Perplexed about the Valentine

[Andreas]

Simon, thanks for providing the figures. I was hoping you'd come across this thread

[Andreas]

Mark, since you still have so many doubts, why don't you get the documents yourself? Simon did provide the full reference. I somehow fail to see what more can be done to deal with your queries and preconceptions regarding HE deliveries and existence?

To my knowledge Valentine bridgelayers operated in NWE as well, but my memory may play tricks on me.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

I am afraid it is just not possible that both 6pdr and 2pdr versions of the Valentine got HE rounds because no 2pdr HE round was ever produced!

Most people when faced with irrefutable evidence contradicting their boldly made statements would perhaps temper the tone of their future assertions. But alas, not yourself.

MikeyD has already pointed out to you the antecedance of the British 75mm gun, which is fairly commonly known and not exactly a secret. I guess like myself he was suprised that an expert in the field such as yourself was unaware of this.

In the period 7/43 to 6/44 the British shipped 55,070 rounds 2-pr HE rounds and 99,375 6-pr rounds to the Soviet Union. One wonders at the Soviets reaction to receiving these vast shipments of fictitous rounds.

As for the Canadian Valentines I guess BTS decided that the IV was sufficiently close to represent those marks which do not differ from it in any significant regard in game terms (though of course I wouldn't presume to know their actual thinking on the matter).

[MikeyD]

Simon, the delivery figures on 6 & 2 pounder HE is very interesting. Do you have any numbers on possible pre-July 43 deliveries? The Beta board went round & round on this very subject.

I recall the Brits went so far as to do some very extensive field mods on 6 pounder Churchills (Mk IVs?) in Sicily to convert them to 75s in 1943, just to get the HE capability. I think I read that 6 pounder HE showed up shortly after the coversions, making the whole conversion redundant

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

[snips] Tetrarch was only used operationally by Britain as an airborne tank via gliders in Normandy

Not so. The Tetrarch was used in British hands during the invasion of Madagascar, and the Sovs had at least a company of them in operations around the "Little land", if Jack Radey's orbat for "Black Sea, Black Death" is too be believed.

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

The Maltida are all versions of the Matilda II. The CS version has a 3in howitzer that fired smoke. (Not HE).

I think you might be getting it mixed up with the earlier 3.7" tank howitzer (originally the "15-pr mortar"). Both my copy of the Bovington booklet "Fire and Movement" and Chamberlain & Ellis' "British and American Tanks of WW2" mention an HE round for the 3", and the New Zealanders' use of it in Valentines against the Japanese would have been singularly pointless if nothing but smoke had been available.

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

I am afraid it is just not possible that both 6pdr and 2pdr versions of the Valentine got HE rounds because no 2pdr HE round was ever produced!

"Contrary to many published statements, there was a high-explosive shell for the 2-pdr gun, though it appears not to have been issued to tanks" says Ian V Hogg on p. 75 of his "British & American Artillery of WW2".

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

I am gob smacked that the Valentine 75mm is a converted 6pdr - I would have thought it was an American 75mm possibly shortened to balance the turret and maybe the flash hider added to cut the extra flash. This gun is also fitted to the Churchill and I always believed it was just the standard American 75mm produced in Britain.

The American 75mm M3 was fitted in the Churchill IV NA, a field workshop lash-up; all other British tanks mounting 75mm guns mounted British guns, in this case the Mark V. Mention of its development from the 2-pounder is made in, among other places, Chamberlain & Ellis, already mentioned. The tradition of being confused about this is a long one. The British official history of the Normandy campaign (Ellis et al 1962) makes the reverse mistake of misidentifying the Sherman's 75mm as the Mark V, and the error is perpetuated in Hastings' "Overlord", from which many other authors appear to copy the gun data he copied from the official history.

Cosmically speaking it makes little operational difference, as both guns fired the same ammunition and had as far as I can tell identical armour-piercing performance.

All the best,

John.

[Firefly]

Originally posted by Andreas:

To my knowledge Valentine bridgelayers operated in NWE as well, but my memory may play tricks on me.

