Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I am not sure that COIN/low intensity was even a "thing" in 1920s-30s in 'terms'.(my bold)
Is there a good source that confirms that the requirement for the Lysander included the COIN/low intensity conflicts?
No argument there.I am not sure that COIN/low intensity was even a "thing" in 1920s-30s in 'terms'.
However the Americans were doing some low intensity work in the Bananas wars.
British tended to use the term "tribal policing".
The Lysander may have wound up replacing the Hawker Hind and cousins, siblings, nephews in the mid-east, Asia.
Dual purpose. You can repeat fire smoke when needed. British tanks went from 57mm to 47mm to 40mm from 1916 to 1938. Going the other way to 84mm was possible post Great War and skips the shoulder elevation which worked fine on the 40mm but forced the practice of an internal mantlet. A more useful armament for Imperial policing acting as ersatz SP artillery. ie the 18 Pounder with the 25 Pounder later in the war when production allowed. Yes it will impact upon tank design towards relying upon firepower and armour. at the expense of speed. The doctrinal impact would be major but one can only guess in what direction it might go. Look to Vickers for the tank as they are large enough and experienced in the engineering to keep a tank division in business the whole time. They also have a working suspension system. The Liberty is not perfect but works well enough to still be powering Crusader gun tugs etc. until the end of the war.Dual purpose or triple purpose?
French 37mm-47mm guns, German 37mm-50mm guns, Italian 47mm guns, Soviet 45mm guns are all "dual purpose" to some extent.
If you want smoke shells (triple purpose) you do need a 75mm shell to hold enough smoke compound. Granted a 75mm shell holds a lot more HE than the smaller HE shells.
The British kept the 2pdr a single purpose gun for about 5 years too long. Relying on the co-ax MG for ALL soft targets limited the British tank commanders choices/tactical flexibility.
Ordering 2pdr HE ammo was a simple solution. It wouldn't take out field fortifications but a single 40mm HE shell into a truck or small building/hut could be effective.
Again the 75-76mm tank guns don't show up in large numbers until 1941-42.
Do we want Ideal or just large improvement for small investment. Britain doesn't have enough money/resources to do everything the "ideal" way.
Excellent points.British tanks went from 57mm to 47mm to 40mm from 1916 to 1938. Going the other way to 84mm was possible post Great War and skips the shoulder elevation which worked fine on the 40mm but forced the practice of an internal mantlet. A more useful armament for Imperial policing acting as ersatz SP artillery. ie the 18 Pounder with the 25 Pounder later in the war when production allowed. Yes it will impact upon tank design towards relying upon firepower and armour. at the expense of speed
Vickers can make the single-shot pom-pom for the small tanks and armored cars that can't handle the 57 or 75/76mm. Use the ww1 left-over barrels that are not conductive for automatic fire (due to the number of rounds they went through them) to kickstart the project.at the expense of speed. The doctrinal impact would be major but one can only guess in what direction it might go. Look to Vickers for the tank as they are large enough and experienced in the engineering to keep a tank division in business the whole time.
A lot times calibers stayed in use in order to make use of existing tooling. Sometimes the tooling was just cutting the rifling and a lot of times it was used to make the ammunition.Looking at the tries to reinvent the whell (ie. a small-calibre gun), they behaved like they actually had money and resources. Duplicating the 6pdr development with the Navy, introduction of the 2pdr - these were not just the ways of squandering the money, but also a way to waste time, the most precious commodity.
Neither the French, nor the Germans, not the Soviets received that memo. With caveat that French and German 75mm tank guns were really multipurpose - HE, AP, smoke.
British on their tanks could have had the gun similar to the 75mm the French or Germans had on their tanks before 1939, if not better.
Perhaps not but the requirement for carrying a pair of 250lb bombs or a rack for 4-5 light bombs per side was there from the beginning.No argument there.
What I'm questioning is the notion that requirement for the Lysander included the 'tribal policing' and other low-intensity warfare, for that I cannot find a reference.
The British (and many others) 6pdrs date back to the 1880s and black powder. In the 1920s-40s there are some other things that come into play.
A 6pdr AA gun (or anti-torpedo boat gun) needs a faster rate of fire than an AT gun. Or at least the duration of the engagement of is expected to be longer.
Sometimes barrels were lighter or heavier for balance reasons for the mount/s.
The naval 6pdr and AA 6pdr also did not have to be moved by hand into and out of firing positions. Granted the amount of weight/effort might have somewhat arbitrary.
German doctrine was that the 37mm armed tanks would be the armor punchers while the 75mm armed tanks did the HE and Smoke missions.
Yes indeed.French 75mm guns were fitted to around 400 tanks out of 3000 tanks?
