British Dive Bombers or lack thereof

[MikeMeech]

The whole British anti-tank gun and tank gun saga needs an entire book. Good guns crippled by cheap ammo, bad doctrine and cheap sights. Blame it on the delay getting the 6pdr in to production due to Dunkirk. 6pdr shows up, lather up again and rinse again, cheap ammo, bad doctrine, cheap sights. By now it was 1943.

Hi
What are the sources for this? Certainly my father, who used both 2 pdr and 6 pdr guns did not mention these problems, although he did have to walk up the range with a 6 pdr shell that did not fire, the result of a slow burn in the propellant. The 2 pdr sight which telescopic and suitable for low light was considered good and was certainly not cheap!
An anti-tank gun that had severe problems with its ammunition was the US 3in M5, which was "plagued with faulty ammunition from its introduction in late 1942 until early in 1944" according to Ian Hogg on page 88 of 'British & American Artillery of World War Two.

Mike

 

[Shortround6]

That is true but again, you had some people that thought the RN should stop the German invasion while the RAF bombed Germany.
They were overruled but this sort of thing comes up in procurement. They were able to use the regular bombers against the Channel ports ( barge marshaling areas) but some elements of the RAF did not want short range planes that could only be used to support the ground forces. Once the barges were dealt with the long range bombers could go back to bombing Germany. A plane with tactical radius of 200-300 miles could not.
A number of planes were used against the Channel ports because they had them. Doesn't mean that some in the RAF wanted to replace them.

 

[Shortround6]

Hi
What are the sources for this? Certainly my father, who used both 2 pdr and 6 pdr guns did not mention these problems, although he did have to walk up the range with a 6 pdr shell that did not fire, the result of a slow burn in the propellant. The 2 pdr sight which telescopic and suitable for low light was considered good and was certainly not cheap!
An anti-tank gun that had severe problems with its ammunition was the US 3in M5, which was "plagued with faulty ammunition from its introduction in late 1942 until early in 1944" according to Ian Hogg on page 88 of 'British & American Artillery of World War Two.

Mike

Look in British & American Artillery of World War Two.
and

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73:2-pounder-anti-tank-gun&catid=40:anti-tank&Itemid=58

British AP shot ( and I have no quarrels with the use of AP shot vs shell) was plain shot. Solid steel with tracer on the back. The problem was that the nose was rather blunt and while heat treated it tended to shatter against faced hardened armor. The solution was ABC shot which put a soft steel cap on the nose which did two things. One was to spread the impact load over the nose of the projectile instead of tanking the initial load right on the tip and the 2nd thing was that the soft steel acted as a bit (small bit) of lubricant as the projectile penetrated. A bit harder to make. Now the nose is even blunter which means the projectile slows down faster which means falls off with distance. However we can add a sheet metal very pointy windscreen (Ballistic Cap) and get even better performance than the original sort of pointy projectile. Called APCBC shot. Problem is we now have three pieces to manufacture and assemble instead of one. See the charts on the website. The APCBC doesn't show up until 1943. The APCBC shot will go through as much armor at 1000yds as the older, one piece, cheaper, shot did at 500yds and it will go through about the same armor at 2000 yds as the old stuff would at 1000yds. Old is a relative term, The Navies of the world were using APCPC rounds before and during WW I so the "idea" and technology was about 20 years old when WW II began. I am not looking for shot with tungsten cores here. Then you have the whole
"NO HE IN TANK GUNS" thing.
The scope itself may have been a nice bit of work. But simple cross hairs are a real limit in tank warfare. Having little lines or triangles that can be used to judge ranges at more than about 800 yds could have been real help. The whole aim the gun with shoulder thing needed re-think.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

That is true but again, you had some people that thought the RN should stop the German invasion while the RAF bombed Germany.
They were overruled but this sort of thing comes up in procurement. They were able to use the regular bombers against the Channel ports ( barge marshaling areas) but some elements of the RAF did not want short range planes that could only be used to support the ground forces. Once the barges were dealt with the long range bombers could go back to bombing Germany. A plane with tactical radius of 200-300 miles could not.
A number of planes were used against the Channel ports because they had them. Doesn't mean that some in the RAF wanted to replace them.

