2-pdr HE rounds 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
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11562
Joined: 11 Sep 2002, 21:02
Location: Mylsä

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#16

Post by Juha Tompuri » 19 Jan 2016, 00:05

Urmel wrote:Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.
Was UK the only nation to have such a clever thoughts?
Urmel wrote:So a separate gun seems to be the only solution.
As above.

Regards, Juha

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#17

Post by Urmel » 19 Jan 2016, 00:38

Well I take the War Office's view on this matter over your opinion. But you're welcome to provide your unique insight into where 40mm HE swung the battle.
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


John T
Member
Posts: 1206
Joined: 31 Jan 2003, 23:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#18

Post by John T » 20 Jan 2016, 00:19

Urmel wrote:Well I take the War Office's view on this matter over your opinion. But you're welcome to provide your unique insight into where 40mm HE swung the battle.
I have not noticed that anyone said the HE swung the battle,
what battle?

The Finnish experience from the winter war was definitely that HE was useful and replenishment after winter war was 50-50 AP and HE.
So that's the Finnish war office's priorities when ordering 37mm ammo in May 1940 from Bofors.

And a bit more general I find it hard from a combat unit perspective to deny the gun crew a possibility to engage soft targets with their guns.

What intergral "close defence" had a UK at-gun section?

The Swedes had a BAR equipped 5 men fireteam for each AT-gun, just for defence.
But they still insisted on 50% HE in the loadout, for precision fire support.

Kind Regards
/John

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#19

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Jan 2016, 19:48

John T wrote:
Urmel wrote:Well I take the War Office's view on this matter over your opinion. But you're welcome to provide your unique insight into where 40mm HE swung the battle.
I have not noticed that anyone said the HE swung the battle,
what battle?
Wondered that too.
Perhaps at Pacific theatre?
John T wrote:And a bit more general I find it hard from a combat unit perspective to deny the gun crew a possibility to engage soft targets with their guns.
Yep.

Wonder did anyone ever regret there(/Africa) the War Office's view?
A bit strange also is that how the War Office had all the wisdom in the world compared to the all(?) other about the same calibre range guns using main tank building nations in the world, when denying the gun(s) anti-personel capabilities in practice.
Urmel wrote: unique insight
?


Regards, Juha
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 20 Jan 2016, 20:18, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#20

Post by Urmel » 20 Jan 2016, 22:34

Okay, I am obviously obtuse. :)

I want examples where the lack of HE in the early infantry tanks negatively affected the outcome of a fight they were involved in. If it really was a 'waste of resources' to have these tanks go into battle without HE, as Juha claims, then I guess it won't be difficult to find examples demonstrating this waste, and since he made the claim that it was a waste of resources, in line with forum rules its up to him to provide the proof. Maybe he can also define what he means by 'waste of resources'?

I am not interested in Finnish AT guns, the Cruiser tank experience, or how Space Aliens from Planet Zeta think about it. It's a very specific question, relating to the two early Infantry tank marks.

I hope that's clearer now, and I look forward to Juha's explanation.
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: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#21

Post by Juha Tompuri » 20 Jan 2016, 23:02

Urmel wrote: since he made the claim that it was a waste of resources, in line with forum rules its up to him to provide the proof. Maybe he can also define what he means by 'waste of resources'?
Pips, yes wasted resources as for having an infantry tank for not being able to deal with the enemy infantry, AT-guns etc as well as they could have, if equipped reasonably, as you mentioned.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1984746
Pips wrote:I've never understood the lack of high explosive for the 2 pdr Matilda's. What's the point of having an infantry tank that can't support the infantry attack with high explosive?
Urmel wrote:That's what the MG was for.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1984746

What harm would the having anti-personel ammo aboard have done in the first place?
Other than some AP rounds less?

Regards, Juha

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#22

Post by Urmel » 20 Jan 2016, 23:37

Okay, so we're not going to see you comply with the forum rules you're supposed to moderate. I expected that. I guess it's one rule for members, and one for moderators, in your book.
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: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#23

Post by Juha Tompuri » 21 Jan 2016, 00:10

Urmel wrote:Okay, so we're not going to see you comply with the forum rules you're supposed to moderate. I expected that. I guess it's one rule for members, and one for moderators, in your book.
You might have forgotten that according to the Forum rules I have answered to your question about the wasted resources about the lack of anti-personel ammunition
(actually even before you asked):
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Pips wrote:I've never understood the lack of high explosive for the 2 pdr Matilda's. What's the point of having an infantry tank that can't support the infantry attack with high explosive?
Urmel wrote:That's what the MG was for.
Pips, yes wasted resources as for having an infantry tank for not being able to deal with the enemy infantry, AT-guns etc as well as they could have, if equipped reasonably, as you mentioned.

