Jump to content

2 Pounder problems?


jwatts
 Share

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by John Kettler:

The guy was where he was to identify and solve ordnance problems, and he and those working with him literally risked death to do so. If he tells you that German APHE could wreck a tank and crew without even a full penetration, I'd listen.

So would I listen, if I could hear what he has to say in his own words.

All the best,

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 151
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hm, it seems once again an in-game tactics discussion has turned into a grogfest! As much as I love reading stats on the relative kill ratios of different weapons for different nationalities in different theatres, I think I'll go ahead and respectfully ignore all of that mumbo jumbo. I didn't become a history major to do numbers stuff! Jason, thanks for you reply on my 2pdr dilema, unfortunately I beleive you might have misunderstood my question. I'm not very good with armor, but I have a pretty good idea of how to take out Ubercats with the right things. I don't play many QBs, but for late war ones I tend to buy a few things capable of hurting the cats. Hell, I can deal with a few AI controlled Tigers with some plain nilla Sherms. What I can't do, and what I was asking advice about, was what to do when faced with 4 or so Tigers, a smattering of ACs and PzIIIs, and infantry, when the only AT capability I have is a few 2pdrs and infantry ATRs? I got the impression that trying to ping a Tiger to death is not too bright, so what do you suggest? Using my limited medium arty to try and get some imobilizations, or take out his supporting armor and hope he gets his Tigers close enough for close assault (not a fun option in the desert)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John D Salt,

I did quote G.B. Jarrett directly. Please see my January 20, 2007 post in this thread. What I haven't been able to do thus far is to identify the exact organization, title and date for the British OR tank vulnerability analysis, other than that per Jarrett it was done in May of 1942. I know I had better information than that posted at some point,

but diligent search by me has failed to find it, though I did find references to it in later posts I made.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jwatts,

Since you started the thread with a concern about in game modeling of the 2 pdr. vs. real life performance what you got was a discussion of just that. Weapon performance and relative lethality compared to its German contemporaries. I looked carefully at your initial post and didn't see a request for a discussion of tactics. Since you've asked now, though...

Recommended tactics

Kill his ACs with the 2 pdr. from long-very long range. The 2 pdr. is quite capable of killing all but the toughest ACs at these ranges and can be assisted by providing an HQ with combat, morale and stealth bonuses. These, in sequence, improve hit probability, keep the gun in the fight longer, on average, when under fire, and help it hide, making it harder to locate. Use trenches whenever possible, since they provide great cover and are hard to hit. I believe you want to be at least 500 meters away to do this. At such distances, it is unlikely to generate much more than a sound contact, especially if not fired continuously. In ROW IV, I was under fire by a 37mm ATG situated clear at the enemy's rear which caused all sorts of grief, but I never got even a full spot on it. It survived the game, but my armor did not.

The Panzer IIIs are the next targets, and to kill them you'll need flank/rear shots, especially if confronting any of the later models with face hardened armor added. This caused 2 pdr. shot to break up. Crossfire is the name of the game. Get them to turn to face one threat, then fire on the exposed flank. Use terrain, roadblocks and mines to facilitate this whenever possible. Do a little research on your gun vs. the Panzer III's side armor to determine your sure penetration range. I'd imagine 300 meters or so would work but am not sure. In any event, your ATG has a rate of fire advantage over the tank's gun with its more confined crew. Use it, preferably in conjunction with buttoning the Panzer IIIs via MG, sharpshooter, mortar or artillery fire.

Tiger Is

Buttoning is essential, since it hinders spotting and may get you the bonus of a TC casualty and Shocked tank in the process. The slow turret traverse is your friend, making it hard for the Tiger I to react to emerging threats. The name of the game here is close-in volume of fire, from widely separate angles. You're looking for track hits and gun hits, since I doubt even a point blank rear hit would penetrate, barring, of, course, some "weak spot hit" which is even less likely than a hit in the tracks or gun.

