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
MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 04 Jan 2019 15:14

Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 14:55
""Firing trials were then held against the Crusader II, which was found to give much less protection than had been expected of a tank on a '50-mm armour basis'"
Bolded for you benefit.

Are you being disingenuous or just a bit thick?

The pantsers on the '50-mm armour basis' were NOT in theatre during 1941. Thus the comparison is one of your time-shift irrelevancies. Quite ljadwesque. :roll:
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 14:55
Now, I suggest you do an analysis of how many Pz.III and Pz.IV from Pz.Regt.5 and Pz.Regt.8 had the additional Zusatzpanzerung and how many had the same basic armour as seen in France in May and June 1940. Those were the pantsers faced throughout 1941 - which, of course, is the relevant timeframe including Op CRUSADER.
If you have precise numbers then please post them. Otherwise don't waste my time, the answer to how many PzIIIs and IVs were uparmoured by Crusader is most of them. And that would be a max. of 62mm armour, not 50mm.
Are you being disingenuous or just a bit thick?

The exact number is not known by me, but Jentz indicates an approximation. Find it yourself.

And back to the flat-earth approach. Not one of the German pantsers during 1941 had 62mm armor all round. The majority of every pantser remained at 20mm or 30mm RHA. Not even facehardened.
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 14:55
And don't forget, the shooting trials conducted within Tobruk on a Pz.IV with Zusatzpanzerung in May 1941 demonstrated the 2-pdr was able to defeat it.
Just the sort of tests likely to mislead as I referred to. What was the condition of the tank, what was the condition of the plate, was it a fair hit on an uncracked plate, what was the likely post penetration effect of the hit on the tank?
Are you being disingenuous or just a bit thick?

You dismiss the official British penetration tests as flawed as they were not conducted on real pantsers taken from the battlefield.

On the otherhand, you promote the Russian penetration tests without any caveats because it was on a real pantser taken from the battlefield.

And now you decide to find ways to dismiss evidence of British penetration tests on a real pantser taken from the battlefield. :roll:

How strange.

You're clearly not interested in historical realities, you just want to convince yourself of your historical fallacies.
Last edited by MarkN on 04 Jan 2019 15:28, edited 1 time in total.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 04 Jan 2019 15:19

Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:10
This bit, already quoted: "A and D Companies watched a brief duel at 900 yards' range between an anti-tank troop and thirty tanks to the south which the tanks won. The next phase was a systematic destruction by the tanks of the rocky sangars of 1 Essex, "
That came after the German pantsers had approached to within 300 yds. Hmmmmm!
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:10
This bit, already quoted: "A and D Companies watched a brief duel at 900 yards' range between an anti-tank troop and thirty tanks to the south which the tanks won. The next phase was a systematic destruction by the tanks of the rocky sangars of 1 Essex, "
In the real world, not the flat-earth projection that you adhere to, the 2-pdr was effective beyond 900yds.

Nevertheless, pleased with the continued baby steps as earlier in this thread you were claiming the engagment was over 2,000yds.
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:10
And since you clearly don't remember tests against the previous model H"s "extra plates proved to have great power of resistance. The fact that they were face-hardened was not realized by the British until March 1942, when trials of the Grant’s 75-mm gun were being carried out against a captured Pzkw III. The discovery led to further tests. The plates were found to break up the 2-pdr uncapped shot at all ranges, and gave protection against the 6-pdr and the Grant’s 75-mm at anything over 500 yards. It was some consolation that after one or two hits the securing bolts (or more probably, studs) began to split or shear off."
Was the face-hardened plate all round the German pantser? Or is this just a continuation of your flat-earth projection?

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2055
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 » 04 Jan 2019 15:45

MarkN wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:14

Am I being disingenuous or am I just a bit thick?

The pantsers on the '50-mm armour basis' were NOT in theatre during 1941. Thus the comparison is one of your time-shift irrelevancies. Quite ljadwesque. :roll:
Both I expect! :lol:

One more time, although your comprehension fail is so hilarious and so complete that I am tempted to keep it!

