No HE shells

[Mr. Floppy74]

Why are some English guns unable to fire HE shells? I guess it is not a bug, but why didn´t they develop some HEs for them?

[flamingknives]

If you're referring to the 2pdr, a 40mm HE shell doesn't create much of a bang, although an HE round was introduced in about '43. MGs were considered primary anti-personnel weapons, while the main gun was for engaging enemy tanks (which the 2pdr is quite good at - compare it to the German 37mm)

The 3" howitzer was supposed to provide smoke screens for the cruisers to close and use MGs - thus it only has smoke shells to start with. IIRC it gets HE shells before it is replaced with the 95mm.

[MikeyD]

And (I believe) a 6 pdr HE doesn't show up until sometime after they're in Italy. I recall a heated debate in CMBB about whether and when Lend-Lease 6 pdr HE rounds should show up.

[Mark Gallear]

Sorry I just cann't resist. What is the evidence for 2pdr HE rounds in British use from about 43 apart from their existence in CMBB for Russian use.

I would have thought that adaptor thingy m jig for better penetration would have made the production of 2pdr HE rounds fairly pointless? :confused:

[Guest Mike]

There are references around for New Zealand and Australia manufacturing 2 pounder HE from Bofors shells mated with 2 pdr casings for use in Matilda's (Aus) and Valentines (NZ) in the Pacific.

also later in the war in Europe the 2 pdr was mainly used in armoured cars, and a few on the Tetrach and Locust light tanks - to give them a credible AP performance some of these were fitted with the "little john" squeeze bore adaptor (usually 1 in 3 or something like that), which was noted as preventing the firing of HE.

You should be able to find some stuff about Little John on the net.

[Mark Gallear]

I find myself in total historical agreement with Mike with the low member number does this mean that there are no 2pdr HE rounds in CMAK?

Can I ask if the diffrences in pentration between the diffrent marks of 2pdr with and without the Little John been modeled? (The 2pdr performance in CMBB seemed to me to be the one with the Little John.)

[ December 02, 2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Guest Mike]

Presumably there should be some 2 pdr HE available later in the war in Italy if there are vehicles with the gun in the game for that time frame.

[Michael Emrys]

Just to add to the confusion, ISTR hearing in the last year that an HE round for the 2pdr was developed in the UK early on, say, before 1940, but didn't find its way into the hands of British troops. What shells that were produced were shipped to the Soviets.

Or something like that.

:confused:

Michael

[Mark Gallear]

I have come against reports of the Little John been removed from 2pdr AC guns so they could fire HE. I have always been very doubtful of their veracity, as they all seem to quote the one account. I am fairly certain that no 2pdr HE was made in the UK apart from some experimental rounds very early in the war, as the decision to make and fit the Little John was taken fairly early on in the war. (Bare in mind that the British Army was on a budget before WW2 came along and the inventors of the tank could barely afford the budget to have one made that would run any distance before it would breakdown! )

The fact that the Little John was not finally made and fitted until late in the war when the 2pdr was long obsolete as a main tank armament points to the massive war time shortages and constraints. Tooling up to produce 2pdr HE round was just not a big enough priority compared to Spitfires, etc. 6pdr HE and later 17 pdr HE rounds with a decent blast were all manufactured much later than the introduction of the gun. (I suspect some 6pdr HE rounds were converted from AP rounds. If so, then large numbers cannot have been made and their reliability must also have been suspect.)

There may have been some battlefield made 2pdr HE rounds made in the Desert/Italy and Western European campaign - which the reference may reflect. There was certainly considerable relief by British tankers in the desert war when 6pdr HE rounds were finally issued even though American guns with HE were then available. The Germans had a distinct advantage prior to this. I don't believe the Russians were sent any.

I suspect the same situation is true of ANZAC forces fighting in the Pacific war - I came across references to 2pdr HE references in use and for homemade production by New Zealand tankers. Australia may have had factory made 2pdr HE rounds for jungle use late in the war although I cannot prove this. I know that a special beehive round was made for the American 37mmm gun in Lees and Grants for use by British tankers in the jungle war. This was probably made in India.

[ December 02, 2003, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[flamingknives]

BFC has chosen to model 2pdr HE, in Italy at least (I saw this at a sneak preview. Being as the game is now in the hands of some of the public, I see no reason not to mention this.)

they also model 2pdr fitted with Littlejohn adaptors (firing APCNR in place of AP and HE)

Incidently, how would one go about modifing AP into HE, especially given the British preference for AP shot.

[JonS]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

And (I believe) a 6 pdr HE doesn't show up until sometime after they're in Italy. I recall a heated debate in CMBB about whether and when Lend-Lease 6 pdr HE rounds should show up.

Hmm. Within weeks of recieving their first 6-prs in June 1942, NZ gunners were testing out their indirect fire capabilities. I strongly doubt they would have done that if there hadn't been any HE available.