If you're really interested in grokking the dynamics, you can set up a QB pitting the dug-in 2 pdr. and infantry force against the German force described and play it in Hotseat mode. That should prove most educational.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And in that you're 100% correct, I don't beleive I asked about specific tactics in my initial post. However I DID ask at some point, dont ask me where, about what I should do in the above situation. What you told me is roughly what I would have thought, but some verification was helpful. And without a snarky response. How refreshing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jwatts,

Unless sorely and repeatedly provoked, I don't do snarky. I try to be helpful to newcomers, who are quite likely to be, depending on prior gaming experience and level of WW II reading, a bit overwhelmed by what they've gotten themselves into.

The games are great, but the learning curve is steep. Mine wasn't so bad, because I got into CM back in the Beta Demo days of CMBO. Reiseburg and Chance Encounter were all we had, and did we ever play them! Even so, it took me awhile to figure out what I was doing, in the process shooting up my 251 with a tripod mounted MG-42 when I rolled smartly up to a house to debus my Panzer Grenadiers, getting StuGs killed in bunches, infantry overrun, blasted by treebursts, savaged by crossfires, etc. And don't get me started on staying too long in buildings! This is a partial catalog of my CM "sins" while learning the system.

From there, I graduated to more impressive accomplishments, such as hitting my own troops with Nebelwerfer fire, losing to the AI on the attack at Normal settings, setting my own building on fire with a bazooka, and failing to set Cover Arcs. In one of the ROWs, I was so overwhelmed that it wasn't until after setup that I even noticed I had FOs! In another, I forgot I could use foxholes and failed to dig in. Not good on an exposed plain! These and more await you in your CM journey, but they're merely obstacles in your path to game immersion. You'll know you've arrived when you find yourself screaming at one of your units, silently or aloud, to shoot, turn, button up, etc.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In respect to the specific scenario, my advice would be:

********SPOILER ALERT*************

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

ATR's for the armoured cars. They can't really hurt you anyway, not in that scen. The closer they come, the more effective the ATRs will be. My bet is that your ATRs will keep them out of effectve range all game and may not even be spotted.

2pdr and Grant cross fire at closer range for the PIIIs. Let them get closer...you don't need to fire until the German infantry gets to within assault range anyway. Give em and the infantry a little 25pdr arty if desired.

Suggest you use the big scattered tree block to conceal your Grants and minimize exposure. The bogging chance, in this context, is I think worth it.

Ignore the Tigers completely, other than to the extent of keeping out of their way, or taking an infantry assault if offered. You have enough troops to strip the Tigers of protection, whereupon they are essentially useless....if they come forward they will be taken out in time by the infantry which you have doubtless left concealed for such an eventuality.

The British usually win this scenario, so it can not only be done, but is usually done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recall also that the British Army had already had an APHE round in service with the 3-pdr, so I doubt that they were not used because British industry was incapable of manufacturing them.

All the best,

John. [/QB]

The ability to produce a base fuze is of course not my question, nor is it what I said. Obviously the British were producing base fuzes for a wide range of APHE calibers long before WWII ever hit the front page news. But than base fuze and bursting charge problems associated with armor piercing shells also stretches back some number of years. For example, I think Campbell credits RN shell hits at Jutland with perhaps one (perhaps it was two?) bursting charges that actually functioned properly following perforation (See: "Jutland An Analysis of the Fighting"). My point in going back to WWI is only that the ability to produce a base fuze says nothing about whether or not the device was capable of functioning properly. Even the Germans – in post WWII tid bits that can be found in the BIOS report on German Tank Armor – imply problems with their own AP-HE bursting charges functioning properly all of the time.

My question is more specific to source material regarding side-by-side testing of behind armor effects of 2pdr solid shot and 2pdr APHE.

You indicated in one of your posts above:

“Trials with the 2-pdr found not a ha'porth of difference between AP and APHE rounds, so the APHE was never ordered into full production.”

I’m not disagreeing with you (nor am I agreeing with you for that matter). I’m simply interested in a cite for the original report\reports that detail the effectiveness of solid 2-pdr AP vs. 2-pdr AP-HE. Can this be found in a WO report? If so do you by chance have the number\numbers?

Best Regards

JD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McIvan's post has got it right.

SPOILER

Just ignore/ stay out of the way of the Tigers. Accept that they'll kill just about anything they see. If you want to be gamey, give them some sacrificial lambs to use up their HE on...

ATR's against the AC's, 2pdrs against the PIII's (but in ambush) and use the Grants and arty to kill his infantry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by John Kettler:

John D Salt,

I did quote G.B. Jarrett directly. Please see my January 20, 2007 post in this thread.

