Why is the Matilda called an Infantry Tank

[Gerry Chester]

Originally posted by JasonC:

If they had really believed in infantry tank doctrine they would have made things like the Char-B or the Grant - large HE chuckers. Instead they had just a few 3 inch CS versions.

I have read your well-constructed posting about which only the very last sentence requires clarification.

When the Churchill regiments/battalions were committed to continuous action in North Africa, the North Irish Horse being the first, only six Mark Is were in each unit's inventory. They were rarely used as the Mark IIIs 6-pdr HE (although not as powerful as that delivered by 75mm guns)proved to be effective. Even after the Na75s were delivered in Italy, 6-pdr HE was still being usefully expended up to war's end, but on a much smaller scale.

[JonS]

A further point: the British viewed the MG as the primary weapon of the I tanks. The 2-pr was a secondary weapon, and was just there to provide some A-Tk capability to the infantry should it be needed.

Now, you can say that the theory was pants, and many have, but it worked fine at places like Tummar and Sidi Barrani in Dec 1940. It also worked fairly well during some parts of Op Crusader in Nov 41. But A-Tk capability was spreading, and the I tanks were becoming more and more vulnerable at the same time as more firepower being required to shift defenders. Both of which should perhaps have been foreseen - especially given the experience of WWI - and planned for. To a certain extent they were. The 6-pr was ready to go in 1940, and it had an HE round. Unfortunately life got in the way, and poor tank design delayed the mounting of heavier guns in the turrets.

Regards

JonS

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

A further point: the British viewed the MG as the primary weapon of the I tanks. The 2-pr was a secondary weapon, and was just there to provide some A-Tk capability to the infantry should it be needed.

But was it used just for AT purposes, Jon? I should have thought it useful against anything emplaced behind sandbags, stacked rocks, or anything that an MG would have trouble penetrating.

Michael

[flamingknives]

The 2pdr was used other than for AT purposes. IIRC, there's a photo of an 88mm with the sights shot clean away by a 2pdr shot.

Not saying that that result was exactly common though.

[JonS]

Micheal,

Sorry, I should have been clearer - I was talking about design. When the 'tilda was designed, the MG was seen as the primary weapon, and the 2-pr was added to the design to give the infantry some mobile A-Tk capability (ref: Bidwell, Firepower). Quite an advanced idea really, when you think about it.

How a weapon gets used often differs greatly from how it was intended to be used (see: 88mm Flak 18, Bazooka, US TDs, etc)

Regards

JonS

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

How a weapon gets used often differs greatly from how it was intended to be used (see: 88mm Flak 18, Bazooka, US TDs, etc)

Rightie-o. I'm sure we could add a number of items to the list starting with the bayonet.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

How a weapon gets used often differs greatly from how it was intended to be used (see: 88mm Flak 18, Bazooka, US TDs, etc)

Regards

JonS

Bazooka? :confused:

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Bazooka? :confused:

You know, that funny looking thing that kinda resembles a length of stovepipe and fires rockets.

Michael

[PS]

The 2 pdr had a APHE shell but was never issued in the desert or ever? It was to be used against soft vehicles and bunkers and the MG against AT guns. Most pre-war AT-guns had the same type of round. As has been said, this would have been fine but the Germans used 88s so the MG become ineffective. The APHE round would prob not had worked as the round had a delay base fuse so unless the target stopped the round dead it would have travelled a short distance before it exploded.

The thing with the MG role against AT guns was that the British only supplied ball rounds for it. The 2 pdr AT gun shield was proof against ball rounds so why it was thought no other country did the same was strange. German tanks had the SMK round for their MGs so British 2 pdr AT gun crews were vulnerable at ranges up to c.600m.

Going back to the original question I think Rommel asked the same question.

[Wisbech_lad]

Re Bazooka - guess this is like the Milan ATGW.

Wasn't designed to be used as a bunker buster/ anti personel weapon, but in the Falklands it certainly got used as one.

