Talk:Ordnance QF 2-pounder

Weights in kg?

I dunno... but I'm rather objectionable to that use. Masses can be in kilograms or pounds, and Weights can be in pound-force or kilogram-force or Newtons. Obsidian-fox 08:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is riddled with errors and mistakes, here are some Corrections

This article on the Ordnance 2-pounder Tank and Anti-Tank Gun has some fundamental errors, which I will try to put right.

Firstly, the 2pdr was originally designed by Vickers, initially as a tank weapon, but for reasons of economy and standardisation of ammunition, it was also chosen as the basis for an anti-tank gun (although even at this stage there were misgivings about it long term effectiveness of the calibre). It was accepted by the Director of Artillery in 1934, and competitive contracts were issued to Vickers and Woolwich Arsenal (Royal Ordnance did not exist until the 1980's) to design the carriage for the gun.

Vickers was the first to complete their design (pictured below), and a small number were purchased and issued as the Ordnance QF, 2-Pounder Mark 9 on Carriage Mark 1 in 1936. The carriage consisted of a THREE LEG platform (Not Four) with one leg being used as the towing trail, and the remaining legs folding up. When emplaced the wheels were raised up and the jacks were used to level the legs ensuring a smooth traverse through 360 degrees. This can be clearly seen in the first picture.

File:Scan000130a.jpg

However, when Woolwich Arsenal completed their carriage (pictured below), it was found to be easier and cheaper to produce and these reasons the design it was accepted as the Ordnance QF, 2-Pounder, Mark 9 on Mk Two Carriage. The principle difference was that the wheels where now removed completely from the carriage when it was emplaced, and NOT retained on the carriage. This version was also manufactured by Vickers. The Woolwich Arsenal design also incorporated a excellent telescopic site on the carriage.

Both guns could be fired in an emergency without being emplaced, with limited traverse. In addition, when the gun was emplaced, the carriage had a two speed geared traverse, the first gear was for rapid traversing, with a second gear for slower tracking of _targets.

The design of the carriage reflected the difference in doctrines of the period; the 2pdr was based on a defensive doctrine, emplaced guns used in interlocking fields of fire. Where as the German Pak 36, a 3.7cm gun, being lighter and quicker to bring into action, emphasised a more aggressive tank hunting doctrine, with the carriage being light enough to be man handled into position. Of course, the Pak 36 proved to be ineffective against many of the medium and heavy tanks used by the allies at this stage of the war.

The 2pdr Anti-Tank Gun was always envisaged as a Royal Artillery Weapon, and the Royal Artillery remained the principle user of the Anti-Tank Guns, included tank destroyers such as the Archer and M10, throughout the war. In the 1940 Campaigns, 2pdr Anti-Tank guns were organised into Divisional Anti-Tank Regiments of 48 Gun, generally towed by wheeled tractors, although some where towed by full tracked Dragon MkI/II. (Dragon derived from Drag Gun, full tracked artillery tractors developed and experimented with in the 1920’s and 1930’s). One other formation was the Armoured Division Anti-Tank and Anti-Aircraft Regiment, which was equipped with 24 2pdrs, and 24 40mm Bofos Guns.

It had originally been planned to issue the 2pdr to the Infantry Brigade Anti-Tank Companies (manned by the Infantry), but production was insufficient for this, and the French Hotchkiss Mle1934 25mm Gun was issued in lieu of 2pdrs instead. Each company had 9x 25mm Guns, carried portee (i.e. in the lorry/truck) in 15cwt GS Lorry. There were three Anti-Tank Companies in the Infantry Division, giving a total of 48 2pdrs and 27 25mm Anti-tank Guns. Most of the 25mm guns were left in France, and few if any at all remained in British service. In addition some Territorial Division may have had the 25mm lieu of 2pdr Anti-Tank Guns in there divisional anti-tank regiments at the start of the war.

