Of course, this works fine until, well, it doesn't.
At which point you are f**d up big time...
Armies don't have a command structure just for the jollies.
The Forge of Weyland
- Thread starter Astrodragon
- Start date
At which point you are f**d up big time...
Armies don't have a command structure just for the jollies.
In fairness to the French, a centralized command structure was a lesson learned from winning WW1; slow communications and/or cut phone lines meant that junior-level initiative got a lot of people killed for no reason, and that carefully rehearsed master plans saved lives and took the objective. Their real fault was not realizing that mass distribution of radios made initiative relevant again.
True, one of the reasons for the centralised authority in the French army is because training and the number of professional officers had been reduced to save money because of the Great Depression. Whereas the Germans were happy to increase training time, spending money like nobody’s business.
A lot of the French soldiers and officers simply weren’t trained enough to do what German soldiers did in 1940. That’s why the French wanted to wait until 41/42 to go on the offensive because they would have had enough time to fully train their men.
Indeed, and the art is to ensure that the correct decisions are taken at the correct level.
The French concept of "methodical battle" envisaged set-piece operations from/against static positions, with lots of carefully-planned artillery support, which required a high level of coordination if only to avoid friendly fire. For the mobile meeting engagement they found themselves in...
When. Suspension is not immortal and in the field is where it takes the hardest knocks.
"Hold until relieved" sounds like something from a toilet wall.
Last edited:
Actually the tactic the French finally adopted as basically 'Form Square!".
The more things change...
New Guns & Norway
1st April 1940
The 44th (Home Counties) Infantry Division joins the BEF, where it will be assigned to III Corps. The 42nd(East Lancashire) Division is expected soon, and when it does the BEF will reorganise to make three full Corps.
2nd April 1940 - Vickers, England
While the bulk of the company had been busy building as much war material as possible for the growing Forces, the R&D engineers had been busy on looking further into the future.
Some time ago it had been realised that a gun would be needed to replace the new 6pdr. This had passed its acceptance trials, and would start to come off the production line in later summer. So now was the time to decide which gun to develop as its successor.
They had started off by looking at three possibilities
First, a new HV gun for the AT role. Given that the current thickness of tank armour was around 75mm, and that it seemed likely that future tanks would be at least as well protected, the initial requirement was to be able to penetrate 100mm or armour at 1,000 yards.
Tests had shown that the 6pdr should penetrate about 75mm at this range (assuming the usual 30 degree slope of the armour. The 6pdr already had a MV of around 900 m/s, and it would be quite hard to improve on this without causing problems. A heavier shell was indicated.
They had started out by looking at existing guns they made to see what sort of performance was available. First had been the Model 1931 AA gun. This had originally been made in 75mm calibre, but Finland had bought a version in 3" bore, which made things easier - 75mm was not a standard UK calibre, and they didn't want to use it unless there were no other choices.
The gun was probably too heavy as designed for the tank role, but considerable weight could be shaved off with a modified design. The gun had a MV of about 750m/s, rather lower than they would prefer, but as an AA gun barrel life had been an issue - a much shorter life was acceptable in a tank gun, so a hotter loading, giving greater MV, could be used. The shell weight was 6.5kg, usefully heavier than the 2.9kg of the 6pdr.
A gun was available - it had been in production for foreign sales until just before the war, and a few solid shots had been made up to test it out. Results had been encouraging, it had penetrated over 80mm, which while not good enough, wasn't too far away.
Next to be tried were a WW1 vintage gun, the 3" AA gun. This fired a slightly heavier shell at just over 600 m/s, and the results were less promising. It had only penetrated 70mm.
Given these results, and some more calculations, if this calibre was to be selected then it looked like they would want a shell of around 17pd - 7.7kg - fired at around 800 m/s. It might be possible to reduce this a little - the rounds used for testing had been made for that, hopefully a proper AT round would be a bit better - but it gave them a starting point. A higher MV would be better, but with this calibre of gun there was worry about its size and recoil - a turret only had so much room. As it was, it was clear they existing 60" turret ring wouldn't be large enough.
