Mark Gallear

Does that mean accuracy of the early 2pdrs is going to be reduced the patch? I am not surprised by the Italians taking that viewpoint although they did have a few decent pieces of kit. But the Germans on superior British tanks - was Rommel very foxy then and British cavalry tactics of charging home to reduce the range extremely stupid beyond belief. I remember Rune consulting his Grandpa and telling me that they considered Russian T-34s and KVs to be no problem! Reality is a fragile thing :eek:

Does that mean accuracy of the early 2pdrs is going to be reduced the patch? I am not surprised by the Italians taking that viewpoint although they did have a few decent pieces of kit. But the Germans on superior British tanks - was Rommel very foxy then and British cavalry tactics of charging home to reduce the range extremely stupid beyond belief. I remember Rune consulting his Grandpa and telling me that they considered Russian T-34s and KVs to be no problem! Reality is a fragile thing :eek:

SAS fought from the jeeps driving up airfields firing all the guns on the jeeps. Only fought as ground infantry in their first outing which was a disaster with half of them killed in the para drop. They were only up against second rate Italian guards, who were less than keen to fire back. (Ok thats not entirely true and was filled with my British propaganda filled bias to my Italian friends - I take it back.) Never seen pics of the jeep mounted mortar ever! Suppose Mr Moon could put them in with the double Vickers load out in a patch if he really, really wanted I guess there are no ammo dump or airfield stuctures in CMAK for them to attack anyway (still not got the game) - probably should be as they are the only important stuctures in the Desert worth fighting over. Big problem is that Combat Mission is usually played two play be email with points how do you get the option of buying SAS jeeps to fit into that! The LRDG really just hid and observed - they would not have stood a chance if caught. Pictures of their Candian trucks show WW1 Lewis guns for air defence only. You could use half engineer sections for them - to use when placing charges on aircraft etc. Would not have the arab head gear - which I suspect was only worn for proganda pictures anyway! [ December 11, 2003, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

Very interesting use of sources but the problem remains the established wisdom is that the 2pdr was a high quality pea shooter - well made and accurate - although I suspect that the normal listed effective range of 1000 yards probably means it was drifting a bit of course by that time it had gone that far. However your source says that people believed the round wouldn't pentrate beyond 600m - either it was very inaccurate beyond this range or was starting to lose its ummph - you cannot logicaly have it both ways at the same time! In my experience nose armour is the part on the hull where the armour plates joins and slopes. Not explained that very well but imagine looking at a tank from the side - on most you will see an angle of armour come up from the bottom flat part of the tank and a flat part where the turret goes on top another armouyr plate slopes down and meets the first plate. This is its nose! A likely place to hit if you miss the turret! Some sources gibe the angles and plate armour depth for all three or more if it has more than one nose on it.

Very interesting use of sources but the problem remains the established wisdom is that the 2pdr was a high quality pea shooter - well made and accurate - although I suspect that the normal listed effective range of 1000 yards probably means it was drifting a bit of course by that time it had gone that far. However your source says that people believed the round wouldn't pentrate beyond 600m - either it was very inaccurate beyond this range or was starting to lose its ummph - you cannot logicaly have it both ways at the same time! In my experience nose armour is the part on the hull where the armour plates joins and slopes. Not explained that very well but imagine looking at a tank from the side - on most you will see an angle of armour come up from the bottom flat part of the tank and a flat part where the turret goes on top another armouyr plate slopes down and meets the first plate. This is its nose! A likely place to hit if you miss the turret! Some sources gibe the angles and plate armour depth for all three or more if it has more than one nose on it.

I don't normally even read Peng Posts - but Mike the Wino got me going! As I don't have a wife to impress ! I am not the Green Rascal - I thought he was one of you lot :eek: Matrix did manage to send me a free copy of SPWAW as well as putting my name on it, but I got no money! I just sent them my campaign Normandy Gold -Which I did fun - I didn't even think they would put in the game just on the Raider Site for people to download. I don't know if Rune should play SPWAW, maybe he should ask Wild Bill Wilder .

I havn't got my copy yet either. But the SAS did use jeeps in the desert - the first ones given lend lease to the British Army. Although you are right that the 1950s ones were called "Pink Panthers" and were named after the film! Armament varied a lot from two Vickers MGs in front and one inback to a .50 in front and in Vickers in the back. The SAS did hit and run raids on ammo dumps and airfields. The LRDG - mainly New Zealanders started first did recon such as road watching counting Rommels supply trucks. Many later joined the SAS who needed their expertise. The LRDG mainly used trucks. Although the SAS had at least one LRDG truck to go with their Jeeps. So Mike are they in the game if not I post my vote for them to go in the patch. (They would if the SAS were Finns!)

