2-pdr HE rounds again

[Urmel]

Well Sheldrake, it's all perfectly clear. Once the decision to manufacture 2-pdr HE was taken in 1942, the British started winning. The causation should be obvious.

[Juha Tompuri]

Sorry, Can you please give me some example of where German 37mm HE Ammunition had a significant effect on a battle?

I don't remember writing about significant effects, but here are some examples how they they were used and with what effects.
But... sorry, I remembered the content which I had in my mind, wrong - it doesn't mention whether the German guns were 37mm's:

Wading through my "library" I seem to have found one first hand battlefield account of a Panzer attack including Pz. IIIs and IVs against among others AT artillery. As luck would have it it is from a Pz. III commander, a Lt Joachim Schorm of Panzer-Regiment 5 who wrote in his diary of the 14 April 1941 attack on Tobruk (from Rommel's Army in Africa by Dal McGuirk)

5 batteries of 12cm [sic.] calibre rain their hail upon us... Our heavy tanks [Pz. IVs], it is true, fire for all they are worth, just as we do; but the enemy with his superior force and all the tactical advantages of his own territory makes heavy gaps in our ranks.

and

The optical instruments are spoilt with the dust. Nevertheless I register several unmistakable hits. A few anti-tank guns are silenced, some enemy tanks are burning.

Re: the use what you've got against AT guns etc. approach on 1 May he writes

I am to go with Lt Grim up in front to salvage tanks. While we are on the way, we are fired at by MG and anti-tank guns at 550 meters range. I silence them with HE shells and drive on the tracks of 624. I bring up the rear, and then the laborious work of salvaging begins. The anti-tank fire starts up again, and has to be kept in check by Lt Grim by constant MG fire.

So given the choice a Pz. III would use HE to silence immediately dangerous small arms and AT weapons while a MG was good for among others covering fire, giving enemy AT men a heads down while another tank crew was doing salvage work. As a side note the crew member formally known as the radio operator Lt Schorm refers to as his machine gunner.

MGs British tanks did have but the lack of HE certainly was a disadvantage.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1743240

Also to note about a slighly bigger German gun:

One indication of the importance of HE shells for Pz. IIIs is the ammunition expenditure numbers (from Waffen und Geheimwaffen des Deutschen Heeres 1933-1945 by Fritz Hahn) Unfortunately these are not itemized for all ammo types but in 1941 the numbers for Panzer troops included 193 387 5 cm Sprgr. and 142 627 Pzgr. Thus at a time when the Pz. III with 5 cm KwK was a more or less up to date gun tank the ammunition expenditure was higher for HE shells than AP projectiles. When especially on the Eastern Front the 5 cm KwK was found inadequate in armour penetration against the increasing numbers of T-34s, KVs etc. one would expect the AP projectile expenditure to rise swiftly proportionally simply for the fact that more were required to make a killing.

For 1942 however the numbers were 495 300 Sprgr., 315 430 Pzgr. and 65 700 Pzgr. 40 for the short 5 cm KwK and 301 300 Sprgr., 194 100 Pzgr. and 58 100 Pzgr. 40 for the long, for 1943 267 900 Sprgr. and 214 840 Pzgr. (including 55 900 Pzgr. 40) for the short 5 cm KwK and 534 590 Sprgr. and 696 550 Pzgr. (including 214 300 Pzgr. 40) for the long and for 1944 774 800 Sprgr. and 622 800 Pzgr. From the beginning of the war up to 1 March 1945 the numbers were 3 230 600 Sprgr. and 2 948 500 Pzgr. for the short 5 cm KwK and 1 942 700 Sprgr. and 2 279 900 Pzgr. for the long. Even if in the long run the 5 cm KwK ammo expenditure was slightly less for HE shells than AP projectiles this is quite probably due to the diminishing returns in the AP performance since the relation was quite the opposite in 1941 when Pz. III with 5 cm gun was effective against most armoured adversaries.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1743240

Just because the Germans had some toy ammunition did not mean it was much use.

As above.

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.

Many nations used APHE ammo, which was designed to cause more after penetration damage.

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.

I think that direct hits against (that era) AT-gun shields of both ammo types would be effective, but unlike AP-ammo, HE round does not have hit the target for to be effective against the (for example) AT-gun.


Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

Once the decision to manufacture 2-pdr HE was taken in 1942, the British started winning.

A-ha... the HE-ammo wasn't there, but came later:

Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991528

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

Anyone who knows anything worth knowing about the war in North Africa knows that Lt. Schorm's tank(s) were not equipped with 37mm.

So again, confident statement, challenged, and then unable to source, and instead of answering a clear question about 37mm guns we get lots of filler on 50mm guns that nobody asked about.

