"coffin for seven brothers" ?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Breakthrough:

I sure hope Battlefront gets around to a CM game that covers the CBI Theatre.

Ditto and likewise. Ah, the Chindits!

Michael

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gatpr:

Weren't M3s used in Burma until at least 1944? Of course that was the end of the longest supply line.

Yes, both M3 Grants and M3 Stuarts. I think some Valentines may have made the scene too.

Michael</font>

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

My Regiment used Matilda's in New Guinea and Borneo...etc

Do you have any info on the usage of 2 pdr HE during these ops??

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

My Regiment used Matilda's in New Guinea and Borneo...etc

Do you have any info on the usage of 2 pdr HE during these ops??</font>

[Guest Mike]

Thanks.

There's a good web site on Aussie tanks in New Guinea that mentions teh Matilda's. Unfortunately it's not clear whether the HE they are referring to is 3" from the CS models there, or includes 2pdr.

NZ Valentines in hte Pacific had a number of 2 pdrs replaced by 3" CS howitzers, but it's unclear whether or not they had HE for the 2 pdr as well.

[Michael Emrys]

I've heard a little about the 2pdr HE but not much. I think one source questioned whether it even saw combat as it was coming into service at about the time the Australians and New Zealanders were being reëquipped with American tanks.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

It's amazing to me that the 2-pdr, essentially a 40mm round, has no useful HE for most of the war, when Bofors has such an effective HE round available from day one!

Were British weapons designers closet Nazis? The whole world wonders...

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

It's amazing to me that the 2-pdr, essentially a 40mm round, has no useful HE for most of the war, when Bofors has such an effective HE round available from day one!

Really!?

In what way was the 40mm HE effective other than for direct hits on material (aircraft and soft vehicles)?

The reason I ask is that Soviet, that used an even more efficient (and dangerous to the user) explosive filler, thought 45mm was the absolute minimum calibre to get useful secondary blast and fragmentation effects. (Which is the primary reason why they remade the German 37mm ATG to 45mm calibre.)

MGs were more effective than 37/40mm HE against infantry, although the maximum range was a bit shorter.

Even the British 3" howitzer, used on early CS tanks and Churchill Mk I, had an HE that was of little use compared to MGs when deployed in two CS tanks per squadron. (This is contrary to the intended role, and the main reason why CS tanks carried mostly smoke for the howitzer.)

The only reason that HE from AA guns could be considered effective is that these guns were autocannons. The effect from a single shell was almost negligeable compared to a MG burst.

Consider the effect of one small HE every five or six seconds compared to a near continous hail of MG rounds...

Cheers

Olle

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Mike:

[snips]

NZ Valentines in hte Pacific had a number of 2 pdrs replaced by 3" CS howitzers, but it's unclear whether or not they had HE for the 2 pdr as well.

AFV Profile no. 6 by B T White (undated, but oriced in shillings and therefore published before 1971) says:

"Nine Valentine close support tanks formed the strength of the New Zealand Tank Squadron, together with 16 normal Valentines (for which some 2 pdr HE ammunition, made in New Zealand, was provided) and were used successfully in the SW Pacific operations. Some of these tanks were still in use by the New Zealand Army up to 1955."

All the best,

John.

[Michael Emrys]

There's a lot in what you say, Olle, but British tankers in North Africa often felt themselves to be at a distinct disadvantage in dueling with AT guns for the lack of an HE round. It's destructive potential may not have been great, but it was a wonderful noise maker to let the gun crews know that they were being shot at. An AP round was comparatively easy to ignore unless it happened to strike the gun directly, or one of the crew.

Michael

[ July 30, 2002, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

[snips]

In what way was the 40mm HE effective other than for direct hits on material (aircraft and soft vehicles)?

PRO document WO 291/496, "Anti-personnel effect of small HE shell", says:

"It is frequently stated that the 75mm HE shell is the smallest that is likely to be useful. This is probably the case at long ranges where the angle of descent is large, because the small shell will be mainly below the surface at the moment of detonation, and small irregularities in the ground will have a large screening effect. The calculations of this paper suggest, however, that at short ranges with ricochets smaller shells will be effective."

The paper also gives figures for the "vulnerable area" (= area of effect) of 40mm Bofors, 6-pdr and 75mm HE shells showing that the 40mm has about a third the VA of 6-pdr HE, which in turn has half the VA of the 75mm.

All the best,

John.

[Ex Bellator]

I sure hope Battlefront gets around to a CM game that covers the CBI Theatre.

Don't hold your breath for a CBI game, BTS have previously said they don't envisage creating a Pacific variant and I can't imagine a CBI game by itself. While a it's a fascinating theater, there would probably be limited 'gaming fun' anway. Japanese massed infantry attack or Allied bunker busting attack, rinse and repeat.

The Japanese had few AT weapons at all in the Theatre to counter them and all those guns and MGs made it a great close support tank.

Definitely. Excuse me while I selfishly waffle on about my favourite anecdote from 'Burma - The Longest War', as it showed the desperate lengths that the Japanese went to to try to stop Grant and Sherman tanks in 1944.

