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

[Gooner1]

The logic is that the evidence gathered by Liddell-Hart (as shown in post #53) showed that the Panzergranate 40 was generally reserved for use within 200 metres or so due to its inaccuracy. The trials that have been linked to show not only this ammunition being used at 600m, but against specific portions of the tank (e.g. the wheel assembly). I think that to hit the wheel assembly with Panzergranate 40 at 600m would be so difficult as to require the expenditure of a significant amount of ammunition, so if they did want to assess the damage from such a strike (which in the real world would be pretty random), they would have had to simulate the range using a reduced charge in order to obtain a hit.

Although I have previously stated that this whole trial seems very odd in post #97. It appears to have been undertaken to assess the merits of the more unusual and rarefied German anti-tank ammunition.

There is another interpretation of that test here: http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/artil ... dix-a.html
Or perhaps it was a different test.

There appear to be mistakes in the transcription and/or in the original. So much for official testing eh?

[Gooner1]

I do not have an explicit statement that a 2-pdr HE round was not required doctrinally. I am willing to accept that. I am also acknowledging that if you wish to use that as part of any counter-argument, crack on.

The counter-argument to the HE shell not being required because of doctrinal reasons is fairly obvious. They were not ordered because of financial cost reasons (pre-war) for lack of designers (shortage of, required on other tasks) and for lack of production facilities (loss of production for re-tooling etc).

[Gooner1]

Nope. Not the sole source, and I'm not relying on it. It is one that I happen to have read through a few nights ago. Still, a single source is better than the non-sources and non-evidence you are producing.

Sources (already posted):
XXX Corp Report
"The enemy always tried to make use of his greater range. of fire, avoided close fighting when he could and retained his Block formation. The main problem to be faced was therefore how to fight the enemy with fire when our tank 2-pdr guns were so much outranged.
In the same report, Norrie refers to the British tanks as "[...]equipped with the more lightly armed tanks." and:
[...]the enemy, by skillful use of numbers of anti-tank guns on his front and flank and the superior effective range of his tank guns, usually managed to penetrate out tanks before they got within range of his.
and
[...]his superior armour enables his Mk. IIIs to carry out attacks akin to those of our "I" tanks; frontally they have little to fear from our tanks and A/Tk guns, and they protect their flanks with their own A/Tk guns.
and
The 2-pdr. penetrates, and often passes through the sides of any enemy tank at our effective range [800-1,000 yards I think] but does not set the enemy tank on fire. The GERMAN tank gun fires a projectile which penetrates our tanks similarly, but at greater ranges, and sets them on fire instantaneously. [...]

and
But these guns [the 2-pdr and 37mm M3 gun] are no match for the German tanks, and, as long as the Germans can penetrate us at 1500 or even 2000 yards, as they were doing, one cannot judge too harshly those tank commanders - and there were many - who opened fire at 1,500 yards, a range at which the 2-pdr shall has already lost more than half its initial velocity.
and
We need a much more powerful gun than the 2-pdr"

Stephen Kennedy, NCO, C Squadron 6 RTR
"They [Crusaders} 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
"They equipped us all with new tanks, the Crusader, that was the A15's. Just did a bit of manoeuvres with them, get used to them, then after that they started the push."
"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 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, <>
"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."

[Gooner1]

On the contrary, I have a series of German battle reports indicating how many British pantsers were claimed by the 88mm. The number on those documents suggest the 88mm did NOT have the scale of effect on the battlefield that the myth suggests. The main German threats to British pantsers up to, and including Op CRUSADER, were the PaK36 & PaK38 A/Tk guns, sometimes the Pz.Jag.I and often infantry weopans such as the Pz.Buchser.41. British pantser formations often wrote about being outranged, without realising they were looking at the wrong guns.

No denying the Germans had a lot of tools for killing British tanks and the 88 was a minority amongst them. Also that the 88 was probably more important in Battleaxe and later at Gazala.
Churlish to deny that they were still, however, a very important tool in the box during Crusader and the Germans said so themselves.

They were not being hit by pantsers in the distance, but "skillfully" employed A/Tk guns which they probably hadn't even spotted and made little or no effort to eliminate. It is true that the Pz.IV KwK37 made a nuisance of itself. But that could be either replicated by or dealt with (depending upon context) HE from CS pantsers or 25-pdr.

