green beanie | 30 Sep 2016 3:08 p.m. PST |
Any of the 21st Army Group armored units in NWE in 1944 have any 6 prd armed Cromwell & Churchill tanks? |
kustenjaeger | 30 Sep 2016 3:51 p.m. PST |
Greetings Cromwells were all 75mm (and a few CS 95mm) armed in NWE. Churchill tank troops often had one 6pdr armed Mk III or IV as it was considered better against enemy armour. For example the 9 RTR history makes reference to this and the link page shows brigade allocations between types with not all III and IV having 75mm conversion kits. Edward |
Hornswoggler | 30 Sep 2016 10:42 p.m. PST |
…6 prd… I can't help noticing that this is about the third (or so) post where you refer to a British weapon as "prd" – it's pdr. |
Andy ONeill | 01 Oct 2016 3:01 a.m. PST |
The 6pdr was liked for a higher rate of fire (smaller shells) as well as AP capability. |
Sergeant Ewart | 01 Oct 2016 5:14 a.m. PST |
Thanks Hornswoggler – for nothing! Try to get out more! |
Timbo W | 01 Oct 2016 7:22 a.m. PST |
Does anyone know if the Churchill units ever got any 6pdr APDS ? |
Andy ONeill | 01 Oct 2016 8:39 a.m. PST |
Yes, they would routinely have some Apds per tank. |
Martin Rapier | 01 Oct 2016 10:16 a.m. PST |
"Thanks Hornswoggler – for nothing! Try to get out more!" No harm in correcting an honest mistake. And don't get me started on 'Boyes' anti-tank rifles. |
Timbo W | 01 Oct 2016 10:28 a.m. PST |
Intersting on the APDS, that makes the preference for keeping some 6 pdr tanks very understandable. Iirc in discussion a while back the Churchill IIIs and IVs were up armoured as well, to about the 120 to 140 mm front max thickness approx. At least at short range this begins to even the odds vs Tiger I, the Tiger has a better gun but less armour, and the 6pdr sabot can kill it at 500m from the front. Panthers are another ball game though. |
wrgmr1 | 01 Oct 2016 11:46 a.m. PST |
Mailed Fist by John Foley is good book, he was a Churchill troop commander in NWE. link |
Zippee | 01 Oct 2016 11:50 a.m. PST |
And don't get me started on 'Boyes' anti-tank rifles.
Yep we all know it's 'buoys' anti-tank rifle |
goragrad | 01 Oct 2016 11:48 p.m. PST |
Its not the Boy's AT Rifle? My nephew will be so disappointed… |
BeneathALeadMountain | 02 Oct 2016 8:03 a.m. PST |
I have this bookmarked but haven't checked it, hopefully it's helpful link BALM |
christot | 03 Oct 2016 9:56 a.m. PST |
"And don't get me started on 'Boyes' anti-tank rifles." you'd better not look at the Dieppe equipment thread then. |
Martin Rapier | 04 Oct 2016 1:56 a.m. PST |
LOL. Boyes, Boy's, Bouys, Boys. Whatever. I suppose if it was WH40K it would be Boyz. |
Marc the plastics fan | 04 Oct 2016 2:04 a.m. PST |
And we can crush enthusiasm Good job we don't understand what the OP meant |
fozman | 04 Oct 2016 3:37 a.m. PST |
Interestingly the link to the FoW site & the table there shows that all of 6th Guards Tank Brigade's "gun" tanks were converted to 75mm tanks… however, reading the history of the unit, as soon as they landed in Normandy & started talking to crews that had been there for a while, they quickly retro fitted 6pdrs back for the better a/tk capability. I believe that it was on the basis of one per troop. Also, from talking with the son of one of the guys that fought with 6GTB, after their first battle as part of Operation BLUECOAT when S Squadron, 3rd Bn Scots Guards, were badly mauled by JagdPanthers, they had new tanks & were Mk VIIs |
Thomas Thomas | 04 Oct 2016 9:13 a.m. PST |
As I recall from Mr. Chruchill's tank, it was the ability to fire APDS that made retaining the 57L (aka 6dr) desirable. Wasn't aware that they were up armored to near VII level though. Panther not harder to knock out then TigerI. Only front glacis has better armor. Turret weaker and sides, even if hit at steep angle, much weaker. TomT |
Martin Rapier | 04 Oct 2016 11:14 p.m. PST |
