Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

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

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#46

Post by Urmel » 24 Jul 2016, 08:00

Don Juan wrote:Think its much less than 1000 tanks because a lot of tanks in British possession were American, which had Browning machine guns (0.30" calibre).

Plus only a fraction of the tanks in the theatre were at the front line at any time.
200-300 tanks sounds more like it in March/April 42
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
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#47

Post by Sheldrake » 24 Jul 2016, 09:59

Urmel wrote:Sorry mate, your argument is entirely unconvincing in the face of documentation. It just doesn't stack up. Adding entirely unrelated things into it such as 1970s light armour does only obfuscate.
It is quite reasonable to test the reliability of the conclusions by asking why this particular dog did not bark in the night.

The post war armies were led by men who had fought in WW2. That conflict was studied exhaustively and the findings of WW2 operational research informed post war military science.

The report claiming that rifle calibre AP rounds would help deal with gun shields at 2000 yards contradicts something discovered as early as 1916 - that rifle calibre AP would NOT penetrate the light armour of the mark 1 tank even at point blank range.

The report that donjuan quoted looks anomalous. I'd like to know more about the provenance of this document before accepting it as gospel. Was this the result of a scientific study or then belief of some tankies?


User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#48

Post by Don Juan » 24 Jul 2016, 11:58

Sheldrake wrote:It is quite reasonable to test the reliability of the conclusions by asking why this particular dog did not bark in the night.

The post war armies were led by men who had fought in WW2. That conflict was studied exhaustively and the findings of WW2 operational research informed post war military science.

The report claiming that rifle calibre AP rounds would help deal with gun shields at 2000 yards contradicts something discovered as early as 1916 - that rifle calibre AP would NOT penetrate the light armour of the mark 1 tank even at point blank range.

The report that donjuan quoted looks anomalous. I'd like to know more about the provenance of this document before accepting it as gospel. Was this the result of a scientific study or then belief of some tankies?
I don't really buy the premise of this. The Vickers Light Tanks were provided with 14mm face hardened armour precisely to protect them from small arms AP. Anything less was considered vulnerable.

Besides there were a lot of weapons that were successful in WW2 that weren't continued in the post-war era. A good example is the Infantry Tank, which generally did its job well during the war, but was soon found unnecessary. As far as the co-axial machine-guns go, I think by the Eighties they were mainly used for sighting and ranging, which is something they weren't tasked with during the war. So again, I think we may be comparing apples with oranges here.

The report I posted is not from Operational Research - it is the collective view of units as related directly to the Director of the RAC. I've given you the reference number, so there's nothing stopping you checking it out. If nothing less than an OR report will suffice to quell your doubts, then fair enough. I'll keep an eye out to see if there are any reports on this matter which are more scientific.

Personally, my suspicion is that the AP was probably effective up to about 500-750 yards, depending on the thickness of the gunshields, and from greater distances the Besa was effective due to plunging fire and not penetration. But of course, I may well be very wrong, so let's see if some more evidence emerges that enhances our understanding.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

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

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#49

Post by Urmel » 24 Jul 2016, 12:49

I have provided the penetration tables for German AP SAA. So we don't really need to discuss what someone observed in 1916
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
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3727
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#50

Post by Sheldrake » 24 Jul 2016, 14:44

Don Juan wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:It is quite reasonable to test the reliability of the conclusions by asking why this particular dog did not bark in the night.

The post war armies were led by men who had fought in WW2. That conflict was studied exhaustively and the findings of WW2 operational research informed post war military science.

The report claiming that rifle calibre AP rounds would help deal with gun shields at 2000 yards contradicts something discovered as early as 1916 - that rifle calibre AP would NOT penetrate the light armour of the mark 1 tank even at point blank range.

The report that donjuan quoted looks anomalous. I'd like to know more about the provenance of this document before accepting it as gospel. Was this the result of a scientific study or then belief of some tankies?
I don't really buy the premise of this. The Vickers Light Tanks were provided with 14mm face hardened armour precisely to protect them from small arms AP. Anything less was considered vulnerable.

Besides there were a lot of weapons that were successful in WW2 that weren't continued in the post-war era. A good example is the Infantry Tank, which generally did its job well during the war, but was soon found unnecessary. As far as the co-axial machine-guns go, I think by the Eighties they were mainly used for sighting and ranging, which is something they weren't tasked with during the war. So again, I think we may be comparing apples with oranges here.