True to an extent, but the Brits weren't dummies. My understanding is that halting a hypothetical invasion force was intended to be combined-arms using both RAF and RN assets -- which is entirely sensible given the circumstances. I think that if the Brits had undertaken that defensive plan, a German invasion fleet would be well and truly toast.

 

[Shortround6]

True to an extent, but the Brits weren't dummies. My understanding is that halting a hypothetical invasion force was intended to be combined-arms using both RAF and RN assets -- which is entirely sensible given the circumstances. I think that if the Brits had undertaken that defensive plan, a German invasion fleet would be well and truly toast.

The Germans had about negative 0% chance of making a successful invasion with hindsight. In July of 1940 things may not have looked quite so rosy. France with a bigger army than Germany had just collapsed. People were working on not just plan B but all the way through the alphabet and beyond.
Plans changed with time even by the day? certainly by the week. More weapons were coming out of the Factories to reequip the forces than came back from France but things like this showed up just incase the worst happened.

This thing fired a glass bottle filled with petrol and phosphorus (self igniting Molotov cocktail) with a small black powder charge a few hundred yards. Said to be quite exciting if a bottle broke in the barrel with the wind blowing into the muzzle opening.
This thing, turned by the ordnance board, (what were they thinking wasn't actually placed into production until 1941 and not issued until 1942 ( Dad's Army has a bit of documentary to it)
This thing also showed up and according to Wiki 19,000 were made before somebody regained sanity and stopped it.

Used some of the same projectiles including the ever popular glass bottle filled with petrol and phosphorus.
Wiki says the 19,000 number was as of the beginning of 1943. You Know, just in case the whole North Africa and Russian invasion was just a "clever plan" by the Germans.

Ammo dumps of this stuff used to be found all over England although it has gotten a lot rarer.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

The Germans had about negative 0% chance of making a successful invasion with hindsight. In July of 1940 things may not have looked quite so rosy. France with a bigger army than Germany had just collapsed. People were working on not just plan B but all the way through the alphabet and beyond.
Plans changed with time even by the day? certainly by the week. More weapons were coming out of the Factories to reequip the forces than came back from France but things like this showed up just incase the worst happened.
View attachment 696022
View attachment 696023
This thing fired a glass bottle filled with petrol and phosphorus (self igniting Molotov cocktail) with a small black powder charge a few hundred yards. Said to be quite exciting if a bottle broke in the barrel with the wind blowing into the muzzle opening.
This thing, turned by the ordnance board, (what were they thinking wasn't actually placed into production until 1941 and not issued until 1942 ( Dad's Army has a bit of documentary to it)
This thing also showed up and according to Wiki 19,000 were made before somebody regained sanity and stopped it.
View attachment 696024
Used some of the same projectiles including the ever popular glass bottle filled with petrol and phosphorus.
Wiki says the 19,000 number was as of the beginning of 1943. You Know, just in case the whole North Africa and Russian invasion was just a "clever plan" by the Germans.

Ammo dumps of this stuff used to be found all over England although it has gotten a lot rarer.

Agreed, the Brits were preparing a defense-in-depth that included armed civilians, using flame defenses on beaches, and even envisioning deploying mustard gas. None of that changes the fact that planning in the summer of 1940 was built around the RAF and the Navy attacking and destroying an invasion force at sea, which was, if you recollect, my point. I think that point of mine still stands: the Brits understood that the best place to destroy panzers was while they were being towed across the Channel, and that was their Plan A.

I think it would have worked very well, myself.

 

[Shortround6]

Agreed, the Brits were preparing a defense-in-depth that included armed civilians, using flame defenses on beaches, and even envisioning deploying mustard gas. None of that changes the fact that planning in the summer of 1940 was built around the RAF and the Navy attacking and destroying an invasion force at sea, which was, if you recollect, my point. I think that point of mine still stands.

It does. The RAF and the RN should have been able to stop any German invasion.
But considering the effort being put into the "just in case" stuff to write off the idea of aircraft attacking tanks once they were ashore as not their job is also a bit harsh. Perhaps the aircraft being considered for anti tank work (or just army support) would not have been as effective over water (closer to German Air fields ?) They were talking about dropping bombs from Tiger Moths. We can argue that one both ways. How does our hero even know where the German troops (or tank) is in the trees and fields of Kent vs the barge on the channel?
On the other had, if the Moth is flying low the Germans may not get much time to shoot at it. Tiger Moth doing a bombing run on a barge (or group of barges) with 60-100 men with rifles and a 1/2 dozen machine guns on each barge (even if they are sea sick).
It doesn't help that the somebody in the RAF thought that Costal Command and sub hunting wasn't their job either. Didn't matter what some of the squadron/group commanders thought.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It does. The RAF and the RN should have been able to stop any German invasion.
But considering the effort being put into the "just in case" stuff to write off the idea of aircraft attacking tanks once they were ashore as not their job is also a bit harsh.