You're probably right. A 7th Armoured Division web-site I came across the other day (again with the web-sites ), said that the main role in which Valentines were used by the division was as bridge-layers.

http://www.btinternet.com/~ian.a.paterson/

[Mark Gallear]

Gosh get some flank here – I thought my little post on the John Salts post was meant to be helpful interpretation. (My initial post on that you can not expect tank commanders to know what guns they have was meant in jest – but as we have seen battlefield account although important are open to loss of memory and casual use of terminology. Andreas seems to have taken that the wrong way.)

The information on Valentine Bridegelayer was meant to illustrate some info I found on it for British use. I don’t doubt the Russians got them.

I have seen other Hogg reports that say that it was possible to make 2pdr HE rounds but apart from experiments they were never produced – which is basically the quote again here. Battlefront got the lack of 2pdr HE rounds right with the Daimler in CMBO and the Valentine in CMBB. For me, the fact the report says that vast numbers of 2pdr HE rounds with an exact figure quote leaves the report open to some big question marks. I am absolutely certain that no 2pdr HE rounds were ever used in combat. (Sorry about my tone but that is fact.) I would be glad and appreciative to receive a photocopy of the report from John, if he would email me I will send my address.

Yes a 3inch HE round was later developed but in the early war the gun only fired smoke! I was amazed myself to find that out. Cannot remember offhand exactly when they came in but Matilda CS tanks and all the others in the Desert War and undoubtedly the Russian ones as well had no HE. Later period Matilda use in Burma is a different matter.

When researching squadron organisation I came to the conclusion that there was no special model CS tanks as such. The tanks would be delivered and the squadron would have a command section of two tanks – a CS section of two tanks and then a troop of 4. The number of troops in the squadron was cut early in the war. The Squadron armourer would convert the tanks by taking out the 2pdr and putting in the 3inch gun. The idea was that they would screen the squadron from AT fire by firing smoke rounds. Later when HE and smoke rounds were available the CS tanks for the Churchill and Cromwell were some times used and sometimes ordinary versions took there place in different Squadrons. It is interesting that the report identifies "CS" tanks as being sent.

I didn’t know that the 75mm gun was a 6pdr conversion – it really was news to me. I am going to look that up. When I did the oob I didn’t go much into gun development as the guns were already on the database to pick. Although I remember having a lot of problems with the Sherman and finding a made up 75mm gun! I have learnt something from this

[Kanonier Reichmann]

So, is the general consensus of opinion that the Matilda CS isn't modelled in the game due to the 3 inch howitzer (at that time) only being good for smoke when we know that the Soviets weren't big fans of smoke?

Regards

Jim R.

Edited to change it from Crusader CS to Matilda CS

[ February 26, 2003, 11:45 PM: Message edited by: Kanonier Reichmann ]

[CSM Hollis]

Just a thought on the 2pdr HE rounds. These couldn't be a reference to the HE AA ammo used in the 2pdr 40mm Bofors gun could they.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

I have seen other Hogg reports that say that it was possible to make 2pdr HE rounds but apart from experiments they were never produced – which is basically the quote again here. Battlefront got the lack of 2pdr HE rounds right with the Daimler in CMBO and the Valentine in CMBB. For me, the fact the report says that vast numbers of 2pdr HE rounds with an exact figure quote leaves the report open to some big question marks. I am absolutely certain that no 2pdr HE rounds were ever used in combat. (Sorry about my tone but that is fact.) I would be glad and appreciative to receive a photocopy of the report from John, if he would email me I will send my address.

There's nothing more satisfying to an Aussie than a Pommie making an idiot of himself. They do it on the cricket pitch, they do it on the soccer pitch and now you're doing it on BTS's pitch. Most people know better than to assert that their opinion is a fact when there seems to be a bit of contradictory evidence floating around. Or at least if they do so they cite some good hard evidence to back up their bold assertions like other people have in this thread.

The quote John posted from Ian Hogg does nothing whatsoever to support your position. Quite the contrary.