The next step had been to try a version of the 6/18pdr tank gun with a stronger charge. They had managed to get 650 m/s out of it, but the performance had been worse that the 3" AA gun. One suggestion had been a new gun which would push the shell out at more like 800 m/s. Calculations had shown that this would certainly give a good penetration - figures indicated it should penetrate between 100mm - 110mm at the specified 1,000 yards, but the gun would be heavy, and again it would need a larger turret ring.
One suggestion for the 3" gun had been to use a version of the existing 3" AA shell. This would allow a bit heavier shell, and should give a better MV. With this, they reckoned they could get the 100mm penetration with a real AP shell. HE capability would have the same problem with the early 6pdr shell, a thick shell case fired at a high MV meant a lot less room for explosive. However the 6pdr round had been improved by using a lower velocity, thinner cased round, and the same could be done for this. It wouldn't be as good as the 6/18pdr as an HE weapon, but it would be close enough they could probably lose the need for two types of gun in the field.
The heavier gun did look promising - it promised even better penetration with its heavier shell, and the wider shell allowed a bigger cartridge, but weight and size looked like being a real issue.
The third gun to be looked at was a replacement for the 6/18pdr. While working well in its intended role, the 18pd shell was no longer a part of the Army's front line equipment, and it would be useful to increase the size to take the 25lb shell. This would give it a greater effect as well as commonality with the 25lb shells. This didn't seem like too difficult a design, as long as a similar MV was acceptable, it was basically just an upsized 6/18pdr. To some extent, the use and specification for this gun was similar to the heavy high velocity gun under consideration, and if that was selected, then it would probably render this gun unnecessary, it could be replaced by a lower-velocity version. Again, the issue was turret space, the 6/18pdr had fitted in the current tanks, but while it might be possible to fit in a 25lb version, as long as the MV and recoil could be kept down, they would like a larger tank to carry more ammunition. The shells were bulky, and there were constant complaints about the number carried by the Cutlass.
The final decision was that both the high velocity guns were to be carried on to design stage, which would take a good six months, and by then they would have a better idea of the Army's needs. The CS 25lb version would wait until a decision had been made on the HV gun. A note was passed to Sir John and his tank design team that they would have to start looking at turret rings around 66" in diameter, maybe even larger.
9th April 1940
By early April, the Allies had decided to take action in Norway, with the intention of strangling the German Iron Ore supply route out of Narvik. Indeed, a number of battalions had already started to embark when the reports of German naval movements resulted in the troops being offloaded again. However the Allies were not the only people planning to land troops in Norway
Already in low-priority planning for considerable time, Operation Weserübung found a new sense of urgency after the Altmark incident. The goals of the invasion were to secure the port of Narvik and the Leads for ore transport, and to control the country to prevent collaboration with the Allies. It was to be presented as an armed protection of Norway's neutrality.
One option that had been hotly debated by German strategists was the occupation of Denmark. Denmark was considered vital because its location facilitated greater air and naval control of the area - the Danish airbases would be needed for shorter-ranged aircraft to be used over Southern Norway. While one option was to pressure Denmark to acquiesce, it was eventually determined that it would be safer for the operation if Denmark were captured by force, the Danish armed forces being expected to put up little resistance.
Another matter that caused additional reworking of the plan was Fall Gelb, the proposed invasion of northern France and the Low Countries, which would require the bulk of German forces. Because some forces were needed for both invasions, Weserübung could not occur at the same time as Gelb, and because the nights were shortening as spring approached, which were vital cover for the naval forces, it therefore had to be sooner. The german Navy had already pointed out how dangerous the naval operations were, in view of the overwhelming naval power the Allies could bring to bear, so poor weather and long nights were necessary if the plan had a chance of success, even if surprise was fully achieved. Finally on the 2nd April the German High Command set 9 April as the day of the invasion.
The 44th (Home Counties) Infantry Division joins the BEF, where it will be assigned to III Corps. The 42nd(East Lancashire) Division is expected soon, and when it does the BEF will reorganise to make three full Corps.