In terms of performance the 2pdr anti-tank gun was more than adequate for the job, being able to penetrate 42mm of homogenous armour at a 30 degree angle at 1000 meter. This compares well with Pak 36, which was 36mm at 500mm. Only the French and Czechoslovakian (used by the Germans mounted on Pz I hulls as a Panzerjager) 47mm guns anti-tanks had greater performance and possibly the Belgium’s 47mm 36M, the Russian 45mm M1932 had a similar performance. To best of my knowledge, the 2pdr was never purchased by Belgium or used by that country in the 1940 campaign. The standard for most armies at this date was a weapon in 37mm calibre, including Germany, USA, Russia, Japan, Czechoslovakian and all (except the last) went through similar experiences of finding there guns had become almost useless. The Americans deployed their 37mm gun in North Africa in 1942, when proved to be outclassed.

However the problems for the 2-pounder began when the main theatre of operations moved to the Western Desert, where the lack of cover and the open nature of the landscape meant that guns were exposed. This was in stark contrast to European landscape cluttered with buildings, hedges and trees and rivers. The Germans had leant their lessons about attacking anti-tank positions head-on in Poland, the Low Countries and France, and their tactics dictated that Anti-Tank guns positions, once identified were to be shelled either using their own tank guns (the early Panzer IV were armed with a low velocity 7.5cm for this role), or artillery outside of the effective range thr 2pdr, or simply bypassing the position and leaving it to the infantry to mop up.

This was in stark contrast to the British where they proved unable to co-operate in combined arms operations like the Germans, and all to often British tanks went into battle with little or no support from artillery, and Close Support Tanks, were often only issued with Smoke, making head on charges to close up the range. Against weapons such as the 8.8cm Flak which could penetrate there armour well beyond the 2pdr range this proved suicidal.

This weakness as been blamed upon the tanks and 2pdr, but really, the blame lay with the chaotic way in which British Armour was designed, manufactured, organised and trained and deployed. This weakness characterised Britain’s use of armour throughout the war.

Attempts where made to make the 2pdr more effect, by mounting them on rear of trucks, and using mobility to counter the tactical short comings of the terrain and later a armoured version was introduced, and this process was repeated with the 6pdr Anti-Tank Gun. Improvements with ammunituon were of limited value, as often by they were available the guns had passed from use.

The irony was that the need for something better had been foreseen as early as 1938, and design on the 57mm 6-Pounder was completed and the prototype had been constructed and test fired by 1939. It was then shelved until required, and this requirement materaized in the when facing the imminent threat of invasion in the aftermath of the Battle of France, the British Army was desperately short of equipment. The choice facing Britain was either to carry on producing a gun that was in production and which was familiar with the troops, or stop production and retool. A process that some sources say would have taken up to six mouths, and then the troops would have had to be retrained. The desision was take to only start production of the 6-pounder after the Army had been requiped with anti-tank guns.

Under the circumstances, it understandable why it was decided to carry on producing the 2pdr, and to be fair, it would have been very effective in the close landscape of South Eastern Britain. It’s all too easy to look back with the benefit of hindsight to criticise that decision.

When the 6pdr began to arrive in North African in 1942, the 2pdrs passed to the infantry, a process repeated with the 6pdr when the 17pdr came into use. In Britain the process was repeated, but some 2drs Anti-Tank Guns were passed on some Home Guard Units. In other theatres against lighter tanks, the 2pdr Anti-tank gun remained in use to the end of the war.

Although the 2pdr was used as the main tank armament on Cruisers A9, A10, A13, Matilda II, early Churchill’s and Crusaders, Rams, Valentines, AEC (earlier version only) and Daimler Armoured Cars, it was never deployed on the Universal Carrier. Some experiments were carried out in Britain and Australia, but none went into production. The little John Adaptor used the squeeze bore principle to try and increase velocity, but in practice it was rarely used.

As a tank gun, it was mounted in such a way that it was aimed in the vertical plain i.e. up and down elevation using a shoulder pad, that the gun and its mounting had to be finely balanced (incidentally this may have been a important factor in preventing the up-gunning of earlier tanks, and not the turret ring, if a geared elevation had been used, which would have meant or of the gun mounting could have been outside).