I'm not saying that once the Germans were ashore the RAF shouldn't or wouldn't have a role. Attacking tanks was most certainly in the RAF's bailiwick at that point. It's an expensive anti-tank weapons system, though. Much better to sink them four or six at a pop before they can shoot up your country. This the British most certainly understood at the time, and planned for.

 

[buffnut453]

I'm not saying that once the Germans were ashore the RAF shouldn't or wouldn't have a role. Attacking tanks was most certainly in the RAF's bailiwick at that point. It's an expensive anti-tank weapons system, though. Much better to sink them four or six at a pop before they can shoot up your country. This the British most certainly understood at the time, and planned for.

Agree entirely. I'd love to know what the Pkill is for a 250lb or even 500lb bomb dropped by even an accurate dive bomber against a tank target. Even a relatively close miss will, at best, result in an M-kill rather than a K-kill....and that's if it achieves any damage at all (which is far from certain, depending on the warhead type).

Again, the Luftwaffe didn't use the Stuka as a CAS asset. It was used to take out key defensive positions behind the enemy's front line. And yet some are criticizing the RAF for not using dive bombers in the CAS role?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Agree entirely. I'd love to know what the Pkill is for a 250lb or even 500lb bomb dropped by even an accurate dive bomber against a tank target. Even a relatively close miss will, at best, result in an M-kill rather than a K-kill....and that's if it achieves any damage at all (which is far from certain, depending on the warhead type).

Again, the Luftwaffe didn't use the Stuka as a CAS asset. It was used to take out key defensive positions behind the enemy's front line. And yet some are criticizing the RAF for not using dive bombers in the CAS role?

Now drop that same 250-lb bomb onto a river-ferry that's been dragooned into hauling six PzKpfw IIs and attendant crew across a salt-water environment the barge wasn't designed for, and let's see how combat-effective the tanks are when they offload -- if they even make it ashore.

I think the conclusion is obvious, that you are best attacking the enemy when he's most vulnerable -- in this case, to wit, when the tanks are afloat and cannot fight. GHQ was booking the same bets in Aug-Sep 1940, without a doubt.

The RAF passing up dive-bombers doesn't strike me as bad decisionin', once they sorted CAS with the airframes they had in North Africa. 101 ways to skin a cat, etc etc.

 

[Shortround6]

I have said it before.

CAS doesn't mean dive bombers and dive bombers doesn't mean CAS.

You can use dive bombers for close support. But you can use a lot of other planes for close support too.

The US Army in 1936-41 is said to be for close support (the BS about the P-40 being designed for ground attack) but the US Army only bought dive bombers because they could get then cheap and fast from navy production lines. The army built several single engine CAS/strike aircraft in the early to mid 30s. that were not dive bombers, then they went to twins and finally ended up with the A-20s.

 

[GrauGeist]

The USAAC had the Curtiss A-8/A-12 and Northrop A-17 which did have dive-bombing tactics.

The A-17 even had perforated dive-flaps which were also incorporated on the BT, which of course, was the forerunner of the SBD.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

You can use dive bombers for close support. But you can use a lot of other planes for close support too.

Right, we're in agreement here. The "pigheaded eighteen" weren't dive bombers, they were Marylands and such.

 

[Graeme]

Reasons for the demise of the Australian Vengeance...

