British 'I' Tank Armament
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
Read this Axis History Forum thread about the US 37mm gun viewtopic.php?f=113&t=90106 it will answer your questions
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10056
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
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.
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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
This article has info on the 37mm and the canister round. http://books.google.com/books?id=XicDAA ... &q&f=false
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
No it doesn't, it answers one of them. There is nothing definitive in there about issue in North Africa or Europe.sitalkes wrote:Read this Axis History Forum thread about the US 37mm gun viewtopic.php?f=113&t=90106 it will answer your questions
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
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!This article has info on the 37mm and the canister round.
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...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
-
- Member
- Posts: 1001
- Joined: 28 Mar 2012, 19:56
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
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
"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
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
Paraphrasing Prince Oberyn (Season 4, Episode 3): why choose if you can have bothphylo_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...
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
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!Paraphrasing Prince Oberyn (Season 4, Episode 3): why choose if you can have bothI 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...
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...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...
-
- Member
- Posts: 1403
- Joined: 26 May 2007, 16:22
- Location: USA
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
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.
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
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.phylo_roadking wrote: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!Paraphrasing Prince Oberyn (Season 4, Episode 3): why choose if you can have bothI 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...
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
-
- Member
- Posts: 1288
- Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 23:38
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
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
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
As mentioned the Stuarts had machine guns too.phylo_roadking wrote: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!This article has info on the 37mm and the canister round.
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...
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.
Last edited by ChristopherPerrien on 23 Apr 2014, 16:26, edited 7 times in total.
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
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
The CRUSADER Project - The Winter Battle 1941/42
-
- Member
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
- Location: Mississippi
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
True , Urmel, Stock Stuart models did have all 30 cal., but as I understand it the 50 cal AA was a "field" alteration.Urmel wrote:I don't think the Stuarts (at least early version) had a .50? It was all Brownings, including the AA mount.
I am looking for examples.
Chris
- phylo_roadking
- Member
- Posts: 17488
- Joined: 01 May 2006, 00:31
- Location: Belfast
Re: British 'I' Tank Armament
The point is (are?), however....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.
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.???
Here's a question however...one that really would need to be settled at this point...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.
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...
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...