Looking to discuss 2pdr effectiveness in RL and CMAK

[rexford]

If the bottom half of the PzKpfw III mantlet is the vulnerable area, it will be hit much more often than the veyr resistant top area.

Guns generally aim at the center of mass of a target, which would be the PzKpfw III driver plate. The shots are the distributed in a bell shaped curve about the aim point, so more shots land on the mantlet bottom than top because the bottom is closer to the aim point.

In other words, due to shot scatter the vulnerable bottom area would be hit more often than the upper mantlet.

[JasonC]

It seems to me at least part of the problem is that people are not tracking all of the variation in the target plate being discussed.

There are AARs from the very first engagements with DAK that state the 2 pdr proved ineffective beyond 500 yards. At that time, DAK was driving III Gs, tropical model. There are two possible inferences -

1. the 2 pdr for some reason was having difficulty even with 30-37mm plates at 600 yards. I consider this extremely unlikely.

2. DAK had already uparmored even its G model IIIs. I consider this quite likely.

There are reports that late production Gs were uparmored - though they did not get all the track and chassis upgrades of the H, meant to accomodate the extra weight. There are statements that IIIs were uparmored at the latest in the workshops in Tripoli. I don't claim any of these prove one way or another that the engaged targets were 30+30 modified Gs. But I think it the most likely explanation.

Later arrivals in north africa, before 1942, were probably Hs. But there weren't enough Hs to account for the IIIs sent to DAK from the winter to the Gazala battle in May. Given the production schedules at the time, the most likely vehicles arriving in this period would have been III Js, early, with short 50.

Now III Js have 50mm fronts rather than 30+30. But they also have uparmored turret fronts, 50mm rather than 37mm. Nobody doubts that the 2 pdr would have problems with 50mm fronts. 500 yards fits known data for 50mm fronts perfectly.

So, if in 1941 the opponents are basically Hs (including Gs modified basically to H standard in armor terms), and 2 pdrs penetrate about 50mm at 500 yards, while in 1942 the opponents are largely early Js, what would follow tactically?

1. In 1941, front hull hits would bounce, down to ranges around 300-400 yards, because they are hitting 30+30.

2. In 1941, front turret hits could go in.

3. In 1942, front hull hits would bounce, down to ranges around 500 yards, because they are hitting 50mm.

4. In 1942, front turret hits would bounce down to ranges of 500 yards, again because they are hitting 50mm (J turret front).

For the entire period, hits below 500 yards would penetrate (perhaps slightly closer vs. 30+30).

For the earlier period, only, turret hits, only, would penetrate at longer range.

The British tankers would conclude that they needed to get to 500 yards to fight. Against the turret-vulnerable early models, they could achieve penetrations beyond this range. But -

1. they need to hit

2. they need to hit the turret rather than the hull - perhaps only 1/3rd of the time. With realistic sizes for things like tracks, maybe 1/4.

3. they need to penetrate - say it is 80% of the time as in the game test, or perhaps is 3/4

4. they need to kill - which 2 pdr may do 50-60% of the time with pens, and perhaps 20% of the time with partials.

Multiply it out - 1/3rd of 4/5 of 1/2 is 13% or one hit out of 7.5. Down to 9.4% or 1 out of 10 2/3rds for the lower estimates. What is the hit chance? Donno, but not unity. 10 to 20 shots might be necessary to get one kill. In the early era, only - later on, no number of shots would suffice when the range was too long.

Would the tankers report the 2 pdr was effective if it took 10-20 shots to get one kill beyond 500 yards, for 1941 only, with that chance disappearing in 1942? Or would they report instead that the only reliable way to kill Pz IIIs with a 2 pdr was to close inside of 500 yards?

I submit they would report the latter. Without turret kills being impossible against the earlier model IIIs of 1941.

So I take the reports as evidence that (1) the 2 pdr penetrated about 50mm at 500 yards, (2) DAK Gs were uparmored to H standard before facing the Brits at all, and (3) by 1942 the DAK fleet had transitioned to early J model IIIs.

I hope this is helpful.

[JasonC]

It seems to me at least part of the problem is that people are not tracking all of the variation in the target plate being discussed.

There are AARs from the very first engagements with DAK that state the 2 pdr proved ineffective beyond 500 yards. At that time, DAK was driving III Gs, tropical model. There are two possible inferences -

1. the 2 pdr for some reason was having difficulty even with 30-37mm plates at 600 yards. I consider this extremely unlikely.

