Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:32 AM   #71

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 5,271

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transk53 View Post
The Swordfish was declared obsolete by the Admiralty by about 1937 I believe. The only reason it was still in service was because our other designs could not be adapted to carry torps and no other bomber design was forthcoming. The crews going in against the Bismarck took some balls knowing that most would not survive.
There were other current seaplanes that were adapted as dive bombers, the Blackburn Skua and the Fairey Albacore but while they were adequate neither of them had any notable characteristics. The swordfish hung around in service basically because all of its replacements were inadequate for the job until the Fairey Barracuda in 43 and the purchase of more modern US designs.
Nemowork is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 6th, 2012, 01:47 PM   #72

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 4,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transk53 View Post
The Swordfish was declared obsolete by the Admiralty by about 1937 I believe.
Your belief has no base in fact, the Swordfish only started to enter service in 1936 and in 1937 it was still replacing older designs
Quote:
The only reason it was still in service was because our other designs could not be adapted to carry torps and no other bomber design was forthcoming.
The Fairey Albacore began to replace it in the torpedo bomber role in 1940, but some Swordfish units stayed in the role til mid 42.
Quote:
The crews going in against the Bismarck took some balls knowing that most would not survive.
None of the Swordfish involved in the attacks on the Bismarck were shot down, all the aircrew survived the attacks
redcoat is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 02:03 PM   #73

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 8,033

The old Fairy 'Stringbag' did good enough service to his Majesty



Click the image to open in full size.
Kevinmeath is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 02:19 PM   #74
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 6,639

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
The old Fairy 'Stringbag' did good enough service to his Majesty



Click the image to open in full size.
The old Swordfish was so obsolete that it was produced well into 1944. Pretty cool plane, and very under-rated.
pikeshot1600 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 02:20 PM   #75

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 4,532

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
The old Fairy 'Stringbag' did good enough service to his Majesty



Click the image to open in full size.
As well as a number of battleships and 27 U-Boats it is also credited with sinking well over 300,000 tons of Axis merchant shipping.
redcoat is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 02:51 PM   #76

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 13,965

Quote:
Originally Posted by pikeshot1600 View Post
The old Swordfish was so obsolete that it was produced well into 1944. Pretty cool plane, and very under-rated.
It was produced because
A. there was nothing better.
B. Germans and Italians had no aircraft carriers at all and naval battles were sort of sideshow of European conflict. They were not decisive for its outcome.

If British would be forced to fight serious naval campaign against serious naval power like Japan, Swordfish would have to be reclassified as suicide bomber.
arras is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 02:56 PM   #77
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

[quote=arras;1278895]
Quote:
It had some 15% better penetration, that is all. It was better but I would not call it "much". Look at penetration data redcoat provided. In fact difference was marginal for all practical purposes and in other aspects, both weapons were very similar.
Look at rate of fire and traversing ability. It was much better gun hawever it was not powerful enough for next generation of tanks and became semi-obsolate in 1941-42. 15 % more penetration for weaker armour was the diference between life or deth.
Quote:
That just confirms, that these weapons were obsolete. Already during battle of France, French medium tanks had 40+mm frontal plate and soon, medium tanks and up were getting 60+mm of frontal plate. Germans were uparmouring their Panzers with additional 20-30mm armour plates for example (over original 30mm) in 1940-41. Soviet T-34 had 70mm of effective frontal protection (40mm but sloped).
yes, German Pak 36 was ineffective against most French and british tank in 1940 (totally worthless against Russian tanks) but 2 pounder was effective against all German tanks in 1940/41 period.

Last edited by Edward; December 6th, 2012 at 03:02 PM.
Edward is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 03:21 PM   #78

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 13,965

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post
Look at rate of fire and traversing ability. It was much better gun
Still minor features.

They were both single shot, semi-automatic breach loaded, differences in theoretical fire rate must have been minimal. Difference in practical rate of fire must have been none since AT gun does not function as machine gun and loading takes relatively small part of time spend between firing.

Both were similar weight and their carriage was of the same type so mobility was probably very similar as well.

