What prevented the QF 3.7-inch AA gun being used in the Anti Tank role.

[Gooner1]

There are an infinite number of post-war myths vociferously argued about on the internet medium. Historical fact is generally not welcome by those desperate to propagate their deliberate falsehoods or misinformed opinions.

Stephen Kennedy, NCO, C Squadron 6 RTR

"They were fast and they were lightly armoured but they only had a 2 pounder gun - it was really of little use against German tanks, but of course it was great against soft vehicles."

Trooper John Bolan, 1 Troop, B Squadron, 6 RTR

"What did I think of any British tank? They were under-armed, they had no gun. You had to move, you couldn't stay still, because they had 75's and bigger guns; they're just blasting you. I wondered right to the end of the war. They still never had a gun. They had a two pounder on every type of tank; two pounder on infantry tanks, cruisers, light tanks. I think that was the biggest mistake of the war as regards British tanks. Under-armed. Definitely."

Sergeant Adrian Charlton, 3 CLY

"Lovely tanks [Crusaders] but hopeless in the desert because they overheated. They were beautiful tanks but they had one other snag - they had a two pounder gun, and when we fired the guns we could see them bouncing off the Mark VI (sic) tanks the Germans had. They had 75mm guns and ours were two pounder guns."


George Kidston-Montgomerie, Officer, 3 CLY

"The two pounder gun was absolutely useless, or not quite useless because one did knock them out sideways on. One had to be jolly careful, and the Germans knew the answers pretty well, and we didn't mind our tanks being penetrated, which they were of course, if we could have hit back. But I mean we just couldn't hit back in the front, and if we'd had the six pounder then, and all the tanks had been armed with the seventeen pounder in Normandy, everything would have been alright. We were always undergunned, and we didn't have much armour but one has to accept something. We were more manoeuvrable than the German tank, we were much quicker, but they were mechanically very unreliable, our tanks, which were the Crusaders, and as I say the Germans could penetrate us easily."
"We could compete with the Italian tanks, more than so, we were better than the Italian tanks, and we could compete with the Mark II. It was the Mark III they had predominantly, we couldn't knock out. We could knock out the Mark II, we were about equal with them."

"You lost alot to mechanical breakdown. I can remember the regiment going into action with 56 tanks, and after about a week we got about 20 left. Sometimes less. "

"It was appalling, the breakdowns and the two pounders. And of course we caught fire immediately when we hit - pfft - like that. But the thing I was always going on about was being under gunned."

John Miller, Officer Commander B Sqdn 6 RTR

"It was the first time the new Crusader tank had been used. It was a very poor tank. It had a very poor engine. It had a World War One engine, the Liberty engine, (an) aircraft engine, it was a very poor engine, and it had just a two pounder gun."
"Morale was high, one reckoned we had jolly good tanks though actually we saw more clearly we didn't."

Raymond Briggs 2nd Armoured Brigade report:

5. Equipment
(a) Crusader Mk. VIa
This proved itself satisfactory as a battle tank, within certain limitations. These limitations are as follows:-
(i) The inadequacy of the 2 pdr gun.
(ii) Insufficient thickness of armour, especially in front.
<>
(b) General Stuart
The General Stuart proved itself more sound than the Crusader, and required far less maintenance. The air-cooled engine did not overheat, and naturally, gave no anxiety about water leaks. It stood up well to fast work. Its limitations are:-
(i) The inadequacy of the 37mm gun.
(ii) Insufficient armour, especially in front.
<>
(d) Armament
Both 2 pdr and the 37mm gun are inferior to German guns. Until this disparity is rectified, we must be prepared for the inevitable heavy casualties. This is applicable in action against both German tanks and German A Tk guns.


I'll look out for more.

[MarkN]

Which 'docimented results from practical tests' measured 'hitting power'?

Hitting power? None. Who is interested in the scale of the clang as a projectile thuds into a surface.

I deliberately used the word 'hitting' because I suspected that is what was on you mind and I wanted to see if I could draw it out. I hit jackpot.

And clearly you and Don Juan are selective in the penetration tests you want to believe.

By selective should we assume you mean to say that the official British and German test data does not suit the nonsense you are peddling?

The users didn't lack the ability to make a pure HE shell for the 2-pdr, they chose not to because it didn't suit their practical doctrine of how to do tank and anti-tank warfare.

Any evidence for this?

Evidence that the British had the ability without the aid of magic to produce a 2-pdr HE round? Yes, they did so in 1943! That tells me it was a choice not to produce one earlier. If you think some new technology came along in 1943 to make it possible only then, then feel free to explain.

