Thanks for watching, if you'd like to support the project check out our Patreon page here: www.patreon.com/thearmourersbench If you'd like to see more photographs of the 2pdr AT gun check out our accompanying indepth blog here: armourersbench.com/2019/03/10/the-2-pounder-anti-tank-gun/ Thanks! - Matt

Read of them , but this is the first time I've seen a picture of a portee , thank you.

@TheArmourersBench

10 күн бұрын

You're very welcome, thank you for watching.

A very good educational video. It helped me understand what my uncle was doing whilst operating one of these during the battle of France. He was a member of 57th anti tank R.A. He was KIA May 1940, Morbecque, France, at the age of 18yrs. He is buried at Le Grande Hassard military cemetary.

@TheArmourersBench

9 күн бұрын

Ahh that's brilliant to hear it was useful. Thank you for watching.

I didnt know the 2 pounder could 360 degree traverse like that. That is very cool. 40x304mm was certainly adequate for the early war years.

My great uncle George Ireland told me the story of his deeds as a 2-per gunner on a portee defending Tobruk, in late ‘41-early ‘42. His battery was overrun and he was one of a very survivors, taken prisoner by the Italian bersagliere. He told me he had knocked out several tanks before being overrun. I don’t know which regiment or battery he was part of though. Interestingly, as a PoW, he was paraded in the desert in front of the top Italian brass and actually saw Mussolini arrive on a white horse. He and all the POWs felt very dejected and demoralised until Mussolini made the mistake of dismounting and inspecting Uncle George and his fellow POWs. Due to Mussolini, and the other Italian top brass’s, small stature, one of my Uncle’s mates burst into laughter at the absurd and comical scene and all the other POWs joined rendering the PR stunt a farse. They were duly mal-treated for a while but their morale rose sky high!

@TheArmourersBench

3 жыл бұрын

Wow great story!! That must have been a hard fought action. Took balls to man a Portee.

@ivan5595

8 ай бұрын

Mussolini was small?

@trevorlawson7494

3 ай бұрын

Probably 3 RHA

@michaelmclachlan1650

9 күн бұрын

@@ivan5595 169cm or 5ft 6in.

My Grandfather LBdr Frank Wilson, Royal Artillery, Military Medal;1941) trained in these 1938 and went to war in 1939 with the BEF in France. I have a photo taken in 1939 of a strapping young man 6' tall standing (at ease) next to the 2 pounder at Norwich Barracks.

Thank you for posting this. One thing very apparent is how beautifully engineered the 2 pdr carriage was. The question of the 2 pdr HE round is an interesting one. There's evidence that it was actually manufactured, but never issued because the HE content was so small it made it ineffectual. Re the evidence, there is documentation to that effect in TNA which I came across when researching the 6 pdr. Also, a few years ago the website 28 Days Later accessed a disused armament manufacturing facility, and photographed the interior of many buildings. One of the shots revealed an (empty?) wooden box still bearing its wartime labels and stencils, one of which stated "2pr HE". Hope that's of interest.

@Stripedbottom

16 күн бұрын

Interesting that the British would come to that conclusion, considering that everyone else at the same time (eg. Germans with their 37mm, Soviets with their 45mm, etc.) were using weapons of similar caliber to very good effect as direct-firing infantry guns when there were no tanks around to shoot at. And this was discovered as early as Spain at least. The explosive effect was "ineffectual" if you compare to even light artillery, yes, but the guns more than made up for that by their ability to take out pinpoint targets precisely, such as machine-gun nests, pillboxes, fortified buildings etc. HE rounds are also much more effective against any soft-skinned vehicles than pure AP rounds which will often just pass through doing little damage. Also the morale effect should never be underestimated when you're being fired at using HE fragmentation shells, even if they'll only hurt if they hit you as close a hand grenade, as opposed to just lumps of metal that make a small thud and can only hurt you by a direct hit like a bullet. Actually what I'm more wondering about than the anti-tank guns is the British decision not to issue any HE rounds to their 2-pdr armed _tanks_, thus essentially making all of them machine-gun tanks regarding infantry.

@chuckhaggard1584

9 күн бұрын

IIRC the amount of HE that could be carried in the US 37mm shell was about the same as a hand grenade, or the modern 40mm M203 type grenade. While not anything like real artillery, that amount of HE and frag effect has obviously been proven useful over the decades. I assume the 40mm sized shell for the 2 pounder would hold a bit more.

