Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

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
Tom from Cornwall
Member
Posts: 3211
Joined: 01 May 2006, 20:52
Location: UK

Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#1

Post by Tom from Cornwall » 11 Oct 2016, 21:49

Hi,

Not wanting to intrude on previous threads about 2 pdr HE, I thought I'd start another (apologies!) to record my research findings on the A Tk doctrine response to the operations in Greece and the Western Desert in early 1941.
AWM52/1/5/12 – G Branch 6 Aust Div July – August 1941

SECRET
Headquarters
6 Aust Div.
6 Jul 41.
S/2163/G

DEMONSTRATION – A. TK GUN 2 PDR.

On 1 July a demonstration of firing by A Tk Guns was arranged to bring out certain characteristics of the gun and its projectile.

The target used consisted of a light wooden frame covered with hessian; and mounted on a form of sledge under-carriage. The target was towed by a lorry at an average speed of 10 – 15 miles per hour.

The target crossed the front of the guns with the range varying from 600 yds max. to 400 yds min.

It was clearly observed that with most of the rounds fired, somewhere in the flight of the projectile the tracer illuminant of the projectile was deflected from its normal path. Usually this deflection was in an upward direction.

It was impossible to decide whether this illuminant was thrown off as the projectile passed through the hessian target or when the projectile hit the sand dunes at the rear of the range. Most probably the latter is the correct deduction.

For some time there have been rumours or statements circulating among officers and other ranks that the 2 pr A Tk projectile has been seen to “bounce off” German and French tanks. The rumours even included that the shells were seen to bounce off at ranges up to as much as 1100 yds.

This demonstration on 1 July was principally staged to kill such an untrue impression.

Firstly it is clear that no officer or man could see an object as small as the projectile of a 2 pr A Tk Gun at 1100 yds even with the projectile at rest. Even with the most efficient binoculars it is questionable whether this object would be visible at 300 yds.

Realising this factor, it is further evident that the chances of seeing the projectile moving, at the velocity with which it does move, are surely non-existent.

It is suggested that what observers have been seeing “bounce off” is not the projectile but the “tracer illuminant” of the projectile. This error in judgement then is most probably responsible for the erroneous impressions held by a proportion of officers and other ranks as to the efficiency of the A Tk Gun.

It is the teaching in this Division now that the most effective range to engage an enemy AFV by the 2 pr gun is at ranges of 400 yds and below.

The gun, when fought by determined and well trained crews, is a most efficient weapon if it is used at these close ranges.

PTO/…

- 2 -

Personnel of Inf Bns will then be taught that the 2 pr gun can kill tanks and will kill tanks penetrating into our defended localities. This killing will be done at short ranges; so the Inf personnel should not expect the A Tk Gun to engage enemy AFVs at long range and before these AFVs have advanced within effective range of the guns. The problem of engaging the tanks at long ranges is one for the Fd Arty.

It is requested, therefore, that commanding officers give the fullest publicity to the results of this A Tk gun demonstration with the principle object of destroying for all time the bogey that the 2 pr projectile “bounces off” enemy AFVs.

[sgd: RB Sunderland ??]
Colonel,
G.S. 6 Aust Div.
DISTRIBUTION.

List “B”
More to follow... :thumbsup:

Regards

Tom

User avatar
David W
Member
Posts: 3516
Joined: 28 Mar 2004, 02:30
Location: Devon, England

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#2

Post by David W » 12 Oct 2016, 07:49

Nice find Tom, thanks for sharing.


User avatar
Pips
Member
Posts: 1280
Joined: 26 Jun 2005, 09:44
Location: Country NSW, Australia

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#3

Post by Pips » 13 Oct 2016, 02:29

Bit hairy having to let the Panzer in as close as 400 yds before firing. Would hope the AT gun is well camouflaged! :)

Carl Schwamberger
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 10056
Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
Location: USA

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#4

Post by Carl Schwamberger » 29 Dec 2016, 03:35

Speaking from experience average camouflage would be good for a couple hundred meters, unless the tanks are moving very slowly and examining the terrain closely. This why its a good idea to harass attacking armor with artillery, mortars, or long range MG fire so they can't do careful examination of the likely AT gun hides.

Knouterer
Member
Posts: 1661
Joined: 15 Mar 2012, 18:19

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#5

Post by Knouterer » 30 Dec 2016, 13:21

By August 1941 the British really should have had the 6pdr in service in some numbers. The Germans had to equip a much larger army with a comparable industrial base, and managed to get about a thousand 50 mm Pak 38 guns to the front by the time Barbarossa was launched.
That the introduction of the 6pdr was delayed in order not to disrupt production of the 2pdr has always struck me as a very feeble excuse, firstly because the need for a bigger gun had been recognized as early as 1938, and secondly because the 2pdr was a complicated design, and very heavy for its calibre; actually it was found that producing the 6pdr took less man-hours than the 2pdr, although that may have been due in part to general rationalization.
The availability of just two or three hundred 6pdr guns might have had a significant impact on Crusader, for example; at a minimum German tank losses would have been much heavier than they were.
"The true spirit of conversation consists in building on another man's observation, not overturning it." Edward George Bulwer-Lytton

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#6

Post by Urmel » 30 Dec 2016, 14:28

Knouterer wrote:By August 1941 the British really should have had the 6pdr in service in some numbers. The Germans had to equip a much larger army with a comparable industrial base, and managed to get about a thousand 50 mm Pak 38 guns to the front by the time Barbarossa was launched.
That the introduction of the 6pdr was delayed in order not to disrupt production of the 2pdr has always struck me as a very feeble excuse, firstly because the need for a bigger gun had been recognized as early as 1938, and secondly because the 2pdr was a complicated design, and very heavy for its calibre; actually it was found that producing the 6pdr took less man-hours than the 2pdr, although that may have been due in part to general rationalization.
The availability of just two or three hundred 6pdr guns might have had a significant impact on Crusader, for example; at a minimum German tank losses would have been much heavier than they were.
Heavier than 'almost all of them' is going to be difficult.