:roll:

German tanks out-ranged British tanks. Their anti-tank guns were deployed behind their tanks. If the British advance the German tanks can retire behind their anti-tank guns.
Doesn't take genius to implement these tactics. Far harder to defeat them.
" 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."

[MarkN]

I'm not going to waste my time dealing with all your cut&paste. Just the first part. A quote from a report which has already been discussed in this thread. My underlining.

Nope. Not the sole source, and I'm not relying on it. It is one that I happen to have read through a few nights ago. Still, a single source is better than the non-sources and non-evidence you are producing.

Sources (already posted):
XXX Corp Report
"The enemy always tried to make use of his greater range. of fire, avoided close fighting when he could and retained his Block formation. The main problem to be faced was therefore how to fight the enemy with fire when our tank 2-pdr guns were so much outranged.
In the same report, Norrie refers to the British tanks as "[...]equipped with the more lightly armed tanks." and:
[...]the enemy, by skillful use of numbers of anti-tank guns on his front and flank and the superior effective range of his tank guns, usually managed to penetrate out tanks before they got within range of his.
and
[...]his superior armour enables his Mk. IIIs to carry out attacks akin to those of our "I" tanks; frontally they have little to fear from our tanks and A/Tk guns, and they protect their flanks with their own A/Tk guns.
and
The 2-pdr. penetrates, and often passes through the sides of any enemy tank at our effective range [800-1,000 yards I think] but does not set the enemy tank on fire. The GERMAN tank gun fires a projectile which penetrates our tanks similarly, but at greater ranges, and sets them on fire instantaneously. [...]

and
But these guns [the 2-pdr and 37mm M3 gun] are no match for the German tanks, and, as long as the Germans can penetrate us at 1500 or even 2000 yards, as they were doing, one cannot judge too harshly those tank commanders - and there were many - who opened fire at 1,500 yards, a range at which the 2-pdr shall has already lost more than half its initial velocity.
and
We need a much more powerful gun than the 2-pdr"

The 2-pdr. penetrates, and often passes through the sides of any enemy tank at our effective range [800-1,000 yards I think]
So, it's not "bloody useless" after all!

our tank 2-pdr guns were so much outranged, superior effective range of his tank guns and But these guns [the 2-pdr and 37mm M3 gun] are no match for the German tanks, and, as long as the Germans can penetrate us at 1500 or even 2000 yards, as they were doing,
So which German guns are penetrating British pantsers at 1500 or even 2000 yards? KwK37? KwK38? PaK36? PaK38? Czech47mm? AA 88mm?
So which German tank guns outranged the 2-pdrs of the British pantsers? KwK37? KwK38?

[Don Juan]

There is another interpretation of that test here: http://www.lonesentry.com/manuals/artil ... dix-a.html
Or perhaps it was a different test.

There appear to be mistakes in the transcription and/or in the original. So much for official testing eh?

That looks like a bad transcription at least partly derived from this document:

Which shows that the 5cm KwK 38 could only penetrate the Matilda front at 200m, via the turret only. And even then I suspect this is the results with the PzGr.40.

The 5cm KwK 38 was simply a very average weapon.

[Gooner1]

The 2-pdr. penetrates, and often passes through the sides of any enemy tank at our effective range [800-1,000 yards I think] but does not set the enemy tank on fire. The GERMAN tank gun fires a projectile which penetrates our tanks similarly, but at greater ranges, and sets them on fire instantaneously. [...]

The 2-pdr. penetrates, and often passes through the sides of any enemy tank at our effective range [800-1,000 yards I think]

Spot the difference!

So which German guns are penetrating British pantsers at 1500 or even 2000 yards? KwK37? KwK38? PaK36? PaK38? Czech47mm? AA 88mm?

The 88 is the obvious candidate.

Other contenders: the 10cm K18, Italian 102mm, Italian 75/46 AA gun(!).

[Gooner1]

That looks like a bad transcription at least partly derived from this document:

Which shows that the 5cm KwK 38 could only penetrate the Matilda front at 200m, via the turret only. And even then I suspect this is the results with the PzGr.40.

September 1940 is probably too early for the PzGr.40.

