British Army 'sanity options 2.0', 1935-43

[Mike D]

Guns with split carriages allowed for the fastest set-up time, with low-elevation possible even with the legs in transport position. A 1000 lb gun will be quicker to set up than a 2000 lb gun on a favored position.
360 deg traverse is easy-peasy - lift the legs, rotate, stop, aim, fire (just make sure that you don't hit the other guns in the battery). Same as it was the case with the 6pdr AT gun.

Lifting the legs and turning the entire gun means standing up and exposing the entire crew to enemy fire and making them easier to spot. A 360deg traverse carriages allows the crew to stay behind cover and under camouflage a lot more.

Again, the Army didn't order heavier and more complex carriages because they just wanted to spend more money and make life harder for their soldiers. They did it because they believed the tactical advantages outweighed the disadvantages.

 

[tomo pauk]

Lifting the legs and turning the entire gun means standing up and exposing the entire crew to enemy fire and making them easier to spot. A 360deg traverse carriages allows the crew to stay behind cover and under camouflage a lot more.

Again, the Army didn't order heavier and more complex carriages because they just wanted to spend more money and make life harder for their soldiers. They did it because they believed the tactical advantages outweighed the disadvantages.

Army was just fine with the split carriage for a next AT gun in series, even before the 3-legged carriage fired the 1st shots in anger. Looks like they admitted to themselves that going with the 3-legged carriage was not all that it was hoped for.

 

[ArtosStark]

Per the table posted here, 41 mm at 1000 yds @30 deg, when the supercharge was used (happened in September of 1942; MV of 2800 fps). Before that, it was 36-38 mm (on MV of 2600 fps

Hmm. Possibly the references I have are referring to the high velocity round. They are mostly Canadian and Australian sources, for whatever difference that makes.

Army was just fine with the split carriage for a next AT gun in series, even before the 3-legged carriage fired the 1st shots in anger. Looks like they admitted to themselves that going with the 3-legged carriage was not all that it was hoped for.

That’s you reading into it. Not anything we know.

It could be true, or it could be that the larger gun forced different priorities.

 

[tomo pauk]

That’s you reading into it. Not anything we know.
It could be true, or it could be that the larger gun forced different priorities.

One thing that we cannot read is that the 3-legged carriage was worth it for the 6pdr.

 

[ArtosStark]

One thing that we cannot read is that the 3-legged carriage was worth it for the 6pdr.

Nope. But why is what we don’t know. And that makes a difference when casting hindsight judgement on the same carriage for the 2 Pounder. The 3 legged carriage did add weight, no question. It may be that a weight growth that was acceptable on the 2 pounder when weighed against the benefits made the 6 pounder impractical to move by the preferred vehicles.

Or maybe not. Details matter in casting this kind of judgment. And we don’t have them.

 

[tomo pauk]

Nope. But why is what we don’t know. And that makes a difference when casting hindsight judgement on the same carriage for the 2 Pounder. The 3 legged carriage did add weight, no question. It may be that a weight growth that was acceptable on the 2 pounder when weighed against the benefits made the 6 pounder impractical to move by the preferred vehicles.

Or maybe not. Details matter in casting this kind of judgment. And we don’t have them.

Nope? Was it found worth it for the 6 pdr?

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Nope? Was it found worth it for the 6 pdr?

The 6 pounder was already a much bigger and heavier gun that the 2 pounder. A stable mount needs to be more robust - hence bigger and heavier. So while it may be practical to put a small gun on a better but heavier mount, it doesn't follow that the same mount would be practical on a bigger gun.

Other considerations include the intended role of the guns,the experience with other guns in the field, the type of prime mover needed to tow it the amount of work and material required to make it and transport needs (not just prime movers, but also shipping space and weight).

 

[tomo pauk]

The 6 pounder was already a much bigger and heavier gun that the 2 pounder. A stable mount needs to be more robust - hence bigger and heavier. So while it may be practical to put a small gun on a better but heavier mount, it doesn't follow that the same mount would be practical on a bigger gun.

Other considerations include the intended role of the guns,the experience with other guns in the field, the type of prime mover needed to tow it the amount of work and material required to make it and transport needs (not just prime movers, but also shipping space and weight).

