British 'I' Tank Armament

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#16

Post by sitalkes » 22 Apr 2014, 12:50

Read this Axis History Forum thread about the US 37mm gun viewtopic.php?f=113&t=90106 it will answer your questions

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#17

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 22 Apr 2014, 13:20

Link is not working.

The examples I am familiar with are from the Pacific war. The canister round was effective vs infantry at close ranges. It was mostly used in the defense vs groups o infantry that had come relatively close to the 37mm gun position.


ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#18

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 22 Apr 2014, 13:36

This article has info on the 37mm and the canister round. http://books.google.com/books?id=XicDAA ... &q&f=false

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#19

Post by Urmel » 22 Apr 2014, 14:50

sitalkes wrote:Read this Axis History Forum thread about the US 37mm gun viewtopic.php?f=113&t=90106 it will answer your questions
No it doesn't, it answers one of them. There is nothing definitive in there about issue in North Africa or Europe.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#20

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Apr 2014, 16:04

This article has info on the 37mm and the canister round.
Well, it answers the range question! Bursting at c.30 yards from the barrel, with a 200-yard downrange spread....which makes about 230 yards total! 8O

I think I'd prefer the Besa MG - not only a much greater range....but several useful ammuniton types; standard ball, incendiary, and tracer - and amour-piercing! Not too effective, of course - but it would severely embarass an antitank gun crew hunkered behind a gunshield...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Gary Kennedy
Member
Posts: 1001
Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 19:56

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#21

Post by Gary Kennedy » 22 Apr 2014, 21:39

The 37-mm canister shot is mentioned specifically for being used (in combination with MGs) to strip away jungle foliage and expose Japanese emplacements in a couple of Pacific encounters. Example;

"Machine guns and 37mm canister finally stripped the foliage to disclose not one, but two weapons, shooting from the rear entrances of a pair of log and coral bunkers. On these, coconuts had sprouted, thus providing excellent camouflage."

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/US ... Sol-3.html

That was obviously particular to the theatre and to an extent the opposition. The towed 37-mm anti-tank gun likewise was utilised in the anti-personnel role with canister by the USMC, who never adopted the towed 57-mm.

Gary

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#22

Post by Urmel » 22 Apr 2014, 22:47

phylo_roadking wrote:I think I'd prefer the Besa MG - not only a much greater range....but several useful ammuniton types; standard ball, incendiary, and tracer - and amour-piercing! Not too effective, of course - but it would severely embarass an antitank gun crew hunkered behind a gunshield...
Paraphrasing Prince Oberyn (Season 4, Episode 3): why choose if you can have both
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#23

Post by phylo_roadking » 23 Apr 2014, 00:52

I think I'd prefer the Besa MG - not only a much greater range....but several useful ammuniton types; standard ball, incendiary, and tracer - and amour-piercing! Not too effective, of course - but it would severely embarass an antitank gun crew hunkered behind a gunshield...
Paraphrasing Prince Oberyn (Season 4, Episode 3): why choose if you can have both
Because if I can't knock out an antitank gun at a thousand yards or so...I REALLY don't want to HAVE to get as close to them as 230 yards! 8O

I've been looking at the Stuart's secondary armament - the Browning M1919A4 MG....and I can't find a list of ammo types...does anyone know if there was an A-P round for it?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

ROLAND1369
Member
Posts: 1403
Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
Location: USA

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#24

Post by ROLAND1369 » 23 Apr 2014, 04:24

The answer is yes there was an Armor Piercing round for the m1919. There was Ball, Tracer, as well as an Armor piercing incendary round.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#25

Post by Urmel » 23 Apr 2014, 08:18

phylo_roadking wrote:
I think I'd prefer the Besa MG - not only a much greater range....but several useful ammuniton types; standard ball, incendiary, and tracer - and amour-piercing! Not too effective, of course - but it would severely embarass an antitank gun crew hunkered behind a gunshield...
Paraphrasing Prince Oberyn (Season 4, Episode 3): why choose if you can have both
Because if I can't knock out an antitank gun at a thousand yards or so...I REALLY don't want to HAVE to get as close to them as 230 yards! 8O
But nobody is asking you to give up that ability. It's not a choice. The cannister is a bonus, a freebie, you don't give up anything in exchange for it other than a few rounds of AP for the main gun.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

Clive Mortimore
Member
Posts: 1288
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 23:38

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#26

Post by Clive Mortimore » 23 Apr 2014, 09:20

The Stuart when first delivered had five Browning machine guns for the four crew to use, so the canister round (if carried) was a bonus. :?
Clive

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#27

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 23 Apr 2014, 15:10

phylo_roadking wrote:
This article has info on the 37mm and the canister round.
Well, it answers the range question! Bursting at c.30 yards from the barrel, with a 200-yard downrange spread....which makes about 230 yards total! 8O

I think I'd prefer the Besa MG - not only a much greater range....but several useful ammuniton types; standard ball, incendiary, and tracer - and amour-piercing! Not too effective, of course - but it would severely embarass an antitank gun crew hunkered behind a gunshield...
As mentioned the Stuarts had machine guns too.

But you're still missing the point of how fearsome a 37mm canister round was at that close range inside of 200 yards.
123 steel balls flying through the air AT THE SAME TIME 8O . Considering a MG can only fire in "bursts" how many bullets/projectiles can a Besa put in those close 200 yards in a minute? As compared to 10-20 37mm canister rounds.

As a close-in weapon , no small-arm really compares to the sheer-effect of cannon fired "grapeshot/canister/flechette/Bee-hive/ whatever." Been that way for 100's of years.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 23 Apr 2014, 16:26, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#28

Post by Urmel » 23 Apr 2014, 15:13

I don't think the Stuarts (at least early version) had a .50? It was all Brownings, including the AA mount.
The enemy had superiority in numbers, his tanks were more heavily armoured, they had larger calibre guns with nearly twice the effective range of ours, and their telescopes were superior. 5 RTR 19/11/41

The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#29

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 23 Apr 2014, 15:29

Urmel wrote:I don't think the Stuarts (at least early version) had a .50? It was all Brownings, including the AA mount.
True , Urmel, Stock Stuart models did have all 30 cal., but as I understand it the 50 cal AA was a "field" alteration.
I am looking for examples.

Chris

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17488
Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
Location: Belfast

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#30

Post by phylo_roadking » 23 Apr 2014, 20:28

But you're still missing the point of how fearsome a 37mm canister round was at that close range inside of 200 yards.
123 steel balls flying through the air AT THE SAME TIME . Considering a MG can only fire in "bursts" how many bullets/projectiles can a Besa put in those close 200 yards in a minute? As compared to 10-20 37mm canister rounds.

As a close-in weapon , no small-arm really compares to the sheer-effect of cannon fired "grapeshot/canister/flechette/Bee-hive/ whatever." Been that way for 100's of years.
The point is (are?), however....

1/ do you want to have to wait until "close in" to be able to do that amount of damage??? Given that the shorter the range, the better the penetration from A/T guns...!

2/ what was the canister rounds' penetration of "armour" like? Gunshields...concrete...sandbags etc.???
But nobody is asking you to give up that ability. It's not a choice. The cannister is a bonus, a freebie, you don't give up anything in exchange for it other than a few rounds of AP for the main gun.
Here's a question however...one that really would need to be settled at this point...

Did the British actually import the canister round for their "Honeys"?
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Post Reply

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”