The effective range of the tank 2pdr was shorter than was shorter than the Anti-tank gun because of the mounting and optics of the gunner’s sight. Sources give a figure of 57mm at 30 degree at a range of 500m.

As an Anti-tank gun, it was probably out phased completely out of service buy the end of European War, perhaps with small numbers in use in the Far East. However the gun remained in limited use as the main armament of the Daimler Armoured Car which remained in use well into the 1960’s with several armies.

One small fact is that is often over looked, a small number of Bofos 37mm Anti-Tanks were used in the Western Desert (purchased by the Sudanese Army in the 1930’s) , carried in trucks and some photos seem to indicate that they were often fired from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew381968 (talk • contribs)

" ... it was never deployed on the Universal Carrier. Some experiments were carried out in Britain and Australia, but none went into production. That is incorrect. The Australian 2 pounder anti-tank gun carrier was put into production with, from memory, around 400 (edit: sorry, my mistake should be only 200, I got the number mixed up with the mortar carrier) being built. Canada also built a smaller number of 2 pounder armed carriers of it's own design. Photos of each can be found fairly easily on the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.252.16 (talk • contribs)

The standard for most armies at this date was a weapon in 37mm calibre, including Germany, USA, Russia, Japan, Czechoslovakian and all (except the last) went through similar experiences of finding there guns had become almost useless. Actually the Red Army switched away from the 37mm very early on, in the early 1930s, adopting the 45mm precisely because it could fire a useful HE round. Their gun-armed light tanks were armed with 45mm guns throughout the 1930s - only a very small number of BT-2s and T-26s had 37mm guns, and the towed 37mm was rare. DMorpheus 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

First..."calibre" means something rather different in the context being used here. At the time, the armies in question—and which should include the French, by the way, who were weighed down with large numbers of obsolete 37mm guns—would have used the term by itself, as in "37mm Anti-Tank Gun", or "37mm Infantry Gun". Calibre—as used here— was originally an Imperial Measurement for bore, just as 37mm (or 3,7cm) is. So using "37mm calibre" is rather like using "SCSI Interface"—it is duplicative and nonsensical. In the context being used here, the measurement is based on a metal gauge, similar—but not identical to—that used for shotguns. It measures the bore in units of tenths of an inch—a "50-Calibre Heavy Machine Gun" is a machine gun having a 0.50-Inch bore (for the youngsters, that would be around 12.7mm). Examples abound: the Colt-Browning 30-Calibre Machine Gun, the 30-Calibre BAR, the 50-Calibre Vickers. Of course, like everything before the Americans ran the world, it was not a very carefully-observed convention. So one would also find ".50-Calibre Browning" for a .50-Inch Colt-Browning Heavy Machine Gun, or a ".30-Calibre M1 Rifle". While this would seem to indicate the M1 had a .030-Inch bore, that is of course ridiculous.

The other use of calibre is as a measure of barrel length, as in 3-Inch/50-Calibre. That seems well beyond the scope of this topic, I should think?

Secondly, a number of nations had already reached the conclusion that the "first generation" of 37mm (or 3,7cm) guns was obsolescent. The French had developed newer versions of the venerable 47mm Semi-Automatic gun (similar to the British 3-Pdr), for their new generation of tanks—the SOUMA mle 35 and the B1-series in particular. The French had also accepted and deployed a new generation of 47mm Anti-Tank Gun, the justly famous 47mm/L53 SA37 APX. The Czechs, too, had developed a more modern 47mm gun, the 47mm/L43 ÚV vz.38 (4,7cm KPÚV vz.1938). The Soviet 45mm A/T Guns series began in 1932 with new variants in 1937 and 1942. The British were about to begin manufacture of the superb 6-Pdr (a 57mm/L43 A/T Gun) when the Campaign in the West began in May of 1940. And the Germans had developed a solid 5,0cm/L42 Tank Gun for their Pzkpfw III which Army ordnance sidelined for "economy".