Sorry, where in that quote or in the linked thread does it say anything about 37mm firing highly destructive APHE?

None of the Garrett quotes refers to 37mm firing APHE.

Please stop making things up.

All the best

Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas,

The issue being discussed in regards to the Jarrett quote was the lethality of German APHE which even partially penetrated then detonated. That is in the quote from him I provided.

Regarding the argument I made about German 37mm APHE, please see Amedeo's remarks in the first post of the linked thread. In essence, he argues that the amount of explosive in the German 37mm APHE round justifies the note (large HE burster)

indicating high projectile lethality given penetration and detonation or, as I argue based on British OR in the Western Desert in May of '42, partial penetration and detonation. I made up nothing. Rather, you evidently misconstrued what I was discussing. Here's the link.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=010301#000003

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please show where anything you linked proved that 37mm APHE was 'highly destructive'. Garrett's note does not discuss 37mm APHE anywhere, in fact it is conspicuous by its absence when he lists all other German calibres. The second time he restricts the effectiveness of APHE remark to 88mm calibres. Well, duh, who would have thought that 88mm APHE is effective against mid-war tanks. Amedeo says 'large HE burster', but nothing about its effectiveness. Only in your mind this seems to equal to highly destructive, even though there is zero proof for it being highly destructive, in either Amedeo's post or Garrett's notes. It is your personal inference, nothing more. I.e. you are making it up.

Amedeo is not indicating 'high projectile lethality', you are putting words in his mouth. Here is what he says:

3,7cm guns

The AP shell should be considered 'with large HE burster'

Where does it say anything about 'high projectile lethality'?

His next post, the one you actually link, is discussing 50mm ammo.

So, please stop making things up. You have not shown any proof that 37mm APHE should have high lethality, let alone that it should be 'highly destructive'.

All the best

Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey John K:

Some of what you maybe recalling might have been from your readings in Jentz. There is a reference by Jentz to G/B Jerratt (I have included it with the other scanned material below).

Best Regards

Jeff

From: Thomas Jentz “Tank Combat in North Africa, The Opening Rounds”. Schiffer Publishing Limited, 1998

From Page-44

4.1.1.1 BRITISH GUNS AGAINST AXIS TANKS

Directly after the battle of Beda Fomm, the 2nd R.T.R. conducted tests to determine the vulnerability of the Italian M. 13-40 tanks. They reported on 14 February 1941: During the morning tests were carried of the effect of the two types of 2-pounder ammunition on Italian M13 tanks. These tests proved that the yellow painted explosive armour piercing pro¬jectile penetrates the armour at 900 yards and bursts inside with very destructive effect. Sand bags placed on the crew's seats were well riddled with splinters. The black painted solid A.P. projectile also penetrates at 900 yards and causes large cracks in the armor.

From Pages 46-47

4.1.1.2 EFFECT AFTER PENETRATION

The destructive effect of the 2-pounder AP-Shot after penetration was based solely on whatever kinetic energy re¬mained in the solid shot, shot fragments if it shattered, and/or fragments of armor plate broken off by the hit. Starting with the design of the Pz.Kpfw.l, German designers had taken extra precautions to reduce the probability of fire as a result of penetration. Fuel tanks were separated from the crew com¬partment by a firewall (about 5 mm thick). In the case of the Pz.Kpfw.ll, the fuel tank, located on the right side of the crew i compartment, was isolated by 8 mm thick armor plate. As a further precaution, the main gun ammunition in the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV was stowed in bins whose sides were 4 to 6 mm thick. In addition, main gun ammunition in the Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV was stored low in the hull. Thus, even when a 2-pounder AP-Shot managed to penetrate through the armor, it needed suf¬ficient residual kinetic energy to penetrate the firewall or am¬munition bins in order to destroy the tank by setting it on fire. Penetration of a Pz.Kpfw.lll or IV by 2-pounder AP-Shot fired at 600 to 1500 yards range frequently resulted in crew mem¬bers being wounded but infrequently resulted in destruction of the tank by causing irreparable damage or by setting it on fire. Of those Pz.Kpfw.lll and IV knocked out in combat by AP-Shot, fewer than 20 percent were destroyed by fire or damaged so severely that they couldn't be repaired.

