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

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
User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

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

Post by Don Juan » 09 Dec 2018 13:16

Juha Tompuri wrote:
07 Dec 2018 21:36
Is there any more info about the sand filled shells?
I've not found much else, although I'm more sure that 1st Armoured Division in France during 1940 were firing mostly "plugged" APHE i.e. with the explosive charge removed and replaced with some form of filler. It may be the case that these were filled with sand in the desert purely because sand was so ubiquitous, and they may have used some other form of filler in the UK.

I also think this "plugging" was entirely an RAC initiative, as the RA seem to have retained live APHE for far longer - even into 1942.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 10 Dec 2018 14:53

MarkN wrote:
07 Dec 2018 17:50
Non-scientific, but very real testing conducted by Col Drew of 5RTR in Tobruk circa May 1941 using a very real 2-pdr fitted to a very real Cruiser Mk.IV against a very real Pz.IV with additional zusatzpanzerung (albeit a bit worse for wear having been left behind after the 14 April attack) produced the following results (my summarized wording):-
Broadside / 500 yds
All shots (6) penetrated side armor plate 40mm: 3 broke up inside after hitting internal fittings, 3 went straight through the opposite side (through 60mm total as 2nd side had additional 20mm plate removed)

Broadside / 700 yds
All shots (unknown) penetrated side armor plate 40mm and broke up on hitting far side penetrating 10-15mm.

Broadside / 1100 yds
All shots (unknown) penetrated side armor plate 40mm and broke up on hitting far side with negligeable penetration.

Head on / 500 yds
5 out of 6 rounds penetrated (just) frontal armour 30+30mm.
And a very real test a few weeks earlier in Tobruk by Captain Rea Leakey of 1RTR, this time against 'live' German tanks.

"Here, for the first time, my Regiment fought against German tanks. There were about fifteen of them, and we had the same number of cruisers. But we had an equal number of light tanks, which, although useless in a tank fight, could be used to distract the enemy and make him believe we were stronger than was in fact the case. We opened fire on them when they were within 800 yards of us, and we were disturbed to see our 2-pounder solid shots bouncing off their armour. But some of our shots found soft spots and the crew of their leading tank baled out. Then they opened fire on us and the battle was on.
"We were on one side of the perimeter defences, and the Germans were on the other; the Australians were in the middle, and we could hear them cheering us on. We were very relieved to see the Germans had started to withdraw as already they had brewed up three of our tanks and, we had only accounted for one of theirs. It was painfully obvious we were out-gunned by these tanks. When the action was over, I heard Milligan telling the other members of the crew that he had failed to brew up a single tank and yet he thought he was shooting as accurately as ever before. He had not seen his shots bouncing off the target and I did not enlighten him."

A three-to-one exchange rate between Panzers and Cruisers was actually pretty good.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2557
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 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.
Gooner1 wrote:
10 Dec 2018 14:53
And a very real test a few weeks earlier in Tobruk by Captain Rea Leakey of 1RTR, this time against 'live' German tanks.
"Here, for the first time, my Regiment fought against German tanks. There were about fifteen of them, and we had the same number of cruisers. But we had an equal number of light tanks, which, although useless in a tank fight, could be used to distract the enemy and make him believe we were stronger than was in fact the case. We opened fire on them when they were within 800 yards of us, and we were disturbed to see our 2-pounder solid shots bouncing off their armour. But some of our shots found soft spots and the crew of their leading tank baled out. Then they opened fire on us and the battle was on.
"We were on one side of the perimeter defences, and the Germans were on the other; the Australians were in the middle, and we could hear them cheering us on. We were very relieved to see the Germans had started to withdraw as already they had brewed up three of our tanks and, we had only accounted for one of theirs. It was painfully obvious we were out-gunned by these tanks. When the action was over, I heard Milligan telling the other members of the crew that he had failed to brew up a single tank and yet he thought he was shooting as accurately as ever before. He had not seen his shots bouncing off the target and I did not enlighten him."
A three-to-one exchange rate between Panzers and Cruisers was actually pretty good.
Leakey was an eyewitness. Eyewitsness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Especially when recounted decades after the event concerned...

"Here, for the first time, my Regiment fought against German tanks."
That will be 11 April 1941 inside the Tobruk defences near the el Adem road.