The 5cm KwK 38 was simply a very average weapon.

That I can agree with.

[MarkN]

When I suggested that the reason behind the non-existence of a 2-pdr HE round in the early stages of the war was down to the Army lacking a doctrinal need/requirement for one, you responded with a demand for...

Evidence that it was a doctrinal choice not to produce a high explosive round for the 2-pdr.

So, now you've put up your counter-argument...

The counter-argument to the HE shell not being required because of doctrinal reasons is fairly obvious. They were not ordered because of financial cost reasons (pre-war) for lack of designers (shortage of, required on other tasks) and for lack of production facilities (loss of production for re-tooling etc).

Evidence please that it was due to:-
1) financial cost reasons (pre-war)
2) lack of designers (shortage of, required on other tasks) and
3) lack of production facilities (loss of production for re-tooling etc).

Or is this just more waving of your hand to misdirect?

[MarkN]

No denying the Germans had a lot of tools for killing British tanks and the 88 was a minority amongst them. Also that the 88 was probably more important in Battleaxe and later at Gazala.
Churlish to deny that they were still, however, a very important tool in the box during Crusader and the Germans said so themselves.

The Germans had:
- 16 guns sited in semi-fixed Stutzpunkte along the border - reduced to 12 on 20 November.
- the 4 guns removed from the Stutzpunkte were mainly used against the Tobruk breakout.
- 4 guns were allocated to Pz.Regt.8 / 15.Pz-Div.
- 4 guns were allocated to Pz.Regt.5 / 21.Pz-Div.
- 8 or 12 guns outside PzArmee control and were allocated to exclusive AA airfield defence.

Once the general retreat had commenced from Gazala, any surviving guns were essentially pooled and used wherever necessary.

The Germans clearly valued the 88 in an A/Tk role. Daft to argue anything different. Nevertheless, evidence suggests that they also felt that the PaK38 et al were good enough to deal with most contingencies in respect of British armoured divisions with Cruiser Tanks.

They were not being hit by pantsers in the distance, but "skillfully" employed A/Tk guns which they probably hadn't even spotted and made little or no effort to eliminate. It is true that the Pz.IV KwK37 made a nuisance of itself. But that could be either replicated by or dealt with (depending upon context) HE from CS pantsers or 25-pdr.

German tanks out-ranged British tanks.

Please provide the numbers and the context in which you make this statement. I have absolutely no doubt that engagements occured where it is true. Similarly, I have absolutely no doubt that engagements occured where the opposite is true.

Are you still exclusively fixating on the armor of a small part of the surface area of Pz.II and Pz.IV pantsers?

Their anti-tank guns were deployed behind their tanks. If the British advance the German tanks can retire behind their anti-tank guns.

A tactic that was indeed used. But, as evidenced in the Norrie narrative that has been posted in this thread (once by you - although you left this part out), "...the enemy, by skillful use of numbers of anti-tank guns on his front and flank...".

On 19 November, Scott-Cockburn threw his brigade of pantsers against a Italian frontal screen of A/Tk and Fld guns!
)n 21 November, Davy threw 2RTR against a frontal screen of A/Tk and Fld guns!

Doesn't take genius to implement these tactics. Far harder to defeat them.

Don't pursue is the obvious answer. After the first experience of this tactic, British donkey wallopers should have been wise to the ruse. The fact the Germans got away more than once goes to qhaility of the 'lessons learning' process of the British.
If you have to pursue, don't cavalry charge but methodically use your Fld guns and infantry to deal with the A/Tk screen, then pursue.

[MarkN]

The 2-pdr. penetrates, and often passes through the sides of any enemy tank at our effective range [800-1,000 yards I think] but does not set the enemy tank on fire. The GERMAN tank gun fires a projectile which penetrates our tanks similarly, but at greater ranges, and sets them on fire instantaneously. [...]

The 2-pdr. penetrates, and often passes through the sides of any enemy tank at our effective range [800-1,000 yards I think]

Spot the difference!

Are you:-
a) just trolling?
b) suggesting the "bloody useless" comment is about the AP round not exploding and not setting enough pantsers on fire.
c) other? Please do enlighten....

