Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
Thanks. So it wasn't only the Germans who played around with their tank designs.
The Best Armored Troop Carrier/Reconnaissance Fighting Vehicle of WWII???
- Thread starter Lucky13
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Certainly not, no. Every nation in the war adapted tank chassis for many other means. The Sherman has every kind of modification you can think of from ditch digger to bridge layer to rocket launcher. The British even modified a Matilda II to become a lighthouse !
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
I think the Germans made that modification to the Matilda as well!
Soren
I'm still in a hurry, so just a couple notes.
"The 2 pdr was useless, don't you get it ?? "
That you think something doesn't prove anything. As I wrote in AT gun thread a German report stated that 2pdr was excellent AT gun at ranges up to 800m against Pz IIIs and IVs with 30mm armour, which happened to be Puma's frontal armour, Puma's side protection being only 8-10mm. What more by mid 42 2pdr also had H.V. ammo which was able to pierce Pz IV's 30mm side armour up to 1700y. Source same table than given in AT gun thread. Now 1700y isn't to me a suicide range.
"if one of its rounds managed to pierce the side armour of any German medium tank it would most likly do very little to no damage at all "
Now individuals are different but I wouldn't like to be in an armoured box with plenty of ammo around when a 40mm shot come through one of the walls. I predict that the situation was likely to be unhealthy.
But I'n still in opinion that 20mm automatic was maybe a better solution than 2pdr for armoured car. But 2pdr had its good points.
Juha
I'm still in a hurry, so just a couple notes.
"The 2 pdr was useless, don't you get it ?? "
That you think something doesn't prove anything. As I wrote in AT gun thread a German report stated that 2pdr was excellent AT gun at ranges up to 800m against Pz IIIs and IVs with 30mm armour, which happened to be Puma's frontal armour, Puma's side protection being only 8-10mm. What more by mid 42 2pdr also had H.V. ammo which was able to pierce Pz IV's 30mm side armour up to 1700y. Source same table than given in AT gun thread. Now 1700y isn't to me a suicide range.
"if one of its rounds managed to pierce the side armour of any German medium tank it would most likly do very little to no damage at all "
Now individuals are different but I wouldn't like to be in an armoured box with plenty of ammo around when a 40mm shot come through one of the walls. I predict that the situation was likely to be unhealthy.
But I'n still in opinion that 20mm automatic was maybe a better solution than 2pdr for armoured car. But 2pdr had its good points.
Juha
Hey I wasn't talking about against the Puma, what I was talking about was against medium tanks. But also like I said the Puma was capable of taking out all the Allied armoured cars, including the Daimler, at even longer ranges, and it was even a serious threat to the Sherman at 1,000m!
Come on Juha, think for a second here, what good is a 40mm AT gun as an anti-personnel weapon ? Thats right, its useless. The 2 pdr has ZERO HE capability, thus to fight enemy infantry with it you have to aim at single individuals to take them out (Not very effective).
The Pzkpfw. IV as of late 1943 was usually fitted with side skirts, increasing the side armor protection, and thus the 2 pounder didn't pose much of a threat from 500m and out, esp. not if any angle was applied.
Haha, I didn't say anything about it being likable Juha
Any round penetrating the armor of one's vehicle would be very unappriciated by that person, that we can definitely agree on. The point is however that the round of a 2 pdr didn't do much damage if it penetrated the side armour of a tank (Unless it hit the crew ofcourse), and thus the chances of that tank returning fire was VERY great. So now again I don't know about you Juha, but the thought of the enemy tank having a good chance to return fire and blow you and your entire vehicle to pieces with a 75mm APHE shell, wouldn't be a very attractive thought to me was I to make the decision of whether to attack that tank or not. Maybe ?? Yet again I don't know about you but I'd feel a whole lot safer knowing that it would take the enemy AFV 2-3 seconds to reload after each shot than having to be pounded away at by a 20mm automatic cannon firing at 350 to 400 RPM!
No, not on a recon vehicle.
Glider
Captain
The 2pd did have a HE shell in 1944 and this was issued to the Daimler A/C's
Not that I'm doubting you Glider, but I'd really like to see that. Sure you're not mistaking an incendiary round as a HE round ??
