2 Pdr A.P. Shot v. A.P. Shell

[ClintHardware]

I was going to attach the following from WO 195/4639 as a reply to the current 2 Pdr H.E. Shell topic but thought it might be clearer standing on its own being that it is not H.E. Shell. The contents of the attached probably will raise questions as to how the contemporary statements could have been made.

APShotAPShellWO195Slash4639.pdf

(32.03 KiB) Downloaded 137 times

I have often wondered if civilian engineers and managers working with the Ministry of Supply and Ordnance Boards sometimes mixed up references to H.E. Shell and A.P. Shell (A.P.H.E.). This report seems to have avoided it by references to perforation of armour but I am not 100% certain that is the case. One of my doubts is raised by the reference in this report to a demand for A.P. Shell. There seems to have been a demand for H.E. Shell but I have not come across a veteran demanding A.P.H.E. instead of A.P. Shot - perhaps you have.

IIRC Jentz describes tests on Italian armour of 2 Pdr A.P.H.E. after Beda Fomm in his Tank Combat in North Africa and so it was issued prior to 5. leichte Division getting into combat. At what point A.P.H.E. stocks ran out and were replaced with A.P. Shot in every ammunition bin I do not know.

[Urmel]

Thanks, very interesting.

[Juha Tompuri]

Thanks,

Interesting, but AFAIK a bit contradictorial info at some cases.
Have to digest the content for a while.

Regards, Juha

P.S. Wonder what was the reason why the Beda Fomm APHE "sandbag tests" were carried out?

[Juha Tompuri]

Somehow the report sounds a bit like a "defence speech" for the usage of (only) AP-shots in attacking tanks.
Also the British system that some higher command decided that with what type of ammo the tanks used against differently protected targets. AFAIK Everywhere(?) else it was the tank commander who made the decision what type of ammo at his inventory suits against what target.

Some statements at the report, I found contradictory.

1. Our troops have never been fired at by solid shot, and so do not know how effective they may be.

I would count for instance the German AP 40 shots as "solid".

4. The H.E. content of enemy shell was always very small and is getting smaller and with each new type he products...

Well for example... IIRC from 37mm gun 13g to 88mm gun 64g.

...This seems to suggest that he started the war erroneously thinking that shell would be more effective than shot but has now discovered his mistake, (since being hit by our shot and having captured many thousands of rounds and complete equipments and having done the necessary trials with them) and is rectifying it, but has not yet had the courage to go the whole hog and use solid shot..

Wonder did the British also pass this piece of information to their APHE using "courageless" allies?

5. The detonation of the shell inside the tank does no more damage than the entry of the solid shot. The forward velocity is so high and the lateral velocity of the fragments, due to the low capacity filling, so low that the cone of splinters has a small angle.

Events like at Beda Fomm tests hint towards something else.

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

4. The H.E. content of enemy shell was always very small and is getting smaller and with each new type he products...

Well for example... IIRC from 37mm gun 13g to 88mm gun 64g.

That's meaningless, and a misreading of the statement. They are talking about content, not weight, and they are right.

HE filler ratio to round weight in grams based on what I could find in terms of information:

1) 13/680 = 1.9% (3.7cm Pak)
2) 180/1,020 = 1.8% (8.8cm Flak, 1939 APHE round)
2.1) 59/9,340 = 0.6% (8.9cm Flak, 1942 APHE round)
3) 17/2,060 = 0.7% (5cm Pak)

Note 1) and 2) are very close to each other. Is that co-incidence, or based on a standard formula?

The following information is taken from Thomas Jentz's " Dreaded Threat".

In 1938 the 8.8 Flak 18 was considered for firing against Ground targets, specifically armoured/concrete Pillboxes and enclosures. Armour piercing ammunition would be in service from this time onwards and consisted of the 8.8 cm Panzergranate weighing 9.5 kg (9.65kg is also stated in the text) with Armour piercing cap and ballistic cap with High explosive filler of 160 grams. Muzzle velocity is listed as 810 m/s from the L/56 barrel of the Flak 18 and Flak 36/37.

During early 1942 the penetration ability was improved with the introduction of the Pzgr.39 of 10.2 kg weight with reduced HE filler of 59 grams. Muzzle velocity was 800 m/s.

http://spwaw.com/lholttg/penetration.htm

[Juha Tompuri]

They are talking about content, not weight

Thanks for the correction. I thought about that, but failed to pick the right one.

...and they are right.

Shouldn't they have been through the whole report?

HE filler ratio to round weight in grams based on what I could find in terms of information:

1) 13/680 = 1.9% (3.7cm Pak)
2) 180/1,020 = 1.8% (8.8cm Flak, 1939 APHE round)
2.1) 59/9,340 = 0.6% (8.9cm Flak, 1942 APHE round)
3) 17/2,060 = 0.7% (5cm Pak)

Note 1) and 2) are very close to each other. Is that co-incidence, or based on a standard formula?

The following information is taken from Thomas Jentz's " Dreaded Threat".

In 1938 the 8.8 Flak 18 was considered for firing against Ground targets, specifically armoured/concrete Pillboxes and enclosures. Armour piercing ammunition would be in service from this time onwards and consisted of the 8.8 cm Panzergranate weighing 9.5 kg (9.65kg is also stated in the text) with Armour piercing cap and ballistic cap with High explosive filler of 160 grams. Muzzle velocity is listed as 810 m/s from the L/56 barrel of the Flak 18 and Flak 36/37.

