Talk:Ordnance QF 2-pounder

message: 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)
thread_title:  Weights in kg? 

message: 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.
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)
thread_title:  This article is riddled with errors and mistakes, here are some Corrections 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lack of Citations 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: "consult a primary source" - see WP:Primary GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgian army use??