Thanks Rexford for sorting out my AP and APCBC question. I didn't understand Ezpickins test results. Does 6/1 mean 6 panzer IIIs died per Crusader II or the other way round. Ok then this result conflict with the Green Rascals results and fits in with the perception of period tankers that the 2pdr could not pentrate at this range. (However, I got the impression that the 2pdr was far to powerfull in cmbb and have said so in the past.) (I don't have a copy of the game yet to do my own tests or take it back! But then I hoping for battlefront to do the decent thing in a patch if there is a problem on this.) -- :confused: -- :confused: -- :confused: -- Just got my hands on Ian V. Hoggs armour in Conflict and found the 2pdr HE quote in it - on page 103 (This was quoted to me in part when I cast doubt on HE rounds been sent to Russia). All British tanks in the desert were armed with the 40mm 2pounder gun ... (Not actually true but ) ...Contrary to frequent statements in the past, there was a high explosive shell designed and produced for the 2pdr; to put the record straight, it was designated the 'Shell, QF 2pr Armoured Piercing Mark 1', it was filled with Lyddite, had a base fuze, and was placed in service in 1935. But for reasons never satisfactorily explained, it seems to have seen little use; it was certainly never issued to tanks or anti-tank guns in the desert. So the British tanks were equipped only to deal with other tanks, by piercing them with solid shot; their anti-personnel capability was restricted to machinegun fire, and in the absence of an impact -fuzzed (or any other) high explosive shell, they had no anti-material capability. When a British tank was spotted by an anti-tank gun, therefore, its only form of retaliation was to spray the gun with machine-gun fire in the hope of killing the gunners, or fire at it with solid shot in the hope of achieving a strike on some vital part of the gun. The name of it sounds like some sort of anti-armour round using high explosive rather than an actual HE round - what do you make of it Rexford? What is the difference between a base fuze and an impact fuze in a HE round? (If it is some kind of crap armour round using HE - rather than a true HE round then I'm not surprised if the whole of the British Army's stocks were sent to Russia!) I have come across a throw away comment in another book by Hogg, that said that an experimental HE round was made at the beginning of the war and tested. Noticed a round called APHV on the WWIIvehicles site quoted early is this just a slightly improved and updated AP round or the AP round we are talking about and the first one this "HE" round described here? No HE round is mentioned on the site although other British HE rounds for 6pdr etc are. -- :confused: -- :confused: -- :confused: -- Still not found the 6pdr HE source or started that debate on doctrine - yet . [ December 11, 2003, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

Thanks Rexford for sorting out my AP and APCBC question. I didn't understand Ezpickins test results. Does 6/1 mean 6 panzer IIIs died per Crusader II or the other way round. Ok then this result conflict with the Green Rascals results and fits in with the perception of period tankers that the 2pdr could not pentrate at this range. (However, I got the impression that the 2pdr was far to powerfull in cmbb and have said so in the past.) (I don't have a copy of the game yet to do my own tests or take it back! But then I hoping for battlefront to do the decent thing in a patch if there is a problem on this.) -- :confused: -- :confused: -- :confused: -- Just got my hands on Ian V. Hoggs armour in Conflict and found the 2pdr HE quote in it - on page 103 (This was quoted to me in part when I cast doubt on HE rounds been sent to Russia). All British tanks in the desert were armed with the 40mm 2pounder gun ... (Not actually true but ) ...Contrary to frequent statements in the past, there was a high explosive shell designed and produced for the 2pdr; to put the record straight, it was designated the 'Shell, QF 2pr Armoured Piercing Mark 1', it was filled with Lyddite, had a base fuze, and was placed in service in 1935. But for reasons never satisfactorily explained, it seems to have seen little use; it was certainly never issued to tanks or anti-tank guns in the desert. So the British tanks were equipped only to deal with other tanks, by piercing them with solid shot; their anti-personnel capability was restricted to machinegun fire, and in the absence of an impact -fuzzed (or any other) high explosive shell, they had no anti-material capability. When a British tank was spotted by an anti-tank gun, therefore, its only form of retaliation was to spray the gun with machine-gun fire in the hope of killing the gunners, or fire at it with solid shot in the hope of achieving a strike on some vital part of the gun. The name of it sounds like some sort of anti-armour round using high explosive rather than an actual HE round - what do you make of it Rexford? What is the difference between a base fuze and an impact fuze in a HE round? (If it is some kind of crap armour round using HE - rather than a true HE round then I'm not surprised if the whole of the British Army's stocks were sent to Russia!) I have come across a throw away comment in another book by Hogg, that said that an experimental HE round was made at the beginning of the war and tested. Noticed a round called APHV on the WWIIvehicles site quoted early is this just a slightly improved and updated AP round or the AP round we are talking about and the first one this "HE" round described here? No HE round is mentioned on the site although other British HE rounds for 6pdr etc are. -- :confused: -- :confused: -- :confused: -- Still not found the 6pdr HE source or started that debate on doctrine - yet . [ December 11, 2003, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