The 2-Pdr is thus, as stated, a member of the most widely-adopted A/T gun bore. A little heavier and harder-hitting than some of the older 37mm guns, it paled beside the 47mm SA.37 or even the 47mm SA.35. The 2-Pdr traded mobility and _target profile for these strengths, though.

Ranya (talk) 11:16, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Lack of Citations

Come on - there's this wonderful history, but it's missing citations. This isn't the way it works. If someone wants further details, there's no way to follow up with the original source material. Can someone please fill these is? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Calibre

The two pounder was not "40 mm (1.575 in)", but rather "1.575 inches (40 mm)"Royalcourtier (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

40 mm is provided for the benefit of the majority of readers, who understand the metric system not inches. 1.575 in means nothing to most people today and should be left out completely. I think it was designed as a "40-mm" gun, inches was just an equivalent. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

And it replaced the 3-pounder, so the calibre is the outcome of meeting the requirement? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be a correlation between export potential and standardised metric bore at the time. As in 37, 40, 47, 57 mm standards. Was this gun designed as a commercial offering ? Anthony G Williams would seem to be the expert on calibres. Rcbutcher (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The 2-Pdr was a 2-Pdr. It was called "the 2-Pdr" for that reason. This also answers the assertion "I think it was designed as a "40-mm" gun, inches was just an equivalent". However, Rcbutcher's "think" needs some further refutation...

Both the British and the Americans employed the Imperial System of weights and measurements at the time (1930-1945), yet still made use of metric designations for guns, with the Royal Army and its RA slower to adopt than the Americans (re "6-Pdr Mk.I" vs "57mm M1"). If one of you will take the time to check with the National Archives or the War Museum (RA), you will find that the 2-Pounder was designed as a 2-Pdr. Where specifications were given—for construction and proofing of the weapon system—they were given in the Imperial System (feet and inches, pounds and ounces). These are shown clearly in the official documents, so there's no need to "think". Ranya (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

You're reacting to some ancient comments. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

APHE

There is mention on other online "encyclopedias" about an APHE variant of shell for the 2 pdr, but I can't find any reliable info on it, and might well be people mistaking the HE shell that was in australian use for APHE.. can anyone confirm what type of HE and/or APHE there was for the 2 pdr?

Some sources claim the AHPE was the first type of shell developed, and called the "Mk 1" though this seems unlikely. 86.161.7.127 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

An AP HE shell was developed but not widely issued as the small 40mm shell contained too little explosive to make it of any use, the exploding shell having little more blast effect upon impact than the disturbance caused by the solid AP shot.

Because of the stresses due to firing in a high-velocity anti-tank gun it was not possible to make a thin-wall shell able to contain a significant amount of filling, as reducing the wall thickness in order to contain more explosive would have made the shell unable to survive the stresses of firing.

Such small HE rounds while excellent against lightly-built structures such as aircraft, are useless for the purposes a high explosive round is usually required for in ground operations, i.e., Close Support, unless they are being fired from an automatic weapon against soft-skinned vehicles such as trucks, etc,.

Besides, by the time an HE round was thought essential the 2 pdr had already been replaced by the 6 pdr, at least in theory, as the introduction of the 6 pdr was delayed by the large loss of 2 pdr's at Dunkirk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Really, people...consult a primary source.

