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....
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....
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.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.
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.Ah, so typical UK tank performance before 1942
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.
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.
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.I understand the engine but why the gun?
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.
37mm has both a HE and canister round.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?
Or fought real battlesA 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)
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’s canister that’s needed for Malaya, not HE.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?
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.It’s canister that’s needed for Malaya, not HE.
Is there any technical reason why something like the Mk.19 Grenade Launcher couldn't be developed 25 years earlier?
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
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.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.
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.While what you describe is the ideal SOP, wherein your own infantry protects your tanks against infantry,
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.If it's good enough for the USMC against massed Japanese infantry attacks, it'll serve the British and Commonwealth against the same.
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.