[Urmel]

Once the decision to manufacture 2-pdr HE was taken in 1942, the British started winning.

A-ha... the HE-ammo wasn't there, but came later:

Well the ammo was there. It just wasn't considered effective enough to bother.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1991528

Regards, Juha

You are not making any sense. Please feel free to check on the manufacturing numbers of 2-pdr HE by year. You may then understand what I was getting at.

Although I doubt it, really.

[John T]

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.

And why did you then start this thread with

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

http://rommelsriposte.com/2015/12/10/2- ... nds-again/

So you can imagine my surprise when I came across a short statement in the war diary of 11 Royal Horse Artillery

So what marks of tanks had the 11 Royal Horse Artillery?
Please elaborate with specific facts.


I can see a point in a tank where the crew can choose to fire the main gun or machine guns has less need for HE than a AT-gun crew without the option.


One last question
If you start with open questions and receives open answers who do think you embarrass by referring to Planet Zeta?

Kind Regards
/John

[Urmel]

You need to pay attention John. This discussion is in reaction to a sweeping statement particular to I-tanks. If you took the time to trawl through this, you would note that my comment is in the context of that discussion. Or not. Shrug.

As for 11 RHA. They had no tanks, and no 2-pdrs at all. It was a 25-pdr regiment. Is that specific enough for you?

[John T]

You need to pay attention John. This discussion is in reaction to a sweeping statement particular to I-tanks. If you took the time to trawl through this, you would note that my comment is in the context of that discussion. Or not. Shrug.

As for 11 RHA. They had no tanks, and no 2-pdrs at all. It was a 25-pdr regiment. Is that specific enough for you?

Anyone got any thoughts on this?

Bye
/John

[Urmel]

Again, you need to pay attention. You aren't at present.

[David Thompson]

Three off-topic posts were removed; if anyone wants to post, please restrict your comments to the topic.

[ClintHardware]

I came across the existence of these records at Kew and will be visiting next week. Their contents probably refer back to previous combat experience/or ideas based on combat experience (perhaps I am being too hopeful) and may give clues in respect of 2-Pdr H.E.

WO 195/1951 Description: Internal Ballistics Sub-committee and Gun Design Committee: internal ballistics of the two-pounder gun Date:1942

WO 195/4763 Description: Incendiary Projectiles Committee, Sub-Committee II: 2-pdr. shell incendiary fillings

WO 195/4186 Description: Sensitiveness of Explosives Sub-Committee: splitting of 2-pdr. shell filled R.D.X/Beeswax Date:1943

WO 195/5554 Description: Incendiary Projectiles Committee, Sub-Committee II: 2-pdr shell incendiary fillings Date:1943

WO 195/4351 Description: Incendiary Projectiles Committee, Sub-Committee II: incendiary fillings for 2-pdr. shell Date:1943

WO 195/4408 Description: Gun Design Committee: stresses in 2-pdr. H.E. shell with reduced safety factors Date:1943

I wonder if the latter had been a problem not overcome until 43/44.

[Urmel]

Nothing like going back to the source. I'd be very interested in seeing the 57 LAA Rgt report too

[ClintHardware]

Nothing like going back to the source. I'd be very interested in seeing the 57 LAA Rgt report too

Hi Urmel. I was thinking of you when I found it. Give me a few days and I'll sort something out for both topics.

[Nickdfresh]

Thank you knowledgeable posters. I was thinking of this topic while reading Beevor's Crete. Although the Matildas on the island seemed to have had a number of problems, the least of which was the lack of an explosive shell, yet it still seems odd there was no antipersonnel round though I understand the 40mm round didn't give a lot of versatility. While certainly not make or break, some sort of fragmentation bomb might have been useful in the battle. Sadly, the two Matildas in the actual most strategic fight around Maleme airfield both suffered turret-related mechanical failure so it really didn't matter...

[Juha Tompuri]

Just because the Germans had some toy ammunition did not mean it was much use.

As above.

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.

Many nations used APHE ammo, which was designed to cause more after penetration damage.

About the British "AP shells with small HE filler":

From Jentz -

Directly after the battle of Beda Fomm, the 2nd R.T.R. conducted tests to determine the vulnerability of the Italian M. 13-40 tanks. They reported on 14 February 1941: During the morning tests were carried of the effect of the two types of 2-pounder ammunition on Italian M13 tanks. These tests proved that the yellow painted explosive armour piercing projectile penetrates the armour at 900 yards and bursts inside with very destructive effect. Sand bags placed on the crew's seats were well riddled with splinters. The black painted solid A.P. projectile also penetrates at 900 yards and causes large cracks in the armor

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 0#p1736764

Regards, Juha