 

[BlackSheep]

The Germans had about negative 0% chance of making a successful invasion with hindsight. In July of 1940 things may not have looked quite so rosy. France with a bigger army than Germany had just collapsed. People were working on not just plan B but all the way through the alphabet and beyond.
Plans changed with time even by the day? certainly by the week. More weapons were coming out of the Factories to reequip the forces than came back from France but things like this showed up just incase the worst happened.
View attachment 696022
View attachment 696023
This thing fired a glass bottle filled with petrol and phosphorus (self igniting Molotov cocktail) with a small black powder charge a few hundred yards. Said to be quite exciting if a bottle broke in the barrel with the wind blowing into the muzzle opening.
This thing, turned by the ordnance board, (what were they thinking wasn't actually placed into production until 1941 and not issued until 1942 ( Dad's Army has a bit of documentary to it)
This thing also showed up and according to Wiki 19,000 were made before somebody regained sanity and stopped it.
View attachment 696024
Used some of the same projectiles including the ever popular glass bottle filled with petrol and phosphorus.
Wiki says the 19,000 number was as of the beginning of 1943. You Know, just in case the whole North Africa and Russian invasion was just a "clever plan" by the Germans.

Ammo dumps of this stuff used to be found all over England although it has gotten a lot rarer.

I saw a write-up on that type of weapon, apparently even the Soviets were hesitant and careful when they drew the "lucky straw" and got to shoot glass globes of death at the enemy.

 

[yulzari]

[Then you have the whole
"NO HE IN TANK GUNS" thing.

Can you explain your understanding on this thing please?

 

[Shortround6]

Can you explain your understanding on this thing please?

I don't have an "understanding".
The British only provided HE ammunition for the 2pdr tank and anti tanks at the very end of 1942. The only way the tanks had of dealing with German anti-tank guns and non armored targets was to use the co-ax machine gun. There were a couple of smoke grenade launchers and trying to reverse away from the AT fire.
Every other tank producing country in the world provided HE ammunition for their tanks even in 37mm size, in fact the French Puteaux SA 18 was pretty much a HE firing gun although solid shot was provided. It has been said that the 2pdr didn't have a worthwhile size HE charge but the 2pdr, when they finally decided to build them carried about 2 1/2 times the amount of HE as the German 37mm tank and AT shells and considerably more than the US 37mm shells in the Stuart guns. They were making 40mm HE shells for the Bofors gun and they had been making 2 pdr (40mm) shells for the 2pdr AA guns since WW I so it wasn't like they didn't know how or have the equipment to make the shells/fuses.

Pretty much the same situation with the 6pdr. The HE ammo shows up late and in small quantities. 1942 saw almost 8 million rounds of AP and just under 400,000 rounds of HE.
A 6pdr HE shell carried a lot more HE than the German 50mm guns. British 6pdr guns had been being made for the navy since 1880-90s so again, there was knowledge and equipment for making HE shells. The QF 6-pounder 10 cwt coast defense gun was modern weapon of high performance so again, the equipment and knowledge was there.

I have no idea/understanding of the thought process that lead to this situation. The British had provided a 3.7in smoke mortar in the early cruiser tanks and later a 3in "howitzer" that could fire smoke and HE that would mount where the 2pdr went but only about 2 tanks per company/squadron had these weapons. A 2pdr or 6pdr won't carry a usable quantity of smoke compound but the lack of HE in the regular tank guns (finally solved with 75mm guns in the American tanks) is a real puzzle.

 

[ThomasP]

Expense of the fuzes and limited production capacity were part of the problem re the 2pdr not receiving HE rounds early on. The British 8th Army eventually made their own HE locally in NA by adapting the 2pdr AA gun projectiles. The original AA projectile fuze (which was designed to go off at grazing angles on doped fabric aircraft skin) was considered to be too sensitive, so they eventually fitted a less sensitive fuze more suitable for ground use. One of the 2pdr HE rounds used by the post-war armoured cars was still a war-time AA round fitted with a new fuze (there were large remaining stocks of 2pdr AA rounds). The 2x CS tanks per company with the 3" or 3.7" howitzers were intended to be direct fire Close Support for the gun tanks, but it was not the original intent for them to be the only source of tank fired HE.

Incidentally, the original AP round for the 2pdr (the AP Shell Mk I, sometimes just referred to as the AP Mk I) was actually an APHE round, and is sometimes mistakenly referred to as the HE Mk I. It had just enough HE to fragment/splinter the round after penetration, but it was found that a combination of increasing armour on the enemy tanks and marginal reliability of the base fuze after penetration made the rounds questionable in value, so their production was ended. It was used until stocks ran out. This is the round often mentioned in literature that states something like 'the HE content was found to be too small to be effective against infantry targets'. It was never intended to be used as an HE round against infantry or other soft targets.

