The 2lb 40 mm high velocity gun was perfect for the infantry AT task.
The 57mm naval gun was a better gun with a useful HE round for the inter war period. The 57mm could be improved easily and if the Naval Nordenfeld gun is to be believed the muzzle Velocity should be over 700m/s. this is sufficent to be a good early war hole puncher.
The French 75 is really the yardstick by which HE capacity should be measured. WW1 57mm guns......WW2 37mm/40mm/47mm/50mm etc. this is going backwards.
Disagree. The Ordinace QF 2-pounder was adequate for only the AT task. A 3"/75mm HV tank gun, with both AT & HE rounds would have been better. They had AA guns available that could have been developed into these. As for the French 75, the Yanks did eventually use that for their tanks.
1) You're going up against the Japanese, half their tanks could be holed by HMGs. If you can do the job with a smaller round, you'll (fractionally) reduce your logistics cost.
2) Because no-one (on your side) is producing a hull big enough to fit a turreted 25 pounder or larger?
As for lives being lost, having something like the M7 Priest or Sexton, vs having nothing for dealing with bunkers (because all the good stuff is going to either the buildup in Britain, or is being sent to the Soviets), then I'll take the bodged-together conversions than you very much.
Again, see my above comments. Build enough tanks with 3" guns during the 1930s and you wouldn't need a bodged together conversion because the 3"/75mm would be standard. The backwards step to 40mm was an idiotic move based on flawed doctrinal thinking.
You know, there's a slight difference between tanks in 1918, and tanks in 1938 right?
Yes, I do. I also know that the 3" guns they used in WW1 were capable of being developed into a far better tank gun than the Ordinace QF 2-pounder.
It was down to doctrine/theology the tank fanatics of the British army believed that tanks were to fight tanks, therefore only needed AT ammunition & it was the job of the artillery to deal with AT guns, strong points, bunkers, etc. Which was also why CS tanks originally were only supplied with smoke rounds as it was their job to put up a screen to allow the gun tanks to withdraw while artillery was called down.
Agree. Flawed doctrine, including using the gunners shoulder to stabilize the gun
Totally missing the point. Tank design in the interwar war years was crippled by the great depression , tanks had to be, in the main, cheap , smaller gun meant smaller, cheaper tank. Saying spend more money when you are drowning in debt is pretty stupid. the US lucked out by being able to sell everyone stuff once WWII started otherwise it would have been screwed.
Not missing the point at all. Bad political & financial decisions, including a combination of a lack of finance, post-war austerity, entrenched conservatism and accepting German trade goods in reparations, resulted in a detrimental loss of capacity in British industrial production. These decisions were compounded by the Great Depression, which was itself made worse by government austerity cuts, which further starved needed funds from both British industry and the military. Austerity policies always worsen an economic crisis. Something along the lines of the US New Deal could have injected much needed cash into the economy, rebuilt degraded infrastructure (such as railways that were too narrow), and allowed the military to modernize earlier. This is because a cash economy requires cash to be in circulation, in order to grow.
There are also practical issues with 3"guns in a turret, to get one with decent dual purpose you end up with a tank, that till the late 30's, is both massive and underpowered due to the engine's not having the power to weight ratio. You do seem to be underestimating the rapid advances in key technologies occurring in the period meaning stuff was going obsolete a few years after it was designed let alone in service ( not as bad with tanks as aircraft but still very painful )
There were engines of suitable power, such as the Napier Lion, that were available for development into a decent tank engine, as mentioned earlier in this thread. The British did not need to limit themselves to such weak, under-powered engines designed to move buses around London. They did so because of flawed doctrine and short-sighted austerity policies.
The British had the technology and resources available to produce a capable universal tank by the late 1930s, but for a lack of political will and a failure to learn the lessons of their own experiments with tank formations.