I doubt this would have made much of a difference, by the way.
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
Urmel
Member
Posts: 4896
Joined: 25 Aug 2008, 10:34
Location: The late JBond

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#7

Post by Urmel » 30 Dec 2016, 14:29

Carl Schwamberger wrote:Speaking from experience average camouflage would be good for a couple hundred meters, unless the tanks are moving very slowly and examining the terrain closely. This why its a good idea to harass attacking armor with artillery, mortars, or long range MG fire so they can't do careful examination of the likely AT gun hides.
You have to remember that in the desert the ATGs were carried on Portees. Which makes camo rather a different proposition.
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

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#8

Post by Gooner1 » 30 Dec 2016, 15:30

Knouterer wrote: That the introduction of the 6pdr was delayed in order not to disrupt production of the 2pdr has always struck me as a very feeble excuse, firstly because the need for a bigger gun had been recognized as early as 1938, and secondly because the 2pdr was a complicated design, and very heavy for its calibre; actually it was found that producing the 6pdr took less man-hours than the 2pdr, although that may have been due in part to general rationalization.
For the
2pdr gun & carriage took 2,682 man-hours
6pdr gun & carriage took 1,293 man-hours
The availability of just two or three hundred 6pdr guns might have had a significant impact on Crusader, for example; at a minimum German tank losses would have been much heavier than they were.
Indeed, the action at Sidi Rezegh and the fate of 5th South African Brigade may well have been different.

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#9

Post by Urmel » 30 Dec 2016, 15:49

Gooner1 wrote:Indeed, the action at Sidi Rezegh and the fate of 5th South African Brigade may well have been different.
You are both falling into the 'if one weapon were different all would have been different' fallacy.
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

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#10

Post by Gooner1 » 30 Dec 2016, 16:19

Urmel wrote: You are both falling into the 'if one weapon were different all would have been different' fallacy.
Getting better results from better weaponry is rather the opposite of a fallacy.

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#11

Post by Urmel » 30 Dec 2016, 16:38

Gooner1 wrote:
Urmel wrote: You are both falling into the 'if one weapon were different all would have been different' fallacy.
Getting better results from better weaponry is rather the opposite of a fallacy.
The Germans lost about 1/3rd of their available tanks at Sidi Rezegh. That doesn't indicate to me that capability of the AT guns was the issue in the defeat. I conclude from that that better AT guns wouldn't have made much of a difference to the outcome.

And yes, it is a fallacy to presume that 'the action and the fate' would have been different. It isn't a fallacy to state 'with 6-pdrs possibly some more damage could have been done to the Germans'

The defeat on 23 November had a number of reasons. Poor quality AT guns doesn't really feature very highly on my list.
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

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#12

Post by Gooner1 » 30 Dec 2016, 17:42

Urmel wrote: The Germans lost about 1/3rd of their available tanks at Sidi Rezegh. That doesn't indicate to me that capability of the AT guns was the issue in the defeat. I conclude from that that better AT guns wouldn't have made much of a difference to the outcome.
Your logic is lacking. Superior AT capability for the British may or may not result in higher losses for the enemy. It may well lead to fewer losses of their own however. The German tank losses at Medenine were what 1/3rd of their available? British losses there were negligible.
The defeat on 23 November had a number of reasons. Poor quality AT guns doesn't really feature very highly on my list.
Well one thing the arrival of the 6pdr did was to release the 25pdr from its role as an ersatz anti-tank gun. Bingo - British artillery becomes more efficient, Axis casualties rise. :milwink:

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#13

Post by Urmel » 30 Dec 2016, 17:59

Sorry mate, I'm not the one speculating that the change of a single weapon would have made a difference on the battlefield. Do you seriously want to argue that all that changed between Sidi Rezegh and Medenine was the intro of the 6-pdr? If not, how is that comparison at all relevant?

Do you know how many German tanks were shot up by 25-pdrs as opposed to 2-pdrs at Sidi Rezegh? If so please let me know.

So all of this considered I don't think I'm the one using flaws logic here.
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

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2776
Joined: 06 Jan 2006, 13:24
Location: London

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#14

Post by Gooner1 » 30 Dec 2016, 18:34

Urmel wrote:Sorry mate, I'm not the one speculating that the change of a single weapon would have made a difference on the battlefield. Do you seriously want to argue that all that changed between Sidi Rezegh and Medenine was the intro of the 6-pdr? If not, how is that comparison at all relevant?
Eh? I originally said 'may well' so not 'would'.

The comparison between Sidi Rezegh and Medenine demonstrated a simple fact - enemy tank losses are not the only measure of A/Tk capability.

Notes from Theatres of War No.2 Cyrenaica November/December 1941

"German tactics at El Duda - In the armoured attack on El Duda, the German tanks cruised about very slowly outside the effective range of the 2-pr., continuously shelling the position with their 75mm. guns. They gradually goaded our anti-tank guns to fire, and, when, satisfied that all had been located, they knocked them out quickly with fire from gun tanks and supporting artillery. Then just before dusk, the tanks moved forward with infantry closed behind and overran the centre of the position."

Those tactics would not have worked against the 6pdr.

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

Re: Commonwealth A Tk Gun tests and doctrine 1941

#15

Post by Urmel » 30 Dec 2016, 18:47

Those tactics weren't employed at Sidi Rezegh
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

Post Reply

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