2-pdr HE rounds again

[LineDoggie]

Now regular Ball Ammo would also cause problems for an A/T gun crew

Pak 36, 38, 40 shields were not all encompassing to cover the gun crew, ammo from all angles.

the Shield on a Pak 36 was maybe 3/8" thick (I suspect actually closer to 1/4")

A Standard 7.92mm Ball round would penetrate 5mm of Steel @ 100m, 3mm of steel @ 600m

We also are not factoring in use of Captured 7.92mm from German forces such as the S.m.K.H. round
Steel armor penetration - 13mm @ 100m, 7.5mm @ 500m

or the effect of bursts of AP or Ball arriving on the gun position at once and possibly from multiple tanks. Standard procedures in many armies when tanks are engaged by A/T assets is to suppress with main guns and co-ax, & obscure with smoke, etc.

[Juha Tompuri]

the Shield on a Pak 36 was maybe 3/8" thick (I suspect actually closer to 1/4")

Not even that thick. IIRC 5mm.

A Standard 7.92mm Ball round would penetrate 5mm of Steel @ 100m, 3mm of steel @ 600m

At what angle and what type of steel?

We also are not factoring in use of Captured 7.92mm from German forces

To certain degree we have:

In addition to the domestic production, also imported and captured (what type?) ammo was used.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1997895
But... With what numbers?

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

Sorry, nearly forgot.

HE/anti-personel ammo (as well as APHE-ammo and mg AP-ammo to some degree, AFAIK) was a resource. Resource that was not used. Resource, lack of which made the tanks in question less able to deal with certain type of enemy and left the gun unsatisfactory.

But I note you are now walking away from that claim, and we are now at the gun being 'unsatisfactory' because that ammo was not provided. But alas that's just another opinion for which no evidence has been provided. 'Unsatisfactory' to whom? Is there any evidence that it was considered unsatisfactory by anyone?

As a tank gun it was unsatisfactory because of the lack of an HE shell to deal with enemy anti-tank gunners

http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/37-40mm.htm

Agree?

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

Okay, so now we have Tony Williams' opinion. I would consider it evidence if we had tankers who actually went into battle with them complaining, or the War Office writing memos confirming that, or the tank authorities in the Middle East doing so, or if it cropped up in lessons learned reports.

[Juha Tompuri]

Choosing between Mr Williams expertise about the issue and your posts isn't that difficult.

As mentioned several times earlier, here in other words: the 2 pdr (AP-ammo) was relatively good in punching holes (does not equal a "goner") to enemy armour, but the drawback of it was that it was left without the (normal for the "rest of the world") resources to deal with softer targets.
Nor a APHE type after penetration "killer shell".

Agree?

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

I'm sorry, I don't react to personal attacks.

[Juha Tompuri]

?
Do you mean comparing the expertise of posters being a personal attack?

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

It's quite obvious.

Now, I have a huge respect for Mr. Williams' opinion, and his expertise certainly surpasses mine on this topic. Yet, without knowing what he refers to in terms of use it's really just an opinion. It could be related to the matter at hand (I-tanks), or not. If you know more about what it refers to, feel free to let us know.

[Juha Tompuri]

It's quite obvious.

Aha...
Then I apologize for comparing the expertise of you two.
Sorry.

Now, I have a huge respect for Mr. Williams' opinion, and his expertise certainly surpasses mine on this topic

?

Yet, without knowing what he refers to in terms of use it's really just an opinion. It could be related to the matter at hand (I-tanks), or not. If you know more about what it refers to, feel free to let us know.

I know that he doesn't rule out any tank type.
I thought you understood that too.

As a tank gun it was unsatisfactory because of the lack of an HE shell to deal with enemy anti-tank gunners

Agree?

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

As Sheldrake was saying, albeit in reference to other nations' use of APHE: there is no evidence that these were any more effective than the solid shot used by the British.

... 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.

I think that at certain cases small HE filled ammo could have been more useful than the AP ammo.

The energy imparted by the explosion of the puny HE charge is minimal compared to the kinetic energy of shot.

That is a more complicated thing than it first seems out to be.

the 2 pdr (AP-ammo) was relatively good in punching holes (does not equal a "goner") to enemy armour, but the drawback of it was that it was left without the (normal for the "rest of the world") resources to deal with softer targets.
Nor a APHE type after penetration "killer shell".

This:

... it is felt that if the H.E. Shell would penetrate the German tanks at say – 600 yards or less, it would be worth having a proportion of H.E. Shell to be used at the Tank commander’s discretion, to administer a “Coup de Grace” at short range.

... and some more about the "killer shell"-issue at: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p2004869

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

Coming back to this, there is reference in the AWM OH 'Tobruk' that 2/2 Australian AT Regt used HE shell in their defensive action at Halfaya Pass on 26 April 1941, acting in an infantry gun role.

Presumably again the APHE?

[ChristopherPerrien]

Coming back to this, there is reference in the AWM OH 'Tobruk' that 2/2 Australian AT Regt used HE shell in their defensive action at Halfaya Pass on 26 April 1941, acting in an infantry gun role.

Presumably again the APHE?

Believe this might be the "2/2nd Field Regiment" which I gather had 18 or 25 lb er's at the time.

Anyway as to the topic, I believe an explanation and comments about actual battles in North Africa bringing up this deficiency of HE ammo for 2lber armed tanks can be found in " The Guns" By Ian Hogg, a Ballantine Pocket Book of 1970's vintage.

[Urmel]

Coming back to this, there is reference in the AWM OH 'Tobruk' that 2/2 Australian AT Regt used HE shell in their defensive action at Halfaya Pass on 26 April 1941, acting in an infantry gun role.

Presumably again the APHE?

Believe this might be the "2/2nd Field Regiment" which I gather had 18 or 25 lb er's at the time.

Well it says 'the anti-tank gunners of 12th Battery' which makes it 2/3 Anti-Tank Regiment. But definitely anti-tank.

I'd prefer to go back to the sources rather than 1970s books.

[ChristopherPerrien]

Coming back to this, there is reference in the AWM OH 'Tobruk' that 2/2 Australian AT Regt used HE shell in their defensive action at Halfaya Pass on 26 April 1941, acting in an infantry gun role.

Presumably again the APHE?

Believe this might be the "2/2nd Field Regiment" which I gather had 18 or 25 lb er's at the time.

Well it says 'the anti-tank gunners of 12th Battery' which makes it 2/3 Anti-Tank Regiment. But definitely anti-tank.

I'd prefer to go back to the sources rather than 1970s books.

Hey it was your nomenclature error not mine, no source is linked.

Sources ? LOL, Well, Ian Hogg was in the British Artillery and fought in WWII and was the Master Gunner at the Royal Military College after retiring as the highest rank Artillery NCO in the British Army and quite a scholar and historian. 20-30 years as Editor of Jane's Weapons. You will NEVER find a better 1st person expert source about such things again.

[Urmel]

Thanks for helping Christopher. I have no idea which part of 'Australian AT Regt' I got wrong, but it's always a pleasure to be set right by someone with your deep insight and helpful attitude. You're a fountain of knowledge and an asset to the forum. Just an alround great guy. You have a good day now, and let those who know their stuff talk, okay?