====================================

Below is Jentz discussing German AP-HE projectiles – from pages 48-49.

====================================

As stated in a German report on armor-penetration curves: Basically all penetration data are valid for projectiles of good quality. The estimate of penetration for "worst" pro¬jectiles is possible only with great difficulty. The penetration can spread over a very large range below the given value. The regulations for acceptance of projectiles stipulate that a certain number of projectiles (1/2%) will be presented for in¬spection. Two-thirds of the projectiles which have been fired against armor plate, must satisfy the given conditions. Based on past experience, it can be stated that the largest part of the deliveries satisfy these conditions. 100% assurance is not given; it may always be expected that a small percentage do not achieve the specified penetrating ability, because of shattering prematurely. Also the explosive charge in these shattered projectiles will not detonate.

The effect of the projectile inside the tank and the prob¬ability of hitting the target are not considered in these graphi¬cal charts; thus only the complete penetration with the to¬tal effect inside the tank is considered. As a rule, this ef¬fect is of annihilating power when using armor-piercing shells with a high-explosive charge. When using hard core projec¬tiles, steel or soft iron core projectiles, or hollow-charge pro¬jectiles, completely annihilating effect cannot always be ex¬pected with a single shot, because the crew, located in the dead space of the tank, cannot be hit under certain condi¬tions.

A limited effect, without piercing the tank by the pro¬jectile (effect produced by back-spalling of armor plate and punching holes (Stanzpfropfen) is frequently achieved with plates that are about 10% thicker than the thickness presented in the graphs.

AND from page 54

4.1.2.2 EFFECT AFTER PENETRATION

In all calibers of 3.7 cm and above, the normal armor-piercing round designed by the Germans contained a high explosive filler with a delay fuze. Penetration of a British tank by a German armor-piercing shell frequently resulted in crew members being wounded as well as destruction of the tank by causing irreparable damage or by setting it on fire. Not until 1942 did the British investigate the cause of fires in the tanks and began to install armored bins to protect the ammu¬nition.

As recorded by Major G/B. Jarrett in May 1942: The German projectiles which have caused the greatest amount of damage to Allied tanks in the Western Desert campaigns have been the A. P. -H. E. type in 47 mm, 50 mm, 75 mm and 88 mm respectively. These projectiles at long ranges need only attain a partial penetration and the explosive charge can com¬plete the destruction of at least the tank crew. At closer ranges the destructive effect is very great, where in many cases de¬struction of the tank is permanent.

When the 7.5 cm K.Gr.rot Pz. was fitted to an American casing and fired from the 75 mm M2 gun, in May 1942 Lt.Col. Gruver reported: Each German AP-HE round fired may safely be presumed to have put the tank out of action. In this con¬nection it was noted that the fuze functioned perfectly, that is to say it functioned only after penetration and then always in the fighting compartment where the most damage is done. Parts also frequently penetrated into the engine compartment.

The destructive effect of the Pzgr.40 after penetration was based solely on whatever kinetic energy remained in shot fragments when it shattered and/or fragments of armor plate broken off by the hit.

Jentz Refering to Italian AP-HE, page-57

4.1.3.2 EFFECT AFTER PENETRATION

The Italian 47 mm armor-piercing round contained a high explosive filler with a delay fuze. Penetration of a British tank by a 47 mm Italian armor piercing shell frequently resulted in crew members being wounded as well as destruction of the tank by causing irreparable damage or by setting it on fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, but from these reports it is not clear whether an APHE 2pdr round would have done better.

It is also of interest that Garrett specifically excluded the 37mm from the list of projectiles. At least in the AT role I would have expected the 37mm to be widely present at this date? Or were the main AT guns shipped to Africa 50mm from the start?

What is the comparative amount of HE filler in the various calibres?