@cyngaethlestan8859

5 күн бұрын

@@Stripedbottom Soviet automatic grenade launcher is (from memory) 37mm US is 40 and both much shorter case so I don't buy the argument the 2pdr wouldn't have enough bang. Okay it's slower than those but one round every three seconds is still a lot of hurt to pump down range accurately and at considerable distance. It should have been issued.

@GaryK-gk

Күн бұрын

The evidence of a HE round "manufactured but not issued" appears to be something of an internet myth. The confusion arrises from the early APHE round, which contained a small explosive filler, but was nevertheless an AP round, not a HE round. The stencil you refer to of "2pr HE" was undoubtedly APHE. In a post 2 months after yours, CZ350tuner lists the various ammunition and an explanation as to why it was declared obsolete. A lot were produced initially, but it was found to be difficult to manufacture and lacking in penetration compared to a solid shot round. By the time war broke out it was being used for training, often with the explosive filling taken out, and solid shot production was being ramped up. It's hard to find information on how much APHE was actually issued to front line units, if any. It's possible towed units still had some, but if so it can also be assumed that a lot would have been lost in France. Why no HE round was developed (until later in the war) is a matter of speculation. Mine is that it was concieved as an AT weapon and particularly as it was operated by the Royal Artillery, they fell into the mindset of separating out roles and so would have considered artillery as the weapon to use should anti-infantry fire be necessary. Of course battlefield conditions don't allow for such a neat separation of roles and it was the desert fighting that demonstrated the desperate need for battlefield HE capability, especially for tanks which moved too quickly to co-ordinate with artillery. Hence the rushed introduction of the M3 Grant and the eventual adoption of the 75mm over the 6pdr despite a worse AT capability.

The gun captain at Muai whose backside is prominent in the photo at 12'20" was my uncle Bill Brown. The gun layer was my uncle Dick Voege. My father was a loader bringing more ammunition and was beside the photographer when this was taken. The loader in the photo (name I can't recall) later on in the action had his arm broken by the gun's recoil (apparently a known hazard as the layer could not see the loader when he fired the gun). And yes, the range was extremely short - those destroyed tanks in the photo basically banzai charged onto the gun. The 2pdr was undoubtedly the best anti-tank gun in the world on its introduction (much better than the German "doorknocker"). It is just that tanks outgrew it.

@TheArmourersBench

9 күн бұрын

That's amazing Ken, thanks for the extra information!

Great episode Matt! Greatly enjoyed this look at some bigger stuff. Much maligned, it was, as you say right there with contemporary guns of the early war era.

@TheArmourersBench

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks Rob, appreciate it. Will eventually have a look at its big brother too!

Well researched, well scripted, well delivered, informative. Brings back memories of the old Airfix mag of the 1970s, take that as a compliment.

@TheArmourersBench

4 жыл бұрын

Very kind Mike, thank you for the feedback! Next on the list is the last of the three - the 17pdr! Thanks for watching - Matt

@Chiller11

25 күн бұрын

Every Brit’s favourite.

My father was RSM in the Royal Artillery 68th anti tank and I've got the shell casing from the first 2pdr round that was fired on Salisbury Plain.

Top commentary!

outstanding! well done, particularly appreciate the care to record quality audio. cheers from Brooklyn ny!

Very comprehensive and interesting presentation on this classic WW2 era British weapon! Thanks very much for bringing it to us!

@TheArmourersBench

2 күн бұрын

Thank you very much, glad you enjoyed it. Check out my video on the 6pdr too if interested.

2 Pounder AP ammunition performance: APHE (1934 pattern) = Up to 48mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards (Declared obstelete in 1936, used only for target practice). AP/T (1937 pattern) = Up to 64mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards (Solid shot). AP/T (1939 pattern) = Up to 77mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards (Hadfield process hardened solid shot). APCBC/T (1942 pattern) = Up to 84mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards. APSVCNR (Littlejohn) = Up to 104mm. of RHA @ 0 degrees @ 100 yards. The 1934 pattern APHE shell (which I own an example of) contained 1.68 pounds of Picric Acid based Lydite explosive granules and had a base mounted Hotchkiss Mark XIV inertial deceleration impact fuse that employed a shotgun percussion cap as a detonator. Between 1934 & 1936, 164,000 of these APHE shells were manufactured for stockpiling. However, the War Department issued new specifications, in 1936, stipulating that the 2 pounder gun should have no less than a 70% probability of a penetration of a 25mm. RHA target, set vertically, at a range of 500 yards. The APHE shells only managed a best result of 28% out of several range tests, so Vickers hastily came up with a tool steel based solid shot projectile, to meet the new specification. In 1939 the Hadfield company demonstrated a chemically hardened solid shot projectile that exceeded the performance of the Vickers solid shot and this was adopted into service. This improved solid shot is referred to as "Hadfield Shot".

very neat! especially the little john adaptor and ''super velocity'' ammo

@TheArmourersBench

5 жыл бұрын

I'd like to get a look at one of those, will have to keep my eye out! Thanks for watching glad you enjoyed it! - Matt

A good little gun for its day!