Seems like it was easy just to forget the 360 deg carriage on the 6 pdr - perhaps all the advantages, that were hoped to be present, were actually not worth it after all? Or weren't really there? After all, it is supposed to be even harder to rotate the heavy 6pdr with it's split carriage, right?

 

[Jkdelta38]

Seems like it was easy just to forget the 360 deg carriage on the 6 pdr - perhaps all the advantages, that were hoped to be present, were actually not worth it after all? After all, it is supposed to be even harder to rotate the heavy 6pdr with it's split carriage, right?

Or the math changed for the heavier 6 pounder. Casting hindsight without data is pointless.
It’s easier 80 plus years later to point and go “shoulda did this”
They didn’t have that advantage. We know 2 pounder used one system 6 pounder wnother
Without documents saying why it’s just speculation
As for thread topic
Why push for a naval 6 pounder?
12 pounder had a long proud history in the RN
Which generally translates to 76.2mm
When 6 pounders were used in ww1
I never got how they went for 3 pounder and later 2 pounder
Use a 12 pounder… come with AP and HE that are gonna put every other armament in time period to shame
Just focus on upgrading the gun to make it lighter, and improve ammo

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Seems like it was easy just to forget the 360 deg carriage on the 6 pdr - perhaps all the advantages, that were hoped to be present, were actually not worth it after all? After all, it is supposed to be even harder to rotate the heavy 6pdr with it's split carriage, right?

From the Royal Artillery website ra39-45.co.uk the 6 pounder overall was 2,521lbs and the 2 pounder 1,757lbs. The heavier 6 pounder barrel and breech accounted for roughly 500lbs of the increase.
On wheels, 2 pounder does -5,+23 elevation and 10 right and left traverse (-13,+15 and 360 traverse on platform). The 6 pounder does -5, +15 vertical and 45 right and left traverse on wheels
So by simplifying the platform, weight is kept low(ish) and by better design vertical adjustment is near enough the same and traverse, though reduced compared with 2 pounder on platform is still very good.
This suggests that there isn't a good case to criticise the choice of the 2pounder platform which was a good idea that worked well but was a bit over the top. It also reflects quite well on the design team that the complex 2pounder carriage was superseded in the 6 pounder by a simpler carriage that in practice was about as good and was still scarcely heavier than the 2 pounder platform.

 

[tomo pauk]

Or the math changed for the heavier 6 pounder. Casting hindsight without data is pointless.
It’s easier 80 plus years later to point and go “shoulda did this”

Welcome to the alternate history site

They didn’t have that advantage. We know 2 pounder used one system 6 pounder wnother
Without documents saying why it’s just speculation
As for thread topic
Why push for a naval 6 pounder?

It is/was actually there - predates even the 2pdr; it throws a 3x heavier HE shell (very important for a tank gun, and very handy to have on an AT gun), and it will offer better AP performance than the 2pdr, without the need to weight much more, or to be more complex .
These were the advantages required back in 1930s, too bad the opportunity was not acted upon.

(note that the Naval 6 pdr from the 1930s was more powerful that the ww1 6pdrs)

12 pounder had a long proud history in the RN
Which generally translates to 76.2mm
When 6 pounders were used in ww1
I never got how they went for 3 pounder and later 2 pounder

IMO, a mistake was made with going with a 3pdr in the 1st place, and then going further lower with the 2pdr.
I have nothing against a 12 pounder (there was several guns of nominal 12-13 lbs, differing in, lets say, power); British designs were no worse than the French 75 or the Soviet 76mm/02.
The 6 pdr should be lighter, and easier to install on a tank.

Use a 12 pounder… come with AP and HE that are gonna put every other armament in time period to shame
Just focus on upgrading the gun to make it lighter, and improve ammo

Agreed.

 

[JasTysoe]

Make a simple & light split carriage. Functionality is still there.

So why do you reckon the British army made the decision to go for the 2 pdr mount? Surely the old and untrue "the military was always too conservative" line cannot be applied here, because as I understand it the 2 pdr's mount was actually innovative. It also seems to be very sensible - at a time when armour advocates were promoting the speed (and therefore change of target angle) of tanks surely it was reasonable to allow an anti-tank gun to be trained quickly?

