Looking to discuss 2pdr effectiveness in RL and CMAK

[rune]

EZ,

You are correct...it is not modelled wrong. Here is a nice quote I found.

Intelligence was slow in establishing “the extent to which the British weapons were inferior to the Germans as it was not until enemy weapons were captured and sent back to Britain for analysis that it became apparent that “extra armour plates were face hardened - to an extent which made the German tanks invulnerable to frontal penetration by the British two pounder7.

The footnote mention it was the nose armour, and NOT the turret armour.

Rune

[Mark Gallear]

Thanks Rexford for sorting out my AP and APCBC question.

I didn't understand Ezpickins test results. Does 6/1 mean 6 panzer IIIs died per Crusader II or the other way round. Ok then this result conflict with the Green Rascals results and fits in with the perception of period tankers that the 2pdr could not pentrate at this range. (However, I got the impression that the 2pdr was far to powerfull in cmbb and have said so in the past.)

(I don't have a copy of the game yet to do my own tests or take it back! But then I hoping for battlefront to do the decent thing in a patch if there is a problem on this.)

-- :confused: -- :confused: -- :confused: --

Just got my hands on Ian V. Hoggs armour in Conflict and found the 2pdr HE quote in it - on page 103 (This was quoted to me in part when I cast doubt on HE rounds been sent to Russia).

All British tanks in the desert were armed with the 40mm 2pounder gun ... (Not actually true but )

...Contrary to frequent statements in the past, there was a high explosive shell designed and produced for the 2pdr; to put the record straight, it was designated the 'Shell, QF 2pr Armoured Piercing Mark 1', it was filled with Lyddite, had a base fuze, and was placed in service in 1935. But for reasons never satisfactorily explained, it seems to have seen little use; it was certainly never issued to tanks or anti-tank guns in the desert. So the British tanks were equipped only to deal with other tanks, by piercing them with solid shot; their anti-personnel capability was restricted to machinegun fire, and in the absence of an impact -fuzzed (or any other) high explosive shell, they had no anti-material capability. When a British tank was spotted by an anti-tank gun, therefore, its only form of retaliation was to spray the gun with machine-gun fire in the hope of killing the gunners, or fire at it with solid shot in the hope of achieving a strike on some vital part of the gun.

The name of it sounds like some sort of anti-armour round using high explosive rather than an actual HE round - what do you make of it Rexford?

What is the difference between a base fuze and an impact fuze in a HE round?

(If it is some kind of crap armour round using HE - rather than a true HE round then I'm not surprised if the whole of the British Army's stocks were sent to Russia!)

I have come across a throw away comment in another book by Hogg, that said that an experimental HE round was made at the beginning of the war and tested.

Noticed a round called APHV on the WWIIvehicles site quoted early is this just a slightly improved and updated AP round or the AP round we are talking about and the first one this "HE" round described here? No HE round is mentioned on the site although other British HE rounds for 6pdr etc are.

-- :confused: -- :confused: -- :confused: --

Still not found the 6pdr HE source or started that debate on doctrine - yet .

[ December 11, 2003, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[Mark Gallear]

Thanks Rexford for sorting out my AP and APCBC question.

I didn't understand Ezpickins test results. Does 6/1 mean 6 panzer IIIs died per Crusader II or the other way round. Ok then this result conflict with the Green Rascals results and fits in with the perception of period tankers that the 2pdr could not pentrate at this range. (However, I got the impression that the 2pdr was far to powerfull in cmbb and have said so in the past.)

(I don't have a copy of the game yet to do my own tests or take it back! But then I hoping for battlefront to do the decent thing in a patch if there is a problem on this.)

-- :confused: -- :confused: -- :confused: --

Just got my hands on Ian V. Hoggs armour in Conflict and found the 2pdr HE quote in it - on page 103 (This was quoted to me in part when I cast doubt on HE rounds been sent to Russia).