All the best

Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone for the responses, this thread is pretty long considering it's one of the first I started. No congrats are in order, however, as the thread is currently under a ruthless grog-hijacking attempt! Damnable grog pirates! All silliness aside, Mr Kettler, please understand I wasn't referring to YOU, but rather another rather prominent poster with, shall we say, noticeably less social graces than you. I think we all know who I mean, but since he likely searches the forums for times his name is mentioned I won't get into details. I do like how you relegated me to the status of newcomer. Hey bud, I've been playing this game since the first public demos came out, maybe not as long as you, but I was probably the youngest member of the CM community (silent though I may have been) when I began playing. Interestingly enough, my roomate caught me posting here (and with my peers, that's almost as shameful as being caught looking up midget porn) and wondered "Wow, people still play this game? Isn't it like 3 years old"? That might have been the wrong way to do quotations, but you get my point, that's dedication my friends!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jeff Duquette,

Terrific info, and it looks awfully familiar! I suspect you waded into a thread a long time back and that I remembered at least pieces of it.

jwatts,

If I called you a "newcomer" it's only because my sleep deprived brain apparently locked up on the "Junior Member" slug below your handle. I try to welcome new players when I notice them for the first time and don't expect them to really know the ins and outs of the game. I belatedly note also that you later did refer to a specific CMAK scenario for which you were seeking guidance.

Andreas,

In the Amedeo discussion I linked to, the first part of the discussion was quite clearly about APHE lethality modeling, and from context, I infer that "large HE burster" denotes greater behind armor effect in the game than for APHE projectiles not so annotated. I formally repeat for the record that I did not invoke Jarrett regarding the German 37mm APHE. That is your misinterpretation of a point I was at pains to clarify.

Did you notice though, that under Jentz 4.1.2.2, the German 37mm APHE was specifically identified as having the same kind of lethal behind armor effects as its larger siblings from 47mm on up?

According to Jarrett's WEST OF ALAMEIN, in the section on ATGs and Artillery, the

3.7cm PAK 36 saw wide use in the desert but basically disappeared by El Alamein. He specifically describes it as the "least efficient

of the German anti-tank guns." From what I've read, the classic DAK gun lines were made of the 5cm PAK 38, backed up by the dread 8.8cm FLAK 18.

No luck so far on explosive fill types and amounts for the German APHE projectiles. I do recall, though, that back in the 1970s Mark diehl wrote a great series on German ammo for AFV-G2 magazine. Bet they're in that!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 24, 2007, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by John Kettler:

In the Amedeo discussion I linked to, the first part of the discussion was quite clearly about APHE lethality modeling, and from context, I infer that "large HE burster" denotes greater behind armor effect in the game than for APHE projectiles not so annotated.

You are welcome to do so. I don't agree with your opinion.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Did you notice though, that under Jentz 4.1.2.2, the German 37mm APHE was specifically identified as having the same kind of lethal behind armor effects as its larger siblings from 47mm on up?

That is absolutely not what 4.1.2.2 says, you are again inferring, with no basis for this in the original text.

Originally posted by John Kettler:

According to Jarrett's WEST OF ALAMEIN, in the section on ATGs and Artillery, the

3.7cm PAK 36 saw wide use in the desert but basically disappeared by El Alamein. He specifically describes it as the "least efficient

of the German anti-tank guns." From what I've read, the classic DAK gun lines were made of the 5cm PAK 38, backed up by the dread 8.8cm FLAK 18.

Thanks. That sounds reasonable, even though it is a surprisingly quick switch, considering that the 37mm soldiered on for a long time in other theatres.

All the best

Andreas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andreas,

What part of this was unclear to you?

Ref. Jentz

In all calibers of 3.7 cm and above, the normal armor-piercing round designed by the Germans contained a high explosive filler with a delay fuze. Penetration of a British tank by a German armor-piercing shell frequently resulted in crew members being wounded as well as destruction of the tank by causing irreparable damage or by setting it on fire.
The PAK 36 may've been a marginal ATG in very short order, but the Jentz quote appears to confirm that it was quite capable of wrecking tank and crew alike, given penetration/(partial penetration per British OR) followed by detonation.

In the British OR report, which I'm still trying to locate, the description was even more explicit, basically stating that even a penetration

in which the APHE emerged partially into the fighting compartment before detonating, clobbered the crew and rendered the tank unrepairable much of the time.

John D Salt,

I don't know what "MELF" stand for, but does the May 1942 date help any in terms of IDing the organization performing OR for the Western Desert?

