The German 50 mm. Tank Gun and the Crusader Problems

[MarkN]

...ergo what? Being a more effective piece of equipment does not mean it will be more effective on the battlefield.

Ergo, with the 6-pdr instead of the 2-pdr the Germans would run out of tanks faster.
More effective equipment generally means it will be more effective on the battlefield.

Ergo, the gooners were/are guaranteed better results when Lacazette replaced Perez and Aubameyang replaced Giroud.

If only it were that simple. :roll:

[ClintHardware]

I think that the main problem with the 2 pdr was the primitive solid shot ammunition.

A.P.-Shot for the 2-Pdr had been well tested and was tested several times more during 1941/42. It was good and the materials used were not primitive. Its ogive was efficient for most expected angles of impact but its calibre left it more prone to shatter than other larger calibres at the same impact velocities. Shatter was also dependent on impact angle, thickness and composition of armour struck. Shatter against Face Hardened armour was not automatically induced.

[Urmel]

The results in Libya and the Western Desert 1941-42 have little to do with "the lack of adequate anti tank weapons in North Africa". I doubt the results would have been much - if at all - different if all of the 2-pdrs were replaced one-for-one with 6-pdr or even 17-pdr. Not that it was possible, of course. Thus, the argument about whether the 3" could have been better utilized seems to me to be a complete red herring.

I disagree. The battles in the desert were decided by armour attrition. The side that ran out of tanks first had to retreat. The 6-pdr was a vastly more effective anti-armour weapon than the 2-pdr, ergo ..

The battles were decided by leadership and supply. The gun question is just a sad excuse for the massive leadership failure on the British side. The British side did run out of tanks first in CRUSADER. They still won the battle, because The Auk outgeneralled Rommel by a wide margin, and because Malta delivered a massive blow to the Axis supplies.

[Urmel]

...ergo what? Being a more effective piece of equipment does not mean it will be more effective on the battlefield.

Ergo, with the 6-pdr instead of the 2-pdr the Germans would run out of tanks faster.

More effective equipment generally means it will be more effective on the battlefield. 7th Support Group with 6-pdrs at Sidi Rezegh and the battle could resemble the action at Snipe. The Axis panzer 'charge' on Totensonntag could become a bloody shambles like that of 6th RTR two days earlier.

Wrong way round. Snipe resembled 7 Indian Brigade’s action at Sidi Omar on 25 November 41.

[David W]

Clint.

We are not talking about the same round. The one I refer to is solid shot, the one you refer to is capped AP.

My understanding is that the latter was not available until August of 1942, some way after this timeframe.

Kind Regards,
David.

[Gooner1]

Wrong way round. Snipe resembled 7 Indian Brigade’s action at Sidi Omar on 25 November 41.

Artillery in the area of 7th Indian Brigade 25th November 1941: 25th Field Regiment, 68th Medium Regiment, battery 2nd South African Anti-Tank Regiment, troop of 57th LAA battery.
German declared losses 18 tanks.

Action at Snipe: 2nd Rifle Brigade with 13 6-pdrs, 239th Anti-Tank battery with 6 6-pdrs.
Axis armour losses from 37 to 57.

Rather proves the point about the effectiveness of the 6-pdr.

[Gooner1]

The gun question is just a sad excuse for the massive leadership failure on the British side. The British side did run out of tanks first in CRUSADER. They still won the battle, because The Auk outgeneralled Rommel by a wide margin, and because Malta delivered a massive blow to the Axis supplies.

[/quote]

Bit old fashioned to ignore the inadequacy of the materiel. I wonder how you square Auchinleck out-generally Rommel by a wide margin with the 'massive leadership failure on the British side'?
The British certainly were running out of tanks first - then Rommel decided on the 'dash to the wire'.

[Gooner1]

Ergo, the gooners were/are guaranteed better results when Lacazette replaced Perez and Aubameyang replaced Giroud.

Wouldn't know about that. In my era, Hartson and Wright were superseded by Bergkamp and Henry ..

[ClintHardware]

Clint.

We are not talking about the same round. The one I refer to is solid shot, the one you refer to is capped AP.

My understanding is that the latter was not available until August of 1942, some way after this timeframe.

Kind Regards,
David.

Hi David
Thanks for your come back on this point. I was referring to A.P.Shot and have been looking at various records relating to it at Kew. Can you say where I am wrong on this point? I am keen to be corrected on this.
Clint

[David W]

Hi Clint.

I think that you are assuming that the A.P. Shot was in use during Crusader. whereas I am suggesting that the solid shot was the only option available to the gunners at that time. Your A.P. Shot was not available until 08/42 as I understand it.

It's a question of dates I think, rather than who's right and who's wrong.

Kind Regards,
David.

[Urmel]

The gun question is just a sad excuse for the massive leadership failure on the British side. The British side did run out of tanks first in CRUSADER. They still won the battle, because The Auk outgeneralled Rommel by a wide margin, and because Malta delivered a massive blow to the Axis supplies.

Bit old fashioned to ignore the inadequacy of the materiel. I wonder how you square Auchinleck out-generally Rommel by a wide margin with the 'massive leadership failure on the British side'?
The British certainly were running out of tanks first - then Rommel decided on the 'dash to the wire'.[/quote]

I’m not ignoring it, I’m putting it in context.

Leadership is more than one man. The whole system was rotten. One individual’s brilliance was not enough to rescue it.

[yantaylor]

Going on some of the data knocking around, the best towed anti-tank gun from 1939/40 was the US 37mm M3.