""Firing trials were then held against the Crusader II, which was found to give much less protection than had been expected of a tank on a '50-mm armour basis'"
The exact number is not known by me, but Jentz indicates an approximation. Find it yourself.
Both again
So you don't know and Jentz is guessing :lol: :lol:

The British Official History, states "It is not possible to tell what proportion of up-armoured tanks fought during 'Crusader' but subsequent examination of the battlefield suggested that there had been a considerable number"

You dismiss the official British penetration tests as flawed as they were not conducted on real pantsers taken from the battlefield.
Nope, they are to be qualified in that they were not against the type of armour the Germans were using.
On the otherhand, you promote the Russian penetration tests without any caveats because it was on a real pantser taken from the battlefield.
The Soviet tests were conducted without an agenda. They matched the later British tests against the German tank armour.
Therefore they confirm eachother and the historical evidence.
And now you decide to find ways to dismiss evidence of British penetration tests on a real pantser taken from the battlefield. :roll:
Yep, don't trust it. In the Tobruk battle(s) British tankers (and Australian anti-tank gunners) had seen their shot have little effect and bounce off German tanks. Or bounce off and have little effect against German tanks. This is reflected in the low number of German tank losses.

Colonel comes along, Boom-Boom, blabla.
I am clearly not interested in historical realities, I just want to convince myself of historical fallacies.

Agreed :thumbsup:

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2055
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 » 04 Jan 2019 16:24

From the Australian Official History:

The 15th Armoured Division, which was to carry out the thrust through Ed Duda, contained the main tank strength of the Africa Corps. The principal formations taking part were the 8th Tank Regiment (both battalions), the 115th Infantry Regiment and the 200th Infantry Regiment. The transport of about half the 115th Regiment got bogged near Bir Salem, however, and the 200th attacked "Doc" (previously Dalby Square) instead of Ed Duda, so that only about a battalion of the 115th participated in the attack on Ed Duda . About 1 p.m. the 15th Armoured Division began forming up to attack Ed Duda from the west . Captain Salt of the 1st R.H.A's Chestnut Troop broadcast a running description of their deployment and approach, and of the early development of the battle . The first German assault on the westernmost positions of the 1 /Essex was thrown back by the infantry and anti-tank gunners. Colonel O'Carroll of the 4th Royal Tank Regiment ordered all tanks to the top of Ed Duda and those at hand went with him; about eight, including some acting as armoured command posts for the 1st R.H.A., went on to the main feature. For a time the German tanks stood off and bombarded the pits and sangars of the Essex infantry, neutralised their machine and anti-tank guns and cleared the minefields with patrols. Captain Salt's tank was hit and he was killed . Major Goschen's tank was also knocked out ; Captain Armitage rescued him and his crew. This disorganised the artillery support, and about 4.30 p.m. the enemy started closing in from the west.
'It was late in the afternoon, and the sun was behind them. Three of our tanks
came up on the side of our position, later joined by a fourth. They were Matildas .
They started withdrawing in pairs, firing as they went . As the heavy tanks got
nearer the position, the German light Mk IIs. moved up on our flank, and swept
the area with machine-gun fire . . . . Some posts continued firing. The German
tanks, twenty of them, fanned out and formed a line right across the middle of the
battalion position. Our four tanks had cleverly withdrawn behind us to a hulls-down
position. . . . It was starting to get dark . . . they had halted just short of where
our tanks could engage them.'

Taking into account eyewitness variation nothing there to contradict what appears in the New Zealand OH or the 'Notes From Theatres of War'.

Interesting to note that in none of the accounts are there any claims on German tanks though the British themselves had definitely two and possibly four tanks hit.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 04 Jan 2019 16:41

Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:45
MarkN wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:14
The pantsers on the '50-mm armour basis' were NOT in theatre during 1941. Thus the comparison is one of your time-shift irrelevancies. Quite ljadwesque.
One more time, although your comprehension fail is so hilarious and so complete that I am tempted to keep it!

""Firing trials were then held against the Crusader II, which was found to give much less protection than had been expected of a tank on a '50-mm armour basis'"

You are being disingenuous and showing yourself to be very thick? So ljadwesque!!!!

The Crusader II did not have 50mm armour - QED it offered less protection than a pantser on a '50-mm armour basis'. That is self-explanatory to all but the uber-dense!

So why is there referrence to a pantser on a '50-mm armour basis'? Oh yes, simple. It is comparing the Crusader II to the German pantsers encountered during the Gazala battles in 1942. Pantsers that were not extant in North Africa during 1941.

