Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
HiThe 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.
Look in British & American Artillery of World War Two.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
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.
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.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.
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 thinkingwasn'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.
It does. The RAF and the RN should have been able to stop any German invasion.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.
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?
You can use dive bombers for close support. But you can use a lot of other planes for close support too.
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.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 thinkingwasn'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.
Can you explain your understanding on this thing please?[Then you have the whole
"NO HE IN TANK GUNS" thing.
Can you explain your understanding on this thing please?
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.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.
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.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.