Probyns Horse were moving around Meiktila in Burma when a commander spotted rows of suspicious looking small humps in the ground approaching their objective. He halted and then cooly dismounted, then walked towards the suspected enemy positions armed only with his service revolver.

When he reached the first hump he peered over it and was astonished to see a Japanese soldier crouched in a hole only just big enough to hold him. Between his knees was a 250lb Air Bomb, and in his hand was a large rock. He shot the soldier in the head, reloaded, and walked to all the other humps, each of which contained a soldier clasping a bomb. He shot them all.

The Japanese 'human minefields' had been ordered to detonate their bombs when a tank passed close. Even when he pointed the pistol at them and they knew they were going to die, they obeyed their orders to the letter.

If a CBI game ever does see the light of day - I want those guys in!

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

There's a lot in what you say, Olle, but British tankers in North Africa often felt themselves to be at a distinct disadvantage in dueling with AT guns ... [HE] was a wonderful noise maker to let the gun crews know that they were being shot at. An AP round was comparatively easy to ignore ...

I can understand that the tankers felt bad when duelling at range.

Still I think their main armament (the turret mounted MG) was better than any HE for the coax 2pdr at ranges up to about 1000m.

As you point out it's easy to ignore an AP round, but they can't ignore a hail of bullets.

Given that the target is a real ATG(*) and not one of those 88s it will be almost a point target on flat ground, which means that most shells would impact further away (long or short) than their effective shrapnel radius. This would provide even less supression than the MG bullets.

It wasn't until most/all tanks got larger calibre guns that the HE mattered.

You could make a test in CMBO with one Stuart in damp open (British tanks were slower) vs one dug in German 50mm ATG. Starting range ~1500m.

First try it with no HE for the Stuart, and then again with HE but no MG ammo.

(*) German low profile 37mm or 50mm ATG.

Cheers

Olle

[gatpr]

Speaking of 2lber guns, did the Soviets replace 2lbers with 45mm. There's a Valentine III in SPWW2 that has a 45mm. Is that an error?

[gunnergoz]

Ollie-

Soft point targets (like field pieces, AT guns, MG nests and light bunkers/buildings engaged with a 40-mm sized HE round are going to feel it. The coax MG is good at spraying targets with small caliber rounds, but cannot substitute for the HE main gun round for point targets. The 2 pdr was known to be a pretty accurate weapon. If tanks armed with this piece had an equivalent HE round early in the war, they could have had considerable greater effect on the targets mentioned.

The effectiveness of the Bofors round is testified to by its continued use and production (in the L/70 variant) to this day.

And no, I'm not talking about comparing the 2 pdr HE to any close support weapon like a 75-105 mm HE round, that's an entirely different subject.

[Guest Mike]

Thanks for the info folks, especially John Salt - I'll see if I can find someone with the book

There's a "definitive" work on NZ armour in hte Pacific available here and I've jsut received word from the author that he stil has copies so I'm going to get one & ask him about it too.

Cheers

Mike

[Guest Mike]

Here's some info I've received from other sources on 2 pdr HE.

"

The NZ Army designed two 40mm HE rounds for the 2pdr. One used a modified

Bofors shell, the other used a US 37mm HE shell with brass spacer around the

outside - both were fitted to a standard 2pdr "case" with the firing charge

in it.

The US 37mm variant was the one used by the Valentines on the Solomons.

The British also produced an official 2pdr HE round from late 1943 but as I

understand it it didn't reach the Pacific (or at least the NZ Army), being

exclusively for A/cars and Light Tanks operating in ETO (although I think

the Australians started getting some late in 1944).

The Australians in New Guinea didn't like HE - they felt the 2pdr AP round

more useful (Matilda II's), as it didn't prematurely detonate by hitting

palm fronds and other foliage!! I think the had some technique of firing 1-2

rounds of AP then emptying the Besa MG belt on the same target... They also

bounced the AP round around, bit like Horse & Musket Round Shot..."

and

"I have it in a Cincord publication that one of the NW Europe Armoured

Car regiments removed their Littlejohn adaptors after August 1944

_because_ they couldn't fire HE - the enemy they encountered while

recceing reqired an HE round rather than an improved APNCR round the

Littejohn fired - so HE was in general use by 1944."

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

Still I think their main armament (the turret mounted MG) was better than any HE for the coax 2pdr at ranges up to about 1000m.

I think you are seeing this as a false dilemma. The choice is not between using the coax MG OR the cannon with HE. The choice is between using the cannon with HE or AP AND with the coax MG. It should be fairly clear that MG plus HE is the way to go vs. soft targets.

Michael

[ July 31, 2002, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Guest Mike]

I actualy have a reference to 2 pdr HE - of course it is only applicable to 1 squadron of NZ Valentines in the Pacific in one fairly miniscule action!!

But hey - it's something!! lol

[Stormin Norman]

http://www.battlefield.ru/destroyed/ussr/lee_01.jpg

picture of the tank living up to 'coffin' name.

I think they are not in due to multiple gun/ turret limitation.

[ August 01, 2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Stormin Norman ]

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mike:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

My Regiment used Matilda's in New Guinea and Borneo...etc

Do you have any info on the usage of 2 pdr HE during these ops??</font>