2nd April 1940 - Vickers, England
While the bulk of the company had been busy building as much war material as possible for the growing Forces, the R&D engineers had been busy on looking further into the future.
Some time ago it had been realised that a gun would be needed to replace the new 6pdr. This had passed its acceptance trials, and would start to come off the production line in later summer. So now was the time to decide which gun to develop as its successor.
They had started off by looking at three possibilities
First, a new HV gun for the AT role. Given that the current thickness of tank armour was around 75mm, and that it seemed likely that future tanks would be at least as well protected, the initial requirement was to be able to penetrate 100mm or armour at 1,000 yards.
Tests had shown that the 6pdr should penetrate about 75mm at this range (assuming the usual 30 degree slope of the armour. The 6pdr already had a MV of around 900 m/s, and it would be quite hard to improve on this without causing problems. A heavier shell was indicated.
They had started out by looking at existing guns they made to see what sort of performance was available. First had been the Model 1931 AA gun. This had originally been made in 75mm calibre, but Finland had bought a version in 3" bore, which made things easier - 75mm was not a standard UK calibre, and they didn't want to use it unless there were no other choices.
The gun was probably too heavy as designed for the tank role, but considerable weight could be shaved off with a modified design. The gun had a MV of about 750m/s, rather lower than they would prefer, but as an AA gun barrel life had been an issue - a much shorter life was acceptable in a tank gun, so a hotter loading, giving greater MV, could be used. The shell weight was 6.5kg, usefully heavier than the 2.9kg of the 6pdr.
A gun was available - it had been in production for foreign sales until just before the war, and a few solid shots had been made up to test it out. Results had been encouraging, it had penetrated over 80mm, which while not good enough, wasn't too far away.
Next to be tried were a WW1 vintage gun, the 3" AA gun. This fired a slightly heavier shell at just over 600 m/s, and the results were less promising. It had only penetrated 70mm.
Given these results, and some more calculations, if this calibre was to be selected then it looked like they would want a shell of around 17pd - 7.7kg - fired at around 800 m/s. It might be possible to reduce this a little - the rounds used for testing had been made for that, hopefully a proper AT round would be a bit better - but it gave them a starting point. A higher MV would be better, but with this calibre of gun there was worry about its size and recoil - a turret only had so much room. As it was, it was clear they existing 60" turret ring wouldn't be large enough.
The next step had been to try a version of the 6/18pdr tank gun with a stronger charge. They had managed to get 650 m/s out of it, but the performance had been worse that the 3" AA gun. One suggestion had been a new gun which would push the shell out at more like 800 m/s. Calculations had shown that this would certainly give a good penetration - figures indicated it should penetrate between 100mm - 110mm at the specified 1,000 yards, but the gun would be heavy, and again it would need a larger turret ring.
One suggestion for the 3" gun had been to use a version of the existing 3" AA shell. This would allow a bit heavier shell, and should give a better MV. With this, they reckoned they could get the 100mm penetration with a real AP shell. HE capability would have the same problem with the early 6pdr shell, a thick shell case fired at a high MV meant a lot less room for explosive. However the 6pdr round had been improved by using a lower velocity, thinner cased round, and the same could be done for this. It wouldn't be as good as the 6/18pdr as an HE weapon, but it would be close enough they could probably lose the need for two types of gun in the field.
The heavier gun did look promising - it promised even better penetration with its heavier shell, and the wider shell allowed a bigger cartridge, but weight and size looked like being a real issue.
The third gun to be looked at was a replacement for the 6/18pdr. While working well in its intended role, the 18pd shell was no longer a part of the Army's front line equipment, and it would be useful to increase the size to take the 25lb shell. This would give it a greater effect as well as commonality with the 25lb shells. This didn't seem like too difficult a design, as long as a similar MV was acceptable, it was basically just an upsized 6/18pdr. To some extent, the use and specification for this gun was similar to the heavy high velocity gun under consideration, and if that was selected, then it would probably render this gun unnecessary, it could be replaced by a lower-velocity version. Again, the issue was turret space, the 6/18pdr had fitted in the current tanks, but while it might be possible to fit in a 25lb version, as long as the MV and recoil could be kept down, they would like a larger tank to carry more ammunition. The shells were bulky, and there were constant complaints about the number carried by the Cutlass.
