Jump to content
tanknet.org

Ww2 Infantry - Fire Support?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 768
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, never doubt the ability of interservice BS to hobble an military. It likely played as much of a part in reducing effectiveness as lack of money or industrial capacity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would, if anything it is 1.5mm narrower. So use 40mm Bofors projectiles, install driving bands and put them to 2pdr cases. FFS, Soviets adopted 37mm AA gun HE projectiles to fit 2pdr cases by installing driving bands on them. Same for Germans and 76mm ATG that used 75mm ammo with additional driving bands.

 

I was talking about length and shape and not just bore. Also why bother, the 40mm 2pdr AA gun was in British service from1938, so the HE ammo was already in service.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It would, if anything it is 1.5mm narrower. So use 40mm Bofors projectiles, install driving bands and put them to 2pdr cases. FFS, Soviets adopted 37mm AA gun HE projectiles to fit 2pdr cases by installing driving bands on them. Same for Germans and 76mm ATG that used 75mm ammo with additional driving bands.

 

I take it you mean as a field mod as they did have a shell that would fit with few, if any modification for factory produced rounds.

 

I know the British did something similar to German 75 mm rounds to fit them in the 75 mm guns of American Lee and Grant tanks and I think the Australians did something like this to their two-pounders in the Pacific?

 

I wonder why the British didn't do it for two-pounder rounds in North Africa.

 

 

To be specific, the brits lathed down the driving bands on the german ammo

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was talking about length and shape and not just bore. Also why bother, the 40mm 2pdr AA gun was in British service from1938, so the HE ammo was already in service.

 

 

My point was taking shells from Bofors and mating them with 2pdr AT/tank gun casing to make modern HE which they lacked.

2pdr AA shell for Pom-Poms was base fused in order to penetrate aircraft and detonate inside, hence not suitable for anti-personal use as most fragments would be lost to ground.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll bite. Where does this stuff about RA opposing HE in tanks come from? References? And I mean official sources.

 

It isn't credible. Field arty was in the indirect fire business against area targets often with ill-defined target elements, tks are in the direct fire business against point targets, there is no overlap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The British came up with "Portee" idea (supposedly) to deal with the French 25mm AT gun which they adopted at eh start of the war in a spirit of co-operation ( or because they didn't have enough 2pdrs?). In any case they found that the 25mm French guns tended to fall apart when towed at speed by trucks so the solution was to carry them in the truck. One short step to firing them from the the truck. The 2pdr also took a bit longer to bring in and out of action than some other peoples light AT guns due the 360 degree mount.

 

Which also made the Portee idea a bit more attractive, as did firing the gun from the truck seeing as how it weighed around double what some other peoples 37mm guns did and heaving 1800lb guns into and out of the trucks (even with ramps) was a bit of a chore.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I'll bite. Where does this stuff about RA opposing HE in tanks come from? References? And I mean official sources.

 

It isn't credible. Field arty was in the indirect fire business against area targets often with ill-defined target elements, tks are in the direct fire business against point targets, there is no overlap.

i believe I read a report here at TN, basically it was that the tankers wanted a large calibre HE gun of medium velocity to do direct fire onto targets. The RA saw this not only a threat to available tubes but taking on their role in providing fire support. Seeing some of the ongoing games today, interservice politics would surprise me in the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still it comes down to the fact that whilst a carrier with a 2pdr on the back may, just may, have been a useful portee AT gun in 1939-1940, it was not the answer to infantry fire support.

 

And Britannia had no suitable tank or other vehicle to field a stug like armoured self propelled casement mounted gun until the time she had sufficient tanks for that purpose, rendering the entire idea beyond the pale..

 

And if she had it would have been known as something like the A14 (yes, that number was not taken) "Boadicea", named after her chariots with blades on the wheels that were quite useless, not after some unknown African species Mellivora capensis

 

Remember, Britannia not only rules the waves, she waives the rules.....