2. DAK had already uparmored even its G model IIIs. I consider this quite likely.

There are reports that late production Gs were uparmored - though they did not get all the track and chassis upgrades of the H, meant to accomodate the extra weight. There are statements that IIIs were uparmored at the latest in the workshops in Tripoli. I don't claim any of these prove one way or another that the engaged targets were 30+30 modified Gs. But I think it the most likely explanation.

Later arrivals in north africa, before 1942, were probably Hs. But there weren't enough Hs to account for the IIIs sent to DAK from the winter to the Gazala battle in May. Given the production schedules at the time, the most likely vehicles arriving in this period would have been III Js, early, with short 50.

Now III Js have 50mm fronts rather than 30+30. But they also have uparmored turret fronts, 50mm rather than 37mm. Nobody doubts that the 2 pdr would have problems with 50mm fronts. 500 yards fits known data for 50mm fronts perfectly.

So, if in 1941 the opponents are basically Hs (including Gs modified basically to H standard in armor terms), and 2 pdrs penetrate about 50mm at 500 yards, while in 1942 the opponents are largely early Js, what would follow tactically?

1. In 1941, front hull hits would bounce, down to ranges around 300-400 yards, because they are hitting 30+30.

2. In 1941, front turret hits could go in.

3. In 1942, front hull hits would bounce, down to ranges around 500 yards, because they are hitting 50mm.

4. In 1942, front turret hits would bounce down to ranges of 500 yards, again because they are hitting 50mm (J turret front).

For the entire period, hits below 500 yards would penetrate (perhaps slightly closer vs. 30+30).

For the earlier period, only, turret hits, only, would penetrate at longer range.

The British tankers would conclude that they needed to get to 500 yards to fight. Against the turret-vulnerable early models, they could achieve penetrations beyond this range. But -

1. they need to hit

2. they need to hit the turret rather than the hull - perhaps only 1/3rd of the time. With realistic sizes for things like tracks, maybe 1/4.

3. they need to penetrate - say it is 80% of the time as in the game test, or perhaps is 3/4

4. they need to kill - which 2 pdr may do 50-60% of the time with pens, and perhaps 20% of the time with partials.

Multiply it out - 1/3rd of 4/5 of 1/2 is 13% or one hit out of 7.5. Down to 9.4% or 1 out of 10 2/3rds for the lower estimates. What is the hit chance? Donno, but not unity. 10 to 20 shots might be necessary to get one kill. In the early era, only - later on, no number of shots would suffice when the range was too long.

Would the tankers report the 2 pdr was effective if it took 10-20 shots to get one kill beyond 500 yards, for 1941 only, with that chance disappearing in 1942? Or would they report instead that the only reliable way to kill Pz IIIs with a 2 pdr was to close inside of 500 yards?

I submit they would report the latter. Without turret kills being impossible against the earlier model IIIs of 1941.

So I take the reports as evidence that (1) the 2 pdr penetrated about 50mm at 500 yards, (2) DAK Gs were uparmored to H standard before facing the Brits at all, and (3) by 1942 the DAK fleet had transitioned to early J model IIIs.

I hope this is helpful.

[Blah Blah Blah]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

I noted 43 hits on the turret front of the PZIIIs at @1000m.

What percentage did the 43 hits make of the total shots fired?

Was the percentage of hits on the turret realistic.

I am some what new land warfare (being a U-boat follower) but I would have presumed that a large percenatge of hits would have landed on the chasis.

[Blah Blah Blah]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

I noted 43 hits on the turret front of the PZIIIs at @1000m.

What percentage did the 43 hits make of the total shots fired?

Was the percentage of hits on the turret realistic.

I am some what new land warfare (being a U-boat follower) but I would have presumed that a large percenatge of hits would have landed on the chasis.

[JasonC]

I just tested 5 Pz III Hs vs. 10 Crusaders in open desert. Starting at 1300 to 1600 meters (straight ahead and cross-formation ranges, different for different tank pairs, etc). The first time I had both sit and duel at that range - the Crusaders lost 1 tank in the first minute to partial pens, while the Pz IIIs were immune.

So I closed the Crusaders to 1000-1100m and kept up the firing from there. 1 more was KOed closing the distance. Then they started getting hits themselves. But not killing hits.

In the third minute, 3 Crusaders bought it. 2 others were down a man and red morale. They got a number of hits themselves, including several turret hits, but some of those bounced (side angle, etc). One did not, it was a full pen not a partial, but did no significant damage. The Pz III H went to "shaken", recovering to "alerted" by the end of the minute. The Crusaders that weren't dead or red morale were trying to pop smoke - they did not want to fight.