All British tanks in the desert were armed with the 40mm 2pounder gun ... (Not actually true but )

...Contrary to frequent statements in the past, there was a high explosive shell designed and produced for the 2pdr; to put the record straight, it was designated the 'Shell, QF 2pr Armoured Piercing Mark 1', it was filled with Lyddite, had a base fuze, and was placed in service in 1935. But for reasons never satisfactorily explained, it seems to have seen little use; it was certainly never issued to tanks or anti-tank guns in the desert. So the British tanks were equipped only to deal with other tanks, by piercing them with solid shot; their anti-personnel capability was restricted to machinegun fire, and in the absence of an impact -fuzzed (or any other) high explosive shell, they had no anti-material capability. When a British tank was spotted by an anti-tank gun, therefore, its only form of retaliation was to spray the gun with machine-gun fire in the hope of killing the gunners, or fire at it with solid shot in the hope of achieving a strike on some vital part of the gun.

The name of it sounds like some sort of anti-armour round using high explosive rather than an actual HE round - what do you make of it Rexford?

What is the difference between a base fuze and an impact fuze in a HE round?

(If it is some kind of crap armour round using HE - rather than a true HE round then I'm not surprised if the whole of the British Army's stocks were sent to Russia!)

I have come across a throw away comment in another book by Hogg, that said that an experimental HE round was made at the beginning of the war and tested.

Noticed a round called APHV on the WWIIvehicles site quoted early is this just a slightly improved and updated AP round or the AP round we are talking about and the first one this "HE" round described here? No HE round is mentioned on the site although other British HE rounds for 6pdr etc are.

-- :confused: -- :confused: -- :confused: --

Still not found the 6pdr HE source or started that debate on doctrine - yet .

[ December 11, 2003, 05:10 AM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[flamingknives]

I didn't understand Ezpickins test results. Does 6/1 mean 6 panzer IIIs died per Crusader II or the other way round.

Other way around. EZ lists it as:

British losses/German Losses

Therefore the figure in front of the '/' is the number of tanks lost by the British.

[flamingknives]

I didn't understand Ezpickins test results. Does 6/1 mean 6 panzer IIIs died per Crusader II or the other way round.

Other way around. EZ lists it as:

British losses/German Losses

Therefore the figure in front of the '/' is the number of tanks lost by the British.

[thewood]

I have a hard time understanding someone being so stubborn as to return CMAK because 2-lber performance doesn't match up with their expectations...

I believe this thread alone cast enough doubt on the issue to make someone at least soften their tone. Instead it has only seemed to harden it.

Even if the points are valid, other than going to a board game like Tobruk or ASL, I don't see many alternatives within this scale of combat to turn to. Is one going to now just give up on wargames because BFC hasn't responded to a minor issue within a couple of weeks? I am just curious because I must be missing something if there is an alternative to CM. Maybe SPWAW or SPWW2, with some fairly abstracted combat resolutions, I would really like to know.

Am I alone in feeling that a lot of people on this board over-react to these issues? I remember similar passive-aggressive tactics around fatigue and reaction under fire when CMBB came out.

[thewood]

I have a hard time understanding someone being so stubborn as to return CMAK because 2-lber performance doesn't match up with their expectations...

I believe this thread alone cast enough doubt on the issue to make someone at least soften their tone. Instead it has only seemed to harden it.

Even if the points are valid, other than going to a board game like Tobruk or ASL, I don't see many alternatives within this scale of combat to turn to. Is one going to now just give up on wargames because BFC hasn't responded to a minor issue within a couple of weeks? I am just curious because I must be missing something if there is an alternative to CM. Maybe SPWAW or SPWW2, with some fairly abstracted combat resolutions, I would really like to know.

Am I alone in feeling that a lot of people on this board over-react to these issues? I remember similar passive-aggressive tactics around fatigue and reaction under fire when CMBB came out.

[rune]

Guys,

He is entitled to his opinion. Not all games are for everyone.

