You may think that. That doesn't make it so. Please provide evidence for your original statement, in line with forum rules.Juha Tompuri wrote:No.Urmel wrote: and still not complying with the rules of the forum regarding evidence.
I think I have made clear the basis of my posts.
2-pdr HE rounds again
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
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
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
I have been basing my posts on some laws of physics.Urmel wrote: Please provide evidence for your original statement, in line with forum rules.
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
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 14 Feb 2016, 09:45, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: adding info
Reason: adding info
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
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.
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
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
Laws of physics of different type of ammo.Urmel wrote: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.
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
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 15 Feb 2016, 07:59, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: correcting
Reason: correcting
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
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?
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?
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
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
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.
Agree?
Regards, Juha
They were left without effective resources to deal with them.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991528Urmel wrote:Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.
Agree?
Regards, Juha
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 16 Feb 2016, 17:04, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: adding info
Reason: adding info
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
Where's the evidence that the MG was not an effective resource?
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
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
Machine gun AP-ammo.Urmel wrote:Where's the evidence that the MG was not an effective resource?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1995812Juha Tompuri earlier wrote:http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1992842Juha Tompuri wrote:How about the Matilda 7.92mm Besa - did it have ammo to penetrate German AT-gun shields? If so, from when on?Sheldrake wrote: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.
So... any info about the Besa abilities and from when on?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1996337Juha Tompuri earlier wrote: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. ... 8#p1997377Juha Tompuri earlier wrote: ... (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. ... 5#p1997739Juha Tompuri wrote: 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).
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
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
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.
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: 1278
- Joined: 03 Oct 2008, 21:06
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
Except the British did make AP 7.92mm for the BESAJuha Tompuri wrote:Machine gun AP-ammo.Urmel wrote:Where's the evidence that the MG was not an effective resource?
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)
"There are two kinds of people who are staying on this beach: those who are dead and those who are going to die. Now let’s get the hell out of here".
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
Col. George Taylor, 16th Infantry Regiment, Omaha Beach
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
Enough AP-ammo would have improved Besa capabilities.Urmel wrote:So that could have been solved by issuing AP ammo to the Besa.
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
Please define the " effectively"Urmel wrote: I doubt the crew would continue to operate the gun effectively.
Like tracers, the size works at both ways.Urmel wrote: They were small guns with small shields.
Urmel wrote: The Italian 4.7cm didn't even have a shield.
Even more smaller target for AP-rounds/shots and would have been somewhat more vulnerable to HE-shells.Juha wrote:Machine guns with limited AP-capability are less effective against for example shielded AT-guns.
Regards, Juha
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
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.
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
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
LineDoggie wrote:Except the British did make AP 7.92mm for the BESA
In addition to the domestic production, also imported and captured (what type?) ammo was used.Juha earlier wrote:Please correct me, (after several earlier questions about the case) but AFAIK from early war British did not issue Besa mg with AP-ammo.
The question is that from when on it was used in action, and at what numbers?
Regards, Juha
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
http://www.wwiiequipment.com/index.php? ... &Itemid=61
Issued from late 41, produced from sometime in 1942, according to this.
Issued from late 41, produced from sometime in 1942, according to this.
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
- Juha Tompuri
- Forum Staff
- Posts: 11563
- Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
- Location: Mylsä
Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again
Thanks.
Seems that from (late 1942-)1943 on at meaningful numbers?
Regards, Juha
Seems that from (late 1942-)1943 on at meaningful numbers?
Regards, Juha