3in and 3.7in "CS tank" howitzers

So "no H.E" for 3" & 3.7" was doctrinal rather than physical, is that what you are saying?

 

I'd argue that some of the evidence above supports the 'no HE' for the 3.7" being doctrinal. The linked Smoke manual is devoted to CS gunnery and even the mid-war, 95mm-imminent tactical manuals have diagrams showing CS tanks blinding positions.

To me, it's a lot hazier for the 3". Its use in cruiser tanks ought to have conformed to the armoured doctrine, i.e. CS = smoke. In infantry tanks a direct fire HE capability makes more sense to deal with enemy positions. The tank doctrine implied a proper artillery fireplan to neutralise or screen known antitank guns, amongst other things. Whatever the story of its development, we know that reasonable stocks of HE and smoke were produced and made available for it.

 

Thanks.

Now remind me ....

The cruisers had 3" But did the Matildas have 3" or 3.7"?

Kind Regards.
David.

 

Matildas were 3", I believe.

 

I’ve just uploaded a document on another thread that may be of interest as it covers some early musing about a new 3.7” tank howitzer that I think became the 95mm.

 

These? I hold out hope of a summary of these ... any indication that these were also going to be compatible with the 3.7" Mountain Howitzer?

Folios 2-9: Priorities and the organisation of the Ministerial Priority Committee.... | The National Archives Folio 55: Letter of 20 May 1938 from the Director of Mechanisation, War Office, regarding manufacture of gun mountings and the design of a 3.7 Howitzer and 303 machine gun coaxial.
(Does this literally mean, "Let's design a 3.7" howitzer"?)

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11347482
Report on 3.7 inch (tank) mortar smoke shell, DD/L/911.A charged WP (white phosphorus)
Projectiles, mortar: stability of shell; report on trial for stability with shell QF... | The National Archives Projectiles, mortar: stability of shell; report on trial for stability with shell QF smoke 3.7 inch tank mortar to designs DD/L/7153, DD/L/7154 and DD/L/7155

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11498801 3.7 inch tank mortar shell: stability of shell with lachrymatory chargings; trial to ascertain whether shell to DD/L/7153 charged KSK (ethyl iodoacetate) are stable in flight, and to assess the gas efficiency
(Yep, they tried a tear gas shell! Who needs HE?)

Trial with 3.7 inch tank mortar shell DD/L/5814 with viscous charging: report | The National Archives Trial with 3.7 inch tank mortar shell DD/L/5814 with viscous charging: report
(I'm assuming that this is some sort of smoke shell? What is "viscous charging"?)

Report on trial with shell QF smoke 3.7 inch tank mortar, for stability with... | The National Archives Report on trial with shell QF smoke 3.7 inch tank mortar, for stability with lachrymatory charging, carried out on 27 June 1935
(Tests in 1935 and again in 1936? Was this a revised shell?)

3.7" Mobile Tank Gun; 3.7" H.A.T Gun; 3.7" Howitzer; 4.5" Howitzer; 6 Pdr. Hotchkiss; 6... | The National Archives 3.7" Mobile Tank Gun; 3.7" H.A.T Gun; 3.7" Howitzer; 4.5" Howitzer; 6 Pdr. Hotchkiss; 6 Pdr. A.C.M.B. 6 Pdr. Twin A.C.M.B. 6 Pdr. Mtgs. C.D. 6 Pdr. 10 cwt. Mtgs. etc. Mtgs. 12 Pdr. O.Q.F. 25 Pdr. Carriage various items; 57 M.M. U.S. M.I. Gun; 95 M.M. Carriage etc. Mountings 17/25 Pdr. 32 Pdr. H.A.T. Gun; 37 Pdr. on 4.5"/5.5" Carriage;
(Not sure this one has any value ...)

and something on the 3":
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11499149
Base ejection smoke shell: report on a smoke efficiency trial of 3 inch tank howitzer BE, smoke shell to DD/L/6929

 

Ignore what this bloke says!

Modern Formations 1931 is the lilac later edition of the 'Purple Primer': Mechanised and Armoured Formations 1929, and it has this to say on the subject of CS:

It would be interesting to know how CS has or hasn't evolved from the original 1929 edition. It's also clear at this stage of the game that the medium tank was seen as 'universal' as the I Tank / Cruiser split is still in the future.

 

Can anyone point me to a copy of Modern Formations and Mechanized and Armoured Formations? I'd quite like a read of them.

This was the situation with CS tanks by the beginning of 1943 - from 1st Coldstream Guards war diary, 1943 - (WO 166/12460)

 

The IWM has copies:

Mechanized and armoured formations : (instructions for guidance when considering their action), 1929 (provisional) (LBY WO 1364);

Modern formations, 1931 : provisional (LBY WO 1441);

Modern formations 1931 provisional (LBY 65757);

and I would assume that Bovington would have copies too.

 

Thanks!

A trip to the IWM it is, then.

 

Sorry for not coming back on this one. Note that one of IWM's Modern Formations lists the amendments which I missed.

If you wish to swing by Kew as well, they have the Supplements to both volumes (though not the manuals themselves). These are essentially photo albums of the contemporary state-of-the-art vehicles, so perhaps things of interest rather than necessity:

A&MF Supp: WO 33/1183
MF Supp: WO 33/1258

 

By 1935 things have moved on a bit. Field Service Regulations Vol. II 1935:

The nature and role of Army Tank Battalions are also defined, though the term 'Infantry Tank' isn't used. Unsurprisingly at this date, this vehicle has no entry in the table of 'Particulars of Armoured Fighting Vehicles'.

 

I know we should be grateful but he doesn't mention the range drum...

[MEDIA]

 

Just noticed in the HMSO Churchill Tank: Vehicle History and Specification:

 

Héritage has come-up trumps again!

Notes on 3” Howitzer

There are several mentions of the close support howitzers across the RAC Technical Information Bulletins. Two in particular address earlier points:


https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c5776/1429?r=0&s=4


https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c5776/1371?r=0&s=4