Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.

Another thing I have remembered was the hull mounted 3" howitzer was rejected due to the practice of the AFV crews taking up hull down positions wherever possible which effectively rendered the hull gun position utterly useless and pointless

Unless its a crocodile

1660641946360.png


If it could be turret mounted as Alan has alluded with a 3:1 ratio mix of Howitzer tanks to 2 pounder gun tanks - then I think that would serve the units equipped with it well in their intended role.
 
2 Pdr did have a HE round and I am fed up with ignorant comments about it. The 2 Pdr round was a nose fused round designed to destroy material and AT guns. The Australian 2 Pdr round was a base fused round and designed to destroy bunkers and strongpoints. The British round was initially reserved for RA crews of AT guns. When the AT guns were given to the infantry, they were provided with HE rounds and trained on how to use them. Armoured crews were felt too "amateaurish" compared to AT gun crews and were initially denied them. They however felt they didn't need them, being concerned with the destruction of tanks. Once they appreciated the value of HE rounds, the 2 Pdr had been given primarly over armoured cars. Armoured cars by this stage were armed with 75mm guns but those regiments that were equipped with 2 Pdrs were faced with a choice - either they used Little John adapters or they stuck with standard 2 Pdrs able to fire HE. What happened in the end was all bar one or two of each troop stuck with the Little Johns and the rest stuck with standard 2 Pdrs able to fire HE. Downunder they still used Matildas and they stuck with standard 2 Pdrs, able to fire HE.
In the case of my Yeomanry predecessors they stocked up with HE and Littlejohn AP rounds but did not fit the Littlejohn squeeze muzzle adaptor so that they could fire any at will.
 
Last edited:
The old saw of Royal Artillery reserving the right to fire HE has come up again. Their issue was for mobile artillery needing to be trained and equipped for indirect fire. Which is a very different thing to opportunist direct fire. So HE from tanks was fine, being within the skill set of tinned soldiers, but SP guns needed a proper artillery crew. This was no willy waving contest but a reasoned division.

One sees that in the case of the Royal Marines Centaurs with 95mm guns. Intended for fire from landing craft but the boot necks took them ashore and continued to give artillery support to their colleagues. They were with artillery training and the turrets given the necessary additional aiming markings etc. to allow accurate indirect HE and smoke fire all the way to the gun’s extreme range.

BTW, for those who want to stuff a bigger gun into tank turret X. For proper artillery type support fire one has to allow for the breech to both be able to drop down to permit the muzzle to be raised high bit also to give room to work the breech itself (unless you recruit a team of midget weightlifters.) Hence the limited range of the 25 Pounder mounted in the turret of the Valentine chassis based Bishop SP gun as the breech could not be dropped down far enough, or at least to do so and permit mere humans to serve it. Not to mention being able to both stow the ammunition and reach it in a hurry.
 
Last edited:
Well that's intresting wonder if they will listen to the guys on the sharp end when it comes to the Churchill tank since the really don't need it for much except maybe as something attached to the Royal Engineers or something.

Heck maybe with the greater amount of victories and more time for British Officers, engineers and developers to think the Universal Tank concept will be adopted sooner or at least push for less Churchill's to be deployed.
 
Well that's intresting wonder if they will listen to the guys on the sharp end when it comes to the Churchill tank since the really don't need it for much except maybe as something attached to the Royal Engineers or something.
The RE is probably where they're best suited to begin with.

Heck maybe with the greater amount of victories and more time for British Officers, engineers and developers to think the Universal Tank concept will be adopted sooner or at least push for less Churchill's to be deployed.
Pretty sure that's happened already, first with the Valiant, to be later reinforced with the Victor.
 
2 Pdr did have a HE round and I am fed up with ignorant comments about it. The 2 Pdr round was a nose fused round designed to destroy material and AT guns. The Australian 2 Pdr round was a base fused round and designed to destroy bunkers and strongpoints. The British round was initially reserved for RA crews of AT guns. When the AT guns were given to the infantry, they were provided with HE rounds and trained on how to use them. Armoured crews were felt too "amateaurish" compared to AT gun crews and were initially denied them. They however felt they didn't need them, being concerned with the destruction of tanks. Once they appreciated the value of HE rounds, the 2 Pdr had been given primarly over armoured cars. Armoured cars by this stage were armed with 75mm guns but those regiments that were equipped with 2 Pdrs were faced with a choice - either they used Little John adapters or they stuck with standard 2 Pdrs able to fire HE. What happened in the end was all bar one or two of each troop stuck with the Little Johns and the rest stuck with standard 2 Pdrs able to fire HE. Downunder they still used Matildas and they stuck with standard 2 Pdrs, able to fire HE.
2 pounder HE rounds were not in production until 1942 with 40,000 rounds produced that year and I believe that the Australians produced a base fused variant as you say designed to defeat the excellent Japanese bunkers

There is no evidence to suggest that either HE rounds or APHE rounds were produced in the early years of the war - happy to be corrected

Tony Williams however has suggested that an HE shell was produced before the fall of France but production then halted to focus on producing enough AP rounds and I recall reading on another forum that this might have been APHE and not HE per se!

