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 7th, 2012, 12:03 AM   #81
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,301

The fairy Albacore was withdrawn from service before the swordfish, it's replacement was deemed not as good as the swordfish (though service on less front line carriers on MACs and stuff might have seen the swordfishes operational life extended.) The Swordfish was a reasonable torpedo bomber it's weakness in air to air combat just didnt matter that much as most British operations opposing air was not a factor.
pugsville is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 7th, 2012, 01:36 AM   #82

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 15,071

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post
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.
Yes it is difficult. I do not deny 2pdr had slightly better penetration, after all it was larger calibre so projectile was heavier while muzzle velocity was similar. But British themselves were unsatisfied with its performance, if not in France then certainly in Africa and British AT guns were always some 1-2 years behind until introduction of excellent 17pdr.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward View Post
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.
German Panzer IV D/E and Panzer III F were mounted additional armoured plates of 20-30mm thickens on front and sides after campaign in France.
arras is online now  
Old December 7th, 2012, 01:01 PM   #83

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 4,833

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post

German Panzer IV D/E and Panzer III F were mounted additional armoured plates of 20-30mm thickens on front and sides after campaign in France.
But it was not until 1941 that British forces encountered these tanks in combat
redcoat is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 01:14 PM   #84

redcoat's Avatar
Hiding behind the sofa
 
Joined: Nov 2010
From: Stockport Cheshire UK
Posts: 4,833

Quote:
Originally Posted by pugsville View Post
The fairy Albacore was withdrawn from service before the swordfish, it's replacement was deemed not as good as the swordfish (though service on less front line carriers on MACs and stuff might have seen the swordfishes operational life extended.) The Swordfish was a reasonable torpedo bomber it's weakness in air to air combat just didn't matter that much as most British operations opposing air was not a factor.
It's more complicated than that. The Albacore actually stayed in the torpedo bomber role slightly longer than the Swordfish, it was in the Swordfish's anti-submarine warfare role operating off very small carriers in the middle of the Atlantic, where the Swordfish's utter reliability, toughness, good load carrying abilities and ease of maintenance made it the ideal choice, that enabled the Swordfish to remain in service until the end of the war
redcoat is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 01:39 PM   #85

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 8,437

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
..................... Swordfish's utter reliability, toughness, good load carrying abilities and ease of maintenance made it the ideal choice, that enabled the Swordfish to remain in service until the end of the war
If it ain't broke why fix it!
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old December 10th, 2012, 05:10 AM   #86

Transk53's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: UK
Posts: 29

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly View Post
I wasn't aware the Swordfish had been declared obsolete before the start of the war
Speculative and not meant as a citation.
Transk53 is offline  
Old December 10th, 2012, 06:54 AM   #87

arras's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2010
From: Slovakia
Posts: 15,071

Quote:
Originally Posted by redcoat View Post
But it was not until 1941 that British forces encountered these tanks in combat
And? Swiss Guard newer encountered any tanks. Does than make their pikes less obsolete?
arras is online now  
Old December 10th, 2012, 07:08 AM   #88

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 5,560

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
Yes it is difficult. I do not deny 2pdr had slightly better penetration, after all it was larger calibre so projectile was heavier while muzzle velocity was similar. But British themselves were unsatisfied with its performance, if not in France then certainly in Africa and British AT guns were always some 1-2 years behind until introduction of excellent 17pdr.


German Panzer IV D/E and Panzer III F were mounted additional armoured plates of 20-30mm thickens on front and sides after campaign in France.
Nobody was entirely happy with the 2pdr since it was introduced, it had good points for mobility and 360 degree defence but the performance wasnt brilliant thats why development of the 6pdr started almost immediately.

Unfortunately the loss of so many weapons in the retreat from France meant we had to rearm with whatever was available and as much of it as fast as possible.
That meant it was impossible to cease production to retool and retrain to produce a new weapon.

Plus of course England has small fields, narrow lanes and forests so a short range gun used in ambush of an invader isnt a handicap, the 2pdr did the job it was needed for.

Its only when the army gets out to fighting in the African deserts and not the fields of France and England as expected that the needs become overwhelming and its worth stopping current armament production to invest in an upgrade.

Since the current world standard for everyone involved was 37mm with the exception of the Germans who'd been given a nasty shock by the Somua and Mathilda and the British who had heavier guns on the drawing board since 1938 and were already working on the 17pdr by the time we hit North Africa it wasnt bad performance.

The US only upgraded to production of the 6pdr because they thought they could sell them to us, then they ended up in a fighting war with the inadequate 37mm and had to use it for themselves.
Nemowork is offline  
Old December 10th, 2012, 03:39 PM   #89
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Nov 2009
From: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 3,760

Quote:
Originally Posted by arras View Post
And? Swiss Guard newer encountered any tanks. Does than make their pikes less obsolete?
The truth is that until mid 1941, the British QF 2 pounder was effective against all German AFV. With introductions of 40 mm plus armour, the gun was ineffective.

For all small calibre armour piercing projectiles (and guns dispatching these projectiles), the major factor of penetrating power is the kinetic energy of the projectile at the moment of impact. The other major factor is the “shattering’ effect of the projectile which is directly related to design and material of the projectile. If the projectile will shatter at the moment of impact, its penetrating ability is nullified. So there is a maximum velocity of the projectile for each design/material used combination. For 2 pounder this combination was much ahead of all competition for similar calibre of projectile. It was an excellent gun for it time but it was defeated by rapid development of armour.
The kinetic energy anti tank weapon has been later partially replaced by shaped charge projectile that used different low of physics to penetrate thick armour.
Edward is offline  
Old December 11th, 2012, 03:51 AM   #90

Transk53's Avatar
Citizen
 
Joined: Dec 2012
From: UK
Posts: 29

I picked a copy of this book a while back, but over the last few days have been ploughing through it as I finished another. The one thing that alluded me was the nitty gritty on the technical forethought, or lack of. Now those little strands have come together after reading Tank Men – The Human Story of Tanks at War. This little excerpt says it all. Talk about the Firefly and 17Pdr preceded it.

The remaining British tanks were just inadequate. Just under 50% of those produced in 1943 had no operational value in terms of gun caliber effectiveness against German tanks. Production promises agreed in 1942 were furthermore unrealized in 1943, which meant that that 26% of tank production was shortly going to obsolete. Broadly openly about 25% of 1943 tank production could be termed acceptable to those that required them in the field. Peter beale , a wartime tank man who researched these figures after the war, concluded: “The thing that should make us angry and indignant is that with a little thought and planning these murders could have been avoided”

Murder indeed. I guess one would have to have served to understand fully what it meant to go to war against the Germans. By all accounts even the Russians were apprehensive sitting in a T-34 at Kursk. Not only that, Prokhorovka. Not surprised, 43 out of 200 MK V’s shot to **** some 269 Russian tanks which almost certainly would have been medium to heavy stuff. Recommend this book, it is sobering stuff.
Transk53 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 03:13 PM
The Tanks Of August. Mangas Coloradas War and Military History 2 December 26th, 2011 09:31 PM
Tanks THut95 War and Military History 254 September 16th, 2011 05:04 AM
Usefulness of tanks kdopp War and Military History 17 June 30th, 2011 11:46 AM
Strange tanks Nick War and Military History 59 March 5th, 2011 12:29 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.