The report I posted is not from Operational Research - it is the collective view of units as related directly to the Director of the RAC. I've given you the reference number, so there's nothing stopping you checking it out. If nothing less than an OR report will suffice to quell your doubts, then fair enough. I'll keep an eye out to see if there are any reports on this matter which are more scientific.

Personally, my suspicion is that the AP was probably effective up to about 500-750 yards, depending on the thickness of the gunshields, and from greater distances the Besa was effective due to plunging fire and not penetration. But of course, I may well be very wrong, so let's see if some more evidence emerges that enhances our understanding.
Sure you are entitled to your opinion,

However, in assessing the value of an argument evolution plays a part. The British stopped building infantry tanks because the concept was flawed. It was one of the post WW1 concepts that did not survive beyond WW2.

The wars of the twentieth century were not played to different rules. The role of coaxial machine guns was not "apples and pears." The co-ax machine guns fitted to post war tanks had the same function as coax in WW2. The spotting rifles on the (WW2 designed) Centurion was a special 0.5 browning with a ballistic match to the main armament.

While plunging fire from machine guns might be effective in creating a beaten zone, mortars or light artillery will be more effective. - see the OR reports which analysed casualties on the D Day beaches. 15-20 rounds of 75mm HE a tank main armament will provide a more lethal splinter pattern at 2,000 metres and the fall of shot is far easier to spot than co-ax at that range.

Whatever reports were submitted in 1942, by and large the RAC seem to have used HE at longer range rather than faffing about with predicted co-ax fire. I can't find this technique mentioned in "Armoured Operations Italy 1943-45" the collection of battle studies published by HQ RAC Allied Forces HQ in 1945 or the 15th Army Encyclopedia of "lessons learned." If you have any evidence that this technique was used by the RAC in Tunisia, Sicily or Italy i.d be delighted to learn of them.

One hypothesis explaining the lack of action following the report might be that people ignored it because the RAC collectively did not agree with it.

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

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#51

Post by Urmel » 24 Jul 2016, 14:58

By March 1942 the British tank industry was still over two years away from putting a tank with a proper HE round onto the battlefield. Or thereabouts, but in any case quite a while. So I see this rather as a stop-gap solution to address a specific and temporal problem.
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
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#52

Post by Don Juan » 24 Jul 2016, 15:35

Sheldrake wrote:The British stopped building infantry tanks because the concept was flawed. It was one of the post WW1 concepts that did not survive beyond WW2.
I don't think it was a flawed concept. The Churchill was a very popular vehicle, unless you think all the reports praising it are erroneous as well. It was just a concept that was superseded.
Sheldrake wrote:The wars of the twentieth century were not played to different rules. The role of coaxial machine guns was not "apples and pears." The co-ax machine guns fitted to post war tanks had the same function as coax in WW2. The spotting rifles on the (WW2 designed) Centurion was a special 0.5 browning with a ballistic match to the main armament.
Fair point. I stand corrected.
Sheldrake wrote:Whatever reports were submitted in 1942, by and large the RAC seem to have used HE at longer range rather than faffing about with predicted co-ax fire. I can't find this technique mentioned in "Armoured Operations Italy 1943-45" the collection of battle studies published by HQ RAC Allied Forces HQ in 1945 or the 15th Army Encyclopedia of "lessons learned." If you have any evidence that this technique was used by the RAC in Tunisia, Sicily or Italy i.d be delighted to learn of them.

One hypothesis explaining the lack of action following the report might be that people ignored it because the RAC collectively did not agree with it.
Well, there's two issues here. Firstly there's the issue of introducing AP to pierce AT gun shields. Action was definitely taken here as 7.92mm AP ammunition was introduced into factory production. Also, according to the handbook for the Comet tank, AP was still being included in the Besa belting in 1945.

The second is whether the Besa was being regularly used for long range indirect fire. I don't really understand your comment about "lack of action" because the report was not recommending it as a technique, just recounting that it was being used, so there isn't an issue of the RAC collectively "not agreeing" with it. And again, I shall point out that the report was compiled by the DIRECTOR of the RAC, after consultation with his subordinates on the front lines, so if the RAC collectively did not agree with it, it was only after the RAC collectively, at the highest level, recounted that it was occurring. The report might be factually wrong, of course, but that's another matter.