Regards

JonS

[Guest Mike]

There have been a number of threads on British & American ATG HE ammo in previous forums:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=012233#000000

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=018203#000009

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=022446;p=1

[Mark Gallear]

I thought I would have my little say on British equipment introduction dates and usage and then run away! Not seen CMAK so don’t know what Battlefront have done exactly. But from what I have heard above not sure I'm a happy camper. I suppose I should just play German then it wouldn't bother me!

Not so much that the British Army like AP rounds and the Soviets like HE but the direction they have come from in the inter-war years. The Britain Army is fitting its tanks with anti-tank guns – small calibre weapons capable of piercing the armour of all contemporary tanks but pretty useless for throwing HE at infantry (Even if I believed it had a HE round.) Whilst the Soviets fitted their later tanks (T-34/KV) with large calibre field guns these are good at throwing HE about but have relatively dismal AP proprieties for the guns relative calibre.

(Not so much doctrine but for war time economic reasons no HE round was made and issued for the British Army. The prospect of fitting the Little John and prolonging the 2pdrs life was taken early on - so there was little reason to spend time producing 2pdr HE rounds that could not be fired. The British Army wanted in 1940 to produce the 6pdr but the delay compared to producing 2pdrs was deemed too great as the enemy really were banging on the gates.)

2 pdr in very short supply after Dunkirk so Bofors 40mm AA gun used in this role in first campaign against the Italians. (It is called the 2pdr not sure if this was done to mislead the enemy or just because all AT guns were called 2pdrs.) Different marks of 2pdr made – (Got a book out - IX, X and XA. From September 1942 APCBC Armour Piercing capped, ballistic capped introduced AP 2,800 fps giving 57mm at 500 yards and at 30 degrees against 2,600 fps and 57.5mmm for APCBC - as I said much better!) later ones have Little John adaptor that prevent use of HE.

Armoured Cars such as the Daimler are used through war and early versions are still in use at the end of war, together with newer vehicles fitted with Little John - particularly on Italian Front, which is seen as a backwater. (This explains the proportion quoted above.) (Indeed the Daimler with the 2pdr soldiers on into the post-war and cold war era. Janes has full details on it but strangely no HE rounds are mentioned.)

(I keep pointing to theatre made 2pdr HE rounds to explain rare and unusual reports of usage in Pacific, etc. These would be primitive flechete rounds – like giant shotgun cartridge with a very close range and no guarantee of reliability. I doubt there is any point in modelling these in CMAK. Although seen reports of this done in Desert War for 6pdr. Flamming Knives again has a point the New Zealand round was an attempt to make a proper HE round - from the first eye witness report I read it wasn't very successful.)

6pdr OQF first used in May 1942 (found a date of December 1941 for the first 300 6pdrs delivered - presumably to British Army in England which is a bit different from Libya) – only a few guns are sent to be battle tested and are rare at this time, regular supplies do not come until later. 6pdr HE round is introduced in around October 1942. Again, lots of different marks for both tank and AT gun versions. (Same book - these marks apparently matter - MKIII (Intended for airborne use) has muzzle velocity of 2,800 and penetration of 81mm at 500yds at 30 degrees whilst the Mark V can manage 2,965 fps and 83mm penetration.) 6pdr is made in America as 57mm gun and I am not sure if these guns and ammo were supplied back to the British Army as Lend lease 6pdr – this is only clouding the issue. APDS round first issued in June 1944 for D-Day (Apparently it was developed early in 1944) – not sure when it was supplied for Italian campaign but if so after this date. (37mm APDS round used in Stuart also introduced in June 1944 not sure if it was used in Italian campaign or by US Army.)

17pdr first used in March 1943 (Forty The British Army Handbook has in service date of August 1942 for first 100 guns mounted on the 25pdr carriage - known as 17pdr MK2!) APCR (Doh! Flaming knives is right it is APDS with tungsten steel. ) introduced in late July 1944 after D-Day – again not sure when or even if the round is sent to Italy. HE round is first issued in late September 1944 in France – again not sure if or when it was issued for Italian campaign.

There are number of vehicles that only saw action on the Italian Front: -

Valentine XI with 75pdr (Doh! again I meant 75mm - the standard Sherman gun - Sergei got me and I didn't even notice .) from October 1943 used as HQ vehicle or tracked artillery observation/control vehicle. It is not used to fill out the tank troops. Few are made and it is a rare vehicle - doubt any were given to the Soviet Union.

Sherman IIA with 76mm gun used from around Sept 1944 – takes the place of Sherman Firefly in some tank units. (Troop of 2 standard Shermans with 75mm gun and 1 with 17pdr or 76mm gun. This tank is usually not the troop HQ)

Sherman I B CS with 105mm gun used from around October 1944 in pairs as part of Squadron HQ for close support.

