DB Posted December 28, 2015 Share Posted December 28, 2015 Quality of design inversely proportional to the size of the committee involved in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaarin7 Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 I don't know if the Cruiser Tank Mk. IV had been equped with 6 pdr. when it came out (1940) it would have been a good tank for what it was facing in 1940-41. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 2pdr penetrated everything in 1940 and most things in 1941. Effort would have been better spent getting them reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 2pdr penetrated everything in 1940 and most things in 1941. Effort would have been better spent getting them reliable. when 2pdr was tested in soviet union it doesnt penetrate PZIII front from point blank IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Which one? 30, 50mm or 60mm front armor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiedzmin Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 my fault, stug3 with 50mm armor. http://www.mediafire.com/download/zj45omgjjjq/Obstrel_nem.pdf if you read russian download this PDF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bojan Posted December 29, 2015 Share Posted December 29, 2015 Tnx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaarin7 Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 When 2 pdr was introduced in 1937 it was a world class gun. The vast majority of tanks were using 20mm, 25mm, 37mm and 45mm. Its main problem was the 6 pdr was sealed in 1940 after or around Dunkirk when Great Britain could not afford to retool so had to keep making 2 pdr. As pointed out it did great in 1940 but it was not suited to the desert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Alan Brooke recorded in his diary that they had the choice after Dunkirk of taking 600 2-pdrs or 200 6-pdrs from the production line and chose the former. David Fletcher told me in 2013 that this was correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted December 30, 2015 Share Posted December 30, 2015 Come on Stuart. In the aftermath of Dunkirk, which would you choose, exclusive of ammo considerations; more or fewer guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manic Moran Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 The turret did have a second chance, being used on Osorio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I'd say there had to be at least a trickle of 6-pdrs from the factories, else how could they show up in time for El Alamein? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DougRichards Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 (edited) I'd say there had to be at least a trickle of 6-pdrs from the factories, else how could they show up in time for El Alamein? Which El Alamein? For El Alamein 1 (July 1942) : By May 1942 1,500 guns per month were coming out of British factories. Yes, some would have probably made it to North Afrika. By El Alamein 2 (Oct-Nov 1942) there certainly would have been 6pdrs in North Africa. Especially as 17pdrs were flown out to Africa for mounting on 25pdr carriages late in 1942. Edited December 31, 2015 by DougRichards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 1500 6-pdrs per month? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I'd say there had to be at least a trickle of 6-pdrs from the factories, else how could they show up in time for El Alamein?One widely derided source says it saw action at Gazala in May 1942. I find that credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 6pdr production was also barrel length limited due to the lack of large lathes that could handle the longer barrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted January 1, 2016 Share Posted January 1, 2016 Hell, they got so desperate at Gazala that they dragged four 3.7" HAA into the Cauldron for supposed AT use, but to no avail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Warford Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 Just to help clarify things... Vijayanta on display - Indian Army:  Vickers Mk 3 - Kenyan Army in 2010:  Vickers Mk 3 in Kenya in 2015:  Vickers Mk 7 video: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin-Phillips Posted January 3, 2016 Author Share Posted January 3, 2016 Fine looking vehicle is the Mk7! Can't help but think that video makes it sound like its powered by a GM Detroit Diesel (known rather sarcastically in the trucking/plant industry as a "Screamer" due to the high-pitched whine at even moderate RPM). Great footage though. The Japanese seem to have some success with their Type 90 and somewhat lighter Type 10 MBT's. Could this "heavy/light MBT" approach have worked well for the British Army? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonJ Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) Fine looking vehicle is the Mk7! Can't help but think that video makes it sound like its powered by a GM Detroit Diesel (known rather sarcastically in the trucking/plant industry as a "Screamer" due to the high-pitched whine at even moderate RPM). Great footage though. The Japanese seem to have some success with their Type 90 and somewhat lighter Type 10 MBT's. Could this "heavy/light MBT" approach have worked well for the British Army?  AFAIK, there was no design intention for creating 2 weight classes of MBTs. The Type 90 has been a little heavier than the Japanese would like but if they were to get comparable armor to that of Leopard2A4, Leclerc, and M1A1, the heavy weight was necessary. The Type 10 achieves both the preference for lower weight and yet, better armor than Type 90. The low weight preference is evident in their Type 61 and Type 74 tanks, both weighing 36 and 38 tons respectively, quite lighter than their western counterparts like M48 and Centurion. Type 61 design also had basis in the idea from France that little armor and light weight is better because of the development of better HEAT and anti-tank missiles, thus AMX-30 is just as light. Edited January 3, 2016 by JasonJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotsman Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Hey Ken... Do you have a reference handy for the proposed 3.7" use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted January 5, 2016 Share Posted January 5, 2016 Not at the moment, I'm on the road. We participated in the thread on Dual Purpose AAA a couple of years ago and I mentioned it there, with a citation. Googling around I get this: http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/3970-37in-aa-gun-not-used-as-at-gun/ see post #26 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotsman Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Thanks - I've done a lot of deep dive on 3.7" in the AT role and there is no doubt that the ammunition and the Tobruk site mod was present in North Africa. Larkhill records confirmed that the gunners were trained locally in AT and retrofitted their guns in the field - agree with the previous poster that the sight ring size seems to indicate the 6pdr sight was certainly used on some of those mods. The bottom line to 3.7" AT is that the gun was capable, it had the ammunition, and the local field modification to fight as an ATG in North Africa...but it's value and scarcity as HAA precluded anything but emergency use until later - by which time many more ATG were available and the need had passed. Nevertheless - from what I have been able to determine - it could have been so used had that decision ever been made... I own a round of 3.7" AP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted January 6, 2016 Share Posted January 6, 2016 Ha! I used to carry a 90mm AP round for many years, but just got tired of packing it up for every move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Estes Posted January 7, 2016 Share Posted January 7, 2016 I still have my two 90mm brass ctg cases, those are worth something, like table lamps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now