Ian V Hogg, who is a well respected writer, claims it was the "certainly the best designed gun of its kind" and not deserving of the derision some give it, The US Army's Military Intelligence Department stated that "the carriage gives the gunner every advantage." Yes, it was heavy and yes that meant some trade-offs but what weapon is perfect? The fact that it may have turned out that rapid training was not as important as had been thought is easy to know now, impossible to know then - and if the Battle of France had gone on longer and the 2 pdr had spent more time fighting Pz IIs etc in the close quarters European battles that it was (I think) meant for, then its rapid training may have been praised.

It would be interesting to find any users of the 2pdr who criticised it for its weight and said they would have preferred a split carriage. If they didn't criticise it then why should we assume that they should have? The fact that later guns abandoned the 2 pdr style is not proof that it is wrong per se, because they were larger weapons and therefore may have needed to go for a lighter carriage if they were to be manhandled at all.

Surely if we are going to say what should have been done, we must do so with some consistent objective criteria that could have been known and used at the time and which would have worked well if OTL did not work out at did, or else we are just using 20/20 hindsight. In that case, every post about what the Allies should have done in WW2 can be answered with "offer Adolf a subsidised place in a British arts academy in 1920, and then a give him a subsidised job to keep him in the UK quietly painting architecture".

 

[CaptainCalvert]

Welcome to the alternate history site



It is/was actually there - predates even the 2pdr; it throws a 3x heavier HE shell (very important for a tank gun, and very handy to have on an AT gun), and it will offer better AP performance than the 2pdr, without the need to weight much more, or to be more complex .
These were the advantages required back in 1930s, too bad the opportunity was not acted upon.

(note that the Naval 6 pdr from the 1930s was more powerful that the ww1 6pdrs)



IMO, a mistake was made with going with a 3pdr in the 1st place, and then going further lower with the 2pdr.
I have nothing against a 12 pounder (there was several guns of nominal 12-13 lbs, differing in, lets say, power); British designs were no worse than the French 75 or the Soviet 76mm/02.
The 6 pdr should be lighter, and easier to install on a tank.



Agreed.

The British in the 1930sand early 40s did have an HE throwing tank gun but it wasn't a DP gun. This isn't a UK issue, as the Germans did HE tanks (in thepanzer 4) and arguably the US did too (later 105mm Shermans).
The 3.7" wasn't a very good weapon for the CS tanks and the reliance on mgs (which had worked fie in WW1) meant the preference to use smoke won out over ability to deliver HE early on.
The 3" CS gun was better - good information is hard to find, but it doesn't appear to be much worse than the German 75 L24 - but its reputation suffered for being used with 2 pounder armed tanks, which were outdated and not well used [1]. If the 3" CS guns firing HE were any good [2] they maybe never got a chance to show it due to the failings of the past-its-best 2pounder.
There is also the point that problems with being caught by 50mmAT guns when rushing around blindly won't be fixed just by a 75mm HE thrower, but need to wait for either the 6 pounders or the US75mms where both AT and HE capability are improved.

[1] By one or both of desperation (use speed to close to mg range and effective2pounder range), and poor commanders.
[2] New Zealand liked the 3" CS guns in their Vals in the eastern theatre, so they can't have been complete rubbish, and there's some info - probablyfrom axishistoryforum that shows HE loadout increased over time as smoke loads diminished. Again that suggests the HE and ability to deliver it were good enough.

 

[JasTysoe]

One of the idiots who was happy to stick with 2-pdrs was that stick-in-the-mud Percy Hobart, a veritable Colonel Blimp who hated change, hated tanks, and relished nothing more than the chance to charge the guns on his polo pony. (Warning - may contain traces of irony). Hobart's point was that a larger calibre would restrict the amount of ammunition that could be carried, and the tankers believed that they should carry 200 rounds. The author who wrote that also noted that critics of the 2pdr "merely show their own failure to understand that penetrative power is not related to size". That author, by the way, is Liddell Hart. (Memoirs, p 392)

So the idiots who went for the 2 pdr were not merely the brain-dead conservatives, but also the brain-dead progressives. Or perhaps - just perhaps - they weren't actually stupid or blinkered, and their decision was a perfectly rational one given the circumstances of the time and their lack of the hindsight we have.