Typical ljadw tactic. Misdirect with time-shift irrelevancies.
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:45
The exact number is not known by me, but Jentz indicates an approximation. Find it yourself.
So you don't know and Jentz is guessing

The British Official History, states "It is not possible to tell what proportion of up-armoured tanks fought during 'Crusader' but subsequent examination of the battlefield suggested that there had been a considerable number"
So you don't know and the British Official History is guessing. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What 'considerable' means in this context is anybody's guess.
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:45
You dismiss the official British penetration tests as flawed as they were not conducted on real pantsers taken from the battlefield.
Nope, they are to be qualified in that they were not against the type of armour the Germans were using.
Yet, as pointed out by DonJuan many pages ago, the British tests gave remarkably similar results to the German tests against the type of armor that they were indeed using.
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:45
On the otherhand, you promote the Russian penetration tests without any caveats because it was on a real pantser taken from the battlefield.
The Soviet tests were conducted without an agenda.
Are you suggesting that Colonel Drew conducted his tests with an agenda? If so, what do you think it was. :roll:
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 15:45
They matched the later British tests against the German tank armour.
Therefore they confirm eachother and the historical evidence.
Both the British tests (all of them) and the Russian tests were valid and accurate. That really is not hard to understand if you move away from your flat-earth understanding of the world.

PS.
You are clearly not interested in historical realities, you just want to convince yourself of historical fallacies.
This can also be seen in your first post today where you cherry pick from the NZ narrative a small excerpt mentionning 7th Armoured Division. Why? Because to support your opinions, beliefs and position, you have to generate a what if scenario involving Cruiser Tanks.
The El Duda engagment was the example that you presented. It is a great case study to analyse for the subject matter of this thread. And yet, instead of using the narrative of what happened, the only point you chose to make was based on creating an imaginary what if scenario. Again, you are clearly not interested in historical realities, you just want to convince yourself of historical fallacies.
Last edited by MarkN on 04 Jan 2019 17:03, edited 1 time in total.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 04 Jan 2019 17:02

Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 16:24
From the Australian Official History:
The 15th Armoured Division, which was to carry out the thrust through Ed Duda, contained the main tank strength of the Africa Corps. The principal formations taking part were the 8th Tank Regiment (both battalions), the 115th Infantry Regiment and the 200th Infantry Regiment. The transport of about half the 115th Regiment got bogged near Bir Salem, however, and the 200th attacked "Doc" (previously Dalby Square) instead of Ed Duda, so that only about a battalion of the 115th participated in the attack on Ed Duda . About 1 p.m. the 15th Armoured Division began forming up to attack Ed Duda from the west . Captain Salt of the 1st R.H.A's Chestnut Troop broadcast a running description of their deployment and approach, and of the early development of the battle . The first German assault on the westernmost positions of the 1 /Essex was thrown back by the infantry and anti-tank gunners. Colonel O'Carroll of the 4th Royal Tank Regiment ordered all tanks to the top of Ed Duda and those at hand went with him; about eight, including some acting as armoured command posts for the 1st R.H.A., went on to the main feature. For a time the German tanks stood off and bombarded the pits and sangars of the Essex infantry, neutralised their machine and anti-tank guns and cleared the minefields with patrols. Captain Salt's tank was hit and he was killed . Major Goschen's tank was also knocked out ; Captain Armitage rescued him and his crew. This disorganised the artillery support, and about 4.30 p.m. the enemy started closing in from the west.
'It was late in the afternoon, and the sun was behind them. Three of our tanks
came up on the side of our position, later joined by a fourth. They were Matildas .
They started withdrawing in pairs, firing as they went . As the heavy tanks got
nearer the position, the German light Mk IIs. moved up on our flank, and swept
the area with machine-gun fire . . . . Some posts continued firing. The German
tanks, twenty of them, fanned out and formed a line right across the middle of the
battalion position. Our four tanks had cleverly withdrawn behind us to a hulls-down
position. . . . It was starting to get dark . . . they had halted just short of where
our tanks could engage them.'
Taking into account eyewitness variation ....
Another baby step. Eyewitness have variations to their accounts. :thumbsup:
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 16:24
... nothing there to contradict what appears in the New Zealand OH or the 'Notes From Theatres of War'.
This account dovetails in most details the NZ narrative. It also has a more detailed description of how the Germans prepared (combined arms effort) for their main pantser assault which gets closer to your 'Notes From Theatres of War'. However, it also says, "The first German assault on the westernmost positions of the 1/Essex was thrown back by the infantry and anti-tank gunners.". A key element for some reason ignored by your 'Notes From Theatres of War'.

They all fail to mention AR.33 who were doing most of the bombardment - I guess ignored because the eyewitness can only see the pantsers not the field artillery which is lobbing indirectly. It was not so much that the Pz.IV (and Pz.III) were clearing away the ATk and infantry outposts, but that they were getting some serious incoming from big guns further back. Also, the NZ narrative notes the effectiveness of the 20mm guns of the Pz.II in clearing these posts out. That latter point seems to be stolen from the RTC handbook on how to do panser warfare without help.