In the next minute the firefight broke up. Some tanks lost targets, others went behind smoke, panickers reversed etc. One additional Crusader died. I forced both sides to keep fighting, though at that point the real fight would have been over. One more Crusader was immobilized.

At minute 7 the Pz IIIs were out of AP, 2 Crusaders were broken, 1 immobilized and shaken (he was a command tank with +2 command and +2 morale, otherwise he probably would have bailed on post-immobilized hits), 1 was OK. All the Pz IIIs were unhurt. In that 7th minute one of the remaining Crusaders got the second turret penetration, but it too was "no significant damage". They had also racked up 4 track hits by then, every one no significant damage.

I then pushed the HE only Pz IIIs down to 500m, just to see what the Crusaders could do as they closed. The 2 panickers had rallied by the time I did this, so 5 Pz III Hs were running it at 4 Crusaders. At 650m, the Brits got a front turret full penetration at weak point on one Pz III and it brewed up. At 550m, they got a -1 crew turret pen on another on the opposite flank. A 600m front turret pen on a third was no significant damage again. The Pz IIIs then reversed, and cleared the Crusader's fire envelope without further damage. The -1 crew tank was shocked but came back too, a little behind the others but safely.

Methinks I'd report the 2 pdr was ineffective.

Next I tried just charging from 1500m to 500m, trying to get close enough for the 2 pdr to actually kill things. With only 10 vs. 5, it did not remotely work. 1 Crusader died in the first minute, getting to 1050m. They were going fast and had lost only 1, and it looked possible.

Same for much of the next minute, as they closed to around 700m - they lost only 1 more early in that turn. But at the tail end of that turn of closing, with the range now low, the Crusaders started getting hit bad. 2 were KOed at the very tail end of the turn. Another was gun damaged, and another panicking.

There were 200m more to go and I didn't stop - this was a test of ramming home to 500m. Well, 3 made it to 500m but they did not get a single hit, and all died at that range very rapidly. The panicker was still farther back and alive, but died while reversing out range (turned broadside, panicked). The gun damaged tank tried the same under command, but couldn't quite keep entirely in his own dust from 5 points of view at once. After the dust from the earlier runs had cleared they saw him and finished him too, back at about 1200m.

III Hs are a lot stronger than Crusaders. Turret only with a poor behind armor effect weapon is not an easy match up. In practice I was seeing hit chances around 25% at the longer ranges. A lot more than 10 shots were needed to get a turret pen. And before I made the III Hs close, not a single one took lasting damage. Meanwhile their own fire took out 6 at range before AP ammo ran dry, or all 10 if the Brits tried to charge.

Hs though. If you tried it with unimproved Gs the hull hits would be going in, and you'd see too many kills to match the AARs. The behavior of the Hs matches the AARs. Js (50mm turret front) would be even tougher until close. Valentines and Matildas might do better at range, since they could handle the replies. But the Germans can pick the range vs. those or deny engagement, since the Panzers are twice as fast as the Brit infantry tank models.

[ December 06, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

I just tested 5 Pz III Hs vs. 10 Crusaders in open desert. Starting at 1300 to 1600 meters (straight ahead and cross-formation ranges, different for different tank pairs, etc). The first time I had both sit and duel at that range - the Crusaders lost 1 tank in the first minute to partial pens, while the Pz IIIs were immune.

So I closed the Crusaders to 1000-1100m and kept up the firing from there. 1 more was KOed closing the distance. Then they started getting hits themselves. But not killing hits.

In the third minute, 3 Crusaders bought it. 2 others were down a man and red morale. They got a number of hits themselves, including several turret hits, but some of those bounced (side angle, etc). One did not, it was a full pen not a partial, but did no significant damage. The Pz III H went to "shaken", recovering to "alerted" by the end of the minute. The Crusaders that weren't dead or red morale were trying to pop smoke - they did not want to fight.

In the next minute the firefight broke up. Some tanks lost targets, others went behind smoke, panickers reversed etc. One additional Crusader died. I forced both sides to keep fighting, though at that point the real fight would have been over. One more Crusader was immobilized.

At minute 7 the Pz IIIs were out of AP, 2 Crusaders were broken, 1 immobilized and shaken (he was a command tank with +2 command and +2 morale, otherwise he probably would have bailed on post-immobilized hits), 1 was OK. All the Pz IIIs were unhurt. In that 7th minute one of the remaining Crusaders got the second turret penetration, but it too was "no significant damage". They had also racked up 4 track hits by then, every one no significant damage.