If you actually want to be informed I suggest you try:

"Jane's World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles: The Complete Guide" by Leland Ness

who has something to say on the subject.

or

"Fighting, Support and Transport Vehicles, and The War Office Organization and Their Provision" The War Office Publication, 1951. Available at Bovington I understand.

or

"Lend Lease Tanks 1941-1945" by M. Kolomiyets and I. Moshchanskiy, Moscow, Russia, 2000

The absence of 2pdr HE in CMBB has nothing to do with BTS "getting it right" nor wrong either for that matter.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by CSM Hollis:

Just a thought on the 2pdr HE rounds. These couldn't be a reference to the HE AA ammo used in the 2pdr 40mm Bofors gun could they.

No

[flammenwerfer]

Simon-

Do you know what the Ammo Load out was for the Matilda CS?

Thanks.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

I have seen other Hogg reports that say that it was possible to make 2pdr HE rounds but apart from experiments they were never produced – which is basically the quote again here. Battlefront got the lack of 2pdr HE rounds right with the Daimler in CMBO and the Valentine in CMBB. For me, the fact the report says that vast numbers of 2pdr HE rounds with an exact figure quote leaves the report open to some big question marks. I am absolutely certain that no 2pdr HE rounds were ever used in combat. (Sorry about my tone but that is fact.) I would be glad and appreciative to receive a photocopy of the report from John, if he would email me I will send my address.

There's nothing more satisfying to an Aussie than a Pommie making an idiot of himself. They do it on the cricket pitch, they do it on the soccer pitch and now you're doing it on BTS's pitch. Most people know better than to assert that their opinion is a fact when there seems to be a bit of contradictory evidence floating around. Or at least if they do so they cite some good hard evidence to back up their bold assertions like other people have in this thread.

The quote John posted from Ian Hogg does nothing whatsoever to support your position. Quite the contrary.

If you actually want to be informed I suggest you try:

"Jane's World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles: The Complete Guide" by Leland Ness

who has something to say on the subject.

or

"Fighting, Support and Transport Vehicles, and The War Office Organization and Their Provision" The War Office Publication, 1951. Available at Bovington I understand.

or

"Lend Lease Tanks 1941-1945" by M. Kolomiyets and I. Moshchanskiy, Moscow, Russia, 2000

The absence of 2pdr HE in CMBB has nothing to do with BTS "getting it right" nor wrong either for that matter. </font>

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Simon Fox:

There's nothing more satisfying to an Aussie than a Pommie making an idiot of himself. They do it on the cricket pitch, they do it on the soccer pitch and now you're doing it on BTS's pitch.

Sig material

[Mark Gallear]

Sorry don't feel very foolish.

I am interested by all the sources quoted, as I do not own any of those books. I am surprised that nobody is quoting all the books and battlefield reports that say the 2pdr did not have HE rounds.

Do any of these books have detailed reports on 2pdr HE manufacture, design and use or just throw away one line comments?

Yes, it is a bit strange that I am supporting Battlefront for once, maybe not, but generally it feels it! Of course I could be wrong and Battlefront could be wrong. I have been proved wrong before on many issues and I am certainly not the Pope.

I am interested in the report by gibsonm as I and other people who did the SPWAW OOB have come across Battlefield reports of 2pdr HE shells been used in the Far East. I was never able to verify these reports - but they are interesting as they are the only reports of 2pdr HE shells been used. As Battlefield reports can get things very widely off the mark I discounted them. I know that flechette rounds were developed for the American 37mm in the Jungle used in the Lees. So there is some possibility of a limited number of 2pdr HE shells made locally or officially for the jungle war. Personally I think it is more likely from this evidence that solid shot was fired and in later memoirs/reports it became HE or was HE from Matilda CS tanks. But I could be wrong, however I feel it needs some more evidence to know either way.

I have read so many accounts of the early Desert War where the lack of HE tank rounds was seen as a major disadvantage. HE rounds first arrived with the American tanks. (The Bofors gun was used in AT role in the early Desert War and is often called a 2pdr and it had HE rounds.) There was a general sigh of relief in the battle accounts when the 6pdr finally got HE.

Battlefront again models the timeline of the 17pdr HE rounds correctly with them only appearing after Normandy. Most wargames get that wrong. Most wargames get the lack of 2pdr HE shells right!