Also I can't really imagine a HE round from the 2 pdr being very effective against infantry.
Glider
Captain
As mentioned in my previous posting the Daimler could be fitted with the Littlejohn adapter that increased the penetration but this was either left off or only fitted to one of the two A/C's in the troop because it stopped the HE shell being used.
The following is a quote from a site followed by the link to the whole article.
In fairness, the 2 PR remained useful in the Far East against the thinly armoured Japanese tanks and also enjoyed a more successful life as an armoured car and light tank weapon. In the latter application, its armour-piercing performance was boosted in 1943 by the addition of the Littlejohn squeezebore adaptor. This was designed by a Czechoslovak called Janecek (Littlejohn in English) and consisted of an attachment screwed onto the muzzle which squeezed specially designed 0.45 kg tungsten-cored skirted shot down to about 33mm calibre, increasing the muzzle velocity to 1,280 m/s and the armour penetration to 88mm at 450m. The result was a precursor of the armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) tank ammunition, but it had the significant disadvantage that HE shells could not be fired unless the adaptor was unscrewed; not always practical in the heat of battle!
37MM AND 40MM GUNS IN BRITISH SERVICE
Its also worth noting that the 6pd also had an HE shell in 1944 something that is normally not noted.
Hope this helps
The following is a quote from a site followed by the link to the whole article.
In fairness, the 2 PR remained useful in the Far East against the thinly armoured Japanese tanks and also enjoyed a more successful life as an armoured car and light tank weapon. In the latter application, its armour-piercing performance was boosted in 1943 by the addition of the Littlejohn squeezebore adaptor. This was designed by a Czechoslovak called Janecek (Littlejohn in English) and consisted of an attachment screwed onto the muzzle which squeezed specially designed 0.45 kg tungsten-cored skirted shot down to about 33mm calibre, increasing the muzzle velocity to 1,280 m/s and the armour penetration to 88mm at 450m. The result was a precursor of the armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) tank ammunition, but it had the significant disadvantage that HE shells could not be fired unless the adaptor was unscrewed; not always practical in the heat of battle!
37MM AND 40MM GUNS IN BRITISH SERVICE
Its also worth noting that the 6pd also had an HE shell in 1944 something that is normally not noted.
Hope this helps
I think you left out some really telling parts Glider;
During the 1930s the machine gun was regarded as the main tank weapon against troops; the cannon was required only to deal with opposing tanks. It was therefore logical to fit a cannon which would give the best anti-tank performance. This meant a relatively small calibre, firing solid shot at a high velocity in order to improve the chance of hitting and achieve effective armour penetration. No use was foreseen for high explosive shells. This reasoning led to the adoption in 1936 of the 2 PR No.2 gun as the standard tank as well as anti-tank weapon, replacing the 3 PR (47mm) gun of the interwar Vickers Medium tank, which in its turn replaced the 6 PR 8 cwt of the First World War tanks (this was of 57mm calibre: the "8 cwt" is the gun weight, about 400 kg). The 40x304R case had a much higher performance than the naval weapon, firing a 1.09 kg solid shot at 850 m/s, later replaced by a 1.22 kg capped shot at 790 m/s.
There is no doubt that the 2 PR No.2 was a very effective anti-tank gun when it was introduced. The larger calibre, with its correspondingly larger case, gave armour-piercing performance well above that of most 37mm guns; penetration of 53mm or armour plate at 60 degrees at 450m was achieved, compared with 30mm for the contemporary German 37mm weapon. The main drawback of the British gun was its weight of 800 kg, complexity (to achieve all-round traverse) and therefore cost. As a tank gun it was unsatisfactory because of the lack of an HE shell to deal with enemy anti-tank gunners, although one was eventually produced rather late in its useful life. In both applications, increasing tank armour thickness soon made it obsolescent and it remained in front-line service for far too long before being replaced by a high-velocity 6 PR 7 cwt from 1942
Now that only reinforces that it wasn't very effective with HE shells, one being made available late in the war, but when isn't mentioned.