I then pushed the HE only Pz IIIs down to 500m, just to see what the Crusaders could do as they closed. The 2 panickers had rallied by the time I did this, so 5 Pz III Hs were running it at 4 Crusaders. At 650m, the Brits got a front turret full penetration at weak point on one Pz III and it brewed up. At 550m, they got a -1 crew turret pen on another on the opposite flank. A 600m front turret pen on a third was no significant damage again. The Pz IIIs then reversed, and cleared the Crusader's fire envelope without further damage. The -1 crew tank was shocked but came back too, a little behind the others but safely.

Methinks I'd report the 2 pdr was ineffective.

Next I tried just charging from 1500m to 500m, trying to get close enough for the 2 pdr to actually kill things. With only 10 vs. 5, it did not remotely work. 1 Crusader died in the first minute, getting to 1050m. They were going fast and had lost only 1, and it looked possible.

Same for much of the next minute, as they closed to around 700m - they lost only 1 more early in that turn. But at the tail end of that turn of closing, with the range now low, the Crusaders started getting hit bad. 2 were KOed at the very tail end of the turn. Another was gun damaged, and another panicking.

There were 200m more to go and I didn't stop - this was a test of ramming home to 500m. Well, 3 made it to 500m but they did not get a single hit, and all died at that range very rapidly. The panicker was still farther back and alive, but died while reversing out range (turned broadside, panicked). The gun damaged tank tried the same under command, but couldn't quite keep entirely in his own dust from 5 points of view at once. After the dust from the earlier runs had cleared they saw him and finished him too, back at about 1200m.

III Hs are a lot stronger than Crusaders. Turret only with a poor behind armor effect weapon is not an easy match up. In practice I was seeing hit chances around 25% at the longer ranges. A lot more than 10 shots were needed to get a turret pen. And before I made the III Hs close, not a single one took lasting damage. Meanwhile their own fire took out 6 at range before AP ammo ran dry, or all 10 if the Brits tried to charge.

Hs though. If you tried it with unimproved Gs the hull hits would be going in, and you'd see too many kills to match the AARs. The behavior of the Hs matches the AARs. Js (50mm turret front) would be even tougher until close. Valentines and Matildas might do better at range, since they could handle the replies. But the Germans can pick the range vs. those or deny engagement, since the Panzers are twice as fast as the Brit infantry tank models.

[ December 06, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

1. the 2 pdr for some reason was having difficulty even with 30-37mm plates at 600 yards. I consider this extremely unlikely.

2. DAK had already uparmored even its G model IIIs. I consider this quite likely.

There are reports that late production Gs were uparmored - though they did not get all the track and chassis upgrades of the H, meant to accomodate the extra weight. There are statements that IIIs were uparmored at the latest in the workshops in Tripoli. I don't claim any of these prove one way or another that the engaged targets were 30+30 modified Gs. But I think it the most likely explanation.

Yet there are no photos of Jason?s fantasy up armoured Gs, but plenty of ausf G with 3cm hull armour for the 1941 North Africa theatre. Also there are no modification sheets issued by Waffenamt that show how to up armour ausf F/G with extra plates. There are directions on how to apply tracks to the lower hull and superstructure are around and there is photographic evidence for this. Modification sheets/orders even delve down to where and if you can weld handgrips to escape hatches on the Panthers, you'd think a major modification such as doubling the frontal armour (which required a new reworked suspension) would have a modification sheet issued, but there is none...

Not only that British test firings and captured examples show that the 3cm armour basis of the PIII F-Gs were defeated. (Same table as before based on captured examples before battleaxe)

PIII F-G 30 deg side angle

Superstructure 900yds

Hull 700yds

PIII H

Superstructure 0yds

Hull 0yds.

Pz regt 5 of 5 light Pz div did not stick around in Tripoli, they arrived on the 8-10 paraded on the 12 and left for the front the same day. Again as per my old argument Up armouring was not carried out by field units/div/regts. An upgrade to ausf H required a factory rebuild, even PII and PIV welded/bolted armour plate upgrades were all carried out by Pz depots in Germany before shipping to Africa.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

1. the 2 pdr for some reason was having difficulty even with 30-37mm plates at 600 yards. I consider this extremely unlikely.