Any chance of seeing this table 4.1.2 and which book does it come from? Found these figures in the orginal Featherstone book Tank Battles in Miniature A wargame's guide to the Western Desert Campaign 1940-1942 AP muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps and armour pentration of 57 at 500 yards at 30 degrees For APCBC introduced in Sept 1941 it is only 2,600 feet per sec with a slightly better pentration 57.5mm at 500 yards at 30 degrees. Most sources list the 2pdr as being supplied with both rounds. Clearly APCBC was an attempt to improve the 2pdrs pentration at least until the 6pdr took over. Featherstone says the round was intoduced after AP was found to break up when hitting German face hardened armour. Does anybody know if APCBC pentration will fall off faster than plain AP at longer ranges than 500 yards becomes of its lower fps? (I understand that the round although lighter is less aerodynamic despite the extra cap meant to make it so?) Debate seems to be breaking down into we are right you are wrong, chaps ! The evidence (yes, it is evidence) presented above as well as the battle reports seems to suggest a marginal chance of pentration at 800 yards on certain tank locations which is not what CMAK is giving - no matter how noble its creators are .

Any chance of seeing this table 4.1.2 and which book does it come from? Found these figures in the orginal Featherstone book Tank Battles in Miniature A wargame's guide to the Western Desert Campaign 1940-1942 AP muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps and armour pentration of 57 at 500 yards at 30 degrees For APCBC introduced in Sept 1941 it is only 2,600 feet per sec with a slightly better pentration 57.5mm at 500 yards at 30 degrees. Most sources list the 2pdr as being supplied with both rounds. Clearly APCBC was an attempt to improve the 2pdrs pentration at least until the 6pdr took over. Featherstone says the round was intoduced after AP was found to break up when hitting German face hardened armour. Does anybody know if APCBC pentration will fall off faster than plain AP at longer ranges than 500 yards becomes of its lower fps? (I understand that the round although lighter is less aerodynamic despite the extra cap meant to make it so?) Debate seems to be breaking down into we are right you are wrong, chaps ! The evidence (yes, it is evidence) presented above as well as the battle reports seems to suggest a marginal chance of pentration at 800 yards on certain tank locations which is not what CMAK is giving - no matter how noble its creators are .

This site has a number of interesting artivles including one on German tank camo and markings. Enjoy - Mark http://www.geocities.com/firefly1002000/dakindx.html

Thanks von Lucke. Found this site which has breakdown of Churchill and other tank types in Italy other time by unit. Some units include Churchill 1 just to confuse the issue, although these may be reconstituted Churchills. It says there are being used in the close support role. Which would point to a 3inch gun possibly moved to the turret in a III conversion and still called Churchill 1 to differentiate them? http://www.armourinfocus.co.uk/a22/index.htm It is the Churchill anks in Italy article if it does not go straight there - there are other aticles on Churchill NA and 95mm gun versions. [ December 06, 2003, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

This is what Stuart Hamilton, tank and later squadron commander in 8th Royal Tank Regiment in his book “Armoured Odyssey” says on this issue. He is taking about the Valentine in June 1941. It was unfortunately armed with a piddling little 2–pounder pop gun and a Besa machinegun. The 2 –pdr had been effective in close quarter fighting as in 1940 in France but now, 18 months later, on the flat, wide, open desert well, frankly, it was bloody useless because the German Panzer Mark III with its 50mm and the Panzer IV with its 75 mm could out-gun us all the time, being able to knock us out at 900/1000 yards range, let alone the 88mms at 300 yards. As we could only knock them out at about 400/500 yards it was really like being a lightweight in the ring with a heavyweight. The German tanks also had five man crews and they were faster than ours as they could do about 20-25 mph, whereas we could only manage 15-20 mph. The only thing that was in our favour was that our armour was thicker, and as we were diesel tanks and not petrol we did not brew up as quickly when hit. Green Rascal results do not for me fit in with Hamilton's perceptions as to what his tank could do. However, we are not really comparing like with like – Green Rascals figures are for penetrations, Hamilton’s, and others perceptions are for knockouts. If a high percentage of these penetrations convert into knockouts then I think something is going wrong. I don’t have the game yet to test. Still would like to see a greater discussion on the other rounds used and effectiveness as well as AP. [ December 06, 2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