The actual combat reports and war diary entries paint a bit of a different picture and the Australian narrative seems partly to be parrotting a post-engagment write-up by a higher formation not present at the engagment itself.
Gooner1 wrote:
04 Jan 2019 16:24
Interesting to note that in none of the accounts are there any claims on German tanks though the British themselves had definitely two and possibly four tanks hit.
The Germans lost - lost as in permanently - 1 x Pz.II, 1 x Pz.III and 2 x Pz.IV. How many others were KO'd but dragged off the battlefield to be patched up and fight another day is unknown.

PS.
Some Cruiser Tanks of 1RTR were sent to "Dalby Square" to see off the Krad.Sch.Btn.15 effort. Do you want to widen the discussion to that too?

User avatar
MarkF617
Member
Posts: 193
Joined: 16 Jun 2014 21:11
Location: United Kingdom

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

Post by MarkF617 » 04 Jan 2019 21:04

Some info on the Carrier. Churchill. 3in. 20cwt taken from Mr Churchill's tank. The British Infantry Tank Mark IV by David Fletcher:

Page 69:

"Early in July a wooden mock-up was nearly complete although arguments had broken out between the Director of Artillery and the Department of Tank Design over whose responsibility it was. On 25th July 1941 a contract for 100 "Tanks A22 Special type (Churchill 3" 20 cwt Self Propelled Mounting)" was issued in favour of Vauxhall motors. But it was agreed that Vauxhalls, having built the pilot model, would sub-contract the assembly work. Investigations by the Tank Board in December revealed that work on the project had almost ceased and Vauxhalls claimed they had been told to drop the scheme. No such order being traced by Sir George Usher, the Director General of Tank Supply, announced that 24 of the guns should be completed as quickly as possible and within days the order had been official (sic) reduced to 24 machines. In January 1942 it was revised again to 50; that is one pilot model and 49 production machines to be assembled by Beyer Peacock & Company of the Gorton Foundry Manchester, a firm famous for constructing the huge Garratt articulated steam locomotives. All 50 were completed by November 1942 and issued with the War Department numbers S31273 to S31321."

Page 72:

"As a footnote to this machine there is a note in the RAC Six Monthly Report of December 1943 which claims that a plan to convert them to carry the 3.7 inch gun had been dropped, and that they would now be converted into armoured recovery vehicles. However one, at least, retained it's super-structure and was used as a test vehicle to carry and launch demolition equipment."

The conclusion seems to be that it was conceived as a stop gap to fight off an invasion but by the time it was ready it was the Allies looking to do the invading, the 17 pounder just entering service and the Sherman tank looking a world beater. There was, therefore, no place for it.

Thanks

Mark.
You know you're British when you drive your German car to an Irish pub for a pint of Belgian beer before having an Indian meal. When you get home you sit on your Sweedish sofa and watch American programs on your Japanese TV.

critical mass
Member
Posts: 709
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

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

Post by critical mass » 04 Jan 2019 21:04

I´d second that british and german penetration tests were not far off each other. Some of the abandoned Churchill´s in Dieppe were studied and the armor was found to be sound and of equal quality as domestic RHA plate.

Soviet penetration tests are conducted with a very different family of projectiles, one which has a habit of breaking up fairly regularely against any discriminate target. This has ramifications in the projectile-plate interaction processes and constitutes for a significant difference in the failure mode. It´s easy to fall in the mistake to compare the failure mode A with a failure mode B using either soviet and british or soviet and german penetration trials (I believe many researchers are still having this issue and try to compare these events without giving consideration to the differences of penetration mechanisms). I am also not convinced that the soviets during wartime fully understood the problem of reheat affected, temper embrittlement of armor plates, judging from a) the fact that they also performed trials on partially burned out enemy vehicles and b) by the fact, that they didn´t condemned their own burned out AFV as irrepairable (though that might also be a function of the metal mix they employed, because the relatively lean alloyed german armor plates were particularely sensitive to secondary heating)

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2055
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 » 08 Jan 2019 13:36

MarkN wrote:
04 Jan 2019 16:41
So why is there referrence to a pantser on a '50-mm armour basis'? Oh yes, simple. It is comparing the Crusader II to the German pantsers encountered during the Gazala battles in 1942. Pantsers that were not extant in North Africa during 1941.
Bloody hell, you still don't get it! :lol: :D

"In July 1942 yet another complaint against the Crusader was made by the Middle East, who had been comparing Grant and Crusader casualties. While the latter's hull and turret were found to have been repeatedly holed by 5-cm projectiles, the former had stood up well to these; most penetrations had been made by 7.62cm or 8.8cm projectiles. Firing trials were then held against Crusader II, which was found to give much less protection than had been expected of a tank on a '50-mm armour basis'.1

1 The expression 'armour basis' was commonly used to denote the thickness of armour that a shot travelling horizontally through would have to penetrate. Plates sloping away from the vertical could, for lightness and economy, be made thinner."