During the 1930s the machine gun was regarded as the main tank weapon against troops; the cannon was required only to deal with opposing tanks. It was therefore logical to fit a cannon which would give the best anti-tank performance. This meant a relatively small calibre, firing solid shot at a high velocity in order to improve the chance of hitting and achieve effective armour penetration. No use was foreseen for high explosive shells. This reasoning led to the adoption in 1936 of the 2 PR No.2 gun as the standard tank as well as anti-tank weapon, replacing the 3 PR (47mm) gun of the interwar Vickers Medium tank, which in its turn replaced the 6 PR 8 cwt of the First World War tanks (this was of 57mm calibre: the "8 cwt" is the gun weight, about 400 kg). The 40x304R case had a much higher performance than the naval weapon, firing a 1.09 kg solid shot at 850 m/s, later replaced by a 1.22 kg capped shot at 790 m/s.
There is no doubt that the 2 PR No.2 was a very effective anti-tank gun when it was introduced. The larger calibre, with its correspondingly larger case, gave armour-piercing performance well above that of most 37mm guns; penetration of 53mm or armour plate at 60 degrees at 450m was achieved, compared with 30mm for the contemporary German 37mm weapon. The main drawback of the British gun was its weight of 800 kg, complexity (to achieve all-round traverse) and therefore cost. As a tank gun it was unsatisfactory because of the lack of an HE shell to deal with enemy anti-tank gunners, although one was eventually produced rather late in its useful life. In both applications, increasing tank armour thickness soon made it obsolescent and it remained in front-line service for far too long before being replaced by a high-velocity 6 PR 7 cwt from 1942
Now that only reinforces that it wasn't very effective with HE shells, one being made available late in the war, but when isn't mentioned.
Glider
Captain
Soren
I left nothing out. We were talking about Daimler A/C's in 1944. Of course the 2pd tanks didn't have an HE shell, I never claimed that they did.
Besides, how many british tanks in 1944 had a 2pd or how many A/T units still had the 2pd in 1944?
You asked for evidence that the Daimler had an HE shell and I gave it, you cannot complain at that.
Re effectiveness, I made no claims on that either and in my earlier posting didn't disagree that it would have been better with a 20mm. I even pointed out that the British had A/C's with a 15mm Bessa HMG with a co-ax LMG and had never heard any complaints about it being poorly armed.
Read the postings and remember about what we are talking about before getting carried away.
I left nothing out. We were talking about Daimler A/C's in 1944. Of course the 2pd tanks didn't have an HE shell, I never claimed that they did.
Besides, how many british tanks in 1944 had a 2pd or how many A/T units still had the 2pd in 1944?
You asked for evidence that the Daimler had an HE shell and I gave it, you cannot complain at that.
Re effectiveness, I made no claims on that either and in my earlier posting didn't disagree that it would have been better with a 20mm. I even pointed out that the British had A/C's with a 15mm Bessa HMG with a co-ax LMG and had never heard any complaints about it being poorly armed.
Read the postings and remember about what we are talking about before getting carried away.
Yes Glider you did leave something out, we were talking about the 2 pdr's HE shells right ? Then how come you left that part out ? Also nothing is ever mentioned about t being availabel to the Daimler AC's in 1944, so where did you get that from ?
So who really got carried away here Glider ??
So who really got carried away here Glider ??
Glider
Captain
Did you read this bit?
The result was a precursor of the armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) tank ammunition, but it had the significant disadvantage that HE shells could not be fired unless the adaptor was unscrewed; not always practical in the heat of battle!
If there were no HE shells, then all the Daimlers would have kept there Littlejohn adapter as the penetration of 88mm at 450 yards will give you a good chance of destroying the side of most German Tanks. They would have been kept on, as without HE, there was no point in taking them off!!
As mentioned in my previous posting Daimlers were not designed to take on tanks they would almost certainly run and they were designed to do just that. Infantry and A/T guns were a much bigger danger, so they left the Littlejohn adapter off so they could fire HE. Simple really.
The result was a precursor of the armour-piercing discarding sabot (APDS) tank ammunition, but it had the significant disadvantage that HE shells could not be fired unless the adaptor was unscrewed; not always practical in the heat of battle!
If there were no HE shells, then all the Daimlers would have kept there Littlejohn adapter as the penetration of 88mm at 450 yards will give you a good chance of destroying the side of most German Tanks. They would have been kept on, as without HE, there was no point in taking them off!!