2. DAK had already uparmored even its G model IIIs. I consider this quite likely.

There are reports that late production Gs were uparmored - though they did not get all the track and chassis upgrades of the H, meant to accomodate the extra weight. There are statements that IIIs were uparmored at the latest in the workshops in Tripoli. I don't claim any of these prove one way or another that the engaged targets were 30+30 modified Gs. But I think it the most likely explanation.

Yet there are no photos of Jason?s fantasy up armoured Gs, but plenty of ausf G with 3cm hull armour for the 1941 North Africa theatre. Also there are no modification sheets issued by Waffenamt that show how to up armour ausf F/G with extra plates. There are directions on how to apply tracks to the lower hull and superstructure are around and there is photographic evidence for this. Modification sheets/orders even delve down to where and if you can weld handgrips to escape hatches on the Panthers, you'd think a major modification such as doubling the frontal armour (which required a new reworked suspension) would have a modification sheet issued, but there is none...

Not only that British test firings and captured examples show that the 3cm armour basis of the PIII F-Gs were defeated. (Same table as before based on captured examples before battleaxe)

PIII F-G 30 deg side angle

Superstructure 900yds

Hull 700yds

PIII H

Superstructure 0yds

Hull 0yds.

Pz regt 5 of 5 light Pz div did not stick around in Tripoli, they arrived on the 8-10 paraded on the 12 and left for the front the same day. Again as per my old argument Up armouring was not carried out by field units/div/regts. An upgrade to ausf H required a factory rebuild, even PII and PIV welded/bolted armour plate upgrades were all carried out by Pz depots in Germany before shipping to Africa.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rexford:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

You're probably hitting the "turret" with no oblique/side angle. </font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rexford:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

You're probably hitting the "turret" with no oblique/side angle. </font>

[The Green Rascal]

Sorry guys but you are looking at it the wrong way. Jason, all your test does is prove that a Cruiser is worse than the PZIIIH. No suprise and no dispute there, a Cruiser is worse than a PZIII for sure, and a PZIII can kill them more often at longer ranges.

It says nothing about 2 pdrs killing PZIIIs. Try moving PZIIIs towards 2 pdr AT guns, or Matildas for example. If a 2pdr is on a chassis or in a position where it has a good chance of surviving, it will start killing PZIIIs out to 1200m. Even cruisers have a fair chance of killing them as well, but will probably lose more than they kill.

Blah it doesn't matter what the percentage hit chance is, the issue is whether a 2pdr could kill PZIIIs when it hit them at medium-long range, IE how often the hit would result in a kill. We have many sources which say things like a 2pdr could only do 'trivial damage' to a PZ III over 500m.

Rexford - on question if I may, do you think that 80% of turret hits penetrating the front of a PZIII over 1000m is a reasonable percentage both in terms of the physical make up of the turret, and it's armour thickness v's a 2pdrs penetration capability at that range. IE. does a lower mantlet cover 80% of a turret front, and is it really that vulnerable anyway at that distance.

I find it hard to believe that all these sources are plain wrong. I also find it more than a coincidence that if the curved armour was resisting at 1.75 average, it would give is a perfect match for the Cairo tests and 2pdr penetrations around 500m would also start to fall away dramatically, confirming the sources. ISTM that curved armour is resisiting much lower than that, but of course only BFC know for sure, and I unfortunately doubt that they will advise the figure, or revise it either.

I have now stopped playing desert tank battles, but Sicily and Italy are fun anyway

[The Green Rascal]

Sorry guys but you are looking at it the wrong way. Jason, all your test does is prove that a Cruiser is worse than the PZIIIH. No suprise and no dispute there, a Cruiser is worse than a PZIII for sure, and a PZIII can kill them more often at longer ranges.

It says nothing about 2 pdrs killing PZIIIs. Try moving PZIIIs towards 2 pdr AT guns, or Matildas for example. If a 2pdr is on a chassis or in a position where it has a good chance of surviving, it will start killing PZIIIs out to 1200m. Even cruisers have a fair chance of killing them as well, but will probably lose more than they kill.

Blah it doesn't matter what the percentage hit chance is, the issue is whether a 2pdr could kill PZIIIs when it hit them at medium-long range, IE how often the hit would result in a kill. We have many sources which say things like a 2pdr could only do 'trivial damage' to a PZ III over 500m.

Rexford - on question if I may, do you think that 80% of turret hits penetrating the front of a PZIII over 1000m is a reasonable percentage both in terms of the physical make up of the turret, and it's armour thickness v's a 2pdrs penetration capability at that range. IE. does a lower mantlet cover 80% of a turret front, and is it really that vulnerable anyway at that distance.