In the role of light bomber/strafer? Something with fighter genes - ideally the Hurricane, but even a Ki-27 equivalent with 4-6 LMGs is still good (like that Gloster fighter). The MB.2, too, with the 1000 HP Dagger (not mandatory; a low-gear S/C Mercury will do).Now the late 1930s replacement for the Hind family was either going to be the Lysander or the Battle/Blenheim. What else was there?
well, the naval 6pdr you linked to had a barrel and breech that weighed 1060lbs compared to the 768lbs (?) of the early 6pdr AT gun.Let's not claim that naval 6 pdr would've been that hard to move when mounted on a field carriage. It is far easier to not take advantage of the ability for rapid fire, than to increase the sedate rate of fire, so the naval 6 pdr will be perfect.
German doctrine was that just about every gun had AT ammo available, How useful it was is sometimes questionable. The 75mm gun tanks did make up for the 37mm guns in the MK III tanks which was not really a success. It was a near fatal mistake by the Germans keeping the 37mm gun for too long.Again, Germans did not get the memo that the short 75mm is not a hole puncher, and insisted on outfitting the tanks carrying these guns with AP ammo, that paid handsome dividends already in 1940.
Well, this gets back to what I have been saying. Give the 2pdr a HE shell in 1938 and the 2pdr is pretty much on same level as everybody else in 1939/40/41.Yes indeed.
OTOH, French were also outfitting their tanks with 37 and 47mm HE shells. The British didn't for their 2pdr, and not even for the 3 pdr.
well, the naval 6pdr you linked to had a barrel and breech that weighed 1060lbs compared to the 768lbs (?) of the early 6pdr AT gun.
The actual gun performance was worse. 2386fps vs about 2700 and since penetration goes up with the square of the velocity. This is not looking good.
You can't just drop a 300lb heavier barrel into same carriage/wheels/brakes. You are going to break the carriage while towing so you need to beef up the carriage bit or resort to carrying the gun in the bed of a truck, which was bad enough when the gun weighed 2500-2600lbs.
You mean the short 75mm? Not questionable at all.German doctrine was that just about every gun had AT ammo available, How useful it was is sometimes questionable.
Well, this gets back to what I have been saying. Give the 2pdr a HE shell in 1938 and the 2pdr is pretty much on same level as everybody else in 1939/40/41.
I think we are going by each other on this one.In the role of light bomber/strafer? Something with fighter genes - ideally the Hurricane, but even a Ki-27 equivalent with 4-6 LMGs is still good (like that Gloster fighter). The MB.2, too, with the 1000 HP Dagger (not mandatory; a low-gear S/C Mercury will do).
In the role of artillery spotter? A high-wing 2-seater with <250 HP engine in the nose.
Either of these aircraft is well within the scope of both the UK design offices and industry so many can be made.
A number of Indian Air Force squadrons used the Lysander in 1941/42 as replacements for the Wapiti, Audax & Hart biplanes that had been used in the pre/early war period. One of the early duties assigned to them was patrolling the NW Frontier of India, including the pretty lawless border with Afghanistan.Perhaps not but the requirement for carrying a pair of 250lb bombs or a rack for 4-5 light bombs per side was there from the beginning.
As was the .303 gun in each landing gear leg. Double the gun power of the HS 126 and equal gun power to the Ju-87B.
The Lysander was supposed to assigned at the rate of 12 planes per infantry division (?).
The Hawker Hind family was both complicated and simple. They changed names depending on 'role' and/or fit of equipment, like radios and/or desert survival equipment.
Had the world not gone to war in 1939 it is hard to say where Lysanders would have would up as the Hinds got older and needed repairs/new engines and replacement fabric.
Now the late 1930s replacement for the Hind family was either going to be the Lysander or the Battle/Blenheim. What else was there?
Hi(my bold)
Is there a good source that confirms that the requirement for the Lysander included the COIN/low intensity conflicts?
The RN's 6pdr is not a direct replacement for the Army's 6pdr, but a gun that should've been manufactured instead of the 2pdr. Thus, it looks splendid.
Instead of the Army's 6pdr, they need to start designing the tank-going 3in gun.
You mean the short 75mm? Not questionable at all.
since penetration goes up with the square of the velocity.
British went to the 25 ton Matilda II by the late 1930s.This could be a good approach, I think. IF you can fit it in the puny pre war tanks. Which might be a pretty big if? Of course the "solution" is to give up on the idea of a small and cheap tank, and aim straight for something in the 20 ton range for an early war tank. But this was a period of very rapid advancement in tank technology, and the British weren't the only ones thinking they could get away with something cheap and lightweight.
There is no need to go with the too sedate MV. A ~500 m/s 75mm gun would still be a modest weapon, while improving the chance to hit vs. the more difficult targets.Might be good enough in terms of penetration against early war tanks. However, with a MV of 385m/s (for the German 75L24), hitting a moving target at somewhat uncertain range is much harder than with a high velocity gun with a flatter trajectory.