It proves (again) that the 2-pdr shot fails at the frontal armour of the most common German tank in the desert.

It didn't always fail. Sometimes it did. Sometime it didn't. It depended upon several factors. Not least of all distance travelled to impact and and angle of impact.

Nevertheless, you seem to be utterly obsessed with just one part of the German pantser armor. The 2-pdr AP round continued to prove very effective at significant ranges against German pantsers produced in 1942 and later.

Also there were no German tanks around to counter-attack.

So?

There was no British inferiority in equipment, except for that voluntarily chosen by the RAC.

It was Churchill who chose not to put the 6-pdr into production when it was ready to go in Summer 1940.

No, it was the user. The decision was made by CIGS.

I'll look out for more.

Please do. Always good to read comments by those who were there.

But you have to be careful how much to believe about them. This thread seems to have been started initially by somebody believing that over a 1,000 3.7" HAA guns were sitting stored and quite idle somewhere in the ME. A falsehood that has easily been disproved. A falsehood generated by just the sort of comment you're posting now - participants looking to blame somebody or something else.

[Gooner1]

I deliberately used the word 'hitting' because I suspected that is what was on you mind and I wanted to see if I could draw it out. I hit jackpot.

You got an intelligent response to a poorly worded question which disproved your assumption that the 5cm KwK 38 was only about equal to the 2-pdr.

By selective should we assume you mean to say that the official British and German test data does not suit the nonsense you are peddling?

The Russian tests with the 2-pdr shot shattering were nonsense? Or the tests on the "extra plates proved to have great power of resistance. The fact that they were face-hardened was not realized by the British until March 1942, when trials of the Grant’s 75-mm gun were being carried out against a captured Pzkw III. The discovery led to further tests. The plates were found to break up the 2-pdr uncapped shot at all ranges, and gave protection against the 6-pdr and the Grant’s 75-mm at anything over 500 yards."?

I guess you wish to believe in the infallibility of official tests?
As John Salt said in his introduction to his accumulated tables of penetration of World War II guns
" that armour penetration is far from being a deterministic phenomenon, and giving penetrative performance in millimetres (and even in some cases half-millimetres) suggests a degree of precision that does not really exist, even for proof shots fired under tightly-controlled conditions."

Evidence that the British had the ability without the aid of magic to produce a 2-pdr HE round? Yes, they did so in 1943! That tells me it was a choice not to produce one earlier. If you think some new technology came along in 1943 to make it possible only then, then feel free to explain.

Evidence that it was a doctrinal choice not to produce a high explosive round for the 2-pdr. So, clearly not, just one of your half-baked assumptions.

The 2-pdr AP round continued to prove very effective at significant ranges against German pantsers produced in 1942 and later.

You should have no problem producing the evidence of this then.

[Gooner1]

However, rather than admitting that they had got their approach wrong from the start, the RAC instead span a narrative that it was only the new American tanks and their 75mm guns that had made the difference, and their previous failures had been almost entirely due to their "inferior" equipment. This was a narrative that was taken up with gusto in the post-war period, especially among historians who themselves had a background in the RAC, and still persists today.

The arrival of the Sherman and M61 shell made the most common German tank in the desert obsolescent overnight.

[Don Juan]

The Russian tests with the 2-pdr shot shattering were nonsense? Or the tests on the "extra plates proved to have great power of resistance. The fact that they were face-hardened was not realized by the British until March 1942, when trials of the Grant’s 75-mm gun were being carried out against a captured Pzkw III. The discovery led to further tests. The plates were found to break up the 2-pdr uncapped shot at all ranges, and gave protection against the 6-pdr and the Grant’s 75-mm at anything over 500 yards."?

I guess you wish to believe in the infallibility of official tests?
As John Salt said in his introduction to his accumulated tables of penetration of World War II guns
" that armour penetration is far from being a deterministic phenomenon, and giving penetrative performance in millimetres (and even in some cases half-millimetres) suggests a degree of precision that does not really exist, even for proof shots fired under tightly-controlled conditions."

You keep going round the houses with this, but evidence that the 2 pounder was ineffective against certain German plates is not evidence that the 5cm KwK 38 would have been any better against the same plates, or against British plates of equal or greater thickness. The 2 pounder would have been equally useless against the front plates of Valentines or Matildas.

If you can find evidence that the front plates of e.g. Matildas were being penetrated by the 5cm KwK 38 at 500 or 1000 yards, then you would actually have an argument, as it would then definitely prove that the 5cm KwK 38 was superior to the 2 pounder.

[Don Juan]

The arrival of the Sherman and M61 shell made the most common German tank in the desert obsolescent overnight.