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Britain fi-i-irst, at heaven's command, Aro-o-o-o-ose from out the a-a-a-zure main, Arose, arose from out the azure main, This was the charter, the charter of the land, And guardian a-a-angels sang this strain: Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves. Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. Still more maje-e-estic shalt thou rise, More dre-e-e-e-eadful from each foreign stroke, More dreadful, dreadful from each foreign stroke, Loud blast above us, loud blast that tears the skies Serves but to ro-o-o-ot thy native oak. Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves. Britons never, never, never shall be slaves. Rule Britannia! Britannia rule the waves. Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

Edited by DougRichards
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone argued way back in this thread somewhere that a 25pdr armed fixed top was never going to happen early on because of a British shortage of 25pdr guns, particularly for such a purpose. Maybe but such a shortage was not inevitable and could have been averted if the British had looked to the Empire early on for cooperation in manufacturing arms and munitions, like I believe they did in WW1 with Canada. By WW2 Australia had developed a capability to manufacture the full range of British land weapons including the 25pdr. For it's own forseeable threat purposes it relied on the 18pdrs it already had left over from WW1 so the 25pdr was not a priority for it's own defence at that time. So there was a lead time involved with the 25pdr which may not have existed if the British had cooperated with other capable members of the Empire in arms and munitions procurement.

 

Britain did eventually place an order with Australia for 25pdrs but even then only after it was informed that there was an excess capacity available for basically whatever they wanted. That excess capacity remained but varied throughout the war despite exports to other Empire members.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada struggled to make tanks mainly as most of the casting had to be done at the Montreal locomotive works as I recall. I suspect the machining and welding capacity was there to make 2 and 6pdrs in fair quantity, But our industrial base was not overly broad and struggled throughtout the war to meet demand. Had more thought been given to the impending conflict in 1936-7, increasing that capacity by buying American industrial equipment might have helped.

 

buying design like the US M2 would have worked, not many big plates of armour and lot of welding and riveting, even the 6 ton would have fitted into the more cottage sized industries. Inglis who made a lot of small arms was a dishwasher maker prior to the war.

Edited by Colin
Link to post
Share on other sites

The US had to resort to rail car and locomotive shops for initial tank production. American Car and Foundry built many of the early light tanks. While the Chrysler run Detroit Tank Arsenal did make M3 mediums ALCO (American Locomotive Company), Pressed Steel Car Company, Pullman Standard Company and Baldwin Locomotive helped make up initial production. Lima Locomotive works and Pacific car and Foundry joined in for Sherman production along with several more purpose built tank factories.

 

There is little sense in trying to build tanks in cottage sized industries. You wind up with a lot people working very hard to make substandard vehicles. Let the cottage industries do what they do best. Build small component parts like bushings, gears, linkages, or other semi-precision stuff. (My grandfather worked for a 4 man shop equipped with overhead belt machinery that made gyro-scopes under subcontract to Norden).

 

The railroad shops have the machinery of the size needed for dealing with tanks. If they can handle 60-80ft passenger cars that could weigh 80 tons then handling tanks wasn't a problem. Locomotives were a lot heavier. The number of industries that require 15-50 ton over head cranes and 30-40ft ceilings is really rather small. You cannot build tanks in car factories or even most truck factories.

 

 

In some extreme cases the US industry just shuttered some existing factories and moved the work force to a new, nearby building that was equipped to build the item/s needed rather than try to modify-rebuild an old factory with too small infrastructure (traveling-over head cranes, power supplies, overhead clearance,etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

fyi...

 

From Tigers in the Mud by Otto Carius (one of the top Tiger aces in WW2”

Chapter “Operation Strachwitz”

p. 104-105

 

“In the days preceding the attack, the commander’s aide had to find out at what minute in the morning it became light enough to properly see and shoot. The exact time of the attack was based on this determination.

The preparatory fire was supposed to start 5 minutes before the attack, and it was supposed to be shifted after another 5 minutes. By the end of the first 5 minutes, we were supposed to have already crossed the rail embankment.

Shortly before the attack began, the Graf came to us with his traditional thin walking stick to observe the breakthrough from our position. We then experienced a barrage of fire such as we never again saw during the remainder of the war. 37mm rapid-fire Flak guns, 20mm Quads, and 88mm Flak guns were set up in a half-circle around the “east sack”.

The fired with tracers, which formed an actual dome of fire we could drive under to reach the southern edge of the dome. A rocket regiment fired from farther to the rear, first with Napalm rockets and then with high explosive munitions. The effect was devastating, as we were able to determine later. It should be noted that the low-hanging woods in the marshes didn’t allow any pressure to escape upward. The flames thus scorched the trees for a height of several meters. All Russians who weren’t in the bunkers were immediately killed by the concussion. At the same time, howitzer and artillery units, including 280mm howitzers, fired everything they had….”

 

...just thought this would be a good contribution to this thread.

 

Frank

Link to post
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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...