So the most common British tank at the time turned out to more weakly armoured than expected.

Yet, as pointed out by DonJuan many pages ago, the British tests gave remarkably similar results to the German tests against the type of armor that they were indeed using.
Against the face-hardened plate? No.
Are you suggesting that Colonel Drew conducted his tests with an agenda? If so, what do you think it was.
Partly, probably yes. After all no-one wanted the users to lose all confidence in their weapon.
Both the British tests (all of them) and the Russian tests were valid and accurate. That really is not hard to understand if you move away from your flat-earth understanding of the world.
Your total lack of self-awareness is hilarious :lol:

At least you are, finally, coming round to acknowledging that the 2-pdr shot would fail against the face-hardened plate, so well done you. :D

I am clearly not interested in historical realities, I just want to convince yourself of historical fallacies.
Yes.
This can also be seen in your first post today where you cherry pick from the NZ narrative a small excerpt mentionning 7th Armoured Division. Why? Because to support your opinions, beliefs and position, you have to generate a what if scenario involving Cruiser Tanks.
The El Duda engagment was the example that you presented. It is a great case study to analyse for the subject matter of this thread. And yet, instead of using the narrative of what happened, the only point you chose to make was based on creating an imaginary what if scenario. Again, you are clearly not interested in historical realities, you just want to convince yourself of historical fallacies.
:lol:

You are the one blustering that the British could merely have imitated German tactics.
I pointed out that British Cruiser tanks engaging in a duel with German anti-tank guns at 900 yards - the reverse of what happened at El Duda - would merely result in a lot of dead British Cruiser tanks.
That is the historical reality you desperately attempt to deny.

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2055
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 » 08 Jan 2019 14:09

MarkN wrote:
04 Jan 2019 17:02
[They all fail to mention AR.33 who were doing most of the bombardment - I guess ignored because the eyewitness can only see the pantsers not the field artillery which is lobbing indirectly. It was not so much that the Pz.IV (and Pz.III) were clearing away the ATk and infantry outposts, but that they were getting some serious incoming from big guns further back.
This is MarkN world. :lol: The El Duda position had been suffering heavy artillery fire for days before the Panzer attack. That fire had neither forced 1st Essex to retreat nor inflicted that many casualties. If the artillery fire had now become the critical element I think it would have been mentioned especially given the rank and experience of the many eyewitnesses. One of whom would almost certainly be the signal log of Captain Salt of the 1st RHA.
Also, the NZ narrative notes the effectiveness of the 20mm guns of the Pz.II in clearing these posts out. That latter point seems to be stolen from the RTC handbook on how to do panser warfare without help.
The 20mm cannon on the Panzer II was a very useful weapon against infantry, soft targets and anti-tank guns, how is that a surprise?
The actual combat reports and war diary entries paint a bit of a different picture and the Australian narrative seems partly to be parrotting a post-engagment write-up by a higher formation not present at the engagment itself.
The Australian Official History would have analysed the war diary of 2/13th Battalion who were nearby and probably consulted some of the men there. They, of course, had plenty of experience of shell fire.

The Germans lost - lost as in permanently - 1 x Pz.II, 1 x Pz.III and 2 x Pz.IV. H
Hurrah! It only took you 20 pages to write something useful/
Some Cruiser Tanks of 1RTR were sent to "Dalby Square" to see off the Krad.Sch.Btn.15 effort. Do you want to widen the discussion to that too?
Yes. Present what you have on this. You needn't add your own commentary. :milsmile:

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 08 Jan 2019 20:14

Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 14:09
MarkN wrote:
04 Jan 2019 17:02
[They all fail to mention AR.33 who were doing most of the bombardment - I guess ignored because the eyewitness can only see the pantsers not the field artillery which is lobbing indirectly. It was not so much that the Pz.IV (and Pz.III) were clearing away the ATk and infantry outposts, but that they were getting some serious incoming from big guns further back.
This is MarkN world.
No, it's from the engagement reports by 15.Pz-Div, 15.Sch,Bde, Pz.Regt.8 and AR.33 themselves.
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 14:09
The El Duda position had been suffering heavy artillery fire for days before the Panzer attack. That fire had neither forced 1st Essex to retreat nor inflicted that many casualties.
Correct. Nor did the AR.33 fire budge them during the attack. The scale of the casualties inflicted by AR.33 can only be speculated upon. The 1st Essex did withdraw at all; they were overrun. It was the German infantry that got amongst them that took the ground and took the prisoners.
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 14:09
If the artillery fire had now become the critical element I think it would have been mentioned especially given the rank and experience of the many eyewitnesses. One of whom would almost certainly be the signal log of Captain Salt of the 1st RHA.
What you think has been demonstrated repeatedly to be rather unhelpful. However, the reality in this discussion is that the critical element was the German infantry of I. and II./Sch.Regt.115.
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 14:09
Also, the NZ narrative notes the effectiveness of the 20mm guns of the Pz.II in clearing these posts out. That latter point seems to be stolen from the RTC handbook on how to do panser warfare without help.
The 20mm cannon on the Panzer II was a very useful weapon against infantry, soft targets and anti-tank guns, how is that a surprise?
Indeed it was. Not in dispute by me.