Documentary evidence shows that both British and German pantsers sometimes went up in flames, sometime they didn't.
Documentary evidence shows the number of German pantsers going up in flames decreased after they took remedial action with internal ammo storage.
Documentary evidence shows the number of British pantsers going up in flames increased after they started overloading their pantsers with ammo.

The increase/decrease was not about the type of round being used, nor the type of pantser as, for the period concerned, they remained constant.

So which German guns are penetrating British pantsers at 1500 or even 2000 yards? KwK37? KwK38? PaK36? PaK38? Czech47mm? AA 88mm?

The 88 is the obvious candidate.

My thought exactly.

Other contenders: the 10cm K18, Italian 102mm, Italian 75/46 AA gun(!).

Others too.

Key point to note is that none of these are guns in German pantsers. Norrie has (deliberately -?) conflated his narrative and mislead the reader. Or perhaps he personnally had little idea of what was going on around him.

[Gooner1]

When I suggested that the reason behind the non-existence of a 2-pdr HE round in the early stages of the war was down to the Army lacking a doctrinal need/requirement for one, you responded with a demand for...

Evidence please that it was due to:-
1) financial cost reasons (pre-war)
2) lack of designers (shortage of, required on other tasks) and
3) lack of production facilities (loss of production for re-tooling etc).

Or is this just more waving of your hand to misdirect?

You're the one claiming no High Explosive shell was for doctrinal reasons. I have provided suggestions why that may not have been the case. It is up to YOU to provide compelling evidence of your opinion.

Or just leave it at no HE might have been a doctrinal decision.

[MarkN]

Returning to the original theme of this thread, I thought this extract from a 7 October 1941 document may be of interest.




The next paragraph perhaps being of most relevance.


The British had been doing this already for some time in Egypt and Libya - at least as far as resources permitted. Each 'Jock' Column contained at least a troop of 4 Bofors 40mm guns. Supply columns well behind the lines, tended not to.

[MarkN]

When I suggested that the reason behind the non-existence of a 2-pdr HE round in the early stages of the war was down to the Army lacking a doctrinal need/requirement for one, you responded with a demand for...

Evidence please that it was due to:-
1) financial cost reasons (pre-war)
2) lack of designers (shortage of, required on other tasks) and
3) lack of production facilities (loss of production for re-tooling etc).

Or is this just more waving of your hand to misdirect?

You're the one claiming no High Explosive shell was for doctrinal reasons. I have provided suggestions why that may not have been the case. It is up to YOU to provide compelling evidence of your opinion.

Indeed. And I provided information on 4 doctrinal documents that indicate a lack of doctrinal need/requirement for 2-pdr HE.

You have now made an alternative suggestion. To move that suggestion from handwaving to credible possibility requires evidence. :roll:

If you wish it just to stand as an unevidenced wave of the hand, so be it.

Or just leave it at no HE might have been a doctrinal decision.

The timeslines seem to suggest its a solid bet. Pun intended.

[Gooner1]

Please provide the numbers and the context in which you make this statement. I have absolutely no doubt that engagements occured where it is true. Similarly, I have absolutely no doubt that engagements occured where the opposite is true.

What, where British tanks outranged German ones?
I can only think of Matilda IIs against early PzIIIs and IVs … then Shermans against the PzIII and PzIV (kurz) and then …

And stop wasting my time with stupid questions.

Are you still exclusively fixating on the armor of a small part of the surface area of Pz.II and Pz.IV pantsers?

Well, yes technically the frontal aspect of the PzIII and IVs is only a small part of the surface area ..

Don't pursue is the obvious answer. After the first experience of this tactic, British donkey wallopers should have been wise to the ruse. The fact the Germans got away more than once goes to qhaility of the 'lessons learning' process of the British.
If you have to pursue, don't cavalry charge but methodically use your Fld guns and infantry to deal with the A/Tk screen, then pursue.

Oh, the British tankers got wise to the tactic pretty quickly. Their job, however, was to defeat the enemy and relieve Tobruk.
Artillery is great for targeting A/Tk, provided that the anti-tank guns are under observation. Otherwise, as alluded to, they'll just be blasting random areas of the desert. Infantry, yeah, good one. If they have no reason to stay the German anti-tank guns could retire just as 'skillfully' as they moved forward.