I was perhaps misinterpreting quotes of German tank commanders, and a few remarks by historians of the 1940 campaign. At least some of the panzer men were suprised by the difficulty they had penetrating the French tank armor with their 20 & 37 mm guns. Although consdiering how many of them were manning the lightly armored MkIIs & 38s their concern is understandable. :(

well you do have a point I over looked-if you have heard of the battle of(sp)arais-or what ever the heck it was called, by the british in 1940-one of the few offensives then....the matilda did give the germans problems, but with their forsight/skill, they stopped them with the 88 and some 105 arty...yeah, I think they did have problems with the might 37mm against the char-b(bis)...

Arras is the correct spelling. A couple years ago I was picking skimming through some book or other and read about some detail of that battle. the item that stuck in my memory was the description of a Brit battery of 2lbr AT guns. The unit was deployed on the west flank of the Brit attack to cover some road or other and ambushed a column of Rommels tanks. The panzers were part of the lead group of the 7th Pz Div and had been ordered to turn around and attack the British flank. But the lead company was shot up by the 2lbr guns and the group never made the attack.

My memory fails me concerning this, but I do recall that the germans were lucky-hitler and the general were jittery during the start(until dunkirk). Had the british been more agressive with larger forces at this battle, they could have done more than bloody the german noses..It would not have changed the battle of france, but still, it would have been a shock for the german. Alot of people underestimate the value of the 2pdr in the early war...It was quite effective until 1942 when the up armoured Mks started to show up....until then, it was more than adaquate to deal with the -0-sloped german and italian and japense armour(if you call what japan had armour)-also, when the allies accepted the fact they needed a weapon to reach out to 1000m. In the early days, 500m was far..

"...they could have done more than bloody the german noses..It would not have changed the battle of france, but still, it would have been a shock for the german." It WAS a shock to the Germans. The funny thing about armor and guns is just how quickly things changed. Can you imagine the change? Pz II/Pz. 38(t) to Jagdtiger in five years! 20mm/37mm kwk to 128mmkwk in five years. Unimaginable exponential growth compared to today. Clearly, the limiting factor at the time wasn't the technology. Guns, communications, ammunition, armor, and mobility all changed rapidly. The operational theories were in place, if not developed to their zenith. All that was missing was the imagination... Next up, the T-34!

On the 2-pdr gun and its relatively lackluster performance (especially as an AFV-mounted weapon), I wonder if the deficiencies could've been overcome by mounting a "crossbreed" of the higher-performance barrel of the Bofors 40mm L60 AA gun or the automatic features of the 2-pdr POM POM (single barrel) naval gun to allow for multiple-shot burst fire where single AP rounds proved unsatisfactory. If I understand correctly, one of the biggest defects in British 2-pdr-armed tanks was that for most of the early years they just did not carry sufficient numbers of HE support rounds (even though in that caliber their effect was rather minimal, but better against MG nests and AT guns than "wasting" solid AP shot on them.) With over 500 2-pdr guns abandoned before Dunkirk, perhaps that was a good thing: the sudden lack of AT weapons especially at a time when Britain could've succumbed to invasion, hastened the fielding of suitable numbers of 6-pdr guns. It's just too bad more of them didn't reach Africa sooner, both as towed and tank-mounted versions (even though the Allies' superior numbers and logistics eventually granted victory anyway.) Things could've been a little more in the Allies' favor in Africa and Europe if more 6-pdr guns, especially with APDS, were available sooner, as Germany would've had to divert more resources into improving Panzer III and IV tanks sooner (and with APDS, even 57mm-armed tanks could score successful flank and tail kills against heavy German armor: Illus Encyc of 20th Century Weapons and Warfare, Vol 10, p1117 suggests 6-pdr w/ APDS, shell weight 3.2 lbs/1.5kg, mv 4050fps/1234mpsec, penetration 146mm at 30 degrees at 1000m). The 6-pdr was considerably superior to the German 5cm L60 of many Panzer IIIs, and were more Allied ETO tanks equipped with this weapon, confrontations with German armor could've been more favorable to the Allies (similar to the other thread about Soviet T-34s with high-velocity 57mm guns having better AP performance than the shorter, lower-velocity 76mm guns.) One model of the Canadian RAM tank did fit a 57mm gun, but these were very limited in numbers, and it probably will not be easy locating any info on their combat performance (if they were even used beyond training at all). British Centaur Mks 1&2 (basically, Cromwells with Liberty V12 engines instead of RollsRoyce) were also originally fitted with the 6-pdr, but most were re-gunned with 75mm weapons, or 95mm howitzers. Anyone have any info on their combat experience vs panzers? (all I have is technical info.)

"Anyone have any info on their combat experience vs panzers?" Not in the detail you are looking for. All the histories I've read relate the tactical errors of the Brit. and how they were key to the outcome of the various tank battles in Africa. There are technical studies written, but dont have any here. The 2lbr was more than suffcient in 1939 or 1940 vs the German tanks. Even the MkIII was lightly armored cmpared to medium tanks of other nations. The 7th Pz had practically no medium tanks. Rommel had been given the Cezch tanks as a substitute and like the Mk II it had armor that could only be described as light. As you say the 2lbr was of much less value vs the MkIII & Mk IV models of 1941, but in he first year it was usefull. I guess the French were a step ahead with their 47mm guns already in production and distributed. To get back to 1939, I've often wondered what a battle between the Soviet Army & the Wehrmacht in Poland would have looked like?

I think that one may have gone to the Reds, Carl, as they had considerably more numbers of 20mm, 37mm, and 45mm guns in service in everything from little T60s, T70s, and all those BT series tanks (not to mention those huge multi-turret T28s and T35s.) Most of the German armor advancing into Poland were either the Panzer 1s with MGs, Panzer 2s with rather weak 20mm guns (as was the Russian model, but they would work against anything not a tank), and what Panzer 3s were available had the short 37mm gun that didn't have enough muzzle velocity to compare to the Russian 45mm gun. The Germans had no long-barrel 75mm guns at the outbreak of the Polish invasion, only short howitzers in some Panzer 4s. There were also some models of Panzer 3s with the shorter 50mm guns (there was an L35 and an L42 model), but the longer and more potent (AP) L60 wasn't in service until about December 1941. Add to that, for the Polish invasion, the Germans had no dedicated tank-mounted anti-tank guns. From various sources I've browsed through, those early Panzer models didn't have more than 30mm of armor at the outbreak of the Polish invasion, and anything the Soviets had could've eaten through them with ease (including those big honkin' 14.5mm AT rifles.)

"...I think that one may have gone to the Reds..." Doggtag, on weaponry perhaps. But if operational acumen or an airforce mattered in 1939 to the final outcome, I doubt that it would go to the Soviets.

Brains vs brawn. Certainly neither would have taken that one on beauty. The Soviet army was at the bottom from the purges, so I'd give the advantage to the Germans. Still their tanks of 1939 were too light. This theoretica; fight would have given them a earlier impetus to reequip with upgraded MkII & MkIV models. Or perhaps even build some new models.