The final decision was that both the high velocity guns were to be carried on to design stage, which would take a good six months, and by then they would have a better idea of the Army's needs. The CS 25lb version would wait until a decision had been made on the HV gun. A note was passed to Sir John and his tank design team that they would have to start looking at turret rings around 66" in diameter, maybe even larger.
9th April 1940
By early April, the Allies had decided to take action in Norway, with the intention of strangling the German Iron Ore supply route out of Narvik. Indeed, a number of battalions had already started to embark when the reports of German naval movements resulted in the troops being offloaded again. However the Allies were not the only people planning to land troops in Norway
Already in low-priority planning for considerable time, Operation Weserübung found a new sense of urgency after the Altmark incident. The goals of the invasion were to secure the port of Narvik and the Leads for ore transport, and to control the country to prevent collaboration with the Allies. It was to be presented as an armed protection of Norway's neutrality.
One option that had been hotly debated by German strategists was the occupation of Denmark. Denmark was considered vital because its location facilitated greater air and naval control of the area - the Danish airbases would be needed for shorter-ranged aircraft to be used over Southern Norway. While one option was to pressure Denmark to acquiesce, it was eventually determined that it would be safer for the operation if Denmark were captured by force, the Danish armed forces being expected to put up little resistance.
Another matter that caused additional reworking of the plan was Fall Gelb, the proposed invasion of northern France and the Low Countries, which would require the bulk of German forces. Because some forces were needed for both invasions, Weserübung could not occur at the same time as Gelb, and because the nights were shortening as spring approached, which were vital cover for the naval forces, it therefore had to be sooner. The german Navy had already pointed out how dangerous the naval operations were, in view of the overwhelming naval power the Allies could bring to bear, so poor weather and long nights were necessary if the plan had a chance of success, even if surprise was fully achieved. Finally on the 2nd April the German High Command set 9 April as the day of the invasion.
I wonder how a 87.6 mm (3.45 in) diam. 14lb/6.5Kg shell out of a 25pdr cartridge would move and penetrate? Sort of the reverse process to making a slower 11.5 kg (25 lb) HE round for an AT gun.
There were so few tanks in the Norway campaign that even three operational would make a huge difference.
There were so few tanks in the Norway campaign that even three operational would make a huge difference.
Last edited:
8.8 cm KwK 36 - Wikipedia
Where do all the rounds go (before they head downrange) ? This problem could be a driver for a tracked field resupply vehicle (ammo/fuel/lube)
Last edited:
You could also go in a different direction, aka the "Beast-killer" of the Russians aka SU-152, just provide a big enough hamer (aka lot of HE) and penetration or lack there of, becomes a non-problem
Close enough. They haven't finalised the weight/mv yet (there are penetration tradeoffs here), that's why they are now going to do actual designs. It takes about 2 years to get a new gun into production, so they are looking at Early 1942. Which is when they will also be looking for a new tank to put it in, hence the note to the tank team about turret ring sizes.That is a little heavier at 16lb.8.8 cm KwK 36 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The problem with that is the small number of shells you carry. We are still in the period when the 70+ in the Cutlass is seen as too low.
At the moment, the opposition has 30mm of armour. So designing a gun to go through 100mm for 2 years in the future is seen as a pretty safe bet.
No Panthers or King Tigers around yet
You are right, but in 1940, you could use a 3" inch gun/ 75mm, (152mm or 122mm is overkill in 1940), but you would have around 45/50 rounds instead of the 22/30 of the later russian tanks. The big question is how effective are those shells, 1 hit = 1 kill or do you need more than 1 hit to kill a tank. If so those 70+ shells are not all 1 hit = 1 kill but 2/3 hits = 1 kill. They punch little holes and not always hit something important inside the hull/turret of an target.