During early 1942 the penetration ability was improved with the introduction of the Pzgr.39 of 10.2 kg weight with reduced HE filler of 59 grams. Muzzle velocity was 800 m/s.

I thought ( and wrote about) that the report was about tank guns and battles?

Note 1) and 2) are very close to each other. Is that co-incidence, or based on a standard formula?

Might be, but I think that as AFAIK the German KwK APHE explosive filling from 37mm, via 50mm to 75mm (with the exeption ~70g of K.Gr.rot.Pz designed for 7.5 cm kwk 37 l/24) remained quite steadily between ~13-17g. That maybe indicating that that amount was considered deadly enough when exploding in closed spaces.

Regards, Juha

[Urmel]

The Gr. Rot is the hollow-charge? In that case that's probably neither here nor there in this context?

It's quite possible that the British report is assuming that there should be a linear relationship, and that the absence of same is indicative of a belief on the German side that the HE filler was ineffective, while as you say, it may just indicate that the size of the filler is not related to the weight of the round at all, and the Germans thought that ~15g was plenty to achieve the effect they wanted.

[Juha Tompuri]

Discussion about 75mm German, US and composite AP shots and shells continuing here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 4&t=220613

[Juha Tompuri]

The British used the M61 shells they received without HE filler; they filled the cavity with some sort of concrete, which increased the shell's strength and increased penetration above what the Americans achieved in their tests.

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... man/page-5

Really?

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p2003211

It's also worth noting that some APHE shells had their explosive charge removed and replaced with sand when they were declared obsolete after the Battle of France, and I believe Brigadier George Davy discovered a batch of these sand-filled rounds a few weeks prior to Operation Crusader.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5#p1920657

Sand?

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

There seems to have been a demand for H.E. Shell but I have not come across a veteran demanding A.P.H.E. instead of A.P. Shot - perhaps you have.

Perhaps some of us have already been aware of this, but anyway, here you are,
"information not shared, is lost" as the Forum motto goes:

file WO.169/952 A.F.V. G.H.Q. MEF War Diary 1941 at the National Archives in Kew –

August section – Appendix 14
SECRET
Subject: – 2-pdr A.P. H.E. Shells
GHQ MEF
BM/AFV/84
13 Aug 41
HQ
WDF

The question has arisen as to what, if any proportion of 2-pdr ammunition is to be A.P. HE.
Resulting from inspection of Italian M.13 Tanks after the BEDA FOMM action, and the remarkable number of Tanks found with the whole crew dead after a single hit by a 2-pdr. shell, a trial was held by 2 R.Tanks. At this trial the 2-pdr. H.E. Shell entered the M.13 Tank through the front plate and splinters were found in all sandbags which had been placed to represent the crew in position. The range was 900 yards.
It is realised that the German armour plate is of better quality than the Italian. But 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.
The War Office have stopped production of 2-pdr. H.E. at home as a result of poor reports of its penetration power in FRANCE. We do not know, however, at what range it was used.
We would like to have your opinion as to whether in the light of an experience in the M.E. representations should be made to the War Office for renewed production.

Brigadier, General Staff
for D.C.G.S.
AFV.
HJ/MF
Copy to: – HQ., 7 Armd. Div.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 6#p1983234
https://rommelsriposte.com/2015/12/10/2 ... nds-again/

Regards, Juha

[ClintHardware]

Thanks Juha

So there was an idea/question of using APHE over AP to finish the crew off.

Interesting to note in your quote how the shortened references to HE seem to be being used as an abbreviation of the only two characters longer APHE....or are they? It is not clear if APHE was being confused on paper and at HQs and with purely HE shells and if this had any bearing on orders placed for 2-Pdr HE production in the UK. I do not have any answers as yet despite several searches at Kew.

[David W]

The same thought had passed through my mind too.

[Juha Tompuri]

Thanks Juha

So there was an idea/question of using APHE over AP to finish the crew off.

Nice to be of a help.

Interesting to note in your quote how the shortened references to HE seem to be being used as an abbreviation of the only two characters longer APHE....or are they?

I think they are.
Note that in addition to that also in addition to the 2-pdr. H.E. Shell / H.E. Shell / 2-pdr. H.E. also term 2-pdr. shell is used.
AFAIK the 2-pdr had used two type of ammo: shell and shot or the one with HE content and the one without it.

At that report they base their suggestions to earlier combat use.
Also the report mentions about stopping and renewing the ammo used production.
British (pure) HE was developed but AFAIK not being used at that time.

It is not clear if APHE was being confused on paper and at HQs and with purely HE shells and if this had any bearing on orders placed for 2-Pdr HE production in the UK. I do not have any answers as yet despite several searches at Kew.

Such find would surprise me.

Regards, Juha

[Juha Tompuri]

P.S. Wonder what was the reason why the Beda Fomm APHE "sandbag tests" were carried out?

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p1998003

Resulting from inspection of Italian M.13 Tanks after the BEDA FOMM action, and the remarkable number of Tanks found with the whole crew dead after a single hit by a 2-pdr. shell, a trial was held by 2 R.Tanks.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 7#p2004869

Regards, Juha