Certainly later on they were but not as far as I can tell before 1942 - so in the context of the time of the story there is no 2 pounder HE ammo for the 2 pounder

A decent or better HE round could have been produced by following the Russian practice with their 45mm gun in extending the HE shell into the case as the HE round used a 3rd of the powder charge of the APHE round probably doubling the explosive content.

p45mmAP.jpg

p45mmHE.jpg
 

Mark1878

Donor
Difficult, since such a gun is by no means small, and the Soviets are pretty watchful of foreigners.
Actually not so difficult. The UK could have some by now.
The Germans captured many of the Russian guns and remounted them as Pak36(r) so the British could have captured them from the Germans.
 
Actually not so difficult. The UK could have some by now.
The Germans captured many of the Russian guns and remounted them as Pak36(r) so the British could have captured them from the Germans.
First noted deployment in NA in March 1942. Given NA has been rolled up already, I'm not seeing it.
 
In the early 1930's the UK designed and fielded in a twin mount a new 6lb coast defence gun. This had an muzzle velocity of around 730 mps for its HE round. as opposed to the WW1 6lb gun used in the early tanks that had a MV of only 53mmps.
This compares to the MV of the early 43 calibre long 6lb AT guns that achieved an MV 790/850 MPS for their early war AT rounds.
Another advantage of the 6lb coast gun was that it only had a recoil of 12" and had a semi automatic breach.
So from before the DOE a reasonable effective AT gun with a readily available HE round could have been fielded.
Details of these rounds can be found on Tony William's excellent site. https://quarryhs.co.uk/Molins.htm

Personally I think the 6pdr 10cwt with its 57mm by 464 rimmed round is a missed opportunity to five the British a more capable AT and Tank gun prior to 1939, the problem is finding a suitable reason to field it at that time
 
Last edited:
2 pounder HE rounds were not in production until 1942 with 40,000 rounds produced that year and I believe that the Australians produced a base fused variant as you say designed to defeat the excellent Japanese bunkers

There is no evidence to suggest that either HE rounds or APHE rounds were produced in the early years of the war - happy to be corrected

Tony Williams however has suggested that an HE shell was produced before the fall of France but production then halted to focus on producing enough AP rounds and I recall reading on another forum that this might have been APHE and not HE per se!

Certainly later on they were but not as far as I can tell before 1942 - so in the context of the time of the story there is no 2 pounder HE ammo for the 2 pounder

A decent or better HE round could have been produced by following the Russian practice with their 45mm gun in extending the HE shell into the case as the HE round used a 3rd of the powder charge of the APHE round probably doubling the explosive content.

View attachment 767204
View attachment 767205
Ian Hogg talks about the HE round for the 2 Pdr existing from the adoption of the weapon. Australia developed it's own HE in 1943 and adopted it in 1944.
 

marathag

Banned
The old saw of Royal Artillery reserving the right to fire HE has come up again. Their issue was for mobile artillery needing to be trained and equipped for indirect fire. Which is a very different thing to opportunist direct fire. So HE from tanks was fine, being within the skill set of tinned soldiers, but SP guns needed a proper artillery crew. This was no willy waving contest but a reasoned division.
Most all US Tanks(and TDs) after the Stuart had an indirect fire gear fitted, and crew trained with using the azimuth indicator, and elevation quadrant
m9-elevation-quad.png


In fact US TDs probably fired more rounds of HE in indirect mode than direct fire AP

1660652453848.png

all three branches recognized, Blue Infantry, Yellow Cav and Red Arty for the new armored forces, since they were expected to do all those roles.
 
Ian Hogg talks about the HE round for the 2 Pdr existing from the adoption of the weapon. Australia developed it's own HE in 1943 and adopted it in 1944.
IIRC there was a discussion many years ago on Tony's forum and I think the consensus was that the original AP round was an APHE round and this has led to confusion around an HE round being available due to documentation reading as AP HE or some such

As I recall it after Dunkirk the producers of the ammunition simplified the shell and removed the HE content making it a pure AP round in order to streamline and increase ammo production

Production of HE did not start until 1942 with RA AT batteries being equipped with it and only 40,000 rounds being made that year.

So I am satisfied that while a design of an HE shell may very well have existed it was not in production until 42
 

Ramontxo

Donor
IIRC there was a discussion many years ago on Tony's forum and I think the consensus was that the original AP round was an APHE round and this has led to confusion around an HE round being available due to documentation reading as AP HE or some such

As I recall it after Dunkirk the producers of the ammunition simplified the shell and removed the HE content making it a pure AP round in order to streamline and increase ammo production

Production of HE did not start until 1942 with RA AT batteries being equipped with it and only 40,000 rounds being made that year.

