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
Pips
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 09:44
Location: Country NSW, Australia

British 'I' Tank Armament

#1

Post by Pips » 15 Apr 2014, 13:26

Without getting into the whole 'discussion' of success or otherwise of the British idea on tank use, one thing has always had me quite confused. And that is the armament on British 'I' Tanks.

The whole concept of an Infantry tank, I thought, was to provide close support to infantry as they attacked, or defended, a position. Hence the, for a time, the excellent armour and cross-country performance. So why were early British I tanks fitted with a gun that couldn't fire HE? Yes the QF 2pdr was quite adequate for a while in the anti-tank role, but without HE how could an I tank possibly support infantry? Or am I missing something?

If I'm right, the QF 2pdr was fitted to the Matilda II, the Valentine Mks I-V, Cruiser Mk I-ii, Crusader Mk's I-II and the Churchill Mk's I-II.

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

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#2

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 15 Apr 2014, 14:56

So why were early British I tanks fitted with a gun that couldn't fire HE? Yes the QF 2pdr was quite adequate for a while in the anti-tank role, but without HE how could an I tank possibly support infantry? Or am I missing something?
I-Tanks used their machine gun(s) to support infantry. The 2pdr was strictly meant for anti-tank use. Hence no HE required or allocated.

The anti- personnel/HE capability of such a small caliber 40mm high velocity round is poor. So why bother. Which was why most other armies had 75's or short 75's in their tanks for infantry support. The Grant/Sherman, Mk IV A-F1 , KV/T-34. The British finally figured this with the Churchill. I tank


User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 09:44
Location: Country NSW, Australia

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#3

Post by Pips » 18 Apr 2014, 06:22

So here we have an Infantry tank that can offer nothing more potent than a mobile machine gun to support an infantry attack? It can't destroy pillboxes, nor any fortified position. For heavens sake it can't even destroy a farmhouse or barn that's been fortified by enemy infantry - unless it can crash into it!

Even back in WWI tank builders and the military knew of the great benefit of equipping a tank with guns capable of firing HE. What on earth were the designers of the Matilda, and the military brains that requested it, thinking?

The Germans also recognised the need for an infantry support tank/vehicle. At least they took the correct tack with their Sturmgeschutz in arming it with a gun capable of firing both HE and armour piercing.

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

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#4

Post by Clive Mortimore » 18 Apr 2014, 18:10

Pips wrote:So here we have an Infantry tank that can offer nothing more potent than a mobile machine gun to support an infantry attack? It can't destroy pillboxes, nor any fortified position. For heavens sake it can't even destroy a farmhouse or barn that's been fortified by enemy infantry - unless it can crash into it!

Even back in WWI tank builders and the military knew of the great benefit of equipping a tank with guns capable of firing HE. What on earth were the designers of the Matilda, and the military brains that requested it, thinking?

The Germans also recognised the need for an infantry support tank/vehicle. At least they took the correct tack with their Sturmgeschutz in arming it with a gun capable of firing both HE and armour piercing.
Here we go again, the argument about the armament on British tanks. I think has been done time and time again. We have established that there were HE shells for the 2 pdr but not many and not that effective. AP shot was used against field fortifications with some effect. 2pdr shot knocking through a brick wall then bouncing around in the building along with a load of bricks it has taken with it does tend to have an effect on those inside.

Anyhow the main support arm of the infantry division was its own 3 regiments of artillery, backed up by the divisional machine gun battalion and each infantry battalions own mortar platoons and carrier platoons LMGs. Using infantry tanks was just a bonus.
Clive

User avatar
Saxon Cross
Member
Posts: 158
Joined: 05 Apr 2010, 15:33
Location: UK/USA

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#5

Post by Saxon Cross » 18 Apr 2014, 20:55

Pips wrote:So here we have an Infantry tank that can offer nothing more potent than a mobile machine gun to support an infantry attack? It can't destroy pillboxes, nor any fortified position. For heavens sake it can't even destroy a farmhouse or barn that's been fortified by enemy infantry - unless it can crash into it!

Even back in WWI tank builders and the military knew of the great benefit of equipping a tank with guns capable of firing HE. What on earth were the designers of the Matilda, and the military brains that requested it, thinking?

The Germans also recognised the need for an infantry support tank/vehicle. At least they took the correct tack with their Sturmgeschutz in arming it with a gun capable of firing both HE and armour piercing.

There are advantages for larger caliber main guns that are supplied with both AP and HE, but your overstating the disadvantages of Infantry tanks with 2 Pdrs.

As already stated, AP rounds were far more effective than HE against pillboxes, and the Matilda carried 93 AP rounds, far more AP rounds than German tanks.

And don't belittle the power of the tank's MGs which were excellent infantry support, with many advantages over infantry MGs:

Stable platform (not a bi-pod or tri-pod)
Ammunition (plentiful supply)
Rate of Fire (BESA)
Field of Fire (infantry MG's were often only inches off the ground)
Better protection than sandbags
Mobile


Saxon

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

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#6

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Apr 2014, 21:53

Even back in WWI tank builders and the military knew of the great benefit of equipping a tank with guns capable of firing HE.
Don't forget the "female" tank versions... :wink:
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...