Yes, but this is an example of clear superiority.

You cannot argue that the Panzer III was clearly superior to the Valentine or Matilda.

[MarkN]

I deliberately used the word 'hitting' because I suspected that is what was on you mind and I wanted to see if I could draw it out. I hit jackpot.

You got an intelligent response to a poorly worded question which disproved your assumption that the 5cm KwK 38 was only about equal to the 2-pdr.

You posted some numbers which were and are meaningless to this discussion.

By selective should we assume you mean to say that the official British and German test data does not suit the nonsense you are peddling?

The Russian tests with the 2-pdr shot shattering were nonsense?

Your principle argument here is that the 2-pdr was "bloody useless".
Your secondary argument is that the German tank gun, principally the KwK38 L/42, was significantly superior to the 2-pdr.
The Russian testing does NOTHING to support either of your arguments. You are peddling nonsense.

I guess you wish to believe in the infallibility of official tests?

No, not at all. I have made decision that the official British and German testing is of infinitely greater value than your handwaving.

Evidence that the British had the ability without the aid of magic to produce a 2-pdr HE round? Yes, they did so in 1943! That tells me it was a choice not to produce one earlier. If you think some new technology came along in 1943 to make it possible only then, then feel free to explain.

Evidence that it was a doctrinal choice not to produce a high explosive round for the 2-pdr. So, clearly not, just one of your half-baked assumptions.

Risking the likelihood of this strand becoming a discussion about what came first: the chicken or the egg.... I offer FSR (1929) through to FSRII (1935), MTP41 (1940) and ATI3 (1941). These 4 documents outline (not particularly well) the doctrinal purpose and role of armoured forces. Initially (FSR 1929) '..tanks alone could not overcome a properly entrenched enemy, and if they were used in a frontal attack they had to have the support of artillery to neutralize the enemy's batteries and infantry to overcome its anti-tank guns and to consolidate their gains.(Quoting David French)' Later, (FSRII 1935), ... enemy A/Tk is to be dealt with by the machine guns of light tanks, HE from CS tanks is "... for use in an attack on buildings, or on other special occasions." (Quoting directly).

Was/is the lack of doctrine on using HE based upon not having a 2-pdr HE round or was the lack of 2-pdr HE based upon a doctrine that didn't need it? Chicken or egg?

The armoured division had 25-pdr in the orbat to lob HE. The armoured division had CS pantsers in the orbat to lob HE. Was there a doctrinal need fot 2-pdr pantsers to lob HE too?

The 2-pdr AP round continued to prove very effective at significant ranges against German pantsers produced in 1942 and later.

You should have no problem producing the evidence of this then.

Already done so. Col Quilliam's July 1942 report is based upon the inspection of 4 Pz.III 'Specials' - one of which had spaced-armour. All 4 were taken out by 2-pdr rounds.

[Urmel]

Not sure I would call an action two days later a counter-attack.

Sorry, but what else is it? A jolly?

[MarkN]

You should have no problem producing the evidence of this then.

You're right, I didn't. All of my comments here can be evidenced and have been.

You might not like the evidence because it doesn't suit the nonsense you're peddling, but it is evidence. On the otherhand, still awaiting evidence of your handwaving.

What happened to the 210 3" HAA withdrawn from AA Command during the 18 month period June 1940 - end 1941? How many of them were available to be utilized in a different role on a different continent? At what point in time did they become available for this? Goes to the 'inexplicable decision' wave of the hand.

How many British pantsers were knocked out by 88mm, where and when? Goes to understanding the 'being outranged' wave of the hand.

How (in)effective was the 2-pdr AP against the sides and rear of Pz.III and Pz.IV and at what ranges? Goes to the 'bloody useless' wave of the hand.

Show us the doctrine that encourages unsupported pantser charges against defended locations, doctrine that encourages attacking defended locations before recce of their state and suppression of actual threats. Goes to the '2-pdr not the user' wave of the hand.

[MarkN]

Not sure I would call an action two days later a counter-attack.

Sorry, but what else is it? A jolly?

A statement indicating the clutching of straws.

[Gooner1]

Sorry, but what else is it? A jolly?

An action two days later.

In the context of:

"The whole point of the action is that by working as an integrated all-arms team 7 Indian Brigade and 42 R.T.R. got the job done. Despite there being 88s and whatnots. Most of the 88s were put out of action by direct and indirect fire eventually."

A counter-attack by even a small number of German tanks on the 22nd or 23rd and the British assault on the Omars would quite likely have failed.

[Gooner1]

Yes, but this is an example of clear superiority.