From then on, the account diverts from that written up in the 1RTR war diary, the 1RTR account of the engagement and the German contemporary documentation too.

The 1RTR WD indicates they 'lost' 2 pantsers (not 3) and that "4 enemy tanks were destroyed."

The 1RTR report indicates the the enemy consisted of: "2 Heavy Tanks", 8 M.13 and 20 CV.3. It states the 4 tanks "disabled" were a Heavy Tank, 2 M.13s and a CV.3.

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.

Additionally, it should be remembered that 1RTR's Cruiser Tanks were A9s. A pantser that was vulnerable to a custurd pie thrown by Coco the Clown. Moreover, even though they lost 2 pantsers during the engagement, at least one - perhaps both - were brought back into action later in the year.

"We opened fire on them when they were within 800 yards of us, and we were disturbed to see our 2-pounder solid shots bouncing off their armour. But some of our shots found soft spots and the crew of their leading tank baled out. Then they opened fire on us and the battle was on."

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. :lol: And finding "soft spots" is precisely what they out to be doing. But also proves the 2-pdr was not completely "bloody useless".

And finally, this myth needs dealing with again it seems.....
"We opened fire on them when they were within 800 yards of us, and we were disturbed to see our 2-pounder solid shots bouncing off their armour. "
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.
From this document:

Image . Image

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11552
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 10 Dec 2018 20:14

Don Juan wrote:
09 Dec 2018 13:16
Juha Tompuri wrote:
07 Dec 2018 21:36
Is there any more info about the sand filled shells?
I've not found much else, although I'm more sure that 1st Armoured Division in France during 1940 were firing mostly "plugged" APHE i.e. with the explosive charge removed and replaced with some form of filler. It may be the case that these were filled with sand in the desert purely because sand was so ubiquitous, and they may have used some other form of filler in the UK.

I also think this "plugging" was entirely an RAC initiative, as the RA seem to have retained live APHE for far longer - even into 1942.
Thank you very much.
Even don't understand the logic behind the explosive charge removal, and filling it with sand or something else.
Lead or tin would have been quite easy and better materials, if the goal was to increase the ammo weight.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11552
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 10 Dec 2018 20:36

triple post removed

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11552
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 10 Dec 2018 20:42

triple post removed

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11552
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 10 Dec 2018 20:43

MarkN wrote:
10 Dec 2018 18:14
And finally, this myth needs dealing with again it seems.....
"We opened fire on them when they were within 800 yards of us, and we were disturbed to see our 2-pounder solid shots bouncing off their armour. "
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.
From this document:

Image . Image
Yes, no-one could see the projectiles. What they saw were the tracers. Either attached to the projectiles, or from some reason, torn off.
If I understand correctly the target at the mentioned demonstration was made out of such of a materials, that no real bouncing was to be expected.

Regards, Juha

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

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

Post by Don Juan » 11 Dec 2018 13:49

Juha Tompuri wrote:
10 Dec 2018 20:14
Even don't understand the logic behind the explosive charge removal, and filling it with sand or something else.
Lead or tin would have been quite easy and better materials, if the goal was to increase the ammo weight.
The goal was just to convert the APHE into inert ammunition for training use only. It seems a bit of a waste, but I don't think there was a dedicated training round for the 2 pounder at this time (or ever), and as the APHE were considered obsolescent, at least by the RAC, these were the rounds that were chosen for training.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
Juha Tompuri
Forum Staff
Posts: 11552
Joined: 11 Sep 2002 20:02
Location: Mylsä

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

Post by Juha Tompuri » 11 Dec 2018 15:26

Thank you!

Regards, Juha

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 11 Dec 2018 18:02

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 :lol:
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. :wink:
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.

Leakey again:
"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.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 623
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

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

Post by Don Juan » 11 Dec 2018 22:08

Juha Tompuri wrote:
10 Dec 2018 20:43
Yes, no-one could see the projectiles. What they saw were the tracers. Either attached to the projectiles, or from some reason, torn off.
If I understand correctly the target at the mentioned demonstration was made out of such of a materials, that no real bouncing was to be expected.
The Australian experiment led to the proposition that the tracer on the 2 pounder shell most likely became detached when it hit the sand dunes at the back of the range.