There is enough doubt on the issue, part of the problem is you are dealing with events from 60 years ago. You would not believe what I had to go through to get the TO&E for South African units. We never trust just a single source, using multiples, and have always been open to suggestions or correcting errors if proof was found. There is no proof to over-turn all of the above.

If that breaks the game for him, then that is his opinion. I thank him for trying the game. For everyone else, especially from results from testing shown above, 6-8 to 1 losses, there has not been complaints, including from people like Rexford [who IS a beta tester] who has written books on the subject. Are we perfect? far from it... but we need more to go on then a vague comment not mention models, target hit locations, and other misc. factors.

Rune

[rune]

Guys,

He is entitled to his opinion. Not all games are for everyone.

There is enough doubt on the issue, part of the problem is you are dealing with events from 60 years ago. You would not believe what I had to go through to get the TO&E for South African units. We never trust just a single source, using multiples, and have always been open to suggestions or correcting errors if proof was found. There is no proof to over-turn all of the above.

If that breaks the game for him, then that is his opinion. I thank him for trying the game. For everyone else, especially from results from testing shown above, 6-8 to 1 losses, there has not been complaints, including from people like Rexford [who IS a beta tester] who has written books on the subject. Are we perfect? far from it... but we need more to go on then a vague comment not mention models, target hit locations, and other misc. factors.

Rune

[rexford]

Originally posted by rune:

EZ,

You are correct...it is not modelled wrong. Here is a nice quote I found.

Intelligence was slow in establishing ?the extent to which the British weapons were inferior to the Germans as it was not until enemy weapons were captured and sent back to Britain for analysis that it became apparent that ?extra armour plates were face hardened - to an extent which made the German tanks invulnerable to frontal penetration by the British two pounder7.

The footnote mention it was the nose armour, and NOT the turret armour.

Rune

Goodness gracious, another quote that strongly suggests that 2 pdr AP could not penetrate the 32mm/30mm face-hardened combo on PzKpfw IIIH front hulls.

What say you JasonC to this???????????!!!!!!!!

[rexford]

Originally posted by rune:

EZ,

You are correct...it is not modelled wrong. Here is a nice quote I found.

Intelligence was slow in establishing ?the extent to which the British weapons were inferior to the Germans as it was not until enemy weapons were captured and sent back to Britain for analysis that it became apparent that ?extra armour plates were face hardened - to an extent which made the German tanks invulnerable to frontal penetration by the British two pounder7.

The footnote mention it was the nose armour, and NOT the turret armour.

Rune

Goodness gracious, another quote that strongly suggests that 2 pdr AP could not penetrate the 32mm/30mm face-hardened combo on PzKpfw IIIH front hulls.

What say you JasonC to this???????????!!!!!!!!

[rexford]

Rune,

what is the source for the quote on 2 pdr AP vs reinforced nose armor on PzKpfw III?

Nose armor may be a bad way of saying front hull.

Lorrin

[rexford]

Rune,

what is the source for the quote on 2 pdr AP vs reinforced nose armor on PzKpfw III?

Nose armor may be a bad way of saying front hull.

Lorrin

[rune]

Lorrin,

Will dig that out later, however, found an excellent source that ends the debate:

The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner

Pgs 38-39, I quote:

"Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side"

Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition".

On Pg 39, a lot more detail, but basically states the British tanks were actually better then the Panzer III with this quote:

Brigadier Davy of the 7th Hussars, found that with the telescopic sights, firing the 2 pdrs before Crusader, that at 1000 yard, the round would land short 300 yards, or 11 feet vertically below the aim point...and he also states "it was no doubt responsible for the legend that the effective range of the 2 pdrs was no more then 600 yards."

On pg 37 they talk about the 2 pdr penetrating the Panzer III easily at 1000 yards, and last, back on page 39, they tell on how when at longer ranges the shell would hit the Panzer III, the back tracer part would shatter and break off and shoot into another direction giving the impression that the round bounced off while it actuall penetrated.