You cannot argue that the Panzer III was clearly superior to the Valentine or Matilda.

No. The Panzer III was not clearly superior to the Valentine and Matilda. It was, however, clearly superior to the British Cruiser tanks and the Stuart.

If you can find evidence that the front plates of e.g. Matildas were being penetrated by the 5cm KwK 38 at 500 or 1000 yards, then you would actually have an argument, as it would then definitely prove that the 5cm KwK 38 was superior to the 2 pounder.

Well the Czech 4.7cm could at 400 yards
" In one case, three Mk II (Matilda II infantry tanks) were penetrated at a range of 400 metres (440 yd) by 4.7 cm tungsten-core armor-piercing shell (Pz.Gr. 40). It usually penetrates 60 millimetres (2.4 in) of armor. Therefore, a small percentage of these rounds are desired. The 4.7 cm armor-piercing shell (Pz.Gr. 36(t)) will not penetrate a Mk.II at 600 to 800 metres (660 to 870 yd). But the crew will abandon the tank because fragments spall off the armor on the inside."

Also this report on Crusader Project
https://rommelsriposte.com/2010/04/27/g ... atilda-ii/
Although I'm not sure I understand it all.

[Gooner1]

You posted some numbers which were and are meaningless to this discussion.

Sure, showing that the Kinetic Energy of the of the projectile from the KwK38 is 50% greater than that of the 2-pdr projectile at muzzle is 'meaningless'

Your principle argument here is that the 2-pdr was "bloody useless".

Indeed. And proved so by those Russian tests, the British tests and the witness testimony of the poor blokes who had to use the damn thing.

Your secondary argument is that the German tank gun, principally the KwK38 L/42, was significantly superior to the 2-pdr.

Hardly an argument. Pretty much fact. Bigger, heavier shell, less likely to shatter, and with the options of high explosive and short-range anti-Matilda rounds.

No, not at all. I have made decision that the official British and German testing is of infinitely greater value than your handwaving.

You really do not understand the term 'handwaving' in relation to an argument.

]
Was/is the lack of doctrine on using HE based upon not having a 2-pdr HE round or was the lack of 2-pdr HE based upon a doctrine that didn't need it? Chicken or egg?

Oh, so your not quite as certain that the lack of a 2-pdr HE shell was a doctrinal decision now then. Good.

The armoured division had 25-pdr in the orbat to lob HE. The armoured division had CS pantsers in the orbat to lob HE. Was there a doctrinal need fot 2-pdr pantsers to lob HE too?

'Lobbing' 25-pdr shells at random areas of the desert in the hope that there might be German anti-tank guns there would be rather a time consuming and wasteful effort.

Already done so. Col Quilliam's July 1942 report is based upon the inspection of 4 Pz.III 'Specials' - one of which had spaced-armour. All 4 were taken out by 2-pdr rounds.

The details of which you seem reluctant to produce ...

[Urmel]

Sorry, but what else is it? A jolly?

A counter-attack by even a small number of German tanks on the 22nd or 23rd and the British assault on the Omars would quite likely have failed.

I'm sorry. I'm trying to be kind, but this is abject nonsense.

[Don Juan]

No. The Panzer III was not clearly superior to the Valentine and Matilda. It was, however, clearly superior to the British Cruiser tanks and the Stuart.

Yes, but it was a British CHOICE to prioritise the use of the Crusader and Stuart over the Valentine and Matilda, wasn't it?

Well the Czech 4.7cm could at 400 yards
" In one case, three Mk II (Matilda II infantry tanks) were penetrated at a range of 400 metres (440 yd) by 4.7 cm tungsten-core armor-piercing shell (Pz.Gr. 40). It usually penetrates 60 millimetres (2.4 in) of armor. Therefore, a small percentage of these rounds are desired. The 4.7 cm armor-piercing shell (Pz.Gr. 36(t)) will not penetrate a Mk.II at 600 to 800 metres (660 to 870 yd). But the crew will abandon the tank because fragments spall off the armor on the inside."

Also this report on Crusader Project
https://rommelsriposte.com/2010/04/27/g ... atilda-ii/
Although I'm not sure I understand it all.

But the very rare in the desert Czech 4.7cm is not the 5cm KwK 38, is it? Besides, tungsten core ammunition was sufficiently rare, and sufficiently inaccurate, that it had to be confined to use at close range.

As for the firing trial you have linked to, I have mentioned above that I think this is an itinerary for a firing trial, rather than the results. I also don't think they would have wasted precious Panzergranate 40 rounds firing at a Matilda hulk from 600 yards, and suspect they were going to fire at closer range with a reduced charge to replicate 600 yards.