I find it hard to believe that all these sources are plain wrong. I also find it more than a coincidence that if the curved armour was resisting at 1.75 average, it would give is a perfect match for the Cairo tests and 2pdr penetrations around 500m would also start to fall away dramatically, confirming the sources. ISTM that curved armour is resisiting much lower than that, but of course only BFC know for sure, and I unfortunately doubt that they will advise the figure, or revise it either.

I have now stopped playing desert tank battles, but Sicily and Italy are fun anyway

[rexford]

Originally posted by Bastables:

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

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

You're probably hitting the "turret" with no oblique/side angle. </font>

[rexford]

Originally posted by Bastables:

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

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

Table 4.1.2 extrapolated from firing test "carried out" by Lt.Col Drew and Col Jarrett show the PIIIH at a 30deg side angle was invunerable to 2pdr strikes on the front Superstructure and Hull armour. Turret could be perforated at 800yds 30deg side angle and Mantlet was perforated at 200yds 30 deg side angle.

You're probably hitting the "turret" with no oblique/side angle. </font>

[Blah Blah Blah]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

Blah it doesn't matter what the percentage hit chance is, the issue is whether a 2pdr could kill PZIIIs when it hit them at medium-long range, IE how often the hit would result in a kill. We have many sources which say things like a 2pdr could only do 'trivial damage' to a PZ III over 500m.

I see your point; however by association I believe it does matter how many shots are hitting the turret at any given range.

Why? Because if we are hiting the turret 50% more often than we should at a given range then the we have 2 issues, should the 1 first issue be proven.

So whilst these first tests are happening, we could be ensuring that another important facet is not skewed.

Then again, I could be missing the point until someone sticks me in the eye with it!

[Blah Blah Blah]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

Blah it doesn't matter what the percentage hit chance is, the issue is whether a 2pdr could kill PZIIIs when it hit them at medium-long range, IE how often the hit would result in a kill. We have many sources which say things like a 2pdr could only do 'trivial damage' to a PZ III over 500m.

I see your point; however by association I believe it does matter how many shots are hitting the turret at any given range.

Why? Because if we are hiting the turret 50% more often than we should at a given range then the we have 2 issues, should the 1 first issue be proven.

So whilst these first tests are happening, we could be ensuring that another important facet is not skewed.

Then again, I could be missing the point until someone sticks me in the eye with it!

[JasonC]

Green, I don't think you see the point of the test.

I just redid it with 5 Pz III Gs instead of III Hs. The British tactic was fast move to 1000m then shoot. The first minute, they had one tank lose a man and panic. Most had closed the range by then or had only a few meters left to go. The second minute was spent firing.

Result? By the end of minute 2, all Pz III Gs dead as doornails. One additional Brit tank was down 1 man from a non-killing hit, and another was shaken. No British tanks lost, just 2 men. Without ever going closer than 1000m. The Brits blew through them like there was nothing there, in other words.

2 to 1 odds leads to total wipe outs if the guy with 2 can kill at range. Bastables, find me any AAR from North Africa remotely like the engagement described above, and I will buy unimproved Gs. Read instead AARs of the first fight between Brits and DAK, and they are already saying the 2 pdr was ineffective except at close range.

If they had 30mm bolted on plates (yes I know H needs more but that is for the whole suspension and track change, not bolting on the armor itself), the AARs make perfect sense even with a vulnerable turret. If they did not, then those AARs make no sense, because plain Brit Cruisers and Crusaders should have been able to duel them effectively at 1000m.

As for towed 2 pdrs, those would not have any better luck than Crusaders against Hs and Js. Worse, the Panzers can choose the range. Worse, we know what they choose against ATGs, and it was "very long". The DAK chief of staff's book says they tossed 75mm HE from IVs and called arty from 2000 to 2500m. After which the IIIs closed to 1500m. They stayed so far to reduce the threat from 25 pdrs, let alone 2 pdrs.

Valentines and Matildas would be effective, because they can move and won't die to HE at such ranges. The Panzers can get out of their way, but can't easily run over them. They can hold the area right around themselves. Unless the Germans have 88s or Marders to bring up - each of which can be countered in turn, at least in principle. All the evidence is that this was basically right, that Vals and Matildas were effective, though defensive.

[JasonC]

Green, I don't think you see the point of the test.

I just redid it with 5 Pz III Gs instead of III Hs. The British tactic was fast move to 1000m then shoot. The first minute, they had one tank lose a man and panic. Most had closed the range by then or had only a few meters left to go. The second minute was spent firing.

