Page 4 of 4

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 12:39 am
by TheKangaroo
Well, I'm not that well-read concerning field guns and artillery to be honest, so no offence, but I think it should be taken into consideration that there sometimes is quite a gap between things technically possible and things actually done. Is it possible they engineered high-explosive shells, maybe even made them, but they refrained from actually using them due to practical in-the-field reasons?

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 3:46 am
by Andy Brown
TheKangaroo wrote:Is it possible they engineered high-explosive shells, maybe even made them, but they refrained from actually using them due to practical in-the-field reasons?


Nail on the head. If you follow up, for example, the Williams link at the bottom of that same wikipedia item, you can read:

"As a tank gun it was unsatisfactory because of the lack of an HE shell to deal with enemy anti-tank gunners, although one was eventually produced rather late in its useful life. "

The links to the wikipedia items about the Cruiser and Matilda tanks produce similar information. The British CS ("close support") tanks, usually fitted with 3 inch howitzers instead of 2 pdr ATGs, were fielded (usually about two per tank company (which the Brits called a 'squadron')) precisely to provide the HE and smoke capabilities that the 2 pdr lacked.

In Firefight, I find that my ATGs, after they've taken out the enemy AFVs, often end up being the major killer of enemy infantry as well.

[I did have a man "killed by AP shell" once when he was hit while standing between one of my tanks and an enemy tank shooting at it :)]

Cheers,

Andy

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:08 pm
by Germany_Fan
Most likely that the HE-T was later, after Cruisers and Crusaders were obsolete. Though I am convinced that the ah! Only a tank gun eh? Well what about the AT version? That is what I mean.

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:11 pm
by Germany_Fan
TheKangaroo wrote:Well, I'm not that well-read concerning field guns and artillery to be honest, so no offence, but I think it should be taken into consideration that there sometimes is quite a gap between things technically possible and things actually done. Is it possible they engineered high-explosive shells, maybe even made them, but they refrained from actually using them due to practical in-the-field reasons?


I wonder if I can get hold of some desert combat info supporting my argument. If not, then I will take back what I say. Deal?

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:03 am
by Andy Brown
Germany_Fan,

Fair enough, but check the last text paragraph of the wikipedia 2 pdr article.

Andy