I forgot the Churchill 75 NA! Although I'm sure CMAK has all its details right.

I really am looking forward to 2pdr HE blast figures and the sources! Never seen the results of the test rounds produced or figures for the Pacific rounds.

[ December 04, 2003, 05:06 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[flamingknives]

(I keep pointing to theatre made 2pdr HE rounds to explain rare and unusual reports of usage in Pacific, etc. These would be primitive flechete rounds – like giant shotgun cartridge with a very close range and no guarantee of reliability. I doubt there is any point in modelling these in CMAK. Although seen reports of this done in Desert War for 6pdr.)

What you describe is not an HE round, but a cannister round.

Did the 17pdr use APCR? I thought it was APDS.

[MikeyD]

About 6 pdr HE, I'm reminded of the story of the Churchill 75NA (which is in the game).

Brit workshops in Sicily overcame huge problems to fit the Sherman's 75mm gun and mount into a Churchill IV turret. The reason for all this effort was to give the Churchill a HE capability that it lacked with the 6 pdr. As luck would have it, once construction of the Churchill 75NA was finally perfected what should appear in-theater but a new 6 pdr HE round, making the re-gunned Churchill superfluous! Ouch. That, if memory serves, was from a Zaloga book I have somewhere.

[flamingknives]

6pdr HE is a bit pants anyway.

75mm is probably better in an infantry tank.

[Mark Gallear]

I'm still running away but Flamming Knives is right Churchill 75 NA introduced not becuase of the lack of 6pdr HE but because it doesn't give you much whiz bang for your money.

[MikeyD]

Heh heh. Sorry, I'm just chuckling at the thought of the Sherman's 75mm Übergun.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Valentine XI with 75pdr from October 1943

Wow! A 75 pounder gun, is that like 150mm or what?

[MikeyD]

I just did a quick check in the game and it looks like the Daimler AC and 2 pdr anti-tank gun both get 2 pdr HE in April 1943, just about in time to see the fall of the Afrika corps. And I've learned from experience to trust their sources over mine in these matters.

I also happened across a Daimler AC with Littlejohn adaptor sometime in '44. No HE for this vehicle.

--

And I just checked the HE blast values. The 2 pdr HE gets a blast=5, while the U.S. 37mm in the Stuart gets a blast=4, and the German 37mm anti-tank gun gets a blast=3.

[ December 03, 2003, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Andreas]

I am always a bit perplexed (being of a non-technical persuasion) when people say that the reason for non-issue of 2-pdr HE was it lack of oomph, to use the technical term. Does anyone have the comparative data for HE filler on the US 37mm, German 37mm, and the German 50mm rounds to the 2-pdr and 6-pdr? I may have the German ones at home, but am in a hotel in Manchester, which is about as far away as I care to be from my sources.

If it was considerably less on the 2-pdr, then why was that? If not, why would the argument of lack of lethality hold water, when e.g. a German report about the 37mm ATG says it is a good infantry gun (but sucks as ATG)?

[MikeyD]

In CMAK the poor 37mm PaK seems to be having unexpected difficulties. A blast=3 would give it 3/5th the oomph of the 2 pdr (how's that for math skills! ) and for anti-tank work it can only match the U.S. and Brit guns with a special tungsten round.

Of course the German regular AP round has a bigger burster, which would make for greater behind-armor effect (if it can make it through the armor!).

I suspect much of the delay in a 2 pdr round had more to do with doctrine than performance. Early war the 2 pdr was the Brit's main hole-puncher. By mid-43 they had to decide whether to retire the obsolescent gun entirely or to switch its mission to light infantry support.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Brit workshops in Sicily overcame huge problems to fit the Sherman's 75mm gun and mount into a Churchill IV turret.

They did it in North Africa first, and apparently it was a fairly simple fit - the main problem being the lack of decent arc welding gear to fix the 75 onto the churchill turret!!

http://freespace.virgin.net/chris.shillito/a22new/articles/na75text.htm

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I am always a bit perplexed (...snip...) but am in a hotel in Manchester,

I know how you feel. It's hell on the road isn't it? What model of Corby trouser-press do you have? Any means to turn off the heating or open a window? Get home safe soon...

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I suspect much of the delay in a 2 pdr round had more to do with doctrine than performance. Early war the 2 pdr was the Brit's main hole-puncher. By mid-43 they had to decide whether to retire the obsolescent gun entirely or to switch its mission to light infantry support.

I think you may have hit it right on. I can't think of any inherent reason why the 2pdr wouldn't have had a decent HE round. After all, that was the same caliber (40mm) as the Bofors, and nobody complained about that one.

BTW, several years back I did a comparison of all the different 37mm AT guns and was mildly surprised to see the American model come out on top as far as muzzle velocity and penetration were concerned. But then, it was a slightly later design than the others, so they may have known what the competition was up to.

Michael