This would lead me to posit that the "bouncing" shells seen in action were also instances of shells hitting sand dunes, or the sandy ground, after missing their target. This is because sand, unlike armour, would not have shattered the projectile, therefore making a "bounce" possible in the first place. I suspect that there was something in the nature of the sand that caused the shell to spin vertically and then kick upwards.

There is a contradiction between the claims that 2 pounder shells both "shattered" and "bounced" against German armour. If they were hard enough to bounce then they were too hard to shatter. And if they were too hard to shatter but didn't penetrate, then they couldn't have been pointy enough.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2557
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 12 Dec 2018 11:45

Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2018 18:02
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
I really don't see how a 30 year old newspaper obituary is going to explain away your schoolboy errors demonstrated in this thread.

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2018 18:02
I guess that is your get-out clause to all the veterans opinions.
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. They have immense historical value; the tend to lack historical accuracy.
Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2018 18:02
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.
Yes, I've been in more than one car accident. No, I cannot remember the day, the time, the month or the weather. I have a general recollection of the events.
Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2018 18:02
Extremely stressful events tend to sear themselves into the memory.
I have also been involved in combat. As in the car accidents, I have a general recollection of the events and some of the details. However, when I read back the reports that I made myself of the events at the time, the details in my memory for the most part do not match the reports.
Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2018 18:02
And the 2nd Battalion 5th Panzer Regiment? So the Cruisers didn't actually manage to knock out any German tank that day.
As I posted, it is not clear whether the 4 Ausfalle included or not any Pz.I from Pz.Regt.605. As regards 2./Pz.Regt.5 pansters, we have no documentary evidence that any were even hit. The nearest we have is the 1RTR report that claims 1 "heavy tank" destroyed - which presumably is their belief they hit something bigger than an Italian M.13 for which 2 were claimed that were not even there. This all, of course, further demonstrates the unreliability fo eyewitness reports.
Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2018 18:02
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 ."
A sentence which is a rather damning indicment of the performance of 2nd Armoured Division in the preceeding 12 days, not so?
Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2018 18:02
So evidence that Australian anti-tank gunners had also seen their shots bounce off enemy tanks. That supports Leakey.
It demonstrates the delusion was widespread. :roll:
Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2018 18:02
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.
More schoolboy errors.
Gooner1 wrote:
11 Dec 2018 18:02

Leakey again:
"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.
According to your posts, this "primitive" 2-pdr AP round has become rather complex. It shattered. It bounced. It did nothing. It had "no effect". It was "bloody useless". It set pantsers on fire. And on and on.... Did it bounce after shattering or did it shatter after bouncing? Did it set pantsers on fire whilst bouncing, whilst shattering, both, neither???? :roll:

The time delay between shots seem to me to suggest it was the second round, the first hit, that probably caused the fire and the need for the crew to bail out. But, since this is in an eyewitness account, the details are probably all rather fuzzy and thus best not to rely upon them for historical fact.

Nevertheless, most kind of you to show evidence of 2-pdr hurting German pantsers. They could do it. They did do it. The 2-pdr was not completely "bloody useless" as you seem to determined to believe and want to mislead others into believing as well.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 12 Dec 2018 13:56

MarkN wrote:
12 Dec 2018 11:45
I really don't see how a 30 year old newspaper obituary is going to explain away your schoolboy errors demonstrated in this thread.
I had a thought that reading a bit about Rea Leakey's career you might realise that he knew a lot more about tank fighting than someone even as conceited as yourself. Clearly I was wrong.
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. They have immense historical value; the tend to lack historical accuracy.
Participants accounts which lack the accuracy as to whether they were hitting and destroying enemy tanks or not? :lol:
I have also been involved in combat.
But don't remember it well?
Just asking to see if its only other veterans accounts you choose to disbelieve.
As I posted, it is not clear whether the 4 Ausfalle included or not any Pz.I from Pz.Regt.605. As regards 2./Pz.Regt.5 pansters, we have no documentary evidence that any were even hit. The nearest we have is the 1RTR report that claims 1 "heavy tank" destroyed - which presumably is their belief they hit something bigger than an Italian M.13 for which 2 were claimed that were not even there. This all, of course, further demonstrates the unreliability fo eyewitness reports.
The Australian OH has: "Three light and one medium Italian tanks were knocked out by the British tanks and a German medium tank was destroyed by gunfire; two British medium tanks were lost."
A sentence which is a rather damning indicment of the performance of 2nd Armoured Division in the preceeding 12 days, not so?
Not really. Rommel was expecting the British to be evacuating from Tobruk.
Only a massive overestimation of the size of the division and the quality of its tools could lead anyone to believe 2nd Support Group and 3rd Armoured Brigade could have done much better.
It demonstrates the delusion was widespread. :roll:
:lol: :lol: A 'delusion' that those doing the fighting shared seemed to share. It's only those further back who seemed to believe that the 2-pdr was effective and the further back you are, the more effective it has become.

