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

#31

Post by Juha Tompuri » 23 Jan 2016, 22:54

Urmel wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
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
That's just more of your opinion.
Not just an opinion.
Based on the fact that anti-personel/HE ammo was better aginst the "soft" targets than the only carried AP-type ammo.


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
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 23 Jan 2016, 23:14, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#32

Post by Sheldrake » 24 Jan 2016, 00:06

Juha Tompuri wrote:Based on the fact that anti-personel/HE ammo was better aginst the "soft" targets than the only carried AP-type ammo.
Juha old chap,

It isn't your opinion which matters in this case. You might think you are pointing out "facts", but this is a history forum. Historians deal in sourced evidence and interpretation. There are no "facts."

The historic evidence suggests that the British Army policy was that HE ammunition less than 75mm calibre was ineffective, which is why they did not have HE ammunition for the 2 Pdr, had machine gun only infantry tanks, and solid shot ammunition for 20mm aircraft cannons. They may have been wrong in believing this, but that is what they thought.

If you want to explore why they formed this policy , then please do investigate the development of British weapons technology with particular regard to towards HE projectiles for small calibre cannons. The source documents may be in the minutes of ordinance board committee meetings. There may be an MA or PhD thesis in this topic.


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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#33

Post by Urmel » 24 Jan 2016, 00:19

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Urmel wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:
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
That's just more of your opinion.
Not just an opinion.
Based on the fact that anti-personel/HE ammo was better aginst the "soft" targets than the only carried AP-type ammo.


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
As I said, you are welcome to bring facts anytime. Until then I will at least do you the courtesy not to engage in circular loops.
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

#34

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Jan 2016, 00:37

Urmel wrote:As I said, you are welcome to bring facts anytime. Until then I will at least do you the courtesy not to engage in circular loops.
Don't you agree the fact that anti-persone/HE ammo is more effective against "soft" targets than AP-type ammo?

Regards, Juha

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#35

Post by Urmel » 24 Jan 2016, 00:47

I think it's irrelevant in the context, without considering the doctrinal and real use of the I-tanks in question, the combat ranges, the actual combat experience, and indeed the difference in benefit that could be delivered by a 40mm HE round compared to the MG. I also note it is again you trying to make somebody else responsible for delivering the proof of your claim. That's lazy, and unbecoming of a moderator.
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

#36

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Jan 2016, 00:53

Sheldrake wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:Based on the fact that anti-personel/HE ammo was better aginst the "soft" targets than the only carried AP-type ammo.
Juha old chap,

It isn't your opinion which matters in this case. You might think you are pointing out "facts", but this is a history forum. Historians deal in sourced evidence and interpretation. There are no "facts."
I think that there are some basic rules how things work.
Like that the AP ammo is less effective against "soft" targets compared to the type of ammo designed against them (HE/anti-personel).

Regards, Juha

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#37

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Jan 2016, 01:00

Urmel wrote: and indeed the difference in benefit that could be delivered by a 40mm HE round compared to the MG.
Now you are finally getting to the point.
At last.
Why choose if you can have both

Urmel wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:I think I'd prefer the Besa MG - not only a much greater range....but several useful ammuniton types; standard ball, incendiary, and tracer - and amour-piercing! Not too effective, of course - but it would severely embarass an antitank gun crew hunkered behind a gunshield...
Paraphrasing Prince Oberyn (Season 4, Episode 3): why choose if you can have both
http://forum.axishistory.com/posting.ph ... &p=1870156

Regards, Juha
Last edited by Juha Tompuri on 24 Jan 2016, 01:11, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#38

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Jan 2016, 01:09

The HE would be like a bonus, a freebie, don't you agree?
Urmel wrote:
phylo_roadking wrote:
I think I'd prefer the Besa MG - not only a much greater range....but several useful ammuniton types; standard ball, incendiary, and tracer - and amour-piercing! Not too effective, of course - but it would severely embarass an antitank gun crew hunkered behind a gunshield...
Paraphrasing Prince Oberyn (Season 4, Episode 3): why choose if you can have both
Because if I can't knock out an antitank gun at a thousand yards or so...I REALLY don't want to HAVE to get as close to them as 230 yards! 8O
But nobody is asking you to give up that ability. It's not a choice. The cannister is a bonus, a freebie, you don't give up anything in exchange for it other than a few rounds of AP for the main gun.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1870209

Regards, Juha

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#39

Post by Sheldrake » 24 Jan 2016, 03:47

Juha Tompuri wrote:The HE would be like a bonus, a freebie, don't you agree?
That isn't how the British Army thought.

There was a cost to developing and manufacturing an HE round and in the logistic effort of supplying and carrying it at the expense of AP shot. The British did not think that small calibre HE had any significant effect. 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.

The British were wrong, and modified their views during the war. By late 1944 Bofors guns were part of pepper-pot barrages. The Polsten 20mm cannon was introduced in early 19445 with a self destruct HE round.

If you accept this, then what exactly is your point?

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#40

Post by Urmel » 24 Jan 2016, 08:52

Sheldrake wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:The British were wrong, and modified their views during the war. By late 1944 Bofors guns were part of pepper-pot barrages. The Polsten 20mm cannon was introduced in early 19445 with a self destruct HE round.
They did indeed change their view, but the question here is whether not introducing an HE round into the Matilda II and Valentine was a waste of British resources, triggered by the original question of why the British introduced infantry tanks without HE rounds in the battlefield. As Clint points out, there seems to be no field evidence for this view, given where and how these tanks were used.