Lorrin, it is late tonight, I will try to scan the pages tomorrow, but as the book is exceedingly rare and old, not sure I want to chance cracking the spine of the book.

Egads, went a little deeper, they talk about the base shop adding additional armoru to the Panzer IIIG, and the fact that once flame hardened armour was added on new tanks,t he 2 pdr could not penetrate, they specifically mention that this did NOT happen until the J model.

Rune

PS There are several AARs in the book where they mention Panzer III kills frontally and sides at 1000 yard or greater ranfe.

[rune]

Lorrin,

Will dig that out later, however, found an excellent source that ends the debate:

The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner

Pgs 38-39, I quote:

"Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side"

Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition".

On Pg 39, a lot more detail, but basically states the British tanks were actually better then the Panzer III with this quote:

Brigadier Davy of the 7th Hussars, found that with the telescopic sights, firing the 2 pdrs before Crusader, that at 1000 yard, the round would land short 300 yards, or 11 feet vertically below the aim point...and he also states "it was no doubt responsible for the legend that the effective range of the 2 pdrs was no more then 600 yards."

On pg 37 they talk about the 2 pdr penetrating the Panzer III easily at 1000 yards, and last, back on page 39, they tell on how when at longer ranges the shell would hit the Panzer III, the back tracer part would shatter and break off and shoot into another direction giving the impression that the round bounced off while it actuall penetrated.

Lorrin, it is late tonight, I will try to scan the pages tomorrow, but as the book is exceedingly rare and old, not sure I want to chance cracking the spine of the book.

Egads, went a little deeper, they talk about the base shop adding additional armoru to the Panzer IIIG, and the fact that once flame hardened armour was added on new tanks,t he 2 pdr could not penetrate, they specifically mention that this did NOT happen until the J model.

Rune

PS There are several AARs in the book where they mention Panzer III kills frontally and sides at 1000 yard or greater ranfe.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rune:

Lorrin,

Will dig that out later, however, found an excellent source that ends the debate:

The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner

Pgs 38-39, I quote:

"Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side"

Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition".

I've got those same report in Jentz and those penatrations were against the thinner RHA bolted plates on the sides of the PIV.

It seems your source does not carry on to state the findings versus frontal plates of the PIV

For head on (Lt Col Drew states)

"d. Head on at 500yds

Of six rounds fired all penatrated except one. Because of the fact that they did penatrate and because the five that did penatrate had obiously had done so with some difficulty....... I stated that I considered 500yds is the maximum range at which penatration could be obtained against the thickist frontal armour of this tank."

The front armour were 20+30 FH plates not 20+20RHA.

Also these hull penatrations would be versus the 3cm hulls of the PIII F/Gs look at the dates. Pz Regt 8 with its 30+30mm PIII H did not take part in combat till later after Tobruk in 9-28 May 41.

Even with the up armoured PIV and PIII H the turret was still killable if struck on the 3cm areas.

[ December 11, 2003, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Bastables]

Originally posted by rune:

Lorrin,

Will dig that out later, however, found an excellent source that ends the debate:

The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner

Pgs 38-39, I quote:

"Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side"

Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition".

I've got those same report in Jentz and those penatrations were against the thinner RHA bolted plates on the sides of the PIV.

It seems your source does not carry on to state the findings versus frontal plates of the PIV

For head on (Lt Col Drew states)

"d. Head on at 500yds

Of six rounds fired all penatrated except one. Because of the fact that they did penatrate and because the five that did penatrate had obiously had done so with some difficulty....... I stated that I considered 500yds is the maximum range at which penatration could be obtained against the thickist frontal armour of this tank."

The front armour were 20+30 FH plates not 20+20RHA.