According to your posts, this "primitive" 2-pdr AP round has become rather complex. It shattered. It bounced. It did nothing. It had "no effect". It was "bloody useless". It set pantsers on fire. And on and on.... Did it bounce after shattering or did it shatter after bouncing? Did it set pantsers on fire whilst bouncing, whilst shattering, both, neither???? :roll:

The time delay between shots seem to me to suggest it was the second round, the first hit, that probably caused the fire and the need for the crew to bail out. But, since this is in an eyewitness account, the details are probably all rather fuzzy and thus best not to rely upon them for historical fact.

Nevertheless, most kind of you to show evidence of 2-pdr hurting German pantsers. They could do it. They did do it. The 2-pdr was not completely "bloody useless" as you seem to determined to believe and want to mislead others into believing as well.
Dear dear, you have got yourself confused. I'll type it again with added bold.

"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."

Hits and kills Italian tanks. Hits but doesn't kill German tanks.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2557
Joined: 12 Jan 2015 13:34
Location: On the continent

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

Post by MarkN » 12 Dec 2018 14:52

Gooner1 wrote:
12 Dec 2018 13:56
MarkN wrote:
12 Dec 2018 11:45
I really don't see how a 30 year old newspaper obituary is going to explain away your schoolboy errors demonstrated in this thread.
I had a thought that reading a bit about Rea Leakey's career you might realise that he knew a lot more about tank fighting than someone even as conceited as yourself. Clearly I was wrong.
Indeed. Clearly you were wrong. Not just on what I would or wouldn't learn by reading the obituary, but also in your schoolboy error in thinking that deliberately diverting the discussion onto Rea Leakey's war record somehow mitigates your other schoolboy errors.

The problem is NOT Rea Leakey's war record, nor even his account of various events. The problem is the way you are approaching this discussion and your understanding of history.
Gooner1 wrote:
12 Dec 2018 13:56
Participants accounts which lack the accuracy as to whether they were hitting and destroying enemy tanks or not?
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable.
Gooner1 wrote:
12 Dec 2018 13:56
I have also been involved in combat.
But don't remember it well?
My memory is quite vivid. Sadly, my memory does not stand up to historical evidence that I wrote up at the time.
Gooner1 wrote:
12 Dec 2018 13:56
Just asking to see if its only other veterans accounts you choose to disbelieve.
As you can see, I attribute the exact same thoughts and beliefs to my own memories. I'm an equal opportunities commentator. :wink:
Gooner1 wrote:
12 Dec 2018 13:56
As I posted, it is not clear whether the 4 Ausfalle included or not any Pz.I from Pz.Regt.605. As regards 2./Pz.Regt.5 pansters, we have no documentary evidence that any were even hit. The nearest we have is the 1RTR report that claims 1 "heavy tank" destroyed - which presumably is their belief they hit something bigger than an Italian M.13 for which 2 were claimed that were not even there. This all, of course, further demonstrates the unreliability fo eyewitness reports.
The Australian OH has: "Three light and one medium Italian tanks were knocked out by the British tanks and a German medium tank was destroyed by gunfire; two British medium tanks were lost."
So. More evidence that Leakey's memory was a bit leaky. :lol:
Gooner1 wrote:
12 Dec 2018 13:56
It demonstrates the delusion was widespread.
A 'delusion' that those doing the fighting shared seemed to share. It's only those further back who seemed to believe that the 2-pdr was effective and the further back you are, the more effective it has become.
It was and is delusional to believe that one can see a non-moving 2-pdr round at anything over about 300 yards with the naked eye. To be able to see that same round moving at serious velocity is even more delusional. And, it is for that very reason, that tracer is attached to the rear of all manner of munitions; it given the observer a fighting chance of understanding the flight path of where his/her rounds are travelling.