The British had originally intended to supply the 6pdr with HE from the start and there was a HE Mk I design already worked out for production, but again expense and limited production capacity prevented this. The British initially adapted a naval 6pdr HE round for use with the tank/anti-tank guns. Later there were factory HE rounds designed as such for the 6pdr. Again post-war armoured cars used variants of these rounds, as well as new designs.

The US 75mm HE projectile was a well developed round by the start of the war (being the same basic projectile used by the 75mm field guns) so there were very few problems with it. The 75mm APCBC-HE on the other hand was not particularly reliable at first - to the point that the British requested the US to send only rounds with no HE and a base plug in place of the fuze, and orders were issued that the filled&fuzed APCBC-HE rounds already received be issued only in emergencies. They had one too many rounds go off in, or immediately after leaving, the barrel of the gun. There were similar complaints reported early on from the US units also but they were initially suppressed. At the start of the war there was no non-HE filled AP round for the US 75mm.

 

[yulzari]

The US 75mm HE projectile was a well developed round by the start of the war (being the same basic projectile used by the 75mm field guns) so there were very few problems with it. The 75mm APCBC-HE on the other hand was not particularly reliable at first - to the point that the British requested the US to send only rounds with no HE and a base plug in place of the fuze, and orders were issued that the filled&fuzed APCBC-HE rounds already received be issued only in emergencies. They had one too many rounds go off in, or immediately after leaving, the barrel of the gun. There were similar complaints reported early on from the US units also but they were initially suppressed. At the start of the war there was no non-HE filled AP round for the US 75mm.

There were indeed issues found with the early US rounds for the 75mm guns of the Grants. My father was involved in taking 75mm shells captured from the French from Syria to Egypt to be mated with 75mm cases captured from the Germans to make effective rounds until better ones were delivered from the USA. These were AP rounds. For HE IIRC there was a choice between complete French 75mm artillery ammunition or the Franco-German composite using German HE. I cannot comment upon the American HE rounds of the time received in Egypt. The captured French tanks themselves being retained in Syria against any German threat from the Caucasus. That latter being a drain on available resources which is rarely acknowledged in popular histories. They were a worry to the British armoured cars who rolled up in Damascus in 1945 and gently 'suggested' that it was time the French actually went home.

 

[yulzari]

I don't have an "understanding".
The British only provided HE ammunition for the 2pdr tank and anti tanks at the very end of 1942. The only way the tanks had of dealing with German anti-tank guns and non armored targets was to use the co-ax machine gun. There were a couple of smoke grenade launchers and trying to reverse away from the AT fire.
Every other tank producing country in the world provided HE ammunition for their tanks even in 37mm size, in fact the French Puteaux SA 18 was pretty much a HE firing gun although solid shot was provided. It has been said that the 2pdr didn't have a worthwhile size HE charge but the 2pdr, when they finally decided to build them carried about 2 1/2 times the amount of HE as the German 37mm tank and AT shells and considerably more than the US 37mm shells in the Stuart guns. They were making 40mm HE shells for the Bofors gun and they had been making 2 pdr (40mm) shells for the 2pdr AA guns since WW I so it wasn't like they didn't know how or have the equipment to make the shells/fuses.

Pretty much the same situation with the 6pdr. The HE ammo shows up late and in small quantities. 1942 saw almost 8 million rounds of AP and just under 400,000 rounds of HE.
A 6pdr HE shell carried a lot more HE than the German 50mm guns. British 6pdr guns had been being made for the navy since 1880-90s so again, there was knowledge and equipment for making HE shells. The QF 6-pounder 10 cwt coast defense gun was modern weapon of high performance so again, the equipment and knowledge was there.

I have no idea/understanding of the thought process that lead to this situation. The British had provided a 3.7in smoke mortar in the early cruiser tanks and later a 3in "howitzer" that could fire smoke and HE that would mount where the 2pdr went but only about 2 tanks per company/squadron had these weapons. A 2pdr or 6pdr won't carry a usable quantity of smoke compound but the lack of HE in the regular tank guns (finally solved with 75mm guns in the American tanks) is a real puzzle.

Thank you for that . I was wondering if it was about the myth that the Royal Artillery demanded that only they could fire HE from tanks.