Also these hull penatrations would be versus the 3cm hulls of the PIII F/Gs look at the dates. Pz Regt 8 with its 30+30mm PIII H did not take part in combat till later after Tobruk in 9-28 May 41.

Even with the up armoured PIV and PIII H the turret was still killable if struck on the 3cm areas.

[ December 11, 2003, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by rune:

Lorrin,

Will dig that out later, however, found an excellent source that ends the debate:

The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner

Pgs 38-39, I quote:

"Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side"

Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition".

On Pg 39, a lot more detail, but basically states the British tanks were actually better then the Panzer III with this quote:

Brigadier Davy of the 7th Hussars, found that with the telescopic sights, firing the 2 pdrs before Crusader, that at 1000 yard, the round would land short 300 yards, or 11 feet vertically below the aim point...and he also states "it was no doubt responsible for the legend that the effective range of the 2 pdrs was no more then 600 yards."

On pg 37 they talk about the 2 pdr penetrating the Panzer III easily at 1000 yards, and last, back on page 39, they tell on how when at longer ranges the shell would hit the Panzer III, the back tracer part would shatter and break off and shoot into another direction giving the impression that the round bounced off while it actuall penetrated.

Very interesting use of sources but the problem remains the established wisdom is that the 2pdr was a high quality pea shooter - well made and accurate - although I suspect that the normal listed effective range of 1000 yards probably means it was drifting a bit of course by that time it had gone that far.

However your source says that people believed the round wouldn't pentrate beyond 600m - either it was very inaccurate beyond this range or was starting to lose its ummph - you cannot logicaly have it both ways at the same time!

In my experience nose armour is the part on the hull where the armour plates joins and slopes. Not explained that very well but imagine looking at a tank from the side - on most you will see an angle of armour come up from the bottom flat part of the tank and a flat part where the turret goes on top another armouyr plate slopes down and meets the first plate. This is its nose! A likely place to hit if you miss the turret! Some sources gibe the angles and plate armour depth for all three or more if it has more than one nose on it.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by rune:

Lorrin,

Will dig that out later, however, found an excellent source that ends the debate:

The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner

Pgs 38-39, I quote:

"Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side"

Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition".

On Pg 39, a lot more detail, but basically states the British tanks were actually better then the Panzer III with this quote:

Brigadier Davy of the 7th Hussars, found that with the telescopic sights, firing the 2 pdrs before Crusader, that at 1000 yard, the round would land short 300 yards, or 11 feet vertically below the aim point...and he also states "it was no doubt responsible for the legend that the effective range of the 2 pdrs was no more then 600 yards."

On pg 37 they talk about the 2 pdr penetrating the Panzer III easily at 1000 yards, and last, back on page 39, they tell on how when at longer ranges the shell would hit the Panzer III, the back tracer part would shatter and break off and shoot into another direction giving the impression that the round bounced off while it actuall penetrated.

Very interesting use of sources but the problem remains the established wisdom is that the 2pdr was a high quality pea shooter - well made and accurate - although I suspect that the normal listed effective range of 1000 yards probably means it was drifting a bit of course by that time it had gone that far.

However your source says that people believed the round wouldn't pentrate beyond 600m - either it was very inaccurate beyond this range or was starting to lose its ummph - you cannot logicaly have it both ways at the same time!

In my experience nose armour is the part on the hull where the armour plates joins and slopes. Not explained that very well but imagine looking at a tank from the side - on most you will see an angle of armour come up from the bottom flat part of the tank and a flat part where the turret goes on top another armouyr plate slopes down and meets the first plate. This is its nose! A likely place to hit if you miss the turret! Some sources gibe the angles and plate armour depth for all three or more if it has more than one nose on it.

[Bastables]

British classifcation of armour plates

I__ :Drivers front plate\Superstructure

.....\ :Nose\glacis\Hull

___/

[Bastables]

British classifcation of armour plates

I__ :Drivers front plate\Superstructure

.....\ :Nose\glacis\Hull

___/

[rune]

Bastables is correct on the nose armour. It seems by Davy's comment it was a hitting the target issue, his unit figured it out due to the fact he was an ex-artillery officer and knew how to adjust....a 300 yard miss at 1000 yards, I'd say the sights were off a bit.