(Got to say that my SPWAW OOB is totally unofficial and done off my own bat – any mistakes in it have nothing to do with Matrix. I am still learning and can keep my mind open.)

[ February 27, 2003, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Andreas]

Mark, can you maybe explain to me (and Simon, and John, and various others interested) of the relevance of Western Desert reports of British tankforces fighting with the Matilda to shipment reports for a specific type of ammunition to the SU for Soviet tank forces fighting with the Matilda?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

I am interested by all the sources quoted, as I do not own any of those books. I am surprised that nobody is quoting all the books and battlefield reports that say the 2pdr did not have HE rounds.

Do any of these books have detailed reports on 2pdr HE manufacture, design and use or just throw away one line comments?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I think that now after at least two reports here on the existence of 2-pdr HE, maybe it is your turn to bring a statement of the 'fact' that 'no 2-pdr HE round was ever produced' (my emphasis). So far you can only show that it was not used in the Western Desert. Which does not mean it was never produced - maybe all the rounds were shipped to the SU? Maybe the British generals in charge of tanks felt it was pointless to have a 2-pdr HE round?

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Not wishing to labour the point but does anybody know whether the Matilda CS tanks that were shipped to the former Soviet Union had HE shells available for their 3 inch howitzer?

Regards

Jim R.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

[snips]I am interested by all the sources quoted, as I do not own any of those books. I am surprised that nobody is quoting all the books and battlefield reports that say the 2pdr did not have HE rounds.

I think we were all rather expecting you to do that. Since you haven't, I'm afraid you give the impression that your personal knowledge of the subject is greater that that of Ian Hogg, Chamblerlain and Ellis, the staff at Bovington, and other authorities of equal standing. I repectfully beg leave to doubt that it is.

Nobody is arguing that 2-pounder HE was issued to British tanks in the Western Desert. from there to "2-pounder HE was never used in action" is a colossal leap that you have so far completely failed to justify in any way, in the face of pretty overwhelming contrary evidence.

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Do any of these books have detailed reports on 2pdr HE manufacture, design and use or just throw away one line comments?

Do any of the books you own, have read, or stood close to, have detailed reports on manufacture of HE for (say) the US 37mm? Would it be even slightly reasonable to conclude that therefore the round was never used in action?

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

[snips] very widely off the mark I discounted them. I know that flechette rounds were developed for the American 37mm in the Jungle used in the Lees.

Canister, not flechette.

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Most wargames get that wrong. Most wargames get the lack of 2pdr HE shells right!

Many wargames make the same error you do. Some don't, notably the WRG 1925-50 set, which are probably still among the best researched.

I have it from Tony Williams (author of "Rapid Fire", the book on heavy automatic weapons, not the wargames rules) that armoured car crews in NWE would sometimes use the 2-pounder APNCR round without the Littlejohn adaptor, so that they had the option of firing HE.

All the best,

John.

[MikeyD]

I hate to say it but Chamberlain & Ellis got it wrong more than once (remember all those different Firefly marks?). Over the past few year I've seen so much conventional wisdom about WWII armor overturned (and reoverturned) that I'm afraid to trust anything written before 1985 on the subject!

Duelling 'authoritative' references on any particular subject seems to be the rule nowadays, rather than the exception.

--

Also, on the subject of the use of 6 pounder Valentines in Russia, just last night there was a PBS documentary on the fall of Berlin, had a nice clip of six or eight 6 pounder Valentines advancing with infantry. Unfortunately the clip was maybe 2 seconds long, and TV documentaries on WWII are notorious for using 'generic' propaganda film footage to illustrate events.

[ February 27, 2003, 11:13 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Mark Gallear]

I have got an exam for a job and until then the idiot does not want to play. I am totally over awed by John’s connections anyway.

Interestingly all though I am a complete nobody with no connections to anybody who is a somebody. I found the quote from one of John's friends on this site. You just need to put in 2pdr into goggle. It is one of those smelly websites that no real grog would dare go near.

Little John page

John is therefore well aware that with the Little John Adaptor fitted it is impossible to fire HE rounds from a 2pdr anyway. I found the story of having it removed so you could fire HE rounds fascinating to say the least.