Traverse, yes, 2 pdr when set up in position was able to traverse 360 dg while German gun did not had such ability. Still its traverse was more than satisfactory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post
yes, German Pak 36 was inefective against most French and british tank in 1940 (totally worthless against Russian tanks) but 2 pounder was effective against all German tanks in 1940/41 period.
It was not. 2pdr was unable to penetrate frontal plates of Panzer III and Panzer IV of 1940-41 at anything but point blank range. Once more look at the data redcoat provided. It could not penetrate 40mm at 500 meters. Both Panzer III and IV were uparmoured with additional plates which gave them 50-60mm of frontal plates and 30-40 on sides. I would bet they did it precisely to counter 2pdr.
arras is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 03:30 PM   #79

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 13,965

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
To paraphrase yourself:

"I believe bad German WWII tank design was for most part result of lack of good tank engines..."

The allies used stop gap solutions because of no adequate tank engine, the Germans built and operated poor tanks because of the same reason

The Germans did very well with poor designs of tank at the start of the war, but paradoxically did badly when the better tanks like the Panther were fielded
Germans did well with poor tanks because of their skill and poor conduct of their opponents.

Still, their tanks equipped with aircraft engines were poor designs which you also agree on. So it certainly does not disprove what I said. Quit opposite I would say.
arras is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 05:41 PM   #80
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
Still minor features.

They were both single shot, semi-automatic breach loaded, differences in theoretical fire rate must have been minimal. Difference in practical rate of fire must have been none since AT gun does not function as machine gun and loading takes relatively small part of time spend between firing.

Both were similar weight and their carriage was of the same type so mobility was probably very similar as well.

Traverse, yes, 2 pdr when set up in position was able to traverse 360 dg while German gun did not had such ability. Still its traverse was more than satisfactory.


It was not. 2pdr was unable to penetrate frontal plates of Panzer III and Panzer IV of 1940-41 at anything but point blank range. Once more look at the data redcoat provided. It could not penetrate 40mm at 500 meters. Both Panzer III and IV were uparmoured with additional plates which gave them 50-60mm of frontal plates and 30-40 on sides. I would bet they did it precisely to counter 2pdr.
It is difficult to compare armor piercing capacity of different gun from different country as the armor material could be different as well as the angle of impact could vary.
Below is a qte from http://nigelef.tripod.com/anti-tank.htm
“2-pdr Mk II, selected in 1936 from prototypes designed by Vickers Armstrong (Mk I) and by the Design Department at Woolwich (Mk II ). The Mk II was selected although Vickers produced it, trials showed its armour penetration was some 50% better than its equivalent German 37-mm. The same 2-pdr ordnance and ammunition (2 lb 6 oz shot) was used to arm tanks. The Littlejohn conversion that slightly increased 2-pdr performance did not arrive until 2-pdr have been replaced in anti-tank regiments. The 2-pdr had a 5 man detachment and weighed 1760 lbs in action.”

My data shown that at 500yards British QF 2 APHV ammo could penetrate 54 mm at impact angle 60 degree.

German tank used in France and Africa had armour as below:
Panzer III variant F (most numerous variant) 30mm frontal armour.
Variant H additional 30mm-not used in France

Panzer IV (only 278 used in France)
Variant C- 30 mm turret armour 20 mm frontal (not 100% sure about this 20 mm)
Variant F (entered production april 1941 so it was not present in France) 50 mm armour on turret.
This 50 mm armour of PzIV F made QF 2 insufficet. Shortly it was replaced bt 6 pounder with much better "Knocking” power than even the famous 25 pounder.

Last edited by Edward; December 6th, 2012 at 06:06 PM.
Edward is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
armaments, british, tanks


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
British Guns and Tanks - Myths and Reality CuriousHistorian War and Military History 61 January 7th, 2012 02:13 PM
The Tanks Of August. Mangas Coloradas War and Military History 2 December 26th, 2011 08:31 PM
Tanks THut95 War and Military History 254 September 16th, 2011 04:04 AM
Usefulness of tanks kdopp War and Military History 17 June 30th, 2011 10:46 AM
Strange tanks Nick War and Military History 59 March 5th, 2011 11:29 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.