Improve the Singapore Strategy

marathag

Banned
You should always think of the universal carrier as a slightly armoured tracked Jeep - but then I always have to remind myself that there was this - so umm yes....maybe....
24-4143964-moto-guzzi-trialce-zsu.jpg
 
These were great for training and all but quite frankly they would be more useful as universal carriers towing a gun - they were poor AFVs.
Poor AFV's? Maybe, bit I'd almost always prefer a Self Propelled Anti Tank Gun to a towed one. When you need to move right flippin now, the extra time hooking up to the towing vehicle can get you very dead.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Ah, so typical UK tank performance before 1942;)
That’s why I like the Canadian-built Valentines with their American Diesel engines. Just swap out the 2pdr for a US 37mm and you’re all set. We just need a POD that gets them made earlier and someone to neglect shipping them to Russia.
 
Last edited:
Poor AFV's? Maybe, bit I'd almost always prefer a Self Propelled Anti Tank Gun to a towed one. When you need to move right flippin now, the extra time hooking up to the towing vehicle can get you very dead.

Totally. But a UC with a 2 pounder strapped on the back ain't one!

A decent SPATG at the very least can take smalls arms fire and has a chance of shrugging off shrapnel - the UC at most has 10mm of armour

And shoot and scoot is one thing but mounted on a vehicle makes it harder to hide and if the UC breaks down????

That’s why I like the Canadian-built Valentines with their American Diesel engines. Just swap out the 2pdr for a US 37mm and you’re all set. We just need a POD that gets them made earlier and someone to neglect shipping them to Russia.

I understand the engine but why the gun?
 
I understand the engine but why the gun?
For it's canister round I imagine. Or you could just drop the A10 CS turret on some of them and arm them with shells from the 3.7" Mountain Gun.

The later New Zealand cobbled together Valentine V CS with the Matilda II's 3" howitzer to illustrate the point.

Valentine_MkV-CS_Australian.png


(Shame it wasn't available in 1940 with a duel purpose gun)
 
Last edited:
There is also the option of sending captured Italian equipment, though I'm not sure they'd be any better off than otl if they did.

The British tried that in North Africa - thinking they had more time before Rommel and the Axis forces launched their attack (Op Sonnonbaum) they covered the new front lines with greener troops (with 2/3rd the required transport as the rest had gone to Greece) backed by an understrength armoured Brigade consisting of 1 Battalion/Rgt of worn out Crusiers (whose commander had warned that they would all break down after a day of use - he was totally wrong as 1 tank was still running on day 2) , 1 Battalion/Rgt of Italian Tanks (which being in better condition fared 'slightly' better in that some where still working on day 2 but not many) and a Battalion/Rgt of Armoured cars (which being reconditioned WW2 RR Armoured cars and Kitbashed armoured trucks worked just fine and many of those got away when Rommel dropped the Knut on them)

So the problem with using the captured Italian tanks is that whatever is left is already being used by the armies in Africa and the region and there is no supply of parts.

A given WW2 tank on ops even not in combat has a useful life of about 6 months (some tanks were better and were capable of lasted a couple of years with relatively limited field TLC - such as the Valentine and Churchill) before it has to be replaced with a new one and said tank withdrawn for reconditioning at the relevant factory or a well equipped field workshop and in the case of the Italian tanks any replacement parts etc would have been used up/tanks cannibalised etc by Sept 1941 which is the latest that you might be thinking of sending any out east.

And I am not sure how many Medium tanks M11 were captured of the 420 Tanks that Wavells troops captured as 9 of the 11 Italian tanks battalions involved were L3 Tankettes

looking at number 100 odd were built with at least 24 in East Africa

So I cannot see a useful number being available to send by mid/late 1941
 

MatthewB

Banned
Totally. But a UC with a 2 pounder strapped on the back ain't one!

A decent SPATG at the very least can take smalls arms fire and has a chance of shrugging off shrapnel - the UC at most has 10mm of armour

And shoot and scoot is one thing but mounted on a vehicle makes it harder to hide and if the UC breaks down????