I need to emphasise again that this is a very specific question about I-tanks, not cruisers, not AT guns, and not Finnish 37mm AT guns either.

Juha is clearly either intellectually incapable to string an evidence-based argument together in support of his view, or just doesn't like having to comply with the rules he is supposed to enforce.
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
Attrition
Member
Posts: 4005
Joined: 29 Oct 2008, 23:53
Location: England

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#41

Post by Attrition » 24 Jan 2016, 14:06

Would a HE round have to have a de-rated cartridge? Since the decision had been taken to put an out-and-out anti-tank gun in I tanks, were the industrial and supply implications of providing 2-pounder HE considered to be not economical, when the 6-pounder was due as a replacement? The delay in 6-pdr production after the fiasco in France, wasn't something pre-war planners could have reasonably anticipated.
Last edited by Attrition on 25 Jan 2016, 00:09, edited 1 time in total.

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23722
Joined: 20 Jul 2002, 20:52
Location: USA

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#42

Post by David Thompson » 24 Jan 2016, 16:40

Two posts from Urmel, containing insulting personal comments about another forum member, were removed pursuant to the forum rules.
The first rule of the forum is: "No insults are tolerated (that includes serious national and religious insults)." Personal remarks in posts are strongly discouraged, and personal insults are forbidden here.

There has been a lot of stimulating information exchanged on this forum, and some excellent discussions of controversial points. With few exceptions, the participants are thoughtful, serious people. If you find an argument is flawed, point out the flaws and the evidence to the contrary, and leave it at that. There is no need to resort to insults which do not prove your point. If you disagree with a contributor, please use your energy to show why his argument is mistaken. This will improve both the tone and quality of our discussions.

* * * * *
Nonconforming posts are subject to deletion without warning. Serious breaches of these rules are punishable by banning the poster.

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#43

Post by Urmel » 24 Jan 2016, 18:43

David Thompson wrote:Two posts from Urmel, containing insulting personal comments about another forum member, were removed pursuant to the forum rules.
The first rule of the forum is: "No insults are tolerated (that includes serious national and religious insults)." Personal remarks in posts are strongly discouraged, and personal insults are forbidden here.

There has been a lot of stimulating information exchanged on this forum, and some excellent discussions of controversial points. With few exceptions, the participants are thoughtful, serious people. If you find an argument is flawed, point out the flaws and the evidence to the contrary, and leave it at that. There is no need to resort to insults which do not prove your point. If you disagree with a contributor, please use your energy to show why his argument is mistaken. This will improve both the tone and quality of our discussions.

* * * * *
Nonconforming posts are subject to deletion without warning. Serious breaches of these rules are punishable by banning the poster.
This is what I expect Juha to conform to, as a moderator.
3. Opinions

Since the purpose of this section of the forum is to exchange information and hold informed discussions about historical problems, posts which express unsolicited opinions without supporting facts and sources do not promote the purposes of the forum. Consequently, such posts are subject to deletion after a warning to the poster.
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

#44

Post by Juha Tompuri » 24 Jan 2016, 21:21

Sheldrake wrote:
Juha Tompuri wrote:The HE would be like a bonus, a freebie, don't you agree?
That isn't how the British Army thought.
Yes, that's how the things went.
Sheldrake wrote:There was a cost to developing and manufacturing an HE round
Weren't they already paid?
Urmel earlier wrote:Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991528
Sheldrake wrote: The British did not think that small calibre HE had any significant effect.
Yes, that's how they thought, but a bit strange that the other at the same situation thought differently, and issued HE ammo to their tanks.
IIRC, the bursting charge of the German 37mm tank gun HE ammo was quite much smaller than the at 2-pdr.
Still the Germans used their ammo with (at least some) success.
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.
How about the Matilda 7.92mm Besa - did it have ammo to penetrate German AT-gun shields? If so, from when on?
Sheldrake wrote:The British were wrong, and modified their views during the war.
Yes, learnt after perhaps unnecessary hard way.
Sheldrake wrote:If you accept this, then what exactly is your point?
The some strangenesses at the British tank constructions, equipping and strategies.


Regards, Juha

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

Re: 2-pdr HE rounds again

#45

Post by Sheldrake » 24 Jan 2016, 21:46

Juha Tompuri wrote:
Sheldrake wrote:There was a cost to developing and manufacturing an HE round
Weren't they already paid?
Sheldrake wrote: The British did not think that small calibre HE had any significant effect.
Yes, that's how they thought, but a bit strange that the other at the same situation thought differently, and issued HE ammo to their tanks.
IIRC, the bursting charge of the German 37mm tank gun HE ammo was quite much smaller than the at 2-pdr.
Still the Germans used their ammo with (at least some) success.
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.
How about the Matilda 7.92mm Besa - did it have ammo to penetrate German AT-gun shields? If so, from when on?
Regards, Juha
Sorry, Can you please give me some example of where German 37mm HE Ammunition had a significant effect on a battle? Just because the Germans had some toy ammunition did not mean it was much use. They were also fans of AP shells with small HE filler. There is no evidence that these were any more effective than the solid shot used by the British. The energy imparted by the explosion of the puny HE charge is minimal compared to the kinetic energy of shot.

Re Gun shields, I am not sure that point detonating HE 37mm is designed to penetrate armour plate and AP shot would be just as much use. These were oen reason why tanks ended up with a 75mm+ gun capable of firing a useful HE round.

Post Reply

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