DeuZerre wrote:Answer to a few pages back:
North Africa was initially lost due to a lot of factors. The 2 pdr's anti-tank capabilities wasn't one of the main ones. Against anything but German heavy armour, it was effective. Against italian armour (chuckle), it was effective. It was still effective against light and "medium" (don't pick on me on the nomenclature) vehicles at most ranges. However... It lacked HE rounds of any significance, which meant that they were pure anti-armour, and as such bad infantry support when tanks weren't around.
That's what the shermans brought: Proper HE rounds. It is why the sherman, a mediocre or at least average in everything tank was good, it is why the Russians loved their T-34s and had more HE shells in their IS-2s than AP shells: Because tank on tank isn't a massively frequent occurrence in WW2, and the sherman was "good enough" against armour, and "pretty good" against infantry, towed anti-tanks, entrenched troops in buildings...
Tanks that were driving around had HE shells loaded. Not AP shells, because "Oh god a tank shoot!" Bang, you hit with HE, it shakes a lot. Then you can finish with AP. Unless you're expecting tanks, you load HE because it's more frequent to have to shoot at infantry, entrenched infantry, or ambushing towed anti-tanks.
The 2 pdr didn't receive many complaints as far as AP capability from the Russians either (in fact they rather liked the Valentine) except for the lack of an HE shell. It was just a little too specialized of a weapon for what tanks needed to do (against anything else a tank armed with it was essentially just as powerful as a machine gun armed tankette).
When it came down to it the 2 pdr had a great run through 1943 where it could confidently perforate pretty much any enemy AFV it faced at combat ranges, and even after then it still had a decent likelihood of punching through most anything it would face in 1944 other than a Panther or Tiger.