Another excellent episode with great descriptions of the various aspects and components of the two pounder.😁👌👌👏👏👏👏

Excellent video, I actually hope you do more on towed anittank guns from WWII, they are a very undercovered piece of equipment!

@TheArmourersBench

5 жыл бұрын

It's definitely something I'd like to do more of, if I come across them I'll definitely cover them. Thanks for watching. - Matt

Boy did I have an unsatisfactory experience with the 2 pounder in War Thunder. No matter what, I couldn't seem to get anywhere with it. I still wonder if it was me, or the game.

Fantastic video! Thank you, very informative.

@TheArmourersBench

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for watching!

Very enjoyable episode

@TheArmourersBench

5 жыл бұрын

Ahh I'm glad you enjoyed it, I thought people might like some bigger stuff now and then. Thanks for watching - Matt

Thanks a lot, very interesting history.

@TheArmourersBench

11 ай бұрын

Glad you enjoyed it

“We’re gonna need a bigger bench”

@TheArmourersBench

5 жыл бұрын

Haha love it!

better late than never? liked and subbed

@TheArmourersBench

11 күн бұрын

Thank you!

Well researched and presented episode like always.

@TheArmourersBench

25 күн бұрын

Very, very kind. Hopefully have some more artillery centric videos in the near future.

I’m from Singapore and the textbooks said the British lost due to the Japanese using tanks. The Ha Go and Chi Ha had paper thin armor so I didn’t think that was an issue.

@paddy864

3 жыл бұрын

It is if you don't have an ant-tank gun!

@basilpunton5702

2 жыл бұрын

The Japanese armour plate was of very high quality. After the Milne Bay battle some of the plate was tested in Australia and found to be of higher standard than allied armour, there was not much of it.

@robintasker9078

14 күн бұрын

If you are facing in thecwrong direction you lose

@alganhar1

11 күн бұрын

The forces in Singapore were last in line for supplies, like all British Forces in South East Asia at the time, including the Burma Corps. As a result they did not have ready access to AT guns, or sufficient ammunition for those they *did* have. They had no hand held anti tank weapons (few existed at the time), and were even well below complement when it came to anti tank rifles. The real reason the British lost Singapore though was that the idiot commanding the forces in Singapore neglected to defend the water sources, which the Japanese promptly took. There is a reason he has gone down as one of the worst Generals in British History. Singapore was so badly mismanaged by the GOC its unreal, its almost as if he were working *for* the Japanese not trying to defend against them. There is still every chance the British may have lost, but if any other general in the British Army were in command instead of Percival they would at least have made a better fight of it... Percival lost the battle before the Japanese even landed!

@executivedirector7467

11 күн бұрын

No. The British lost Singapore for many reason, piss poor leadership at several levels being the most important.

Quite a cool bit of kit really, unfortunately tank technology leapt forward faster than imagined, particularly from early to mid war leaving the 2 pounder behind. Still, it was certainly comparable to the German 3.7 cm Pak 36 which they went into the war with.

good video lad

@TheArmourersBench

5 жыл бұрын

Appreciate it, Thanks for watching! - Matt

I want one. A nice little 40mm pop gun for this 105mm Artilleryman.

A great video, and thanks for pointing out that the 2 pounder calibre is 40mm. It is frustrating that the British guns are rated by the weight of their projectile, while everybody else use calibre. It makes it hard to compare the guns of the different forces.

@TheArmourersBench

15 күн бұрын

Thanks for watching, definitely agree there its a bit confusing.

@richardjakobek7477

14 күн бұрын

@@TheArmourersBench Yes, and even more confusing when a 2lb shell is more effective at 30mm than at 40mm!

Do the 40/60 Bofor!

I could never understand why a high explosive round was not supplied for this gun. I knew it was fitted in a few tanks but after seeing this video I now see just how widespread the gun was which begs the question, why no HE? Any one know why?

@owensthilaire8189

2 жыл бұрын

British army hard headedness. Anti tank guns only need anti tank projectiles.

@JohnyG29

Жыл бұрын

@@owensthilaire8189 Not really, its just that the 2lber HE round didn't pack much of a punch.