The original Armour-Piercing shell (note that word, it matters) for the 2-Pdr Mk.IX was what is now often referred to as an APHE, although at the time (first half of the 20th Century), it was quite ordinary for an Armour-Piercing shell (see, there it is again) to contain a burster. The 2-Pdr "Pom-Pom" fired both an High-Explosive and a Semi-Armour-Piercing shell, as did the Bofors 40mm/L60 (which was technically an L/56, but hey...). Thus, it was quite regular to develop a "normal" AP shell for the 2-Pdr, the aforementioned AP Mk.I. Numerous problems arose, most of which actually had to do with the inability of the shell design to hold together, either while accelerating down the barrel, or in flight, or upon striking the _target. The fuse was notorious. However, there are ample notes on the inefficacy of the burster even when all went right—as was mentioned by 86.161.7.127, the 2-Pdr AP Shell had a very small burster. The result was that the AP Shell was made inert, transforming it into the AP Shot Mk.I. What this means, is that the cavity into which the burster was formerly placed was instead filled with a stable material that gave similar ballistic characteristics—the Ap Shot did not "burst" upon striking the _target, it simply tore in.

This issue—the burster for the AP Shell and the transformation of AP Shell Mk.I to AP Shot Mk.I—is separate from the issue of an High-Explosive Shell for the 2-Pdr. As I noted, all sorts of weapons of roughly the same bore—which means roughly the same shell physical characteristics—fired HE and SAP. As you might expect, the Royal Army ordered a High-Explosive Shell Mk.I for the 2-Pdr Gun. Not surprisingly, the Royal Army realised the same facts 86.161.7.127 ennumerated—the burster in the relatively thin-walled HE shell was not particularly powerful. This was not, in any way, a surprise; after all, it is the business of Gunners to know such things well before they fire the first shell at a proofing _target. The thing to bear in mind was that the 2-Pdr HE Shell Mk.I was no worse than the German 3,7cm Sprenggranate Patrone, nor the French 37mm Obus d'Explosible (also written Obus Explosible and Obus Explosif).

The assertion that the Royal Army did not order (or "produce") "an HE shell" until 1942—or until after the 2-Pdr had been "replaced" by the 6-Pdr— is wrong. The Royal Army ordered and acquired HE Shell Mk.I for the 2-Pdr. If you read through the excellent discussion of the deployment of the 2-Pdr in 1939-1940 in the talk section above, you will understand that it was the Royal Artillery that handled the 2-Pdr when it was a first-line gun. All RA Anti-Tank Gun Regiments had HE Shell Mk.I as part of their fit. Rifle Battalions did not. Their HE power came from the Rifle Platoon's 2-Inch Mortar and the Support (Headquarters) Company's 3-Inch Mortars.

The blunder—and it was certainly that, no doubt—was in not including an HE outfit in the ammunition fit for Infantry Tanks. Had that been done, a basis for expanding the allotment to Cruiser Tanks would have been elementary. Instead, the issue became one of Doctrine and Bureaucracy. The RA did wish to give the Tankers an HE capability. The Gunners were able to justify this absurdity by the elegant argument that Armoured doctrine did not envisage Tanks—even Infantry Tanks—providing gun support to attacking or defending infantry. As it was, according to Royal Army doctrine, the role of the Guns to provide support to the Rifle Company, this argument had a circular beauty to it.

In the event, tankers added HE rounds to their loadout, as did the Rifle Companies—just as the Royal Artillery Batteries and the Rifle Companies improvised canister when it became clear it was needed. While this battlefield adaptation allowed the field elements to complete their missions, it exacerbated an already difficult supply problem. The only official destination for 2-Pdr HE Shell Mk.I was the RA, so any HE that went to the Tanks or the Rifle Companies was a loss to the RA Batteries. It did take until 1942 to sort this problem out. On the other hand, by the time the RA moved to the 17-Pdr and the Rifle Companies took up the 6-Pdr, HE Shell for that gun was in plentiful supply. Ranya (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Belgian army use??

The only reference I can find to this is in wikipedia and content copied from wikipedia. The Belgian army had the excellent C.47 F.R.C. Mod.31 which mostly outperforms the 2-pounder and was in large supply. I have never seen another reference to Belgian 2-pounders and it is very unlikely they were ever used by the Belgian army. Some might have been wrongly attributed as such by the German army ofc. But this statement would need a primary source statement as there is seemingly absolutely no evidence for this if it is to be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.159.55.254 (talk) 00:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

"consult a primary source" - see WP:Primary GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)