MarkN wrote: ↑
10 Dec 2018 18:14
Gooner1, you really should be more patient. If you wait until you're 77, you'll have caught up with the rest of the world and then not make such silly schoolboy errors.
Hey, I think your accusations of schoolboy errors need to be directed at the source - Major-General Rea Leakey, DSO, MC & Bar https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-ente ... 33867.html
Your delusion that you talk for the rest of the world is pretty funny though
Leakey was an eyewitness. Eyewitsness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Especially when recounted decades after the event concerned...
I guess that is your get-out clause to all the veterans opinions.
Ever been in a car crash? I bet you remember it well, if not the day, the time, the month and the weather if not a factor.
Extremely stressful events tend to sear themselves into the memory.
German documentation notes 4 Ausfalle from Pz.Jag.605. It does not indicate how many were Pz.Jag.I and/or Pz.IB. They also claim 6 out of 14 British pantsers were "abgeschossen".
There seems to be some common ground between each of these write-ups. All three indicate 4 losses on the Axis side. That leaves a two-to-four balance sheet in the British favour! Leakey's account seems a bit leaky.
And the 2nd Battalion 5th Panzer Regiment? So the Cruisers didn't actually manage to knock out any German tank that day.
So, the enemy waited until after the British had started firing at 800 yds. Any guess as to what range it was? Hardly use the 'outranged' argument here. And finding "soft spots" is precisely what they out to be doing. But also proves the 2-pdr was not completely "bloody useless".
Perhaps they hadn't seen the British tanks until they had opened fire and/or the Germans were not ready for the level of resistance "Colonel Olbrich, concluded his report on this operation with the comment : "Reports given to the regiment had led it to believe that the enemy would retire immediately on the approach of German tanks ."
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.
So evidence that Australian anti-tank gunners had also seen their shots bounce off enemy tanks. That supports Leakey.
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.
The tracer is specifically there so the projectile can be seen at the velocity at which it moves. What Leakey and the gunners probably saw, as Juha says "were the tracers. Either attached to the projectiles, or from some reason, torn off". What is clear is that those shots were hitting but having no effect on the German tanks.
"My orders to Milligan were not quite according to the book. 'Gunner, AP action, traverse right, traverse right, steady, on. Enemy tanks, eight hundred, and here's your cigarette. Now, for goodness sake, shoot straight.' Milligan's first shot was over the top of the Italian tank. I had overestimated the range. 'Drop half a target,' I shouted to Milligan, but as I did so, the next shot sped on its way, and this time it was a hit. 'Loaded,' yelled Adams, and Milligan fired again. On target again, and this time a telling hit, because the enemy crew were baling out, and their tank was on fire."
He knew about tank fighting.