This is what Stuart Hamilton, tank and later squadron commander in 8th Royal Tank Regiment in his book “Armoured Odyssey” says on this issue. He is taking about the Valentine in June 1941. It was unfortunately armed with a piddling little 2–pounder pop gun and a Besa machinegun. The 2 –pdr had been effective in close quarter fighting as in 1940 in France but now, 18 months later, on the flat, wide, open desert well, frankly, it was bloody useless because the German Panzer Mark III with its 50mm and the Panzer IV with its 75 mm could out-gun us all the time, being able to knock us out at 900/1000 yards range, let alone the 88mms at 300 yards. As we could only knock them out at about 400/500 yards it was really like being a lightweight in the ring with a heavyweight. The German tanks also had five man crews and they were faster than ours as they could do about 20-25 mph, whereas we could only manage 15-20 mph. The only thing that was in our favour was that our armour was thicker, and as we were diesel tanks and not petrol we did not brew up as quickly when hit. Green Rascal results do not for me fit in with Hamilton's perceptions as to what his tank could do. However, we are not really comparing like with like – Green Rascals figures are for penetrations, Hamilton’s, and others perceptions are for knockouts. If a high percentage of these penetrations convert into knockouts then I think something is going wrong. I don’t have the game yet to test. Still would like to see a greater discussion on the other rounds used and effectiveness as well as AP. [ December 06, 2003, 07:34 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

FlammingKnives - Wha? I can't concede that a tank that has it's coolant system at the other end of the chassis to the engine, the radiator on the glacis, a hatch that is prone to brain the TC going over rough terrain, a turret ring that can't mount anything bigger than an obsolescent gun and is the most unreliable tank since the first landship could be regarded as technically good. - (I don't know how to do the proper quote thing you chaps get up) What I meant from a paper point of view of speed, armour, gun it does look useful. A real disaster with lots of scarce resources put into a total turkey. TOG was another one, there were loads of British tracked turkeys! Churchll redeemed itself. I know it would p*ss off the players but Battlefront should have a reasonably high rate of breakdowns compared to the Germans for all British stuff in the early period - with a discount on points of course - just to give the player the right idea . (Same goes for Italian stuff if not more so). The first really reliable British tank was the Valentine - it was used in this period - unlike Comet. MikeyD looking forward to your pictures and the MODs ! [ December 05, 2003, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