37mm M3
58mm @ 500m @ 30°

Canon De 47 Antichar SA Modèle 1937
50mm @ 500m @ 30°

QF 2 pdr
47mm @ 500m @ 30°

37mm Type 01
44mm @ 500m @ 30°

45mm M.1937
43mm @ 90° @ 500m

47/32 Modello 35
35mm @ 500m @ 30°

37mm m/36 Bofors
33mm @ 500m @ 30°

3.7cm Pak 36
31mm @ 500m @ 30°

By the way does anyone have similar states on the Belgian FRC 47mm anti-tank gun?

Yan.

[Dili]

Certainly not the 37mm M3 i don't believe in miracles. It had less muzzle than 2Pdr.

The best gun of that list is probably the French gun which btw was a rather heavy gun of 1ton. But even that is controversial since there the tests/sources give different data: from french wiki:https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_ant ... %A8le_1937

elle perce 106 mm à 100 m, 89 mm à 500 m, 72 mm à 1 000 m, 57 mm à 1 500 m sous 0°.

les essais allemands donnent 57 mm à 100 m, 50 mm à 500 m, 42 mm à 1 000 m et 36 mm à 1 500 m sous 30°, des performances très proches de celles du 5-cm PaK 38.

The Italian 47 had a weight 1/3 of that at 315kg for example.

There is also the Skoda guns that are missing like the 40mm Skoda A17 that could fire Bofors rounds and Skoda 47mm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4,7cm_KP%C3%9AV_vz._38

[Urmel]

Wrong way round. Snipe resembled 7 Indian Brigade’s action at Sidi Omar on 25 November 41.

Artillery in the area of 7th Indian Brigade 25th November 1941: 25th Field Regiment, 68th Medium Regiment, battery 2nd South African Anti-Tank Regiment, troop of 57th LAA battery.
German declared losses 18 tanks.

Action at Snipe: 2nd Rifle Brigade with 13 6-pdrs, 239th Anti-Tank battery with 6 6-pdrs.
Axis armour losses from 37 to 57.

Rather proves the point about the effectiveness of the 6-pdr.

Needs to look at total number of attacking tanks, losses as share of that. I’m not aware of the mediums being much engaged.

[ClintHardware]

Hi Clint.

I think that you are assuming that the A.P. Shot was in use during Crusader. whereas I am suggesting that the solid shot was the only option available to the gunners at that time. Your A.P. Shot was not available until 08/42 as I understand it.

It's a question of dates I think, rather than who's right and who's wrong.

Kind Regards,
David.

Hi David
In terms of type of ammunition and availability this is what I have so far:
I encountered a unit war diary recently that referred to using some 2-Pdr APHE in June 1941 so some was still available but that the majority of rounds being fired by British tank crews and British and Commonwealth anti-tank units was apparently the fully solid and inert 2-Pdr A.P. Shot. The APHE was no longer issued to frontline units in order that the slight penetration advantage of a solid AP-Shot was available. However some discussion was taking place about using it against anti-tank guns (Blagden's report IIRC) where the small HE element might detonate after penetrating the gun shield to eliminate the crew. So far I have not seen any evidence that it happened in action and have not seen any deliberate choice between 2-Pdr APHE and 2-Pdr A.P. Shot because of a type of target.

In terms of availability of types of ammunition I posted this data on a another tropic recently and its from AVIA 46/187 British Tank and Anti-Tank Guns and Ammunition.

The data is of Complete Rounds that had past inspection and all were "Home" deliveries which I imagine is to UK depots for issue onwards to units. None of the numbers below were quoted in the Overseas Delivery column. The dates and types (if there were no other sources) seem to be the base line to include or exclude specific types from specific actions and time would have been taken in shipping to overseas theatres, if at all. Thousands of rounds were produced after these dates but I wanted to give you at least the first quantities in the first quarters they were issued in the UK.

Gun............Amn.........1st Prod Qnty...First Qtr Issued
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2-Pdr...........HE..........20,000 .........July-Sept 42
2-Pdr.......... APCBC......4,000...........Jan - Mar 43
2-Pdr.......... SV...........5,000...........Jan - Mar 43
6-Pdr..........APC.........92,000...........Jan - Mar 43
6-Pdr..........APCBC......24,000...........Apr - Jun 43
6-Pdr..........HE..........18,000............Oct - Dec 43
6-Pdr..........APDS.......37,000............Apr - Jun 44
17-Pdr........APDS.......11,000............July - Sept 44
95mm.........ATHC......38,000............Oct - Dec 44 (I assume this must be HEAT)

The above seems to exclude 2-Pdr APC being issued. It also excludes 2-Pdr APCBC from being present in any North Africa fighting, and 95mm HEAT not present in Normandy, but seems to make possible 6-Pdr APDS in Normandy and perhaps 17-Pdr APDS by July/August 1944.

David on this basis it seems that 2-Pdr A.P.-Shot was probably the only 2-Pdr ammunition supplied to units in the field in North Africa once the last of the APHE had been fired off.

I was surprised and disappointed about 2-Pdr APCBC not being present - but perhaps another contemporary official source can rule it in instead of out.

2-Pdr A.P.-Shot was simple compared to APCBC but I don't think the metallurgists who studied composition and shatter and the testing engineers would have called it primitive.

Dili asked about 2-Pdr HV (the extra propellant charge in the cartridge case) being present - I'll check my notes later this week. Not sure I have a definite answer in respect of in the field rather than sitting in a UK depot. I hope it got into the field.