It was late when I post that, but yes, it was the side armour of the Panzer IV Long "Special", the front was penetrated at 500 yards.n The later Panzer IVs with flame hardened armour even at 100 the rounds would bounce off.

Also the book just covers the battle of Sidi Rezeg, and it does indeed have aars of panzers being destroyed at 1000 yards.

I will try to scan the pages, but I won't risk the book to do so. I only got the book by ordering it from South Africa. Last time I checked, there were a few places on amazon that had it but wanted 100-150 dollars for it.

However, I did post the pages and if someone has it, can read it. Will try to let all know later, but either way, a 1000 yard kill was possible if you hit.

Rune

[rune]

Bastables is correct on the nose armour. It seems by Davy's comment it was a hitting the target issue, his unit figured it out due to the fact he was an ex-artillery officer and knew how to adjust....a 300 yard miss at 1000 yards, I'd say the sights were off a bit.

It was late when I post that, but yes, it was the side armour of the Panzer IV Long "Special", the front was penetrated at 500 yards.n The later Panzer IVs with flame hardened armour even at 100 the rounds would bounce off.

Also the book just covers the battle of Sidi Rezeg, and it does indeed have aars of panzers being destroyed at 1000 yards.

I will try to scan the pages, but I won't risk the book to do so. I only got the book by ordering it from South Africa. Last time I checked, there were a few places on amazon that had it but wanted 100-150 dollars for it.

However, I did post the pages and if someone has it, can read it. Will try to let all know later, but either way, a 1000 yard kill was possible if you hit.

Rune

[rexford]

Originally posted by rune:

Thanks for the effort, I don't need to see scans of pages, the quotes you provided are enough. Safeguard the book.

"The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner

Pgs 38-39, I quote:

"Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side""

Above makes sense.

"Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition".

On Pg 39, a lot more detail, but basically states the British tanks were actually better then the Panzer III with this quote:

Brigadier Davy of the 7th Hussars, found that with the telescopic sights, firing the 2 pdrs before Crusader, that at 1000 yard, the round would land short 300 yards, or 11 feet vertically below the aim point...and he also states "it was no doubt responsible for the legend that the effective range of the 2 pdrs was no more then 600 yards.""

Bad sight adjustment as noted by others on this thread.

"On pg 37 they talk about the 2 pdr penetrating the Panzer III easily at 1000 yards, and last, back on page 39, they tell on how when at longer ranges the shell would hit the Panzer III, the back tracer part would shatter and break off and shoot into another direction giving the impression that the round bounced off while it actuall penetrated."

Good statement that makes sense, 2 pdr AP cuts throught 30mm face-hardened on PzKpfw IIIG front at 1000 yards, as it should.

"Lorrin, it is late tonight, I will try to scan the pages tomorrow, but as the book is exceedingly rare and old, not sure I want to chance cracking the spine of the book."

Quotes are fine, save the book.

"Egads, went a little deeper, they talk about the base shop adding additional armoru to the Panzer IIIG, and the fact that once flame hardened armour was added on new tanks,t he 2 pdr could not penetrate, they specifically mention that this did NOT happen until the J model."

So, 30mm plates added to PzKpfw IIIG make it safe against 2 pdr AP at all ranges (?), as Cairo tests suggest if one assumes no side angle to shots against hull front.

German armor on PzKpfw IIIG front was face-hardened, and added 32mm or 30mm plates (32mm seems to be actual measurement, 30mm may have been design spec) were also face-hardened. Cairo test report indicates that basic armor on PzKpfw IIIG hull front was homogeneous and added plates were face-hardened, which conflicts with other British info (PzKpfw IIIG front face-hardened, hull and turret and mantlet).