I understand the engine but why the gun?
37mm has both a HE and canister round.
 
37mm has both a HE and canister round.

There was a 2 Pounder HE shell - and it was issued in France to BEF tank crews but in North Africa the tank crews generally did not bother as it made a pretty pathetic bang indeed its explosive content is almost that of a modern 40mm UGL HE Grenade

It was often carried by Royal artillery manned 2 pounder AT Gun batteries and also when the gun was added to Infantry battalion TOE and intended "To discourage enemy infantry"

I do wonder if the British didn't bother as they had Cruiser CS versions of the tanks firing a 3.7" 20 pound shell or 3" 13 pound shell and I suspect a supply of 2" mortars which had a more powerful HE round?
 
There was a 2 Pounder HE shell - and it was issued in France to BEF tank crews but in North Africa the tank crews generally did not bother as it made a pretty pathetic bang indeed its explosive content is almost that of a modern 40mm UGL HE Grenade

It was often carried by Royal artillery manned 2 pounder AT Gun batteries and also when the gun was added to Infantry battalion TOE and intended "To discourage enemy infantry"

I do wonder if the British didn't bother as they had Cruiser CS versions of the tanks firing a 3.7" 20 pound shell or 3" 13 pound shell and I suspect a supply of 2" mortars which had a more powerful HE round?

Is there any technical reason why something like the Mk.19 Grenade Launcher couldn't be developed 25 years earlier? :cool:
 

marathag

Banned
There was a 2 Pounder HE shell - and it was issued in France to BEF tank crews but in North Africa the tank crews generally did not bother as it made a pretty pathetic bang indeed its explosive content is almost that of a modern 40mm UGL HE Grenade
p45mmHE.jpg

Soviet UO-243 HE . a very long shell with 118 g. of TNT filler

For an idea what that is, a US 40mm HE grenade from an M203 has roughly 32g of Comp B, or
US 40mm Bofors with 68g of TNT

That's a lot of filler in that Soviet shell

The 2pdr HE was a very thick walled shell, from being fired at the same fps at the AP shot.

Not impossible to have made a similar HE for the 2pdr, but that meant the sights would need to be modified for more than one type of ammo
 

MatthewB

Banned
There was a 2 Pounder HE shell - and it was issued in France to BEF tank crews but in North Africa the tank crews generally did not bother as it made a pretty pathetic bang indeed its explosive content is almost that of a modern 40mm UGL HE Grenade

It was often carried by Royal artillery manned 2 pounder AT Gun batteries and also when the gun was added to Infantry battalion TOE and intended "To discourage enemy infantry"

I do wonder if the British didn't bother as they had Cruiser CS versions of the tanks firing a 3.7" 20 pound shell or 3" 13 pound shell and I suspect a supply of 2" mortars which had a more powerful HE round?
It’s canister that’s needed for Malaya, not HE.
 
It’s canister that’s needed for Malaya, not HE.
Why? If you are concerned about your tanks or AT guns being overrun by infantry then the right solution is supporting them with your own infantry with machine guns, not trying to turn HV artillery pieces into half-assed antipersonnel weapons.
 
Is there any technical reason why something like the Mk.19 Grenade Launcher couldn't be developed 25 years earlier? :cool:

Nope.


p45mmHE.jpg

Soviet UO-243 HE . a very long shell with 118 g. of TNT filler

For an idea what that is, a US 40mm HE grenade from an M203 has roughly 32g of Comp B, or
US 40mm Bofors with 68g of TNT

That's a lot of filler in that Soviet shell

The 2pdr HE was a very thick walled shell, from being fired at the same fps at the AP shot.

Not impossible to have made a similar HE for the 2pdr, but that meant the sights would need to be modified for more than one type of ammo

Isn't that a 45mm?

I just looked here and the HE shell was fired at a far lower velocity than the AP rounds (343 MPS over 820 MPS) - this allows for a thinner shell wall

No reason why the British and Americans could not have done this except for as you you say complicating the sights as 2 ballistic values would be needed (the eventual solution to the 17 pounder gun as it's original 'same MV as the AP round' HE round was too weak due to having too thick walls)

Anyone know when the 37mm Canister round was introduced?

I have found some talk on the interwebs regarding it being supplied with M3 lee tanks in North Africa (but not the 'Honeys'?) and that the rounds were all shipped to the Far east. So they had them in 42!

So I am wondering if they were developed due to experiences fighting the Japanese in PH where the 37mm gun was the principle Anti tank battalion, Infantry battalion and Engineer Battalion direct fire gun system?

Or where they already in service when the M3 was introduced in 1940?
 

MatthewB

Banned
Why? If you are concerned about your tanks or AT guns being overrun by infantry then the right solution is supporting them with your own infantry with machine guns, not trying to turn HV artillery pieces into half-assed antipersonnel weapons.
While what you describe is the ideal SOP, wherein your own infantry protects your tanks against infantry, I did not consider my suggestion to be half-assed. The 37mm M3 guns used by most US light tanks and towed AT guns were issued with canister rounds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37_mm_Gun_M3#Combat_service

"While high-explosive and canister ammunition proved useful in stopping Japanese infantry attacks, against enemy fortifications the M3 was only somewhat effective because of its small high-explosive projectile. Its overall effectiveness and ease of use meant the gun remained in service with the Marine Corps and with some army units in the Pacific until the end of the war."

If it's good enough for the USMC against massed Japanese infantry attacks, it'll serve the British and Commonwealth against the same. Malaya will be close fighting, where tanks won't have clear, open terrain to stand back and engage enemies at a distance. Cannister will be useful in addition to the ridealong infantry. Not half-assed at all, IMO.
 
Last edited:
While what you describe is the ideal SOP, wherein your own infantry protects your tanks against infantry,
I don’t think combined arms tactics is the ‘ideal’ SOP, it’s the only SOP which isn’t basically suicidal. And if the solution to poor coordination is canister, then it’s not going to be much of a technical challenge to stuff a couple pounds of nuts and bolts into a 40mm case over a part charge.
If it's good enough for the USMC against massed Japanese infantry attacks, it'll serve the British and Commonwealth against the same.
The 37mm M3 wasn’t really ‘good enough’ it was more like the 1919A6 - ‘all they could get and not quite bad enough to lose them battles’. For the uses you are citing (I.e as an infantry support gun) they might have been better off with the 37mm M1916 at half the weight.
 

Jack Brisco

Banned
A fleet is useless without a base for R&R. There was no RN base after Ceylon if Singpaore was not developed and HK was too exposed.

The USN only perfected the Fleet Train in 1944 after spending a vast amount of resource.

Indeed. Have a book on US Navy logistics in the Pacific. The fleet trains ended up being huge, but also meant the fleets could stay out much longer. So many people tend to forget that logistics wins or loses battles and wars. Compared to US logistics, Japanese logistics were rather minimal. As Japanese merchant ships continued to fall victim to US/Allied naval power, those logistics became much worse. Many Japanese troops died through hunger/disease.
 

MatthewB

Banned
Without a fleet train, the British did depend on their network of bases, but I wonder how much coal or oil they left in these places. To get to Stanley from Singapore, for example would require vast resources, and there’s a distinct lack of British bases in the southeast pacific once you’re past the Cook Is.
 

Jack Brisco

Banned

The Lee/Grant tank depicted was an intermediate tank between the lightly armed US tanks of the 1930's and the Sherman. As can be seen, the 75mm in the sponson had limited traverse. Numbers of these tanks were used in North Africa, in the Pacific, and by the Soviets through Lend-Lease. The Lee/Grant tank would have been able to handle any Japanese tank. Put X number of those in Malaya/on Singapore and the defense would surely have benefited.
 
Top