I had more problems finding out about the Little John than anything else about the 2pdr. At first I thought it was a late invention and rather rare, but in the end found sources who said it was fitted fairly early. The effect is to boost the 2pdr penetration. I think a more pertinent question is when were Little Johns fitted to Russian supplied 2pdrs. (I think the current penetrations have this factored in anyway.)

If you are going to nick-pick get me on something decent. I said HE was not supplied until June 1944 to the AT gunners – in fact I was thinking of APDS. I humbly apologise for misleading you all.

Ok I have accepted that Valentines with 6pdrs were sent to Russia, from John post and the picture.

Yours

The Idiot

[flammenwerfer]

3in Howitzer Ordnance Quick Firing Mk I & 1A

This weapon was fitted to the CS variants of tanks armed with 2pdr guns. CS tanks were issued on a scale of about two vehicles per squadron(company)of 15. Their main function was to fire smoke shells but they could also fire HE .

Calibre: 3in(76.2mm)

From British and American Tanks of WWII by Peter Chamberlain pg.204

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Thanks for that info. Flammenwerfer.

So, back to the original query... tis a pity these Matilda CS tanks are not modelled in CMBB when equally uncommon T34/57's and absolutely rare IS 3's are. It would have been fun to see how they would have performed against soft targets and also whether they fired an HC round that would make it the equivalent of an early/mid war Stug killer much like the Churchill Mk VIII is against a Tiger/Panther in CMBO.

Regards

Jim R.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Simon, the delivery figures on 6 & 2 pounder HE is very interesting. Do you have any numbers on possible pre-July 43 deliveries? The Beta board went round & round on this very subject.

I recall the Brits went so far as to do some very extensive field mods on 6 pounder Churchills (Mk IVs?) in Sicily to convert them to 75s in 1943, just to get the HE capability. I think I read that 6 pounder HE showed up shortly after the coversions, making the whole conversion redundant

Sorry, I only have tank and some other equipment shipping data for the earlier period (41-43) and I better not reveal too much of that or Jim will start raving on about why the Blacker Bombard isn't in the game

Regarding the 75 conversions (Churchill NA75). I think it was tried out initially in North Africa (Tunisia) as a result of experience there. Consideration has to be given to the existing British experience with the Sherman and its 75mm round. The conversions were in no way "redundant" because 75mm HE was vastly superior against strongpoints or AT guns than the 6-pr round. That was particularly useful in the kind of fighting that occurred in Italy.

Issues of 6-pr supply involve a multitude of factors including logistics, RAC doctrine and RA/RAC demarcation issues in addition to merely manufacture. Evidence seems to suggest that the HE round first became available in North Africa (NA) some time in 1943. But that doesn't really give mush of an indication regarding availability in the UK or shipments to the Soviet Union. Sometimes it seems that decisions were taken in the UK regarding the necessity of sending particular items to NA which didn't correspond the the priorities of those actually in NA.

[Simon Fox]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Thanks for that info. Flammenwerfer.

So, back to the original query... tis a pity these Matilda CS tanks are not modelled in CMBB when equally uncommon T34/57's and absolutely rare IS 3's are. It would have been fun to see how they would have performed against soft targets and also whether they fired an HC round that would make it the equivalent of an early/mid war Stug killer much like the Churchill Mk VIII is against a Tiger/Panther in CMBO.

Regards

Jim R.

I don't think there was a hollow charge round for the 3in, leastways I have never heard of it.

In January 1942 first orders were placed for conversions of Matilda II from 2 pdr to 76mm tank gun following trials at factory No 92 in December 1941.

Kolomiets and Ilya Moshchansky have the following to say on this subject in "Matilda in the Red Army"

"It Is possible, that reequipment of the Matilda with the F-34 gun (not sure of designation, could be Zis5) was not made at all. You see since the spring of 1942 the infantry tank MK.II " Matilda CS " began to arrive in our country, being armed with a 76,2-mm howitzer, having available high explosive shells that allowed more effective combat with strongpoints of the enemy."