The German proximity fuse.

M. J. Powell wrote:
In message
,
Geoffrey
Sinclair writes

snip

Method 3: making the shell body part of a resonant circuit and
detecting frequency changes.

Should be fun lugging the fused shells around metal guns.

IIRC the fuse was inactive until fired. The shock of firing broke a
glass cell containing the battery acid, the battery then produced the

required voltage.

The initial fuses that entered service used a 'normal' battery. It
worked quite well however the batteries would degrade in only a few
months hence the above batteries were developed. Nose mounted wind
turbine driven generators were also used in experimental shells but
were rejected, probably for cost reasons.

The German electrostatic influence fuse used a battery. I don't know
what battery technology they used.



Mike
--
M.J.Powell

"M. J. Powell" wrote:

In message
, Geoffrey
Sinclair writes

snip

Method 3: making the shell body part of a resonant circuit and
detecting frequency changes.

Should be fun lugging the fused shells around metal guns.

IIRC the fuse was inactive until fired. The shock of firing broke a
glass cell containing the battery acid, the battery then produced the
required voltage.

Mike

Jesus...I'd hate to be the second guy to accidentally drop the
damned thing...

--

-Gord.

Keep in mind that I'm an expert with
questions, so if you have any, fire
away.

Be aware however, that answers
quite often give me trouble.

"Gord Beaman" wrote in message
...
"M. J. Powell" wrote:

In message
, Geoffrey
Sinclair writes

IIRC the fuse was inactive until fired. The shock of firing broke a
glass cell containing the battery acid, the battery then produced the
required voltage.

Mike

Jesus...I'd hate to be the second guy to accidentally drop the
damned thing...

If you think about it, the glass cell could be amazingly tough.
What would the acceleration of the initial firing be: a few thousand g'?
A piece of glass thick enough to be virtually unbreakable under
normal circumstances would shatter under its own weight if
bridging a hole.

In message
, Geoffrey
Sinclair writes
It should be noted the claimed major shoot down was the USN
ships reporting what they thought they had shot down.

And, like bomber gunners, both raid count and bandits splashed were
prone to error... when Seaman Smith sees the aircraft he's hammering
with 40mm shellfire burst into flames and ditch, naturally that's *his*
kill. As it is also Seaman Jones who'd just riddled it with 20mm, and
it's also a kill claimed by the 5" teams who had been shredding it with
fragments on its way in... and every one of those claims is honestly
made.

In the fights with Kamikazes the USN ships reported they needed
to fire 100% VT (proximity) fuses, since there was normally no time
to set and use time fuses.

However, they were told by BuOrd to use 25% time fuzed shells: the
bursts had deterrent effect, indicated the raid to other units, but
primarily it pointed up any gross errors like the director aiming at the
wrong group of aircraft.

Before the RAF introduced window Bomber Command was recording
that around 6 to 9% of returning aircraft on night missions had flak
damage, March to July 1943. This dropped to 2.85% in August and
averaged 2.3% for all of 1944 and 1.4% for 1945. Window remained
effective against the fire control radars for the remainder of the war.
The average for aircraft returning damaged by flak on night raids
February to December 1942 was 6.5%, for all of 1943 5.8%. In effect
a proximity fuse at around 3 to 7 times the lethality would restore to
exceed the pre window hit rates.

US experience was that VT fuzing was about three times more effective
than time fuzing on a straight rounds-per-bird comparison: this rose to
nearer four times by war's end as experience was gained and reliability
improved.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Eunometic wrote:
The German proximity fuse.


Not exactly an article for this newsgroup. We strive to remain on topic
and would appreciate if posters would keep this in mind.

"Jim" wrote in message ...
Eunometic wrote:
The German proximity fuse.


Not exactly an article for this newsgroup. We strive to remain on topic
and would appreciate if posters would keep this in mind.

I did not realize that naval aircraft were immune to anti-aircraft fire...be
so be it.

Tex

"Jim" wrote in message ...
Eunometic wrote:
The German proximity fuse.


Not exactly an article for this newsgroup. We strive to remain on topic
and would appreciate if posters would keep this in mind.

Incorrect, this is one of the rew recent threads that IS on topic.
As an example the use of proximity fuses was critical to defending
the USN against kamikaze attack in WW2

Keith

Keith W wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ...

Eunometic wrote:

The German proximity fuse.


Not exactly an article for this newsgroup. We strive to remain on topic
and would appreciate if posters would keep this in mind.


Incorrect, this is one of the rew recent threads that IS on topic.
As an example the use of proximity fuses was critical to defending
the USN against kamikaze attack in WW2

Keith


Our group is NAVAL AVIATION.

CHARTER: rec.aviation.military.naval

The purpose of this newsgroup is to facilitate open discussion about all
issues relating to Naval Aviation. It will provide a global forum for:
- pilots
- naval flight officers
- flight crew members
- aircraft maintenance personnel
- air traffic controllers
- flight deck personnel
- other support personnel
- others interested in Naval Aviation

The discussions will be based upon:
- flight training
- squadron history
- aircraft carrier operations
- patrol missions
- lighter-than-air operations
- combat experiences
- tower/GCA/CATCC experiences
- other subjects relating to and about Naval Aviation

The goal of these discussions is to provide a global community access to
discuss issues relating to Naval Aviation and foster interest in others
regarding this unique aspect of aviation.

A FAQ file(s) will be developed to include discussion topics outlined
above and other issues that will arise from the operation of the newsgroup.

The newsgroup will be unmoderated.

Commercial postings are not welcome as the group as proposed does not
require Vendors or Suppliers.

Binary file or graphic productions are prohibited. However a posting
may include reference to a URL or FTP pointing to such binary files.

Jim wrote:

Keith W wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ...

Eunometic wrote:

The German proximity fuse.


Not exactly an article for this newsgroup. We strive to remain on topic
and would appreciate if posters would keep this in mind.


Incorrect, this is one of the rew recent threads that IS on topic.
As an example the use of proximity fuses was critical to defending
the USN against kamikaze attack in WW2

Keith


Our group is NAVAL AVIATION.

CHARTER: rec.aviation.military.naval

The purpose of this newsgroup is to facilitate open discussion about all
issues relating to Naval Aviation.

snip

Don't be silly Jim...how close to aviation do you want?...sure
beats that political crap that we see occasionally...

--

-Gord.

Keep in mind that I'm an expert with
questions, so if you have any, fire
away.

Be aware however, that answers
quite often give me trouble.

"Jim" wrote in message ...
Keith W wrote:
"Jim" wrote in message ...

Eunometic wrote:

The German proximity fuse.


Not exactly an article for this newsgroup. We strive to remain on topic
and would appreciate if posters would keep this in mind.


Incorrect, this is one of the rew recent threads that IS on topic.
As an example the use of proximity fuses was critical to defending
the USN against kamikaze attack in WW2

Keith
Our group is NAVAL AVIATION.


And the US NAVY used proximity fuses

CHARTER: rec.aviation.military.naval

The purpose of this newsgroup is to facilitate open discussion about all
issues relating to Naval Aviation. It will provide a global forum for:
- pilots
- naval flight officers
- flight crew members
- aircraft maintenance personnel
- air traffic controllers
- flight deck personnel
- other support personnel
- others interested in Naval Aviation

The discussions will be based upon:
- flight training
- squadron history
- aircraft carrier operations
- patrol missions
- lighter-than-air operations
- combat experiences


It seems to me that discussion of technology used
for shooting down enemy naval aircraft in combat is
entirely on topic.

Keith



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----