Result? By the end of minute 2, all Pz III Gs dead as doornails. One additional Brit tank was down 1 man from a non-killing hit, and another was shaken. No British tanks lost, just 2 men. Without ever going closer than 1000m. The Brits blew through them like there was nothing there, in other words.

2 to 1 odds leads to total wipe outs if the guy with 2 can kill at range. Bastables, find me any AAR from North Africa remotely like the engagement described above, and I will buy unimproved Gs. Read instead AARs of the first fight between Brits and DAK, and they are already saying the 2 pdr was ineffective except at close range.

If they had 30mm bolted on plates (yes I know H needs more but that is for the whole suspension and track change, not bolting on the armor itself), the AARs make perfect sense even with a vulnerable turret. If they did not, then those AARs make no sense, because plain Brit Cruisers and Crusaders should have been able to duel them effectively at 1000m.

As for towed 2 pdrs, those would not have any better luck than Crusaders against Hs and Js. Worse, the Panzers can choose the range. Worse, we know what they choose against ATGs, and it was "very long". The DAK chief of staff's book says they tossed 75mm HE from IVs and called arty from 2000 to 2500m. After which the IIIs closed to 1500m. They stayed so far to reduce the threat from 25 pdrs, let alone 2 pdrs.

Valentines and Matildas would be effective, because they can move and won't die to HE at such ranges. The Panzers can get out of their way, but can't easily run over them. They can hold the area right around themselves. Unless the Germans have 88s or Marders to bring up - each of which can be countered in turn, at least in principle. All the evidence is that this was basically right, that Vals and Matildas were effective, though defensive.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Green, I don't think you see the point of the test.

I just redid it with 5 Pz III Gs instead of III Hs. The British tactic was fast move to 1000m then shoot. The first minute, they had one tank lose a man and panic. Most had closed the range by then or had only a few meters left to go. The second minute was spent firing.

Result? By the end of minute 2, all Pz III Gs dead as doornails. One additional Brit tank was down 1 man from a non-killing hit, and another was shaken. No British tanks lost, just 2 men. Without ever going closer than 1000m. The Brits blew through them like there was nothing there, in other words.

2 to 1 odds leads to total wipe outs if the guy with 2 can kill at range. Bastables, find me any AAR from North Africa remotely like the engagement described above, and I will buy unimproved Gs. Read instead AARs of the first fight between Brits and DAK, and they are already saying the 2 pdr was ineffective except at close range.

If they had 30mm bolted on plates (yes I know H needs more but that is for the whole suspension and track change, not bolting on the armor itself), the AARs make perfect sense even with a vulnerable turret. If they did not, then those AARs make no sense, because plain Brit Cruisers and Crusaders should have been able to duel them effectively at 1000m.

So no proof of this fantasy improved Gs then? Other than as usual your own unsupported "theories".

There is no AAR of two to one odds in favour of the British; during 1941 drive to Toburk Germans deployed their tanks at abteilung level while the British preferred/forced to deploy at squadron (company) level. Most of the British cruisers were lost to mechanical failure. The one firefight at 1000yds between C Sqn 5 RTR and II. Abteilung 5 Pz regt resulted in an utter shambles for C Sqn because they merely lined up for a bash at an enemy that outnumbered them 4 to one. The problem were compounded for C sqn in that British tank doctrine would not allow tank commanders the ability to move there tanks under their own initiative when under effective fire and that for some insane reason they engaged the PIIIs and IV looking into the sun.

Your fantasy set-up never occurred at the time the PIIIG heavy 5th Pz Regt fought without aid of the PIIIH heavy Pz regt 8. British firing test did occur versus captured PIIIGs and show the complete opposite of your blithering of field upgraded 30FH+30FH PIII Gs.

Show me an AAR before the end of May (the entire Pz regt 8 had reached the front with their 51 PzIIIHs ,1998 Jentz P38) that has the tankies complaining of being unable to Penetrate PIIIs, even the shambles of 1 april 1941 C Sqn versus II. Abteilung 5 Pz regt has the C sqn troopers reporting penetrating hits and bailouts at 1500yds and below. The only problem being that 2pdr shot was not too effective at causing fires after penetration resulting in few permanent German losses. (1998 Jentz).

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Green, I don't think you see the point of the test.

I just redid it with 5 Pz III Gs instead of III Hs. The British tactic was fast move to 1000m then shoot. The first minute, they had one tank lose a man and panic. Most had closed the range by then or had only a few meters left to go. The second minute was spent firing.