Regards, Juha
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1984746

Regards, Juha

P.S. Is it possible for us to have answers to the questions I have earlier made?
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 21 Jan 2016, 00:24, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: adding info

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#24

Post by Sheldrake » 21 Jan 2016, 00:52

Juha Tompuri wrote:
P.S. Is it possible for us to have answers to the questions I have earlier made?
Do you mean this question?
Did the Ordnance QF 37 mm Mk 1 (37mm Bofors AT-gun) have HE rounds in British service?
If so - do there exist any mentions of their usefulness?

Regards, Juha
If so the answer is not sure, but the OP re 2 pdr effectiveness may refer to 37mm Bofors AT for which HE was more available than 2 pdr

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#25

Post by Juha Tompuri » 21 Jan 2016, 01:18

Sheldrake wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
P.S. Is it possible for us to have answers to the questions I have earlier made?
Do you mean this question?
Thank yoy very much for your answer, but actually after the unanswered ones later made:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Urmel wrote:Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.
Was UK the only nation to have such a clever thoughts?
Urmel wrote:So a separate gun seems to be the only solution.
As above.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991532

Amd the one:
Juha Tompuri wrote:Wonder did anyone ever regret there(/Africa) the War Office's view?
A bit strange also is that how the War Office had all the wisdom in the world compared to the all(?) other about the same calibre range guns using main tank building nations in the world, when denying the gun(s) anti-personel capabilities in practice.
Urmel wrote: unique insight
?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991911

Regards, Juha

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#26

Post by Urmel » 21 Jan 2016, 08:06

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Urmel wrote:Okay, so we're not going to see you comply with the forum rules you're supposed to moderate. I expected that. I guess it's one rule for members, and one for moderators, in your book.
You might have forgotten that according to the Forum rules I have answered to your question about the wasted resources about the lack of anti-personel ammunition
(actually even before you asked):
Juha Tompuri wrote:
Pips wrote:I've never understood the lack of high explosive for the 2 pdr Matilda's. What's the point of having an infantry tank that can't support the infantry attack with high explosive?
Urmel wrote:That's what the MG was for.
Pips, yes wasted resources as for having an infantry tank for not being able to deal with the enemy infantry, AT-guns etc as well as they could have, if equipped reasonably, as you mentioned.
That's your opinion. I am asking you for some proof of that. So no, you haven't answered it.
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: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#27

Post by Juha Tompuri » 21 Jan 2016, 10:22

Urmel wrote:That's your opinion. I am asking you for some proof of that. So no, you haven't answered it.
The same thing I have posted earlier, in other words:
The absence of anti-personel ammo is a fact.
The reason for the absence is a fact.
The different on-target effects of the armour piercing and anti-personel ammo is a fact.

How about this?
Juha Tompuri wrote:What harm would the having anti-personel ammo aboard have done in the first place?
Other than some AP rounds less?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1991953

Regards, Juha

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#28

Post by Urmel » 21 Jan 2016, 11:15

What is not a fact but your opinion is that it was a waste of resources. Why? You are presuming something here. Rather than have readers guess, i) explain your presumptions, and ii) provide any form of evidence for it.
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
ClintHardware
Member
Posts: 816
Joined: 21 Jan 2011, 13:17

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#29

Post by ClintHardware » 22 Jan 2016, 23:12

I am going back to Kew in the next fortnight if there is anything any of you want looked at in this respect you can PM me.

I have looked at various government and War Office sources at Kew searching the Discovery facility with various character strings that might appear in documents in respect of this subject but not found anything in the British early war years crying out for a HE 2-Pdr projectile even though to us it seems crazy not to have some in the rack. I have not yet come across an early war unit diary referring to wanting 2-Pdr HE.

In respect of 40mm Bofors action against AFVs the 57th LAA Regt's Crusader reports by their Lieutenant-Colonel are technically very interesting including describing using clips of mixed AP and HE and panzers knocked out by the 68th Medium Regt on the 25th November 41 (IIRC).
Imperialism and Re-Armament NOW !

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#30

Post by Juha Tompuri » 23 Jan 2016, 21:32

Urmel wrote:What is not a fact but your opinion is that it was a waste of resources.
For not equipping the tanks as well as they could have been, was wasting the bonus they (anti-personel ammo) would brought.

Regards, Juha

Post Reply

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