The point here to be taken away is an understanding of how 'effective' the Pz.IV was at clearing away the ATk positions and infantry outposts. The documentary evidence shows the Germans using a range of weopans and methods. The documentary evidence suggests that the Pz.IV was not the main factor in accomplishing this task.

Then, once the understanding of the role/effect played by the Pz.IV standing off is better understood, we can start to see what effect an ex. HAA 3-inch gun would have had.

PS. From the WDs, 1 of the Pz.IV was so badly damaged that it had to be towed off the battlefield (whether that is one of 2 losses noted or not is unknown) somewhat before the assault on 1Essex even commenced. How could that be given the lack of an ex. HAA 3-inch gun around?
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 14:09
The actual combat reports and war diary entries paint a bit of a different picture and the Australian narrative seems partly to be parrotting a post-engagment write-up by a higher formation not present at the engagment itself.
The Australian Official History would have analysed the war diary of 2/13th Battalion who were nearby and probably consulted some of the men there. They, of course, had plenty of experience of shell fire.
So what? The Australian and NZ OHs had full access to British WDs etc etc. There was no need to rely on the 2/13th WD,
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 14:09
The Germans lost - lost as in permanently - 1 x Pz.II, 1 x Pz.III and 2 x Pz.IV. H
Hurrah! It only took you 20 pages to write something useful/
Glad you're happy.
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 14:09
Some Cruiser Tanks of 1RTR were sent to "Dalby Square" to see off the Krad.Sch.Btn.15 effort. Do you want to widen the discussion to that too?
Yes. Present what you have on this.
Nah! You go and find something other than what can be googled in 5 mins and start the ball rolling.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 08 Jan 2019 20:52

Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
MarkN wrote:
04 Jan 2019 16:41
So why is there referrence to a pantser on a '50-mm armour basis'? Oh yes, simple. It is comparing the Crusader II to the German pantsers encountered during the Gazala battles in 1942. Pantsers that were not extant in North Africa during 1941.
Bloody hell, you still don't get it!
Bloody hell, you still don't get it!
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
"In July 1942 yet another complaint against the Crusader was made by the Middle East, who had been comparing Grant and Crusader casualties.
Irrelevant to 1941 and Op CRUSADER.
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
So the most common British tank at the time turned out to more weakly armoured than expected.
The Crusader pantser was what it was. It's armor was what it was. It's gun was what it was.

This thread has been about various things from the start till now. Amongst other things, you have argued that the 2-pdr was "bloodly useless" - but cannot get past the 2D flat-earth projection. You have also argued about british pansters being outranged - which, to a certain extent is true - but nowhere near is great as your 2D flat-earth projection suggests. The German tactics generally observed meant that they placed themselves well within the effective range of the British 2-pdr gun.

After going around the same bouy several times, you now want us to believe that a test of Crusader 50mm frontal armor against the armor of a Grant in mid-1942 somehow has relevance to 1941 and Op CRUSADER. :roll:

Let's time shift the Grant to 1941 and ...... Bloody hell, you still don't get it!
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
Yet, as pointed out by DonJuan many pages ago, the British tests gave remarkably similar results to the German tests against the type of armor that they were indeed using.
Against the face-hardened plate? No.
You just cannot get away for your 2D flat-earth projection that German pantsers didn't have sides, rears, tops and bottoms - a frontal aspect and nothing else. :lol:
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
Are you suggesting that Colonel Drew conducted his tests with an agenda? If so, what do you think it was.
Partly, probably yes. After all no-one wanted the users to lose all confidence in their weapon.
Really? Are you now lowering yourself to conspiracy theories that British tank battalion commanders are deliberately lying to themselves and their own troops?

