Everyone needs a tank, don't they?
- Thread starter Huh? What?
- Start date
I'm not surprised, isn't that what they're made of? The spare bits go into Garboldi biscuits
The German 88mm gun was a problem for a large part of WW2
Neither the first nor the second world wars were covered in our history syllabus at school, probably because memories were too fresh and it wasn't seen as 'history'. I have had to undertake quite a bit of reading to fill in the gaps, and am still finding out more info 
The German 88mm gun was a problem for a large part of WW2
The reason it was a problem was that it was an anti-aircraft gun which was used as an anti-tank gun. Apparently it was sometimes used with the crew sighting along the barrel!
I meant it was a problem for those on the receiving end - we didn't have a lot to respond to it
I meant it was a problem for those on the receiving end - we didn't have a lot to respond to it
Not until later in the conflict when the 17pdr anti tank gun came along. The British army started to up-gun some Shermans with the 17pdr to create the Sherman Firefly, but in any formation only about one in five was a Firefly. That did nothing to address the weak armour of course but at least a Firefly could take on the heavier opposition from a greater distance.
David
Which was a bit of a double-edged sword in some ways..... while the "88" was a superb anti-tank weapon, the use of it in that role (especially during the Western Desert campaigns, and to some extent in France 1940) meant that every one that was used as an AT gun wasn't doing its primary job of protecting airfields, supply lines and such as a heavy AA weapon. Rommel's use of many of them in the AT role allowed the Allies' Desert Air Force to wreak much more havoc among his logistics and rear echelons than might have otherwise been the case. Technically, we COULD have used our own 3.7" Heavy AA as bl**dy great AT guns (with some carriage modifications to make them more mobile) but the decision was made that they were more important in their dedicated AA role. So, we often pressed the good old 25 Pounder into AT use, which it was pretty good at (certainly much more effective than the little 2 pounder that was our primary AT weapon in the early years of the war), but then that meant that the 25 Pounders were not available to perform artillery support fire. As with so much in war (and in life generally), it's always a trade-off and there is never quite enough to go round......
Jon.
I meant it was a problem for those on the receiving end - we didn't have a lot to respond to it
Exactly my point.
And then there was the P.I.A.T, Personal (Personel?) Infantry Anti-Tank (or is that the two pounder you mention?) . Whoever thought up the acronym obviously had a sense of humour as the business part of the weapon did indeed resemble the Piat wine bottle.
I meant it was a problem for those on the receiving end - we didn't have a lot to respond to it
Yes, that's what I meant.
The PIAT (Projector, Infantry, Anti-Tank) was a much-disliked weapon by the troops that had to carry it - immensely heavy and very difficult to cock the firing mechanism without standing up to do so (not a very good idea in the heat of battle....). It operated by means of a very big spring - it is often misunderstood in that people think the spring actually launched the bomb, but in fact it just fired the charge in the base of the projectile.
The 2-pounder AT was a smallish, wheeled conventional anti-tank gun of 40mm calibre, either towed behind a light truck or sometimes carried "portee" in the truck bed (from which it could also be fired, providing a makeshift mobile gun platform). It was a good enough weapon against the tank designs of the 1930s (most other powers used similar light AT guns, like the German 37mm PaK36) but was woefully inadequate against the heavier tanks that started to appear by the start of the war - hence the development of the 6-pounder being rushed through, the first ones going into action in 1942.
Jon.
-
1
- Show all
Having been watching the much repeated World at War series, it makes it astoundingly clear how, frequently, we did not have enough troops for all theatres of the conflict, and places such as Singapore, and Italy and even to a certain extent North Africa, were deficient in numbers
Having been watching the much repeated World at War series, it makes it astoundingly clear how, frequently, we did not have enough troops for all theatres of the conflict, and places such as Singapore, and Italy and even to a certain extent North Africa, were deficient in numbers
Nothing new there then.
The Germans called it the 'Tommykocher' - Tommy cooker, but the allies' nicknamed it 'Zippo', because it lit first time.
Last edited: