Where is 'Death Ray' Matthews when he's needed....Might I suggest taking the Z Batteries and turn them into something a little more offensive. (and effective)
Mattress (rocket) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
View attachment 792551
Where is 'Death Ray' Matthews when he's needed....Might I suggest taking the Z Batteries and turn them into something a little more offensive. (and effective)
Mattress (rocket) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
View attachment 792551
BSA had a Thompson license and produced a few in various 9mm chamberings.Really you need say a cheap RAF SMG for MPs guarding airfields, a tube none machined version based off the Lanchester/MP18 or Suomi KP/-31would work fine and both could be done by BSA or any good commercial gun maker in UK.
More resources and support, plus a lack of faffing around with .38 SAA cartridges.The early own was a bit 'heath Robinson' and was not mature enough for trials until 1941 (when it was excellent) - while it evolved pretty rapidly between 1939 to 1941 the people making the decision pre war would quite rightly have not looked at it twice
I have a soft spot for the Owens - but it was not a mature weapon system in 1939
View attachment 792651
I think it needs to just be for MPs and 2nd line guards, any real Regiment or paratroopers will get proper army weapons pre war? My thinking is that RAF could cheap out pre-war on a tube SMG for gate guards & MPs thinking it's not important and wanting to save cash and wanting something that allowed one sentry to defend themselves against a few people at close range?Wrt the RAF, what about an earlier RAF Regiment? Possibly including paratroopers?
Might I suggest taking the Z Batteries and turn them into something a little more offensive. (and effective)
Mattress (rocket) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
View attachment 792551
I especially liked the part about inspecting MPs having involuntary bowel movements when the rockets are fired.There was a good story on Changingthetimes.net - 'British Rocket Artillery -- if only' by David Shaw that did something like that....
I know it says British Army, but what about the Indian army? What about removing the Gurkha regiments from Indian central funding in secret and therefore allowing the rasing of that many more Indian regiments, with the Gurkhas paid for directly from London?Let's give the British Army, and help the Commonwealth Armies when possible
Follow the Russian lead. Bring in Albert Kahn/Albert Kahn Associates to look at building up-to-date factories. (And equip them with modern plant)...The basic issue though is the British sequence is build industrial capacity (factories shell filling plants etc and the British know how to do this from 1917 and how long it takes)...
I have seen that idea put up before and generally shot down by those who know more than I do. More Merlin’s were produced than any other inline aero engine of the war. More than any other aero engine period except for the R-1830. They did not do that with “craftsman methods”. The Merlin was mass produced just like the P&W engine was. And every factory set up for their production was overseen (and often run) by RR. So it is not a case of the auto manufacturers telling them how it was done.Sadly much of British Industry was craftsman based rather than what we would call an industrial approach. This is not meant to be a derogatory observation it is instead accepting that the master tradesmen had incredible skills but it took too long to train them.
As an example and yes this is a made up rhetorical style example.
Rolls Royce is making engines and every engine is put together by one master tradesman and as he builds the engine he hones and shapes the parts to get a perfect fit. The engine is reliable, high performing but has little direct parts commonality with the engines Fred next door makes. Also each engine takes a week to make.
60 tradesmen making 60 engines per week in total.
Ford gets the schematics for the same engine. They realise the drawings allow for finishing and is not replicatable or able to use stock parts. While rolls is making 60 engines a week the Ford Engineers spend three months getting every part to work perfectly every time with no final finishing required. A month later the plant opens and 60 workers get trained to do a single task each. No worker knows the entire engine just the parts they have to fit. By now Rolls has made 960 engines and Ford has made zero. Next month Rolls makes another 240 engines and Ford makes 120. Every worker has been triple trained and all parts are now fully interchangeable. The next month Ford makes 60 engines a day.
Rolls is still making 60 per week. Ford is now making 7 times the output and every single part will work in any engine without extra work. The main workers are now better than the tradesmen at the task they do 60 times a day.
This is exagerated and sounds fake......only they did this over and over again. British equipment was as good as American equipment, in some ways superior, in others far worse. The Bofors gun is the perfect example. The Packard Merlin was as good if not better than the equivallant mark of engine.
For the British Army to have superior equipment it needs to drive the cost of that equipment down through industrialisation of the PROCESS used to make the equipment. For example if the AT gun production line was setup to be a Ford style factory, the new 6 lb gun is easily placed into production with maybe a week of downtime while the process changes. In fact the line does not need to stop just reduced output for a week while training happens. Then you do extra shifts or OT to catchup.
The 2lb gun was very good, it was however inadequate for infantry support and had a dismal HE shell and no Canister round. A 47mm for example would have been marginally bigger but offer a significantly better ammunition selection and usefulness
Modestly level 9000.The quick answer is none of the above.
The 18lb is a non starter, ( as are WW1 4.5s) As an AT platform its 50% heavier than a 2lb, which is probably the best AT gun in the world at the time can be manhandled into small spaces easily and has a very wide arc of fire. As a howitzer it is not a howitzer, the method of construction is no longer used and the gun itself out of production and was designed for a rile the British do not think is necessary. The 4.5'' AA is 50 % heavier than the 3,7 and requires a concrete emplacement for firing.
The British do not use infantry guns or tank mounted artillery pieces for direct fire. They have reliable communications to the artillery who respond much more quickly and intend to have lots of tanks forward. HE rounds smaller than 75mm are useless against trench type fieldworks, and you need 150mm + or very high velocity 100+ to deal with concrete wars. When the British do feel the need its called an AVRE or Crocodile and works really well.
yea 6lb better than 2lb but both are good enough to deal with the panzer 1 and 2 the germans are fielding, half the total force (and the 2lb is good enough vs ALL german tanks up to late 41.
As an example and yes this is a made up rhetorical style example.
Rolls Royce is making engines and every engine is put together by one master tradesman and as he builds the engine he hones and shapes the parts to get a perfect fit. The engine is reliable, high performing but has little direct parts commonality with the engines Fred next door makes. Also each engine takes a week to make.
60 tradesmen making 60 engines per week in total.
Ford gets the schematics for the same engine. They realise the drawings allow for finishing and is not replicatable or able to use stock parts. While rolls is making 60 engines a week the Ford Engineers spend three months getting every part to work perfectly every time with no final finishing required. A month later the plant opens and 60 workers get trained to do a single task each. No worker knows the entire engine just the parts they have to fit. By now Rolls has made 960 engines and Ford has made zero. Next month Rolls makes another 240 engines and Ford makes 120. Every worker has been triple trained and all parts are now fully interchangeable. The next month Ford makes 60 engines a day.
Rolls is still making 60 per week. Ford is now making 7 times the output and every single part will work in any engine without extra work. The main workers are now better than the tradesmen at the task they do 60 times a day.
This is exagerated and sounds fake......only they did this over and over again.
Because it is.This is exagerated and sounds fake.....
US moved from the old M1897 'French 75' and domestic M1916 to the M2 and M3 tank guns, based of I believe was the intermediate 75mm design that was upscaled to what became the 90mm 'Triple Threat' in 1939.s a howitzer it is not a howitzer, the method of construction is no longer used and the gun itself out of production and was designed for a rile the British do not think is necessary.
Yes and no. WW1 showed that tank MGs were better anti infantry weapons than HE guns. In the 1930s there was a general expectation that mg armed light tanks would be able to deal with AT guns. And the artillery could deal with anything that needed properly blowing up.Modestly level 9000.
The 4in guns from navy stocks are not the 4.5in AA gun.
The Czech and French 47mm are even better hole punchers than the 2prd. Czech 47mm is also much lighter.
British neglected the need for the HE-throwing tank, leaving German field, AA and AT guns to hit them many times, including NW Europe in 1940 and N. Africa in 1941-42. British were very good in making things happen, but snapping the fingers so the AVRE or Crocodile materialize will not work.
Going from 57mm tank gun from ww1 down to 47mm was a mistake, that was repeated when they went from 47 to 40mm.
Job of the tanks is to deal with infantry in open and behind light fortifications, artillery (any kind) and tanks. Saddling themselves with 2pdr as a tank gun was a mistake.
Do you have some source handy that can confirm this?WW1 showed that tank MGs were better anti infantry weapons than HE guns.
In the 1930s there was a general expectation that mg armed light tanks would be able to deal with AT guns. And the artillery could deal with anything that needed properly blowing up.
So if the artillery blows things up, and infantry and soft targets are dealt with by mgs then you need an AT gun on tanks to counter enemy tanks and smoke shells to provide cover either while advancing or retreating and the odd HE round to clear out the odd inconvenient hold out.