Col Drew was one of the key users. Why would he want to fool himself?
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
Both the British tests (all of them) and the Russian tests were valid and accurate.
Your total lack of self-awareness is hilarious
YOUR total self-awareness delusion and projection is hilarious.
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
At least you are, finally, coming round to acknowledging that the 2-pdr shot would fail against the face-hardened plate, so well done you.
I have never disputed that 2-pdr rounds under certain conditions/ranges shattered against German face-hardened plate. British testing proved it as well as the Russian ones.
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
That really is not hard to understand if you move away from your flat-earth understanding of the world.
What you still seem to be pretending didn't exist is that a German pantser was more than a 2D flat-earth projection that German pantsers didn't have sides, rears, tops and bottoms - a frontal aspect and nothing else. The British 2-pdr could, and did, penetrate the majority of a German pantsers exterior surfaces and at most ranges in which the Germans placed themselves to do battle. British and German testing proved that to be so; battlefield evidence further evidences it as fact. That really is not hard to understand if you move away from your flat-earth understanding of the world.
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
This can also be seen in your first post today where you cherry pick from the NZ narrative a small excerpt mentionning 7th Armoured Division. Why? Because to support your opinions, beliefs and position, you have to generate a what if scenario involving Cruiser Tanks.
The El Duda engagment was the example that you presented. It is a great case study to analyse for the subject matter of this thread. And yet, instead of using the narrative of what happened, the only point you chose to make was based on creating an imaginary what if scenario. Again, you are clearly not interested in historical realities, you just want to convince yourself of historical fallacies.
You are the one blustering that the British could merely have imitated German tactics.
The British had all the tools in the box to replicate what the Germans did at El Duda. They even had the written doctrine that informed us all on how it should be done in theory. Why local commanders chose not to do so is another story....
Gooner1 wrote:
08 Jan 2019 13:36
I pointed out that British Cruiser tanks engaging in a duel with German anti-tank guns at 900 yards - the reverse of what happened at El Duda - would merely result in a lot of dead British Cruiser tanks.
That is the historical reality you desperately attempt to deny.
1) You introduce a historical event to support your opinions, beliefs and position.
2) You extract from narratives of that engagment a quote which you then manipuate into a fantasy what if that didn't actually occur. You take nothing from the narrative that actually happened.
3) You claim, "that is the historical reality you desperately attempt to deny".

Understanding and presenting history the Gooner1 way. :roll:

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2055
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 » 09 Jan 2019 12:59

MarkN wrote:
08 Jan 2019 20:14
No, it's from the engagement reports by 15.Pz-Div, 15.Sch,Bde, Pz.Regt.8 and AR.33 themselves.
Care to quote the bit that led to your statement "the guns principally used to 'eliminate' the British ATk guns were not those of the Pz.IV, but the field guns of AR.33." then?
The 1st Essex did withdraw at all; they were overrun. It was the German infantry that got amongst them that took the ground and took the prisoners.
Nope, only most of B Company and A Company of 1st Essex were overrun, although survivors of both later joined in with the Australians. The Germans rather blundered in not taking the whole El Duda position when they had the opportunity.
The point here to be taken away is an understanding of how 'effective' the Pz.IV was at clearing away the ATk positions and infantry outposts. The documentary evidence shows the Germans using a range of weopans and methods. The documentary evidence suggests that the Pz.IV was not the main factor in accomplishing this task.
All the documentary evidence from the British side is clear that it was the German tanks responsible for knocking out the A/Tk guns and neutralising the infantry positions.
Then, once the understanding of the role/effect played by the Pz.IV standing off is better understood, we can start to see what effect an ex. HAA 3-inch gun would have had.
The 3-inch gun would have no trouble punching holes into a PzIV or PzIII at 900 yards and, indeed, far beyond that.
PS. From the WDs, 1 of the Pz.IV was so badly damaged that it had to be towed off the battlefield (whether that is one of 2 losses noted or not is unknown) somewhat before the assault on 1Essex even commenced. How could that be given the lack of an ex. HAA 3-inch gun around?
:D A tank doesn't need to be 'badly damaged' to require towing off the battlefield. A broken track would be enough for that.

Nah! You go and find something other than what can be googled in 5 mins and start the ball rolling.
You don't want to prove me wrong about the uselessness of the 2-pdr against German tanks?

Gooner1
Member
Posts: 2055
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 » 09 Jan 2019 13:30

MarkN wrote:
08 Jan 2019 20:52
Irrelevant to 1941 and Op CRUSADER.
Yes, you're right. The armour on the Crusader tank got magically weaker between November 1941 and May 1942 :lol: :lol:
Col Drew was one of the key users. Why would he want to fool himself?
Colonel Drew would know better than to be fooled I expect. He's just putting the best possible 'spin' on the effectiveness of the weapon.
The German tactics generally observed meant that they placed themselves well within the effective range of the British 2-pdr gun.