The best source for first Churchill use is Field-Marshal Lord Carver El – Alamein – the index is sh**t and I cannot find the passage. Also has the development of mine clearing tanks in it. It is quoted badly in George Forty WW2 Tanks, which is really not all that bad. There were 6 Churchill IIIs there for field trials – they were not meant to be used in combat but in fact were thrown into the battle – almost everything was. Forty says they were almost impervious to damage but Carver says they were all knocked out. The Churchill after Dieppe (August 1942) had been tarred with a reputation for poor mechanical reliability – in this battle they got stuck and could not get off the beach and the infantry were cut apart. This is the major story of British Tank development in WW 2 – the Covenanter although technically good also never say action because of its unreliability. See Smithers Rude Mechanicals for this story and TOG etc. (He is biased). Not got a copy but the “Great Tank Scandal by Ian Fletcher (The Liberian at the Bovington Tank Museum) should be good - you really have to understand this issue to get you head round what went on. I have his “Churchill Tank” which is largely reprints of the period Churchill manuals but does not help much on this issue. I also have his Mechanised Force British Tanks between the Wars – the only book as far as I know on the strange development of the British tank force. Just any case I have to argue on doctrine . God I rambling in my old age. According to Donald Featherstone’s A Wargamers Guide to the Mediterranean Campaigns - a large number of Churchills I and IIs were converted to III standard and shipped to the Desert – is this what you are seeing? Should look like a Churchill III after the refit. I really don’t believe any Churchill Is or IIs were sent in that form for the reason listed above. Churchill’s were used by the 1st Canadian Army Tank Brigade in Sicily. I didn't have to look very hard to find that out and no doubt other units had them as well. I can’t for the life of me find any sources on 6pdr HE now! We should get Rexford to write a definitive book on British AT guns - I would buy it!!! For a bit of fun I pulled out my old miniature Wargame rules – The late great B.A. Rea-Taylor Firefly (1987) has no HE for any 6pdr equipped tanks and says no 6pdr HE equipped tanks at Alamein in the list for that battle. He has 2pdr HE for the Marmon Harrington IV (A late period AC of South African manufacture) but nothing else. He has 2pdr APCBC from the Maltida II and just about everything else. He calls 2pdr AP – APC and everything has got it. The Littlejohn is ignored completely. (The rules were copied a lot from Squad Leader, this was fair as the game was copied a lot from earlier British wargame rules but he was a real expert – I met him once. I’m an almost national (student) champ!) The rival Ian Shaw's WWII Army Organisations and Equipment (3rd Ed 1986) Mentions that 2pdr HE appears in September 1941 but does not say what has got it. Also got AP and APCBC for 2pdr. The Littlejohn Ammo is called SV and appears in late 1944 if you want it will cost lots of extra points! You can have 6pdr HE as soon as the gun appears with everything and anything! According to the Featherstone book quoted above no 6pdr HE in the Med! Out of interest what does Squad Leader and ASL say! [ December 05, 2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

This is news to me. Certainly would like to see the photos. I can quote you from a very authoritive source (Book by a Desert General) that the first use of Churchills was at Alamein in October 1942. (Seen this reported elsewhere as well. These were Churchill IIIs and were seen as very useful as the order to send more was given after the battle. Because before this date they were seen as mechanically unsound - also widely reported in many books. I suppose its possible that some Churchill 1s and 2s were shipped after this date but its news to me. My understanding was they were relegated to home defence and training and never saw action apart from Dieppe. My understanding is that 6pdr HE rounds were available from about the time of Alamein and certainly were available before Italy. I have come across actual battle accounts with the tankers expressing relief at having a HE round for the 6pdr at last. [ December 05, 2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

I would like to see the M11/40s in the game - should not be to hard for Battlefront to do. However, it was rather rarer than 30, I think well under 15 in the Squadron if I remember rightly. They ran on diesel fuel so were abandoned after about two months - the allies had petrol. The British at this time just did not have the tanks to supply to the Aussies and they were keen to gain experience on any tank.

Bit confused . I think the Churchill MK 1 only so action at Dieppe (My weird spelling!) with Canadian crews. The Churchill MK 2 never saw action. Off the top of my head the Churchill III was the first to see action at EL Alamein - all three of them which were that for Battle testing. (All were knocked out.) Monty was not a fan of British tanks or new things at all. The Sherman had its first outing at tis battle as well. The reason is that the Churchill got a bad reputation for reliability like many earlier British tanks and was seen as unfit for actual combat. Strictly speaking Battlefront should remove both versions from the game or make it an optional extra for fictional what if games or mod scenarios of Dieppe. (I am a purist :eek: )

Very impressed with the discussion - which apart from Rexford who says AP - does not say which ammo type the figures you give refer to. I assume at this date only AP was available. Is AP, APHV, APCBC and APCNR with and without the Littlejohn Mk II adaptor fitted modelled in CMAK? Do the diffrent marks of 2pdr sometimes made to relaxed tolerances make any difference? I was impressed by Runes links although I have seen them before. The RA site which mentions a HE round complete with fuse number - has had me mystified in the past! WWII vehicles com is brilliant all power to it ! Strangely the site gives figures for the Littlejohn with the 6 pdr - I thought it was only tested on this gun? (Is the Green Rascal any relation to Bruce Lee - the Green Hornet? )

Very impressed with the discussion - which apart from Rexford who says AP - does not say which ammo type the figures you give refer to. I assume at this date only AP was available. Is AP, APHV, APCBC and APCNR with and without the Littlejohn Mk II adaptor fitted modelled in CMAK? Do the diffrent marks of 2pdr sometimes made to relaxed tolerances make any difference? I was impressed by Runes links although I have seen them before. The RA site which mentions a HE round complete with fuse number - has had me mystified in the past! WWII vehicles com is brilliant all power to it ! Strangely the site gives figures for the Littlejohn with the 6 pdr - I thought it was only tested on this gun? (Is the Green Rascal any relation to Bruce Lee - the Green Hornet? )