When the tracer is observed to suddely veer in direction, the implication is that something has happened. But what that something is, is completely unknown to the observer as he/she simply cannot see the round itself. The tracer may have departed from the round inflight. The tracer may have departed from the round when it hit a tank and shattered. The tracer may have departed from the round when it hit a tank before penetration. The tracer may have departed from the round when it hit some other object - such as the ground. And so on and on and on and on....
Gooner1 wrote:
12 Dec 2018 13:56
Dear dear, you have got yourself confused. I'll type it again with added bold.
"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."
Hits and kills Italian tanks. Hits but doesn't kill German tanks.
Dear dear, you have got yourself confused.

Whilst it is true that your quote from Leakey may have nothing to do with 11 April 1941, you will recall that the 1RTR report claimed two Italian M.13s as destroyed. Even as late as Op Crusader, RTR personnel were misidentifying German pantsers and other targets as M.13: 6RTR claim they destroyed several M.13 and Pz.II at Sidi Rezegh when historical reality shows it was Pz.Jag.I of Pz.Jag.605 again. Now, I appreciate this is rather confusing for you to grasp, but eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable; RTR often claimed Italian when it was German. On the otherhand, Scott-Cockburn claimed German pantsers in Bir el Gubi which were not there!!!!

Nevertheless, whether Italian or German pantsers are claimed, it demonstrates that the 2-pdr and AP round were not "bloody useless". Furthermore, if it was indeed and Italian pantser that caught fire, then it seems to suggest that the fire issue had more to do with the internal admin etc of the pantser not the projectile.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2760
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 12:24
Location: London

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

Post by Gooner1 » 12 Dec 2018 15:50

MarkN wrote:
12 Dec 2018 14:52
Indeed. Clearly you were wrong. Not just on what I would or wouldn't learn by reading the obituary, but also in your schoolboy error in thinking that deliberately diverting the discussion onto Rea Leakey's war record somehow mitigates your other schoolboy errors.
The problem is NOT Rea Leakey's war record, nor even his account of various events. The problem is the way you are approaching this discussion and your understanding of history.
Have to say I find the arrogance and hypocrisy in that really quite funny! :lol:
My memory is quite vivid. Sadly, my memory does not stand up to historical evidence that I wrote up at the time.
As you can see, I attribute the exact same thoughts and beliefs to my own memories. I'm an equal opportunities commentator. :wink:
Rather you attribute your own failings in memory as being exact same shared by everyone else :wink:

So. More evidence that Leakey's memory was a bit leaky. :lol:
Nah, not really. Leakey recalls "we were disturbed to see our 2-pounder solid shots bouncing off their armour. But some of our shots found soft spots and the crew of their leading tank baled out."
The 'our shots' just came from somewhere else (probably), that he wasn't aware of, possibly one of the Italian 47mm anti-tank guns being manned by Australians.
It was and is delusional to believe that one can see a non-moving 2-pdr round at anything over about 300 yards with the naked eye.
To be able to see that same round moving at serious velocity is even more delusional. And, it is for that very reason, that tracer is attached to the rear of all manner of munitions; it given the observer a fighting chance of understanding the flight path of where his/her rounds are travelling.
Do you honestly think that anyone reading this, isn't aware of that?
When the tracer is observed to suddely veer in direction, the implication is that something has happened. But what that something is, is completely unknown to the observer as he/she simply cannot see the round itself. The tracer may have departed from the round inflight. The tracer may have departed from the round when it hit a tank and shattered. The tracer may have departed from the round when it hit a tank before penetration. The tracer may have departed from the round when it hit some other object - such as the ground. And so on and on and on and on....
Yes it could be caused by anything, anything at all. Anything at all that is, apart from what a veteran tanker took it to be, his shots bouncing from an enemy tank.
Whilst it is true that your quote from Leakey may have nothing to do with 11 April 1941,
Correct. That account was during Operation Compass. It establishes Leakey as someone who knows what their talking about.
And also the 2-pdr was not useless when fighting Italian tanks.

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