Coincidentally, on the same page Liddell Hart notes that Elles was concerned about the expense of an up-gunned tank and whether it would be "too many eggs in one basket". So economy was apparently a reason to keep the 2 pdr for a while. Therefore the criticism that the 2 pdr A/T gun could have been cheaper with a split trail can be seen in the context that the British Army of the period were not ignorant of the virtues of economy with respect to the various forms of 2 pdr. When they decided to spend the money on the 360 carriage it was probably not a stupid decision but a perfectly rational one.*

I've been looking for criticism of the 2pdr A/T gun's mobility but can find nothing. I can find Von Mellenthin, in "Panzer Battles", noting that it was a superior gun to the 37mm. So British authors said it was good, US authors said it was good, a German author said it was good - maybe there's some tiny chance that those who were there aren't utterly wrong and that it was actually was a good weapon?


* As noted by several of us, the fact that the 6 pdr didn't have full traverse can come down to many perfectly reasonable issues. It may have been that while the smaller 2dpr could carry a heavier carriage without becoming unwieldy, that was not the case with the 6 pdr. The 25pdr had 360 traverse and it stayed with that. Incidentally the very light Solothurm (sp) 20mm showed that a very light "carriage" was unworkable because the gun moved around too much between shots. The same thing occurred with the Short 25 Pdr.

So again, it is quite possible that the 360 traverse was a good idea - after all, the 88s with all-round fire were heavy but they were not exactly crap weapons.

 

[Father Maryland]

One of the idiots who was happy to stick with 2-pdrs was that stick-in-the-mud Percy Hobart, a veritable Colonel Blimp who hated change, hated tanks, and relished nothing more than the chance to charge the guns on his polo pony. (Warning - may contain traces of irony). Hobart's point was that a larger calibre would restrict the amount of ammunition that could be carried, and the tankers believed that they should carry 200 rounds. The author who wrote that also noted that critics of the 2pdr "merely show their own failure to understand that penetrative power is not related to size". That author, by the way, is Liddell Hart. (Memoirs, p 392)

So the idiots who went for the 2 pdr were not merely the brain-dead conservatives, but also the brain-dead progressives. Or perhaps - just perhaps - they weren't actually stupid or blinkered, and their decision was a perfectly rational one given the circumstances of the time and their lack of the hindsight we have.

Coincidentally, on the same page Liddell Hart notes that Elles was concerned about the expense of an up-gunned tank and whether it would be "too many eggs in one basket". So economy was apparently a reason to keep the 2 pdr for a while. Therefore the criticism that the 2 pdr A/T gun could have been cheaper with a split trail can be seen in the context that the British Army of the period were not ignorant of the virtues of economy with respect to the various forms of 2 pdr. When they decided to spend the money on the 360 carriage it was probably not a stupid decision but a perfectly rational one.*

I've been looking for criticism of the 2pdr A/T gun's mobility but can find nothing. I can find Von Mellenthin, in "Panzer Battles", noting that it was a superior gun to the 37mm. So British authors said it was good, US authors said it was good, a German author said it was good - maybe there's some tiny chance that those who were there aren't utterly wrong and that it was actually was a good weapon?


* As noted by several of us, the fact that the 6 pdr didn't have full traverse can come down to many perfectly reasonable issues. It may have been that while the smaller 2dpr could carry a heavier carriage without becoming unwieldy, that was not the case with the 6 pdr. The 25pdr had 360 traverse and it stayed with that. Incidentally the very light Solothurm (sp) 20mm showed that a very light "carriage" was unworkable because the gun moved around too much between shots. The same thing occurred with the Short 25 Pdr.

So again, it is quite possible that the 360 traverse was a good idea - after all, the 88s with all-round fire were heavy but they were not exactly crap weapons.

By that logic wouldn't inherently the most lethal possible tank be one mounting say a six barrel electric gatling gun chambered in .22 LR and carrying say 50,000 .22LR rounds or so?

I mean if the enemy vehicle is really nice and the gunner of the BB gun tank is really accurate he might partially strip the paint of a small patch of the enemy vehicle by the time he's completely burnt through all ammo.

