‘NOTHING TO FEAR’

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 20836, 15 July 1942, Page 3

‘NOTHING TO FEAR’

BRITISH WEAPONS GERMAN COMPARISON PLANES, TANKS & GUNS (By Telegraph—Press Assn. —Copyright.) (British Official Wireless.) (10.30 a.m.) RUGBY. July 14. The Minister of Production, Captain O. Lyttelton, opening the House of Commons debate on the estimates for the Ministries of Production, Supply and Aircraft Production, spoke of the suitability and quality of the weapons now being manufactured.

He claimed .that the British aeronautical industry led the world in adapting itself to the changing conditions which air fighting had brought about. “The lead with which we began the war in that respect has been maintained,” he said. With regard to army requirements, when new enemy equipment was captured, it was sent home as soon as a preliminary investigation had been made to see what lessons could be learned from it. It was very easy to gain a wrong impression after comparing a piece of British equipment with a piece ol German. The Germans had an antitank weapon of 37 m.m. which corresponded with our two-pounder. The German weapon threw a projectile of 1.91 b. compared with the 2.41 b. projectile thrown by our two-pounder. The next was the 50 m.m. German anti-.tank gun which compared with our six-pounder. The six-pounder was a powerful gun and was strictly comparable. Lastly, there was an 11 m.m. gun about which we had heard so much and the comparative weapon in .the British equipment which was the 3.7. Both these weapons were high-velocity anti-aircrafl guns. There had been some suggestion that the 3.7 gun could not be used in an anti-tank role, but it could be used very effectively. When either of those guns got a good .target on a tank, the effect would be devastating. He did not .think that in the field of artillery, we had any reason to be frightened of our equipment, compared with the Germans. The Minister said he had been told by a German artillery expert captured at Sidi Omar that the German preferred the 3.7 gun to their own. Captain Lyttelton said the tanks now coming into use had the necessary fire-power for present requirements, and new types which would be made in Britain and the United States would give the superiority required for victory. The lessons learnt in the field could not be translated into steel in a few minutes. The use of diluted labour in the factories called for more elaborate tooling and the greatest ingenuity was needed to strike the right balance between the volume of production and flexibility, the latter being limited by the expert labour available.