CGS:upgrading challenger and warrior.

WWII - the primary, as in 95% of the time role of tanks was supporting infantry. It’s been the same ever since.
Both the British and Americans fielded specialised ‘tank destroyers’ with single purpose high velocity guns in WWII, and what did they end up doing 99% of the time? Supporting infantry as mobile artillery.
Most tanks in WWII never got to fire a single AT round except on a range, but often shot out their barrels firing HE.
There's so much out of context wrong with this I've tried writing this post 3 times... and frankly just given up.
 
There's so much out of context wrong with this I've tried writing this post 3 times... and frankly just given up.
Glad I am not the only one who has multiple attempts a rebutting his posts. I just give up as it is just not worth the time and effort to correct just about everything.

Then once in a while I just can't help myself and find myself replying, just like a moth being drawn toward a flame.
 
Its still a bit vague - were you in agreement with Soi/Meerkatz /Son of / Photex or not
I spoke to a large number of old and bold who served in [mostly] Shermans in WW2 in both N Africa and NW Europe. From what they told me it was certainly the case that the majority of their effort was HE in support of infantry, but those infantry didn't have access to Warrior or anything similar. Today I would expect a large part of this fire to be achieved by the AIFVs while the MBT dealt with armoured targets, if only because a modern MBT holds barely 60% of the number of rounds of it's WW2 equivalent so prophylactic HE fire is going to be correspondingly difficult to sustain.
Get that however it hardly supports @PhotEx contention of 99%....of course, given the range/penetration disparity in North Africa some tanks might be killed without the chance to engage with either.

His ‘facts’ are meaningless as they have neither provenance nor context.
 
He is a belt fed throbber who makes tea in the main building.
Main building of what? The closest he’s been to Whitehall is the Red Lion on an open topped tourist bus.

UK armour development is strange enough without idiots like him being involved.
 
I have a lovely .pdf of Rheinmetall' APS work but it seems to be too big to post - any ideas?
 
If you can put it on something like Dropbox or iCloud, I'll download it, shrink it and post it/send it back to you.

BTW you don't have to download smallpdf you can do the compression 'in the cloud' on their site

ETA personally I prefer OneDrive or google drive to Dropbox, YMMV etc...
Can't do either for the same reasons. I've got about 20 odd presentations from IAV here:mad:
 
Can't do either for the same reasons. I've got about 20 odd presentations from IAV here:mad:
No problem, just let me join you on Teamviewer ill find it off your computer and while i am at it, ill send $20 million dollars that the Ghanian National Bank asked me to look after a few months ago. They said the interest will start paying soon so its a win win......honest!
 
Get that however it hardly supports @PhotEx contention of 99%....of course, given the range/penetration disparity in North Africa some tanks might be killed without the chance to engage with either.

His ‘facts’ are meaningless as they have neither provenance nor context.
Surely most tanks in North Africa must have fired AP rounds considering the abundance of tanks on both sides upto the first battle of El Alamein.

Again when the British and Commonwealth tank crews were attacking during Op Goodwood to take Caen, were they not up against most of the German armour in Normandy?

So I'd presume that most British and Commonwealth crews in WW2 would've fired AP rounds at one stage or another upto 1944.
 
Surely most tanks in North Africa must have fired AP rounds considering the abundance of tanks on both sides upto the first battle of El Alamein.

Again when the British and Commonwealth tank crews were attacking during Op Goodwood to take Caen, were they not up against most of the German armour in Normandy?

So I'd presume that most British and Commonwealth crews in WW2 would've fired AP rounds at one stage or another upto 1944.
Tanks with 2pdr guns normally had only AP, I'm not sure if HE was ever even issued while those tanks were in front line service.
 
Not issued. HE filler not considered worth it. Doctrinally, each troop should have had 1 close support tank fitted with a 3" howitzer for every 2 2pdr. Didn't work out that well in the desert because the A10's tracks couldn't cope with the sheer mileage the desert threw at them and they were often out ranged by the PAK 88s in the open landscape anyway.
 
Surely most tanks in North Africa must have fired AP rounds considering the abundance of tanks on both sides upto the first battle of El Alamein.

Again when the British and Commonwealth tank crews were attacking during Op Goodwood to take Caen, were they not up against most of the German armour in Normandy?

So I'd presume that most British and Commonwealth crews in WW2 would've fired AP rounds at one stage or another upto 1944.
Ahem. I’m not supporting the assertion, I refute it. British tanks from ‘41 onwards needed an HE round for:

- Killing the inevitable ‘PAK screen’
- killing soft skin targets to avoid wasting AT ammo
- clearing AT infantry and ‘shooting them (their own infantry) onto the objective’

In the best Warminster style.....

Oh and GOODWOOD was I think mainly stopped by bad ground, congestion and AT guns rather than just tanks.
 
No problem, just let me join you on Teamviewer ill find it off your computer and while i am at it, ill send $20 million dollars that the Ghanian National Bank asked me to look after a few months ago. They said the interest will start paying soon so its a win win......honest!
I work for a US Defence company.

Your door, disappearance, smashed in, 0300hrs, you.

Rearrange as necessary!
 

Top