Sir John Valentine Carden survives.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
- Status
Yes, and you could even have thinner walls (don't have to resist as much velocity) filled with even more HE. It's the solution that seems obvious in hindsight, but I suppose there were issues with the ballistic differences that would necessitate having a sight with two different reticles like the PGO-7 optic on the RPG-7 has separate reticles for HEAT/frag and tandem rounds ( )
A quick way to do it, is to give the HE shell, as close as possible, a similar flight profile to the coaxial MG, so you can walk the coaxial, then take the shot.
You would need to convert the Besa (developed 1936 and in service 1939), which has about 60m/s higher MV than the 2-pdr (even worse if they use something like the 560-something m/s Vickers 40 mm). You want to decrease the MV to allow for thinner walls.
Alternatively, I was going to suggest they use the Bofors 40mm AA. US m81a1 penetrated 69mm pen at 0 yds compared to 2 pdr's 98mm at 100 yds (said 49mm on 60deg plate), so it would not live long against uparmored panzers, and as it turns out, it's solid shot AP so no benefit. Although the higher MV might allow them to be jury rigged into AA tanks if you put them on a slope. Might help reduce the number of opponents during the BoB.
Ultimately, the small size of the 2 pdr will hold it back and it will be superseded. I'm not sure why they failed to develop an APHE shell (it either broke apart or had so little bursting charge it was useless), since previous 37 mm AT with higher MV had APHE. Perhaps one of the experts can bring some light onto the issue?
1) MG bullets slow down more quickly, so a higher muzzle velocity doesn't mean much.
2) I was actually thinking of converting the Vickers K from pan to belt feed actually, that way you have a gun that uses .303 rounds, ie, the same as the rest of the army.
Or maybe just mate the Bofors shell to the 2-pounder cartridge? I mean, how much recoil does the Bofors have? Would it need any modification to fit into the turret?
Yes, but right now, it's the weapon you have, so you do the best you can with it.
The quick method is to thin the walls of the shell to allow greater explosive filler and reduce the amount of propellent reducing the MV
The slightly better method is to do the above but to also lengthen the shell so that it extends into the case (taking up the area no longer used by the reduced propellent) increasing the internal volume of the shell allowing for more 'boom'
Hence why we're talking about cutting down the propellant. A slower shell can get away with thinner walls.
Its what the Russians did for the UO-243 45mm HE shell - interesting to note even through the shell extends into the case half of the remaining case is still empty (see the cardboard between the shell and propellent)
The UBRZ-243 45mm AP shell by comparison with significantly more propellent
In comparative use it might be worth noting that a Hurricane firing an S Gun has it's own 400-500 fps to be added to the muzzle velocity of the round itself so it leaves the gun at an overall 2,300fps/700mps ish velocity which a land user cannot emulate.
Yes exactly. The HE rounds were quite effective for the calibre though.
and made much use of in Burma where the lighter AA fire made low level firing safer and the precision made certain targets available where a broadside of 8x60 pound RPs would be too indiscriminate and probably miss the target anyway.
Yes the Hurricane IID was not obsolete out there or more accurately (pun?) was not deemed vital to the ETO
By D day the Hurricane was only being used in second line duties in Europe. The closest it came to a front line role was as a fast courier aircraft. Quite why they never used the 40mm S and Rolls Royce guns on Typhoons I don't know.
Last edited:
They weighed 134 kgs...empty...each...so 268 kgs of dead weight and a major impact on the aircrafts performance and utility
8 x RP3 rockets is 296 kgs - and once fired no longer burdens the aircraft - and with very little impact to the aircraft could be pretty much mounted on any fighter or light/medium bomber.
The Rockets while less accurate have a much greater stand off range allowing the aircraft to engage from a greater distance / altitude and of course while the S gun is 'better' at pocking holes in tanks due to its accuracy this did require a lower closer attack envelope - and while not as good at 'hitting tanks' the RP3 is very good at everything else with a salvo roughly the equivalent of a Cruiser broadside.
And while not as accurate as the S gun if they do hit a tank, any tank the RP3 will turn it inside out, almost certainly wiping the entire crew out
So this gave rise to what I have best heard described as a 'Reverse Lottery' effect in the minds of AFV crews - that is they were highly unlikely to 'win it' but really did not want to - which is why we hear off AFV crews abandoning tanks and seeking shelter away from them where ironically they were more vulnerable than had they remained inside the tank and German columns seeking cover every time an aircraft was spotted and generally making relatively long distance moves only at night - greatly increasing the time a given unit took to get from A to B.
I was only 'learned' off it myself on this here website a couple of months ago
The British armoured response to air attack was to hide inside until the nasty people went away.
- Status