Or wait would .22LR be too much? Would airsaft balls be the most effective theoretical tank armament? You might be able to fit over a million plastic airsoft balls in a tank. Think. If the enemy only gives you say half a day or so you might potentially have done almost as much damage as some guy scraping a piece of sand paper for say five minutes or so.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Put the 4" Mk.XVI gun on the chassis of the A1E1.

 

[JasTysoe]

By that logic wouldn't inherently the most lethal possible tank be one mounting say a six barrel electric gatling gun chambered in .22 LR and carrying say 50,000 .22LR rounds or so?

I mean if the enemy vehicle is really nice and the gunner of the BB gun tank is really accurate he might partially strip the paint of a small patch of the enemy vehicle by the time he's completely burnt through all ammo.

Or wait would .22LR be too much? Would airsaft balls be the most effective theoretical tank armament? You might be able to fit over a million plastic airsoft balls in a tank. Think. If the enemy only gives you say half a day or so you might potentially have done almost as much damage as some guy scraping a piece of sand paper for say five minutes or so.

Nope, because they thought they needed 200 rounds, not 50,000. Secondly, the 2 pdr had very good armour penetration for its day and could kill any tank. It is utterly silly to claim that their concept of using a gun that could kill anything of its day and giving it enough ammo that it could do so through the entire battle has any relationship with using a gun that won't kill anything.

Hobart and Liddell Hart were world class armour visionaries. The concept they had was extremely reasonable - get as much tank-killing ammo as you can. You are implying that they were saying something they certainly did not say.

 

[Father Maryland]

I wonder if you could build a copy of the now multiple decade old 90mm low pressure Cockerill gun with WW2 tech. I mean with WW2 tech regarding ammunition it probably wouldn't be much good against enemy armor. But it would probably be pretty good against enemy infantry, defensive structures, light armored vehicles and such. Or perhaps a copy of something like the Brandt 60mm breech loading Gun Mortar.

I would really like to read a story involving say US versus German armor clashing after D day only for it to quickly become apparent that the Shermans are either packing a higher caliber low pressure gun or the always interesting Israeli-Italian designed 60mm ultra high velocity tank gun which in OTL ended up only being used to up arm about 3 dozen Pinochet era Chilean Sherman tanks. So Panthers and such versus 60mm Ultra high velocity magazine fed guns firing depleted uranium sabots. Of course I would still rather like to read a ISOT story involving a other TL late 1950s US being ISOTed into our WW2. And showcasing that America's armored forces which showcase much larger usage of heavy tanks (Think of something like the OTL M103 but somewhat better armament, a more efficient and powerful engine and say the 120mm off of the Chieftain with a Coax dual MG42 copy chambered in .276 Pederson and with a remote weapon system mounting a version of the 15mm heavy machine gun that the US never got working right in OTL for AA work. With the medium tank being something like a T55 with superior armor (once again something like the Chieftain), better electronics, and a far more powerful and reliable turbo diesel engine and armed with a version of the L7 105mm rifled gun capable of firing depleted uranium sabots and equipped with crude NVG and Infrared systems. A light tank that is somewhat like the PT 76 (as in weak armor and amphibious) and in tank form mounts some variation of either

A) a 90mm low pressure gun with great HE shells
B) A 60mm ultra high velocity gun capable of firing 60mm depleted uranium shells from a 5 round magazine quite rapidly and accurately. Or a 60mm combo Breechloading auto mortar/gun. The second option leads to a line that goes something like "If it has seen you your already long dead. However if you have seen it just staring at it will cause it to blow up". Also acts as the US SHORAD system when mounting a 35mm Gatling gun. The Medium tanks as the medium SP AA device and carries a version of the Skysweeper. The heavy tank AA variant carries a much like the Skysweeper automatic 120mm Magazine fed gun (or perhaps a simplified single barrel version of the naval 3:70 system. The heavy tank has multiple artillery variants including a quite accurate 240mm breechloading mortar variant, the "Goddamned belt fed 155mm Howitzer" (a legitimately mostly automated and very accurate though expensive magazine fed 155mm Howitzer including access to things like base bleed and rocket assist rounds. Meaning some poor SOB can be minding his own business like 40-50 miles away and out of the blue find his ass hit by a 6 inch sized howitzer hell tipped with depleted uranium and with a very powerful explosive charge. The rocket means that when the shell hits its even faster then normal and the depleted uranium means it can at least start penetrating damned near anything. Having a 155mm Howitzer shell already lodged about halfway into your body/vehicle is generally agreed to be pretty much the worse possible place for a howitzer shell designed to tear apart the heaviest of bunkers to detonate. Another rather odd option is a tri barrel automatic 90mm-100mm mortar design fed from a rather large magazine. Every round that fires moves the firing position to the next tube. With a internal magazine of well over 130 mortar shells and the ability to almost instantly switch from one shell type to another as well as a built in counter battery radar system and depending on the round a range up to near 25 miles that version is unpleasant. Basically in less then a minute the tank can detect you, then fire multiple rounds that disperse DP at/AP land mines around the target to cripple it in place. Then fire a round or two that can say sent a rocket assisted DP Uranium shell straight through your armor followed immediately by a round carrying a sort of aerosolized napalm.dsd