@owensthilaire8189

Жыл бұрын

@@JohnyG29 There were no HE rounds available for the 2lbr. Solid shot only.

@JohnyG29

Жыл бұрын

@@owensthilaire8189 Yes there were, the HE/T MkII.

@owensthilaire8189

Жыл бұрын

Ffs. They were not available for issue. There is some question weather they were even put into production. Reading comprehension is a list art I suppose. There were no HE rounds available for the British army tank corps or royal artillery 2lbr gun.

It must have really pissed-off the gun crews when they saw their measly 2pdr shells bounce off nearly everything!

@nickbagshawe778

3 күн бұрын

Would Have torn up any Japanese Tank

Any idea if the sight bracket can be retracted so it sits behind the top of the gun shield when it is folded down? Also, do you know the height of the gun when on its wheeled carriage? I'm currently doing some research into the 2-pdr's use in pillboxes.

@TheArmourersBench

9 ай бұрын

Need to get hold of a 2pdr manual for some exact numbers.

@ckolonko86

9 ай бұрын

@@TheArmourersBench no worries, thanks. Pretty sure I've seen a reprint somewhere online.

Always puzzles me why the overcomplex mount was developed. Took much longer to get into battery than the simple split trail design used by most other nations.

@papaaaaaaa2625

Жыл бұрын

The mount wasn't the problem, but the large Gunshield and the missing HE Shell. In fact, the mount made it possible to mount the qf 2 pounder on portees while still be able to turn to both sides. In comparison, the Bofors 37mm At gun wich also was mounted on portees didn't had this possibility. It could only fire into the rear area of the truck.

Isn't "foot" pedal tautology?

From what I have read the projectiles moved at such high velocity from this gun that they would often simply shatter when striking cemented, ( face hardened ) type armors. A capped AP round only slightly corrected this. Tungsten projectiles are dense enough to stay intact at very high speeds. Around 4000 fps. This is why the USA went with Depleted Uranium penetrators as it is even denser that Tungsten Carbide and can take even higher velocities before shattering.

@TheArmourersBench

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting thanks Owen!

@tarnvedra9952

10 ай бұрын

Last sentence is incorrect. DU shatters before Tungsten does. DU has greater penetration at speeds below cca 1.7 km/s due to self sharpening. DU is used because its good enough and lower velocity means less barrel wear. You can google graphs of that.

I'm a firm believer that the 2nd amendment has no size limit. There is no reason why these little beauties should not be in every American home!

The British army was so badly managed that the HE round was not used. But some Commonwealth armies did use HE rounds. Very effective against Japanese tanks, because the AT rounds went straight through.

@papaaaaaaa2625

Жыл бұрын

Do you have any source for this? According to British sources the HE Shell never entered ordinary production in any GB- or Commonwealth Nation. The Australian Army demanded HE Shells several times but never got some as far as I know.

@JohnyG29

Жыл бұрын

@@papaaaaaaa2625 Na, of course it doesn't. Its just another nonsensical comment.

@GaryK-gk

Күн бұрын

@@papaaaaaaa2625 There was no HE shell during the early/mid war years, though I believe one was developed late war. If I remember correctly, the Australians modified a Bofors 40mm AA shell to create their own HE round.

@papaaaaaaa2625

Күн бұрын

@@GaryK-gk Any source?

It was not enough and should have been designed much farther ahead and a larger shot given the inevitable evolution of armor.

@GaryK-gk

Күн бұрын

Not really. Far too many people compare the 2pdr to later tank armour and claim it was a useless gun. The 2pdr was more than a match for the armour it went up against, apart from a short period at the end of the desert campaign when better enemy tanks began to appear, but by that time the British were also up arming and winning the campaign. By the time the fighting had moved to Europe, the British had up-gunned, but in any arms race you still have one side slightly ahead than the other and in WWII the race was so compressed and technology advanced so quickly that all sides fielded both better and worse equipment at the same time. The biggest issue for the 2pdr was a lack of anti-infantry/ anti-AT gun capability, but it's questionable just how much of a difference such a small HE round would have made.

They would have been useless against just about anything from a Panzer Mk 2 up. It is a joke! Sad and tragic. This is why the 2nd NZEF in North Africa pulled out and turned into armored Regiments. We didn’t need lend lease we paid cash/gold and all our Mk 4 Shermans had the most powerful engine available; the mighty Ford GAA V8.

Useless against Russian or later German tanks but would have torn up any Japanese tanks

Lol 2 pounder haha