That certainly seemed to be a contemporary view "The Panthers aren't so bad, you can work to a flank and knock them for six" but as for Tigers "they (the shells) bounced off like peas on a flipping drum" I'd be fascinated to know if a 6pdr Churchill ever did knock out a Tiger, I can't say it is something I've come across. Panthers and Jagdpanthers yes, but not Tigers. I gather attaching troops of self propelled AT guns to Churchill squadrons helped a lot. |
Timbo W | 05 Oct 2016 5:17 p.m. PST |
Certainly Churchill 6pdrs KO'd Tigers, Tiger 131 for example en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_131 . Yep Panther glacis far more difficult than front of a Tiger but Tiger sides much thicker than Panther sides. At close range, say 500m, the Panther front glacis 'ought' to be the only one that 6pdr APDS doesn't penetrate. But certainly agree a troop of Achilles wouldn't come amiss. Anyone know if they ever attached Archers to the Churchill units? |
hindsTMP | 05 Oct 2016 6:09 p.m. PST |
I'd be fascinated to know if a 6pdr Churchill ever did knock out a Tiger, I can't say it is something I've come across. Panthers and Jagdpanthers yes, but not Tigers. A 1st Worchestershires (43rd Division) towed 6 pdr knocked out a Tiger I during the crossing of the Seine river, per "Assault Crossing" page 152, by Ken Ford. The Tiger was completely destroyed. If using APDS, the round could penetrate almost 150 mm of armour at 1000 yards, supposedly. There are also a number of accounts of 6 pdr-armed AFVs killing Tigers in the Battleground Europe series of paperbacks (Operation Epsom, Hill 112, etc.) MH |
Martin Rapier | 06 Oct 2016 5:56 a.m. PST |
Well, bu**er me, I always thought 131 was knocked out by a 6pdr AT gun, not a Churchill. I know towed 6pdrs knocked out Tigers, but I wasn't aware of any vehicle mounted instances. wrt the SPs, I think these generally came from the Infantry divisions they were supporting, so it depended what they had. e.g. 34th Tank Brigade was supported by Achilles in Holland. |
hindsTMP | 06 Oct 2016 8:36 a.m. PST |
I know towed 6pdrs knocked out Tigers, but I wasn't aware of any vehicle mounted instances., I'd like to update my statement above about 6 pdr kills of Tigers in the "Battleground Europe" series. So far, after a brief search, all accounts of 6-pdr kills of Tigers refer to towed ATGs. So although the few Churchills with such guns *could* have killed Tigers, I have not yet found an account of such an event. Sorry about that… MH |
Timbo W | 06 Oct 2016 11:03 a.m. PST |
Really interesting all! Since 6pdr APDS was a better AT round than any of the 75mm types, one wonders why Cromwell units didn't retrofit at least some. Also were 6pdrs ever swapped for the 75s in Churchill VIIs? I appreciate the 75mm was far a better HE thrower, and that was the job they had most of the time, but even so…. |
Starfury Rider | 06 Oct 2016 12:22 p.m. PST |
I have some notes from a while back and copies of the originals of the 21AG returns for Jun44 linked to above. The figures for 75-mm conversion sets are noted in the right hand margin, and simply say 'issued' rather than fitted. It may be that some units simply hadn't completed the conversion process before deployment to Normandy. The next earliest set of returns I've seen are Jan45, though I've seen repros of Oct44 and Dec44 figures. For Jan45 the 6-pr Churchills are shown under Mks III, IV and VI, 75-mm under Mks III, IV, VI and VII, with 95-mm under Mk V. Unit Entitlements (UEs) for all 6-prs are 90, for all 75-mm are 243 and for 95-mm as 54. Working that out across the Churchill equipped Regts/Bdes (allowing for 141 RAC with 79th Armd Div, UE of 135 Croc VIIs) does give you a ratio of one 6-pr per Tp for normal Churchill units. There are some tanks of all these types listed in returns And yes, the abbreviation used for 'pounder' in this set of docs is 'pr', which was interchangeable with 'pdr' I've found. The Boys is generally referred to as anti-tank rifle, .55-inch, shortened to A.Tk rifle. Gary |
Timbo W | 06 Oct 2016 4:31 p.m. PST |
Ah here's the thing I remembered on up armoured Churchill IIIs and IVs, link A so around 120mm frontal armour, 96 mm side, both better than Tiger I. |
Timbo W | 06 Oct 2016 4:42 p.m. PST |
|