2-pdr HE rounds again

[Urmel]

and still not complying with the rules of the forum regarding evidence.

No.
I think I have made clear the basis of my posts.

You may think that. That doesn't make it so. Please provide evidence for your original statement, in line with forum rules.

[Juha Tompuri]

Please provide evidence for your original statement, in line with forum rules.

I have been basing my posts on some laws of physics.
AFAIK:
AP-ammo is designed for maximum penetration.
APHE (which also would perhaps been of some use) is designed to cause (more severe) after penetration damages, as penetration not necessary ment a "goner"
HE/antipersonel ammo was/is better agaist soft targets like at-guns than AP-ammo (or ball mg-ammo).
at
My point is/has been that the tanks in question here would have been better, if equipped properly. In other words, at the case of the lack of HE/anti personel ammo for the 2-pdr made the gun "unsatisfied", as the tanks left without "the choise" could not deal (well) with the at-guns/soft targets.
Agree?

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

No, it's not laws of physics that provide proof for the statement that having an I-tank without a HE round is a wasted resource.

[Juha Tompuri]

No, it's not laws of physics that provide proof for the statement that having an I-tank without a HE round is a wasted resource.

Laws of physics of different type of ammo.
Some designed for penetration, some for after penetration damage, some for soft target/anti-personel damage. Because of laws of physics they are not that good outside their designed roles.

HE/anti-personel ammo (as well as APHE-ammo and mg AP-ammo to some degree, AFAIK) was a resource. Resource that was not used. Resource, lack of which made the tanks in question less able to deal with certain type of enemy and left the gun unsatisfactory.

Agree?

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

This is not about laws of physics, it's about a statement that not equipping a specific type of tank (the early I-tanks) with specific ammo (2-pdr HE) was a waste of resources. No evidence has been provided to support that claim.

But I note you are now walking away from that claim, and we are now at the gun being 'unsatisfactory' because that ammo was not provided. But alas that's just another opinion for which no evidence has been provided. 'Unsatisfactory' to whom? Is there any evidence that it was considered unsatisfactory by anyone?

[Juha Tompuri]

The lack of HE -ammo was a drawback. The early I-tanks were not equipped (lack of HE-ammo and AFAIK also mg AP-ammo) with effective means to deal with the at-guns (and other soft targets).
They were left without effective resources to deal with them.

Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991528

Agree?

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

Where's the evidence that the MG was not an effective resource?

[Juha Tompuri]

Where's the evidence that the MG was not an effective resource?

Machine gun AP-ammo.

In their view, a .303 machine gun is better than a 20mm or 40mm HE. It has a similar range and puts more, and bigger holes in a soft target than the slivers of shell casing from a 20mm-40mm shell. This logic also led the RAF to prefer a battery of .303 to 20mm cannon.

How about the Matilda 7.92mm Besa - did it have ammo to penetrate German AT-gun shields? If so, from when on?

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1992842

So... any info about the Besa abilities and from when on?

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1995812

As (agreed?) the 2-pdr of the tanks mentioned lacked ammo designed to deal with soft targets like at-guns, it also seems that they had their co-axial machine guns equipped without AP ammo - some problems in punching the at-gun shields for instance.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1996337

... (as well as APHE-ammo and mg AP-ammo to some degree, AFAIK) was a resource. Resource that was not used. Resource, lack of which made the tanks in question less able to deal with certain type of enemy

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 8#p1997377

The early I-tanks were not equipped (lack of HE-ammo and AFAIK also mg AP-ammo) with effective means to deal with the at-guns (and other soft targets).

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1997739

Please correct me, (after several earlier questions about the case) but AFAIK from early war British did not issue Besa mg with AP-ammo.
Machine guns with limited AP-capability are less effective against for example shielded AT-guns.

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

So that could have been solved by issuing AP ammo to the Besa. If it was such a big problem in reality. I would expect a hail of Besa ball coming in around a 3.7 or 5cm gun crew to be quite distracting, even if it isn't going through the shield. I doubt the crew would continue to operate the gun effectively. They were small guns with small shields. The Italian 4.7cm didn't even have a shield.

[LineDoggie]

Where's the evidence that the MG was not an effective resource?

Machine gun AP-ammo.

Except the British did make AP 7.92mm for the BESA

7.92mm Besa Armor-Piercing W Mark Iz (UK)

7.92mm Besa Armor-Piercing W Mark IIz (UK)

7.92mm Besa Armor-Piercing W Mark IIz (UK)

[Juha Tompuri]

So that could have been solved by issuing AP ammo to the Besa.

Enough AP-ammo would have improved Besa capabilities.

BTW... Do you support the War Office's(?) view (for not to have AP-ammo for Besa) on the Besa AP-ammo matter?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1991542

I doubt the crew would continue to operate the gun effectively.

Please define the " effectively"

They were small guns with small shields.

Like tracers, the size works at both ways.

The Italian 4.7cm didn't even have a shield.

Machine guns with limited AP-capability are less effective against for example shielded AT-guns.

Even more smaller target for AP-rounds/shots and would have been somewhat more vulnerable to HE-shells.

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

Sorry Juha. Until you pony up some evidence for your initial statement I don't think you are in a position to ask other posters for any evidence or clarifications. In any case, i) my views on the WO's views regarding Besa ammunition are neither here nor there, and ii) your attempt to sidetrack the discussion into another direction is noted.

[Juha Tompuri]

Except the British did make AP 7.92mm for the BESA

Please correct me, (after several earlier questions about the case) but AFAIK from early war British did not issue Besa mg with AP-ammo.

In addition to the domestic production, also imported and captured (what type?) ammo was used.
The question is that from when on it was used in action, and at what numbers?

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=61

Issued from late 41, produced from sometime in 1942, according to this.

[Juha Tompuri]

Thanks.

Seems that from (late 1942-)1943 on at meaningful numbers?

Regards, Juha