"PS There are several AARs in the book where they mention Panzer III kills frontally and sides at 1000 yard or greater ranfe."

As one would expect from comparison of 2 pdr AP face-hardened penetration to PzKpfw IIIG armor type and thickness.

After all of this CMAK seems reasonable, PzKpfw IIIH hull front hits from 2 pdr AP bounce, turret front hits penetrate and PzKpfw IIIG is very vulnerable to 2 pdr AP out to 1000 yards and beyond.

So why is CMAK thought by some to be unrealistic when 2 pdr armed tanks fight PzKpfw IIIG and IIIH? Looks okay to me.

[rexford]

Originally posted by rune:

Thanks for the effort, I don't need to see scans of pages, the quotes you provided are enough. Safeguard the book.

"The Sidi Rezeg Battles 1941 by Agar-Hamilton and Turner

Pgs 38-39, I quote:

"Experiments made on German Tanks cvaptured int he Spring of 1941 showed that at 500 yards, the British guns [2 pdrs] could penetrate the 40mm of double plate on the Panzer IV and the 20mm on the other side of the tank. At 1000 yards it could pentrate it could still penetrate the double plate but not come out the other side""

Above makes sense.

"Quoted from teh Middle East Training Manual in the book was this gem: "the myth of german invincibility of material when submitted toi the cold light of engineering fact , makes a very sorry exhibition".

On Pg 39, a lot more detail, but basically states the British tanks were actually better then the Panzer III with this quote:

Brigadier Davy of the 7th Hussars, found that with the telescopic sights, firing the 2 pdrs before Crusader, that at 1000 yard, the round would land short 300 yards, or 11 feet vertically below the aim point...and he also states "it was no doubt responsible for the legend that the effective range of the 2 pdrs was no more then 600 yards.""

Bad sight adjustment as noted by others on this thread.

"On pg 37 they talk about the 2 pdr penetrating the Panzer III easily at 1000 yards, and last, back on page 39, they tell on how when at longer ranges the shell would hit the Panzer III, the back tracer part would shatter and break off and shoot into another direction giving the impression that the round bounced off while it actuall penetrated."

Good statement that makes sense, 2 pdr AP cuts throught 30mm face-hardened on PzKpfw IIIG front at 1000 yards, as it should.

"Lorrin, it is late tonight, I will try to scan the pages tomorrow, but as the book is exceedingly rare and old, not sure I want to chance cracking the spine of the book."

Quotes are fine, save the book.

"Egads, went a little deeper, they talk about the base shop adding additional armoru to the Panzer IIIG, and the fact that once flame hardened armour was added on new tanks,t he 2 pdr could not penetrate, they specifically mention that this did NOT happen until the J model."

So, 30mm plates added to PzKpfw IIIG make it safe against 2 pdr AP at all ranges (?), as Cairo tests suggest if one assumes no side angle to shots against hull front.

German armor on PzKpfw IIIG front was face-hardened, and added 32mm or 30mm plates (32mm seems to be actual measurement, 30mm may have been design spec) were also face-hardened. Cairo test report indicates that basic armor on PzKpfw IIIG hull front was homogeneous and added plates were face-hardened, which conflicts with other British info (PzKpfw IIIG front face-hardened, hull and turret and mantlet).

"PS There are several AARs in the book where they mention Panzer III kills frontally and sides at 1000 yard or greater ranfe."

As one would expect from comparison of 2 pdr AP face-hardened penetration to PzKpfw IIIG armor type and thickness.

After all of this CMAK seems reasonable, PzKpfw IIIH hull front hits from 2 pdr AP bounce, turret front hits penetrate and PzKpfw IIIG is very vulnerable to 2 pdr AP out to 1000 yards and beyond.

So why is CMAK thought by some to be unrealistic when 2 pdr armed tanks fight PzKpfw IIIG and IIIH? Looks okay to me.