Nope, because they thought they needed 200 rounds, not 50,000. Secondly, the 2 pdr had very good armour penetration for its day and could kill any tank. It is utterly silly to claim that their concept of using a gun that could kill anything of its day and giving it enough ammo that it could do so through the entire battle has any relationship with using a gun that won't kill anything.

Hobart and Liddell Hart were world class armour visionaries. The concept they had was extremely reasonable - get as much tank-killing ammo as you can. You are implying that they were saying something they certainly did not say.

I believe I was just poking a bit of fun at the post I quoted. Afterall it seems to more or less imply that the guy was suggesting the most important factor in the overall fighting quality of a tank isn't say having a gun that primarily capable of busting tanks and doing it very well. Or having a gun that isn't quite as perfect as busting tanks but does have a very very general capability ability meaning it can fight enemy tanks as well as support friendly infantry by attacking enemies in the open as well as in fortified position or cover. Said gun might not be the bet in any particular category but it's "Good enough in all".

 

[JasTysoe]

Sorry, but there are so many people here who diss figures of the past that I wasn't sure you weren't doing it too. I know stuff-all about modern tank weapons and I think I'd like to keep as far away from them as I can, from what they sound like.

It's pretty clear that Hobart and Liddell Hart did think that having a gun that could bust tanks was the most important factor in a tank's fighting ability. As Liddell Hart and others said, the 2 pdr was pretty much the best tank-busting gun in the world at the time. But what Hobart and the other tankies wanted was to be enough shells to bust lots of tanks without having to run away to get more ammo. As it turned out, IRL I think it was less relevant than they thought because fuel rather than ammo was normally the biggest problem, but that would probably be hard to find out even in realistic exercises.

Hobart and others can be seen to put too much emphasis on busting tanks and not enough on supporting infantry with HE shells, but in the reality of the 1930s surely if they had demanded say a 75mm gun they'd have gotten nowhere - especially since the "tank prophets" were so wrong in other ways. IMHO they hugely over-stated the case for armour, claiming for example that the armies should basically be composed entirely of tanks. War experience showed that wouldn't work, and the fact that Hobart and Liddell Hart went off on such flights of fancy indicates that those who didn't follow their hype weren't all conservative - Liddell Hart and Hobart were simply wrong in many ways so it's understandable that they encountered opposition.

While there were many things wrong with British armour, it seems that it was a lot better than if the "tank prophets" had been given full reign.

 

[Aber]

It's pretty clear that Hobart and Liddell Hart did think that having a gun that could bust tanks was the most important factor in a tank's fighting ability.

Hobart and others can be seen to put too much emphasis on busting tanks and not enough on supporting infantry with HE shells,

British doctrine both interwar and during WW2; infantry support was the role of the artillery with a barrage of a lot of lighter shells (hence 25pdr) to suppress the defenders, "infantry" tank support was to intimidate defenders and to stop an armoured counterattack before anti-tank guns could be brought up.

Role of the "cruiser" tank changed dramatically; inter-war and early war it was credible that an armoured brigade in the enemy's rear was near unstoppable, later on as infantry anti-tank weapons improved and numbers multiplied it was clear that this would no longer work and combined arms became critical - see the evolution of the British armoured division, and introduction of the "universal" tank.