I've read about PIAT being used as an anti shipping (well, river barge) weapon in Burma

[Andreas]

The PIAT was also used as a platoon mortar, giving better performance than the 2" mortar, according to Alex Bowlby.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by PS:

The 2 pdr had a APHE shell but was never issued in the desert or ever? It was to be used against soft vehicles and bunkers and the MG against AT guns. Most pre-war AT-guns had the same type of round. As has been said, this would have been fine but the Germans used 88s so the MG become ineffective. The APHE round would prob not had worked as the round had a delay base fuse so unless the target stopped the round dead it would have travelled a short distance before it exploded.

The thing with the MG role against AT guns was that the British only supplied ball rounds for it. The 2 pdr AT gun shield was proof against ball rounds so why it was thought no other country did the same was strange. German tanks had the SMK round for their MGs so British 2 pdr AT gun crews were vulnerable at ranges up to c.600m.

Going back to the original question I think Rommel asked the same question.

The only information I have on the 2pdr "HE" round apart from an experimental round is a short quote in Ian Hoggs Armour in conflict for QF 2pr Armour-Piercing Mark 1", filled with Lyddite, had a base fuse and went into service in 1935. This is before the 2pdr came into service and was clearly meant to be an anti-armour round. There was infrmaton that numbers were sent to Russia with lots of other junk the British Army wanted rid of and donated. It appears in CMBB but I suspect the Russians binned them.

I have an account of Churchill killing 88mm crew with the MG as the gunshield can not protect all the crew they can be effective.

[flamingknives]

APHE for the 2pdr was ditched before WWII as its performance was marginal. It was replaced with AP shot.

[Michael Emrys]

Didn't the Aussies or Kiwis develop an HE shell for use in the PTO?

Michael

[PS]

The pre-war British 3-pdr(47mm) had a APHE so it made sense for the 2-pdr to have one. Because the 2-pdr was a much higher velocity weapon a solid shot would be less likely to shatter and hence better penetration.

From the GJS forum:

http://www.geocities.com/mycenius/armour05.htm

http://www.geocities.com/mycenius/armour01.htm

Would appear the British only listed solid AP rounds for afv ammo storage in 1944.

I've seen the churchill accounts as well and I think they were at close range. The 88mm Flak did have large openings in the gunshield and some crews removed the shield, poss to reduce the size of the gun.

[flamingknives]

Plus steel is heavier than HE and a heavier shot carries energy better over distance.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PS:

The 88mm Flak did have large openings in the gunshield and some crews removed the shield, poss to reduce the size of the gun.

The shield might have been mounted in the first place only if the crew expected to be in or near the front lines. Alternatively, some models may have come with and others without the shield. I've seen plenty of pics of it without the shield.

Michael

[PS]

Have got another quote apart from the Armour in Conflict about the 2-pdr "HE" being for soft vehicles and bunkers but can't find it yet.

My earlier remark about no British AP MG rounds in the desert comes from Tank Combat in North Africa by Jentz so only deals with the early battles. The HMSO manuals for the Churchill and Cromwell lists AP rounds for the 7.92 Besa but they also list c.22 6-pdr rounds and a large no. for the 75mm, ie listed but not carried in combat. Were MG AP rounds issued later in the desert campaign to the Army as the RAF did have .303 AP rounds.

[flamingknives]

It's worth noting that the 7.92 BESA is actually the same round as the 7.92 Mauser used by German MGs, so MG ammunition (sMK and otherwise) would be interchangeable between tanks of different nationalities.

[Michael Emrys]

British light tanks (Mk. VI) were armed with .50 cal MGs. Didn't they have AP rounds?

Michael

[ April 19, 2004, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[PS]

Do you mean the Mk VI? They carried AP for the Vickers .50 to deal with light armour and .303 Ball rounds for soft targets in the early campaign. The 15mm Besa on the Mk VIC and Humber AC had AP rounds. This excellent heavy MG is sadly not modelled in CMAK.

Jentz states that the BEF in N.France found Ball rounds to be ineffective against german AT gun-shields, 8 months later no AP rounds had been issued.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by PS:

Do you mean the Mk VI?

Oops, sorry. Corrected.

Michael