German pantsers didn't have sides, rears, tops and bottoms - a frontal aspect and nothing else.

I have never disputed that 2-pdr rounds under certain conditions/ranges shattered against German face-hardened plate. British testing proved it as well as the Russian ones.
:lol: no contradictions there!

I am fascinated how you think British anti-tank guns could have targeted the tops armour of the German tanks. 8O

But yes, if German tactics were to deliberately expose their sides, rears, tops and bottoms to the 2-pdr within a 1,000 yards or so then there are chances of a getting a penetration.

Whether then the anaemic qualities of the 2-pdr projectile would then cause much damage in the German tank is another issue you won't want to get into. :D

The British had all the tools in the box to replicate what the Germans did at El Duda. They even had the written doctrine that informed us all on how it should be done in theory. Why local commanders chose not to do so is another story....
A bit mule headed not to say fanatical in your beliefs, aren't you?

The British lacked a tank that could cruise about slowly at a range of 900 yards from enemy anti-tank guns and not be holed. Simple as that.

MarkN
Member
Posts: 2549
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 » 09 Jan 2019 14:15

Gooner1 wrote:
09 Jan 2019 12:59
MarkN wrote:
08 Jan 2019 20:14
No, it's from the engagement reports by 15.Pz-Div, 15.Sch,Bde, Pz.Regt.8 and AR.33 themselves.
Care to quote the bit that led to your statement "the guns principally used to 'eliminate' the British ATk guns were not those of the Pz.IV, but the field guns of AR.33." then?
Nope. If you're really interested, you'll find and read the documents yourself.
Gooner1 wrote:
09 Jan 2019 12:59
The 1st Essex did withdraw at all; they were overrun. It was the German infantry that got amongst them that took the ground and took the prisoners.
Nope, only most of B Company and A Company of 1st Essex were overrun, although survivors of both later joined in with the Australians. The Germans rather blundered in not taking the whole El Duda position when they had the opportunity.
The 1st Essex did not withdraw at all. Part of the battalion position was overrun by German infantry supported by pantsers. In the process, casualties were sustained. It is impossible to identify which casualty was a result of which German effort: AR.33, Pz.IV, Pz.II, infantry surge etc etc etc.
Gooner1 wrote:
09 Jan 2019 12:59
The point here to be taken away is an understanding of how 'effective' the Pz.IV was at clearing away the ATk positions and infantry outposts. The documentary evidence shows the Germans using a range of weopans and methods. The documentary evidence suggests that the Pz.IV was not the main factor in accomplishing this task.
All the documentary evidence from the British side is clear that it was the German tanks responsible for knocking out the A/Tk guns and neutralising the infantry positions.
Not in the British documents I'm reading.

Interesting that you're now using "German tanks" rather than grasping at the specific Pz.IV doing all the work from a distance too great to be touched by British effort. More baby steps in the right direction. Remember, your original point was that the Pz.IV would not have been able to do what it did if ex.HAA 3-inch guns were there to plink them.
Gooner1 wrote:
09 Jan 2019 12:59
Then, once the understanding of the role/effect played by the Pz.IV standing off is better understood, we can start to see what effect an ex. HAA 3-inch gun would have had.
The 3-inch gun would have no trouble punching holes into a PzIV or PzIII at 900 yards and, indeed, far beyond that.
A fairly accurate and utterly simplistic comment that does nothing to advance understanding of what impact the ex. HAA 3-inch gun would have had if it had been there.
Gooner1 wrote:
09 Jan 2019 12:59
PS. From the WDs, 1 of the Pz.IV was so badly damaged that it had to be towed off the battlefield (whether that is one of 2 losses noted or not is unknown) somewhat before the assault on 1Essex even commenced. How could that be given the lack of an ex. HAA 3-inch gun around?
A tank doesn't need to be 'badly damaged' to require towing off the battlefield. A broken track would be enough for that.
Ah, but this particular specimen was towed off the battlefield after being lit up by British guns.
Gooner1 wrote:
09 Jan 2019 12:59
Nah! You go and find something other than what can be googled in 5 mins and start the ball rolling.
You don't want to prove me wrong about the uselessness of the 2-pdr against German tanks?
I'm not interesting in proving anything to you. That would be a fools errand. You've already made up your mind and whatever evidence is presented will be ignored or somehow denied. For example, Col Drew's test results are argued away as some conspiracy to deceive the troops.... :roll:

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