As to the prevalence or non-prevalence of long-range indirect MG fire in later campaigns, it may well be that it was rare to non-existent, as 75mm HE was better for the purpose, as Col. Blagden pointed out. However, in instances were a tank didn't have HE, it may have presented a viable, if less satisfactory, option.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#53

Post by Juha Tompuri » 27 Jul 2016, 20:31

Urmel wrote:
Don Juan wrote:Think its much less than 1000 tanks because a lot of tanks in British possession were American, which had Browning machine guns (0.30" calibre).

Plus only a fraction of the tanks in the theatre were at the front line at any time.
200-300 tanks sounds more like it in March/April 42
Thanks.
And the situation later that year?

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#54

Post by Juha Tompuri » 27 Jul 2016, 20:43

Don Juan wrote:Well, there's two issues here. Firstly there's the issue of introducing AP to pierce AT gun shields.
Yes.
I think the main issue has been how effective the AP-rounds were in reality.
AFAIK the 3.7cm Pak 36 shield was 5mm thick and the 5cm PaK 38 had 4+4mm protection.
It seems that along the lines from 1916, the PaK 38 was more or less immune to the enemy rifle calibre fire at all ranges and PaK 36 crew was safe from perhaps ca. 400m distance on.

Don Juan wrote:The second is whether the Besa was being regularly used for long range indirect fire. I don't really understand your comment about "lack of action" because the report was not recommending it as a technique, just recounting that it was being used, so there isn't an issue of the RAC collectively "not agreeing" with it.
Hmm... but is there really any proof about tank Besa used at indirect/plunging fire at all?

Regards, Juha

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

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#55

Post by Urmel » 27 Jul 2016, 21:27

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Urmel wrote:
Don Juan wrote:Think its much less than 1000 tanks because a lot of tanks in British possession were American, which had Browning machine guns (0.30" calibre).

Plus only a fraction of the tanks in the theatre were at the front line at any time.
200-300 tanks sounds more like it in March/April 42
Thanks.
And the situation later that year?

Regards, Juha
I don't have those numbers. If it was restricted to Cruiser tanks however we'd still be looking at hundreds.
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
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#56

Post by Urmel » 27 Jul 2016, 21:30

Juha Tompuri wrote:AFAIK the 3.7cm Pak 36 shield was 5mm thick and the 5cm PaK 38 had 4+4mm protection.
They're also both quite angled upwards, with the Pak38 shield being rounded on top of that. I think the 3.7cm may still have been vulnerable to SmK(H) even at a distance, while the Pak 38 should be fine at further ranges?
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
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#57

Post by Juha Tompuri » 27 Jul 2016, 21:44

Urmel wrote: I think the 3.7cm may still have been vulnerable to SmK(H) even at a distance, while the Pak 38 should be fine at further ranges?
AFAIK SmK(H) might have been rather rare there at that time:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=84321

Regards, Juha

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

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#58

Post by Urmel » 28 Jul 2016, 10:26

I think it's difficult from that thread to draw a conclusion on the number of SmK(H) rounds present in Africa in winter 41/42.
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
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#59

Post by Juha Tompuri » 28 Jul 2016, 21:34

Urmel wrote:I think it's difficult from that thread to draw a conclusion on the number of SmK(H) rounds present in Africa in winter 41/42.
Yes, but I think it gives info about the availlability in general:
M.Rausch wrote: The round was no longer listed for active service, since there was no resupply left. All rounds in the supply centres had their cores removed on 1.5.1941. But there was afaik no recall of the ammunition already distributed to frontline units. So it is possible that some units used their ammo storage very carefully and that the SmK(H) round was used in combat at a much later date than the 1.5.1941.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=84321

Does there exist any info about the British usage of SmK(H) at North Africa?

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013, 11:12

Re: Not Re-2 pounder H.E again

#60

Post by Don Juan » 28 Jul 2016, 22:12

Juha Tompuri wrote:Does there exist any info about the British usage of SmK(H) at North Africa?
I think the question is whether the standard German SmK round would best qualify as a "ball" or "AP" round. If the latter, then that is probably what the British captured. If the former, then the British probably captured SmK(H).

From my reading of the data, the SmK(H) round could most likely penetrate the 4mm+4mm gun shield of the Pak 38 from at least 500 metres.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

Post Reply

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