Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
Brady
Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 22:02
Location: Oregon

Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Brady » 21 Jan 2020 00:29

Hi-

Its long been my understanding that Matty's only Had one type of 2 pdr ammo, in the BOF, that being AP, no HE, but what AP round exactly did they have ?

From Fletcher's book:

Image

Presumably, but I am not sure:

Image

Can anyone clear this up for me ?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3041
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Jan 2020 01:51

Not sure who came up with that, but 2-pdr HE began production in late 1942 when 40,000 rounds were produced, followed by 474,000 in 1943 and 304,000 in 1944 when production stopped.

The original AP was known as an "AP Shell" with 562,000 produced. I suspect it is missing from your table since it was only produced from January 1936-sometime in 1938.

It was replaced by the AP Shot Mk I sometime in 1938 with 337,000 rounds produced prewar. At the same time the HE filler from the AP Shell was removed and it was refilled with inert material in hopes of improving its performance.

The AP Shot Supercharge began production in September 1942.

APCBC began production in December 1942 and the Littlejohn Mk I in January 1943. Littlejohn Mk II began production in May 1944.

So if you are looking at Matilda in France and the Western Desert they probably all had either AP Shot Mk I or AP Shell Mk I (probably with inert filler).
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Brady
Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 22:02
Location: Oregon

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Brady » 21 Jan 2020 02:12

TY, so the Correct Nomenclature for the BOF era round would be:

AP Shell

or

AP Shot MK I

?

Was there a performance difference between the two, or was the later simply a Solid version of the former, and the Former was Filled by this time any way ?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3041
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Jan 2020 04:34

Brady wrote:
21 Jan 2020 02:12
TY, so the Correct Nomenclature for the BOF era round would be:

AP Shell

or

AP Shot MK I
Yes. I would guess the Shell was probably designated Mk I as well. The thing I am not sure of is if they ever deployed the filled shell or the inert shell.
Was there a performance difference between the two, or was the later simply a Solid version of the former, and the Former was Filled by this time any way ?
Indeed. The reason they dropped the Shell was due to its poor performance. One of the problems with AP-HE is fuze performance. If the fuze actuates too early it usually will not penetrate, but keeping the fuze intact and functioning after penetration was difficult too...it was a huge problem later in the war for US APC projectiles. There is also the question of how much damage a 20 gram explosive charge would do over what a 907 gram solid shot smashing about would do. The shell was also more complicated to manufacture, so it was decided to drop it in 1938.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Brady
Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 22:02
Location: Oregon

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Brady » 21 Jan 2020 16:55

So, just to be clear, the AP Shot MK I, had a tracer?

And this would then be the Correct Penetration value:

Image

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3041
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Richard Anderson » 21 Jan 2020 17:05

Brady wrote:
21 Jan 2020 16:55
So, just to be clear, the AP Shot MK I, had a tracer?
Yep.
And this would then be the Correct Penetration value:
The figures I have seen are (100 yds/500 yds/1000 yds/2000 yds)

Shell Mk I - 50/42/36/0
Shot Mk I - 56/46/38/22
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

Brady
Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 22:02
Location: Oregon

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Brady » 21 Jan 2020 17:40

Ok, What's to source if I might ask for the pen values, and TY again btw

Peasant
Member
Posts: 256
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 17:21
Location: Italy

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Peasant » 21 Jan 2020 20:23

There is no reason to assume that 2pdr AP Shot would've been penetrating less in 1940 than it was in 1944.
Therefore, I trust this chart more than the wikipedia values:

Image

Brady
Member
Posts: 1022
Joined: 10 Jul 2008 22:02
Location: Oregon

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Brady » 21 Jan 2020 21:18

Image

Assuming they are actually the same round though, this suggests (Above) that they stopped producing them in 43, and the AP shot (0), was not the same ?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 3041
Joined: 01 Jan 2016 21:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Richard Anderson » 22 Jan 2020 02:03

Brady wrote:
21 Jan 2020 21:18
Image

Assuming they are actually the same round though, this suggests (Above) that they stopped producing them in 43, and the AP shot (0), was not the same ?
AP Shot (o) were for overseas deliveries...its in the legend on the table. I suspect they did not keep a record in 1941...British records are like that, you don't even want to begin to get into the tank production records. Anyway, yes, its the same thing since I also suspect the source for that table did not differentiate between AP Shot Mk I and AP Shot Mk I Supercharge.
"Is all this pretentious pseudo intellectual citing of sources REALLY necessary? It gets in the way of a good, spirited debate, destroys the cadence." POD, 6 October 2018

critical mass
Member
Posts: 602
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by critical mass » 22 Jan 2020 22:21

Peasant wrote:
21 Jan 2020 20:23
There is no reason to assume that 2pdr AP Shot would've been penetrating less in 1940 than it was in 1944.
Therefore, I trust this chart more than the wikipedia values:

Image
A *best* quality shot may, on the other hand, stay intact at higher striking velocity \ target thickness than an average quality shot and thus effect higher penetration.

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Mobius » 23 Jan 2020 13:23

Peasant wrote:
21 Jan 2020 20:23
There is no reason to assume that 2pdr AP Shot would've been penetrating less in 1940 than it was in 1944.
Here's a firing table of those rounds.
Though I don't know the time period. The earliest of these tables and graphs seem to date from mid 1943. That is when the Mk X appears.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 602
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by critical mass » 25 Jan 2020 18:06

Acc. to SUPP 6/910 p.63, Tab.8 (originally classified SECRET, dated 1950)

perforation of 2pdr firing APCBC:
0 yards: 81mm RHA at normal and 66mm RHA at 30° attack
500 yards: 71mm normal and 58mm at 30° attack
1000 yards: 61mm normal and 50mm at 30° attack
2000 yards: 46mm normal and 38mm at 30° attack

User avatar
Mobius
Member
Posts: 550
Joined: 12 Jan 2005 20:45
Location: Glendale, CA

Re: Matty's and the AP ammo in the BOF

Post by Mobius » 26 Jan 2020 00:52

Brady wrote:
21 Jan 2020 00:29
Hi-
Image
Can anyone clear this up for me ?
^10. Bird, Lorrin; Lingston, Robert (2001). World War II Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery. Albany, NY USA: Overmatch
There's some fakery going on here. I have 2 editions of this book and there is not a table of 30° penetration values. Only 0°. Plus, wiki should at least use original UK sources and not calculated figures.

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”