So I am satisfied that while a design of an HE shell may very well have existed it was not in production until 42
Wasent the naval two pounder shell (maybe in a new case) available and used?
 
IIRC there was a discussion many years ago on Tony's forum and I think the consensus was that the original AP round was an APHE round and this has led to confusion around an HE round being available due to documentation reading as AP HE or some such

As I recall it after Dunkirk the producers of the ammunition simplified the shell and removed the HE content making it a pure AP round in order to streamline and increase ammo production

Production of HE did not start until 1942 with RA AT batteries being equipped with it and only 40,000 rounds being made that year.

So I am satisfied that while a design of an HE shell may very well have existed it was not in production until 42
Fine. It is one explanation for the unavailability for 2 Pdr HE rounds.
 
Wasent the naval two pounder shell (maybe in a new case) available and used?
The Pom Pom round?

It contained 71 grams of Explosives and this in the slower LV round

The eventual 2 pounder AT gun HE round carried 85 grams

The early APHE round just 19 grams

Not sure what would be gained?

If the requirement was understood earlier then I am sure that a HE round would have been developed?

I seem to recall that 40/60 Bofors rounds might have been adapted?
 
or just use the bofors 40mmL60 gun instead, even better use it in a tank with self-loading capability maintained

Its a far bigger gun than the 2 pounder and heavier as well - I am not sure how much bigger than the 2 pounder it would be

Its a good idea but the weapon was not mature until the very late 30s and that as a light AAA so I do not think that it would be fitted to an AFV as anything other than a SPAAG
 

Ramp-Rat

Monthly Donor
What should be the composition of Force Z, in an ideal world, given that the British have no other commitments, and what is the possible composition of Force Z ITTL. Before we consider what the composition of Force Z is to be, we have to decide what role it is to fore fill, and how its going to achieve its goals. And this requires a very hard and clinical look at the situation in the Far East, and what the principal threat was to British interests is at the present time. First and foremost the days when Britain could by placing a significant navel force at Singapore, deter the Japanese from taking action, are long gone. That ship has sailed over the horizon into the sunset, and will not be seen or required again. Thanks to primarily American actions, with the British reluctantly tagging along, the Japanese are deep in a hole, and instead of putting their pick and shovel down, have grabbed a drill and some dynamite. So other than a number of complete fools and idiots, no one believes that the Japanese will not go to war sooner rather than later. The idea that the Japanese being inferior orientals, will not dare to take on superior ‘white men’ , conveniently forgets their successful campaign against the Russians in 1904.

So what is the primary aim of the British in the Far East, given the present situation, where thanks to the fall of France, and the subsequent Japanese occupation of FIC. American reluctance to adopt a unified defence policy, while continuing to pore gasoline on the fire. And the fact that Britain is presently involved in a major conflict against a far more dangerous enemy, German can directly attack Britain, Japan can not, no matter what success she might achieve in the Far East. The British know that they can not retain Hong Kong, it was written off in all pre war plans, even without Britain being involved in a major European conflict. The primary aim is to prevent a successful invasion of Malaya and retain Singapore as a major fleet base. Succeed in this, and you have achieved a defence of Australia and New Zealand, plus India and Ceylon, with the bonus of retaining both Sumatra and Java in European control. Yes there is a very good chance that you will temporarily lose Borneo and Bali, but they can be won back in time.

So in answer to the question of what should be the constituents of Force Z, to my mind if you want to defend Malaya/Singapore against a Japanese attack and invasion, Force Z, a collection of big ships isn’t the way to go. Personally I would go with a large mix of T class and U class submarines, with the requirement that 60% of the crew had completed 3 war patrols, and the captain the same with at least 1 as captain of the boat. For preference these patrols should have been in the Mediterranean, were under the hammer of Italian/German anti submarine warfare, a harsh but valuable school. These submarines along with all the naval efforts, should be supported by at least 3 squadrons of maritime patrol aircraft, preferably Sunderland's and Wellington’s. With a mix of light craft such as MTB’s and MGB’s, light destroyer’s, some older light cruisers and a few modern cruisers. You have just turned the South China Sea, into a death trap for the Japanese, remember the British torpedoes unlike the American torpedoes work. Now if you want to put a cherry on top of your cake, 2 KG5 class battleships, 1 battlecruiser, and Ark Royal, along with accompanying heavy cruisers and AA cruisers, plus fleet destroyers, principally as a fleet in being. The Japanese will have to divert ships from the attack on Pearl Harbour, not likely, or be constantly looking over their shoulder, in fear of what might appear over the horizon. The big ships don’t even have to leave the ‘safe’ environs of Singapore, to seriously put a spoke in the Japanese plans.

RR.
 
Top