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by John Kettler:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In all calibers of 3.7 cm and above, the normal armor-piercing round designed by the Germans contained a high explosive filler with a delay fuze. Penetration of a British tank by a German armor-piercing shell frequently resulted in crew members being wounded as well as destruction of the tank by causing irreparable damage or by setting it on fire.

The PAK 36 may've been a marginal ATG in very short order, but the Jentz quote appears to confirm that it was quite capable of wrecking tank and crew alike, given penetration/(partial penetration per British OR) followed by detonation. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Jeff Duquette,

I suspect you waded into a thread a long time back and that I remembered at least pieces of it.

Hi John:

Not really -- I just recalled reading it somewhere and the memory cells told me to look in Jentz. As I say the only reason I'm here is my interest in tracing testing documents that detail side-by-side tests of AP-HE and AP-solid shot – whatever the caliber. But I see that isn't likely to occur.

The British philosophy of using solid shot AP was obviously one approach. It made sense to them based upon their own experience and presumably their own testing. Obviously a number of other Countries from the same time period believed AP-HE to be more effective in behind armor effects vs. tanks.

As far as I can tell from my own reading, the British believed their AP-solid shot could perforate more armor than AP-shell. Makes sense. And a bursting charge doesn’t do much good if the shot doesn’t perforate the target. But let’s be clear here, this design philosophy wasn’t restricted to small caliber 2-pdr AP. The British didn’t use bursting charges in either their 6-pdr or 17-pdr armor piercing ammunition. They may not have used a base charge in their post war 20-pdr APCBC -- but I am not certain about this last bit on the 20-pdr.

I think the British also believed that spaced armor used on tanks could act to predetonate bursting charges on AP-Shell and thus reduce the perforation ability of the shell against the main armor. One can’t really argue with their logic on this bit either. They conducted their own tests with their own ammunition.

Conversely a number of other countries that were producing their own armor piercing tank ammunition believed a base charge to be an advantage – even in smaller caliber projectiles. One can see the merit in this approach as well – moreover if I can get an AP shell behind the armor of my intended target, why wouldn’t it be good to have the additional behind armor effects associated with a bursting charge? Italy, Germany, Russia and the United States all produced AP-shell (AP-HE) for their tanks and antitank guns. In fact the US 57mm M86 APCBC included a bursting charge; this in contrast to British 6-pdr APCBC that did not include a bursting charge. The Russians included a bursting charge in their 57mm APBC projectiles; this in contrast to British 6pdr AP projectiles. The United States did not include a bursting charge in their 37mm M51 APC, the latter British 2-pdr marks also did not include a bursting charge. The Germans included a bursting charge in their 37mm pzgr, the Italians included a bursting charge in their 47mm AP, and the Russians included a bursting charge in their 45mm APBC; and of course we have reference to British 2-pdr AP-HE trials vs. Italian M13 suggesting that the behind armor effects of the 2-pdr AP-shell were quite good.

Anyway, I would be interested in seeing anyone produce a cite reference that details behind armor effects for side-by-side testing of AP solid shot vs. AP-shell for any caliber – 2pdr, 6pdr or 17pdr.

Best Regards

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

My point in going back to WWI is only that the ability to produce a base fuze says nothing about whether or not the device was capable of functioning properly.

Well, yes, if you believe that fuzes are ordered into production without checking that they function properly. It would be nice to think that British defence procurement didn't do things like that, but...

Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

My question is more specific to source material regarding side-by-side testing of behind armor effects of 2pdr solid shot and 2pdr APHE.

You indicated in one of your posts above:

“Trials with the 2-pdr found not a ha'porth of difference between AP and APHE rounds, so the APHE was never ordered into full production.”

I’m not disagreeing with you (nor am I agreeing with you for that matter). I’m simply interested in a cite for the original report\reports that detail the effectiveness of solid 2-pdr AP vs. 2-pdr AP-HE. Can this be found in a WO report? If so do you by chance have the number\numbers?

Nope, I'm afraid the Hogg piece I quoted is my only source for this (and he doesn't specifically say "trials", although I can't imagine where else "experience" would come from).

There are a couple of things in the WO32 series that look as if they might be helpful, and I'll try to remember to take a peek at them next time I'm at the PRO, but that will probably not be for quite a while.

All the best,

John.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...