As mentioned in my previous posting Daimlers were not designed to take on tanks they would almost certainly run and they were designed to do just that. Infantry and A/T guns were a much bigger danger, so they left the Littlejohn adapter off so they could fire HE. Simple really.
Njaco
The Pop-Tart Whisperer
and another thread takes a dump.
Hello Soren
"The Pzkpfw. IV as of late 1943 was usually fitted with side skirts, increasing the side armor protection, and thus the 2 pounder didn't pose much of a threat from 500m and out, esp. not if any angle was applied."
Source of that 500m, please. I have doubts on that, it is difficult to believe that 5mm soft steel would have dropped the penetration ability of 2pdr H.V. shot from over 1500m to merely 500m, and I don't believe that wire mess could do that, some german skirts were merely wire-mess. At some angles 5mm skirt was able to decap Soviet 14,5mm AP shot but 2pdr shot was much bigger and anyway I really doubt that 5mm soft steel had very big effect at angles near perpendicular or what you call that which we here in finland call 90 deg.
And 2pdr would be deadly against 222, 221, 250, 251 and Puma. I could pierce with H.V. round Puma's frontal armour up to 1500-1600y.
And while penetrating armour a shot/shell not only come through but also break from armour hot splinters which might ignite for example ammo and anyway the bad thing in armoured box is that if something gets in it doesn't easily exit but tends to richore around if it had not force to punch another hole to opposite wall.
Juha
"The Pzkpfw. IV as of late 1943 was usually fitted with side skirts, increasing the side armor protection, and thus the 2 pounder didn't pose much of a threat from 500m and out, esp. not if any angle was applied."
Source of that 500m, please. I have doubts on that, it is difficult to believe that 5mm soft steel would have dropped the penetration ability of 2pdr H.V. shot from over 1500m to merely 500m, and I don't believe that wire mess could do that, some german skirts were merely wire-mess. At some angles 5mm skirt was able to decap Soviet 14,5mm AP shot but 2pdr shot was much bigger and anyway I really doubt that 5mm soft steel had very big effect at angles near perpendicular or what you call that which we here in finland call 90 deg.
And 2pdr would be deadly against 222, 221, 250, 251 and Puma. I could pierce with H.V. round Puma's frontal armour up to 1500-1600y.
And while penetrating armour a shot/shell not only come through but also break from armour hot splinters which might ignite for example ammo and anyway the bad thing in armoured box is that if something gets in it doesn't easily exit but tends to richore around if it had not force to punch another hole to opposite wall.
Juha
Glider
Captain
I have to admit that I don't have the books now. Its a bit sad but when I was young (around 30 years ago) I did a fair bit of wargaming and had the best part of an Armoured recce regiment plus A/C units in 1/300 scale. As you might expect I read everything I could. This included a number of contact reports and unit histories that I read at the Imperial War Museum which mention the firing of HE and the problems with using the Littlejohn adapter in combat.
All I can offer is anecdotal evidence. The Littlejohn adapter was issued in 1943 and by 1944 all Daimlers were equipped. Once the invasion started Daimlers were in action and as you might expect, had the HE round as well. All I can suggest is that if you look at pictures of the Daimler in action you will hardly ever see one with the adapter fitted. Again as mentioned before, had there been no HE then they wouldn't have taken the adapter off as there was nothing to lose.
The adapter was normally fitted only when there was a direct threat from tanks. As mentioned before, some units had one Daimler with it fitted and the other without (Daimlers normally operated in pairs) to cover both eventualities but this was less common.
- Thread starter
- #59
Lucky13
Forum Mascot
Was Germany the country that invested most in these vehicles?
Glider
Captain
Has to be either Germany or Britain. Both countries had a number of A/C's of different sizes to cover all eventualities.
The USA only used the Greyhound which had the disadvantage of being a large target combined with only having the 37mm and an open top turret. They did have light tanks to fulfill the role but these tended to be noisy with tracks, which for obvious reasons can be a liability.
The USA only used the Greyhound which had the disadvantage of being a large target combined with only having the 37mm and an open top turret. They did have light tanks to fulfill the role but these tended to be noisy with tracks, which for obvious reasons can be a liability.