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

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#7

Post by Clive Mortimore » 18 Apr 2014, 23:08

Saxon Cross wrote: Edited
And don't belittle the power of the tank's MGs which were excellent infantry support, with many advantages over infantry MGs:

Stable platform (not a bi-pod or tri-pod)
Ammunition (plentiful supply)
Rate of Fire (BESA)
Field of Fire (infantry MG's were often only inches off the ground)
Better protection than sandbags
Mobile


Saxon
To add to Saxon's list. The main target was the enemy infantry.

Wasn't one of the disadvantages of the StuGIII the lack of a close support machine gun when confronted by enemy infantry?

Clive
Clive

User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 09:44
Location: Country NSW, Australia

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#8

Post by Pips » 19 Apr 2014, 02:11

Clive Mortimore wrote: Anyhow the main support arm of the infantry division was its own 3 regiments of artillery, backed up by the divisional machine gun battalion and each infantry battalions own mortar platoons and carrier platoons LMGs. Using infantry tanks was just a bonus.
That's the answer I was looking for. It was a doctrine thing.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#9

Post by Gooner1 » 19 Apr 2014, 02:56

Pips wrote: That's the answer I was looking for. It was a doctrine thing.
It was not a case of the Army Chiefs saying "we want this, this and this" and the Government saying "yes, great! Here's the cheque."

The total number of 'modern' gun-armed tanks of all types the British had produced by the end of 1939 was about 150.

:|

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#10

Post by sitalkes » 22 Apr 2014, 00:19

Don't forget there were HE firing I tanks - the Matilda CS (though it mostly had smoke shells) and the Churchill 1 had a hull-mounted 3" howitzer that fired HE. I don't know if it's a game balacing feature, but computer games featuring the Stuart have it firing a sort of case shot round that was apparently very effective against infantry despite being only 37mm. German tanks had HE rounds even when they had a 37mm main gun - it's got to be more effective against an anti-tank gun than an AP round, though I agree, such a small round couldn't have been much use against infantry except in the case of the special round used by the Stuart.

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

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#11

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Apr 2014, 00:32

I don't know if it's a game balacing feature, but computer games featuring the Stuart have it firing a sort of case shot round that was apparently very effective against infantry despite being only 37mm.
No, the 37mm "canister shot" was real.
Don't forget there were HE firing I tanks - the Matilda CS (though it mostly had smoke shells) and the Churchill 1 had a hull-mounted 3" howitzer that fired HE.
The Churchill wasn't actually in exactly the same doctrinal slot as the "I" tanks though it was classed and classified as one; it was a "rough ground-crossing" assault tank, to be used ideally for breaking through the Siegfried Line...!

According to the manual for the MkI/II, its loadout for the hull-mounted 3" howitzer was ALL HE...though by the time the North Irish Horse were using it in combat in Tunisia it had been leavened by a varying percentage of smoke.

But the CS tanks were intended for a WHOLLY different purpose than supporting infantry; there's a recent and VERY long thread dealing with this in this section.
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...

User avatar
sitalkes
Member
Posts: 471
Joined: 18 Feb 2013, 01:23

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#12

Post by sitalkes » 22 Apr 2014, 00:37

Yes, really this thread is redundant, just read that thread.... http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=205554 I wonder why nobody else used that case shot idea for the small calibre guns?

Edit, don't worry, just found this: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 13&t=90106

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

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#13

Post by phylo_roadking » 22 Apr 2014, 00:43

I wonder why nobody else used that case shot idea for the small calibre guns?
Because the 2pdr in particular depended on its high velocity for its penetrating power; another 2-2,500 fps over the 37mm M3. I wonder what, say, repeated use of the canister round did to the lands of the barrel???

Plus - I doubt the range is going to be greater than an "I" tank's MGs?
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...

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

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#14

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 22 Apr 2014, 06:24

My suspicion is the cannister shot rounds of the US M3, did not wear out the barrell of those guns , since the "cannister' was cased until after it left the barrel.

The problem with using a canister round in the 2lber, would be the higher velocity causing a lack of dispersion for such rounds, plus such a round does not need nearly the "umph" to send it down-range.

You can only "dumb down" /slow down "specialist" rounds for a high velocity cannon so far, before it will effect the weapon not recoiling/ejecting/functioning right. Has nothing to do with barrel wear, unless you have to have the round breaking apart before it leaves the barrel. Then we are talking as designed shot-guns not high powered rifles. The penultimate discussion of such things would be the AA Shan-shiki rounds of the Yamato class battleships

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

Re: British 'I' Tank Armament

#15

Post by Urmel » 22 Apr 2014, 08:01

phylo_roadking wrote:
I don't know if it's a game balacing feature, but computer games featuring the Stuart have it firing a sort of case shot round that was apparently very effective against infantry despite being only 37mm.
No, the 37mm "canister shot" was real.
Which then leads to two questions:

i) when was it issued; and
ii) how effective was it in reality?
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

Post Reply

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