsleser
First, a small correction. I mixed the terms unit of fire (UNFOC) and basic load in my earlier post. UNFOC is a logistical planning factor that normally indicates the anticipated number of rounds a single example of a type of weapon will fire in a day. If a 75/27 has a UNFOC of 250, this means the army staff is anticipating 250 rounds will be fired by one weapon in one day. It is a planning factor to estimate how much ammunition you have for combat.
Basic load is how many rounds a unit carries with it without any support. A basic load of 200 rounds of 47/32 in the Ariete Armored Division means that the division’s vehicles (tanks, limbers, and supply trucks together) have 200 rounds of 47/32 ammunition for every 47/32 gun in the division. A basic load of 60 rounds for a c.c. battery means that the limbers and any trucks organic to the battery carry 60 rounds per gun assigned to the battery.
To recap, UNFOC is planned/expected consumption over time (normally a day). Basic load is the ability to move (carry) by unit. A UNFOC is normally carried by several echelons of supply vehicles (or more likely stored in dumps). I should not have used both terms in the same sentence.
I will need time to read each gun entry in Cappelano to see when EP and EPS was available. I.e. EP was available for the 100/17 in mid 1942 (June/July), while EPS was available in May 1943. 47/32 EP was available to tank and c.c. units in A.S., and to the artillery units under the command of the 8th Army (in Russia) at the beginning of 1942 (Jan/Feb). By 1 May 1942, there were 12,537 of the 47/32 EP rounds in A.S. For the 75/27 series, EP, EPS and EP M42 were available. By June 1942, both the 75/27 series and the 75/18 for semoventi had 4 UNFOC of ammunition that included EP in A.S.
There is more data (including a lot of technical data on penetration) that will take time to work through. However, there are some other projects I need to get done at this time.
Pista!
Jeff
Posted 02 August 2009 - 10:30 PM by Dili
EPS appears in 43 and it is an evolution of EP.
Posted 11 August 2009 - 12:14 PM by Alan Hume
Hey Jeff
sorry to be a pain again, but I just wanted to ask your opinion
currently I am just going to put a blanket issue date of - available from 1942
on all EP Rounds for all guns
do you reckon this is okay or am I just fudging the issue too much?
Posted 12 August 2009 - 12:50 AM by Dili
65mm i have APR42 and a "?"
75mm i have late 41 but most rounds went initially for Semovente 75/18 so 42 is okay
100mm JUL42
105mm MAR43
all above EP not EPS
Posted 12 August 2009 - 01:20 PM by jwsleser
Alan
I basically agree with Dili. I feel 42 is okay for the major AT systems.
None of the A.A. systems were issued AT/EP rounds as part of their unit of fire. I need to check each individual weapn to see if a A.T. type round was developed. What I an reading supports that AA weapons had to use their standard AA round against vehicles if pressed to defend themselves.
Pista!
Jeff
Posted 13 August 2009 - 01:43 AM by Dili
Enjoy.
https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/TM/pdfs/TM9-1985-6-Italy.pdf
Posted 13 August 2009 - 12:03 PM by Alan Hume
Er,
sorry but I'm actually thrown here,
-----------------------------------------
65mm i have APR42 and a "?"
75mm i have late 41 but most rounds went initially for Semovente 75/18 so 42 is okay
100mm JUL42
105mm MAR43
all above EP not EPS
----------------------------------------
Dili, do you mean by this list that those guns didnt get EPS?
Did anyone get EPS?
Posted 15 February 2010 - 12:30 PM by david
Reading the above, can we confirm that the first deliveries of EP suitable for the 75/18 Semovente in N.A were in June 1942?
Or earlier?
Posted 16 February 2010 - 12:13 AM by Dili
I have late 41, but no source listed.
Posted 04 May 2015 - 09:56 AM by david
Guys, was there any EP ammunition for the 77/28?
Are there any tables here on this site, or the internet that give detailed penetration figures comparing EP to standard AP?
Thanks.
Posted 16 June 2015 - 12:22 AM by Dili
I don't think so.
Detailed data about penetration of EP rounds. I would also like to know the Italian tests with them, but i only saw what i call "guesses" based on assumptions.
Posted 04 October 2015 - 08:40 AM by david
Has anyone got any information of any quality about the penetration capabilities of 47mm, 65mm & 75mm EP please.
The rest is missing