Result? By the end of minute 2, all Pz III Gs dead as doornails. One additional Brit tank was down 1 man from a non-killing hit, and another was shaken. No British tanks lost, just 2 men. Without ever going closer than 1000m. The Brits blew through them like there was nothing there, in other words.

2 to 1 odds leads to total wipe outs if the guy with 2 can kill at range. Bastables, find me any AAR from North Africa remotely like the engagement described above, and I will buy unimproved Gs. Read instead AARs of the first fight between Brits and DAK, and they are already saying the 2 pdr was ineffective except at close range.

If they had 30mm bolted on plates (yes I know H needs more but that is for the whole suspension and track change, not bolting on the armor itself), the AARs make perfect sense even with a vulnerable turret. If they did not, then those AARs make no sense, because plain Brit Cruisers and Crusaders should have been able to duel them effectively at 1000m.

So no proof of this fantasy improved Gs then? Other than as usual your own unsupported "theories".

There is no AAR of two to one odds in favour of the British; during 1941 drive to Toburk Germans deployed their tanks at abteilung level while the British preferred/forced to deploy at squadron (company) level. Most of the British cruisers were lost to mechanical failure. The one firefight at 1000yds between C Sqn 5 RTR and II. Abteilung 5 Pz regt resulted in an utter shambles for C Sqn because they merely lined up for a bash at an enemy that outnumbered them 4 to one. The problem were compounded for C sqn in that British tank doctrine would not allow tank commanders the ability to move there tanks under their own initiative when under effective fire and that for some insane reason they engaged the PIIIs and IV looking into the sun.

Your fantasy set-up never occurred at the time the PIIIG heavy 5th Pz Regt fought without aid of the PIIIH heavy Pz regt 8. British firing test did occur versus captured PIIIGs and show the complete opposite of your blithering of field upgraded 30FH+30FH PIII Gs.

Show me an AAR before the end of May (the entire Pz regt 8 had reached the front with their 51 PzIIIHs ,1998 Jentz P38) that has the tankies complaining of being unable to Penetrate PIIIs, even the shambles of 1 april 1941 C Sqn versus II. Abteilung 5 Pz regt has the C sqn troopers reporting penetrating hits and bailouts at 1500yds and below. The only problem being that 2pdr shot was not too effective at causing fires after penetration resulting in few permanent German losses. (1998 Jentz).

[JasonC]

"the C sqn troopers reporting penetrating hits and bailouts at 1500yds and below"

If you have an AAR that says 2 pdrs killed Pz IIIs at 1500 yards through the front, by all means post it and it will settle the matter. Rexford won't have to worry about side angle this and equivalent that and I won't have to worry about possible uparmoring if we know to a certainty they did kill at up to 1500m.

[JasonC]

"the C sqn troopers reporting penetrating hits and bailouts at 1500yds and below"

If you have an AAR that says 2 pdrs killed Pz IIIs at 1500 yards through the front, by all means post it and it will settle the matter. Rexford won't have to worry about side angle this and equivalent that and I won't have to worry about possible uparmoring if we know to a certainty they did kill at up to 1500m.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"the C sqn troopers reporting penetrating hits and bailouts at 1500yds and below"

If you have an AAR that says 2 pdrs killed Pz IIIs at 1500 yards through the front, by all means post it and it will settle the matter. Rexford won't have to worry about side angle this and equivalent that and I won't have to worry about possible uparmoring if we know to a certainty they did kill at up to 1500m.

Where is the proof of uparmoured ausf G Jason? Or was it again something misread in order to prove your worldview.

1 April 1941

"The ranges given by TCs in their fire orders vaired from 900 to 1500yds, and at least 8 enemy tanks are claimed to have been put out of action by our surviving gunners." (1998 Jentz P94)

[Bastables]

Originally posted by JasonC:

"the C sqn troopers reporting penetrating hits and bailouts at 1500yds and below"

If you have an AAR that says 2 pdrs killed Pz IIIs at 1500 yards through the front, by all means post it and it will settle the matter. Rexford won't have to worry about side angle this and equivalent that and I won't have to worry about possible uparmoring if we know to a certainty they did kill at up to 1500m.

Where is the proof of uparmoured ausf G Jason? Or was it again something misread in order to prove your worldview.

1 April 1941

"The ranges given by TCs in their fire orders vaired from 900 to 1500yds, and at least 8 enemy tanks are claimed to have been put out of action by our surviving gunners." (1998 Jentz P94)