So FlammingKnives does not equal Mike then! Does Michael Emrys = Mike? I don't know for sure but Little John is a character from Robin Hood - our bandit hero who robs from the rich to give to the poor, etc. Little John is Robin's right hand man - a giant of man who wields a big stick - that's why Robin called him Little John, get it! No neither do I -medieval humour has gone off a bit over time! I sort of it get it for the 2pdr projectile. Tungsten not so rare - well the rich Americans could only afford to give a couple of such rounds to their Tank destoyers facing Tigers. I suspect samething with Littlejohn 2pdrs a couple of rounds of the good stuff, the rest APCBC. So Mike when you going to give me the low down on WW2 British Army doctrine? [ December 04, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

FlamingKnives is that really you Mike? I will have ago at arguing with you about doctrine in a bit as this is turning into a real thread with real people posting. I think you have to get you head around the situation at the start of WW 2 and in the inter-war years to understand why things were done in the way they were. As for the origins of the Little John it is described in A.J. Smithers Rude Mechanicals (One of the powers that be that made the decisions as to what the British Army should have). (Sorry got nothing to do with examining the German squeeze bore - who had control of the Czech factory?) Frantisek Janacek, a Czech arms manufacturer came to England in December 1938, and approached the BSA Company and said that he and his father had been working on a new type of armour-piercing ammunition for the Czech army and wanted Britain and France to have it. The War office were uninterested but BSA were impressed and gave him the necessary facilities, knowing that war and lots of orders were just around the corner. Before the Germans marched in to the Janacek factory, an English man had smuggled the prototypes to the British Legation. A few months later Janacek could fire the projectile from a specially adapted 2pdr which had its penetration vastly improved. The shot had a band or skirting, near the middle, which was squeezed flat during its passage through an unrifled barrel. High velocity was thus obtained. The penetrator was made of tungsten carbide and could go through any known armour. (However tungsten is rare.) The government set up special factories for the device and by mid-1942 was been produced in quantity and designs were made to fit the device to the 6pdr and 17pdr. (This never happened.) The converted 2pdrs were known as Littlejohn guns and were fitted to Tetrarch light tanks for airborne forces. (The crews were told they could pentrate a Tiger, which was widely disbelieved. My understanding is that the Tetrarchs used for D-Day had the 3inch gun and not the 2pdr anyway. This could point to something as the 3inch gun could fire HE by this time.) Apart from the expense and rarity of Tungsten, the velocity wore out the barrels very rapidly. (This would explain why it was not in the event widely fitted and why standard 2pdrs were not converted. I think this is also the reason for the removal of the Littlejohn device to fire more conventional AP type rounds [see above for choices!] and this could not be done in combat anyway. I provided the link to that story in the first place - one of the few internet sites to even mention the Littlejohn.) (I could be wrong but I know from an Ian Hogg book that 2pdr HE rounds were made and tested early in the war, that as the powers that be had decided the Littlejohn was a good idea and a squeeze bore cannot fire HE, it was pretty silly to waste resources tooling up and making 2pdr HE. This is just my interpretation/guess and I could be wrong - certainly lots of other people are guessing and making interpretation on just as flimsy information/evidence. If not how come Rexford isn't posting here with loads of evidence on 2pdr HE use and making me eat my posts?) Sorry for all the in advance. I will do a perfect post oneday! [ December 04, 2003, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

Mike I'm fascinated by this British Army doctrinal bias against HE. Can you explain it to me. In the Pre-War years the British Army was on a shoe string, it had fought the war to end all wars and had only to police the empire now. Most Officers were all for going back to real soldiering dumping these petrol run things and getting back on their horses. If you read Rude Mechanicals - apart from a bit of practice on saliburys plain which took up the whole mechanised budget - they didn't have much of a doctrine. The premier WW1 armoured expert was more than slightly suspected of been a Nazi. Ok, the Crusier 1 mounted a gun that couldn't fire HE but it was a bit better than a Panzer 1 - what. When war broke out they had to make do - not much of a doctrine but the Germans had to make do with their Panzer 1s as well. The question is why are HE rounds appearing in 1943 when they have only just found the resources to fit the Little John at last? Ok where are the Rexfords, Bastables and others with the low numbers and all the right answers when you need them. Sorry for all the in advance!