"6pd ATG" Topic

How good was it as an anti tank gun ?
Was it superior to the larger Sherman 75mm
as a tank killer ?

Good question – as I recall at 1000 metres the performance in terms of armour penetration was about the same (88-89mm)

About the same, unless the 6pdr has discarding sabot rounds, in which case it is more effective at close-to-medium range, but less accurate and effective at longer ranges.

If ATG… do not recall 75mm Allied ATG.
As tank gun, 6pdr better penetration at short to medium ranges… but 75mm could plaster target with HE… which might be more 'effective' on a target.
Use what you have got.

When the US Army Tank Destroyer board developed its first (interim) self-propelled AT vehicles, they compared the then-new US 57mm gun M1 (a license-built copy of the 6pdr adapted for US production) to the old reliable US 75mm gun M1897A5 (license-built copy of the French 75mm gun adapted to US production).

Both were mounted into M3 halftracks to become self-propelled anti-tank vehicles, in the form of the T12 (75mm) and the T48 (57mm). The TD board decided in favor of the 75mm gun, with commentary that they recognized that the 57mm gun had superior penetration at ranges shorter than 1,000m, while the 75mm gun had superior penetration beyond 1,000m, as well as greater destructive power after penetration or even without actual penetration (for disabling hits). For the TD board the deciding factor was range, as TD training emphasized beginning AT engagements at the longest range their weapons could be deemed effective.

Based on this, the T12 was standardized as the Gun Motor Carriage 75mm M3, and was used to equip the US Army TD formations for the invasion of French North Africa. The T48 was rejected for US Army use, and offered to Lend Lease customers, going in small numbers to the British and in larger numbers to the Soviets, who operated several hundred through the end of the war as the SU-57.

The various US 75mm guns of WW2, from M2 through M6, all fired the same family of ammunition as the M1897 guns. They did however differ in barrel length, so there were minor differences in performance. They also differed in breach design and recoil mechanism, but these did not affect velocity so much as rate of fire and total size/weight.

The 75mm gun M1897A5 used in the M3 tank destroyer had slightly higher velocity (and so slightly better penetration) than the 75mm gun M2 used in the early production M3 "Grant" and "Lee" medium tanks, and slightly less velocity than the 75mm gun M3 used in the later production M3 "Grant" and "Lee", and the M4 "Sherman" medium tanks. So any advantage described for a TD M3's 75mm gun will be even greater for a Sherman's 75mm gun, although to only a very slight degree.*

The US 57mm gun M1 fired the same ammunition as the British 6pdr, and achieved essentially the same performance (depending on version of the 6pdr). The US Army never produced or issued APDS for its 57mm AT guns, but it was not uncommon for US AT gun crews to acquire some from local British Army supplies in the ETO campaign, and it worked normally in the US-built guns.

*And yes, I know it's hard to keep track of what I'm talking about when I write M3. Hard for you and me alike. Just imagine how hard it was for the soldiers in the stress of combat operations. I mean, what should you infer when somebody says in a quick radio or field phone report that "Division HQ is sending some M3s to support you"?? In the US Army of 1942, M3 could mean Stuart light tanks, Lee Medium tanks, upgraded cannons for your Lee tanks, armored infantry transport halftracks, tank destroyer halftracks, or new sub-machine guns! (While if they offered some P-38s they might be sending fighter planes or just new can openers … An issue that oddly enough got only more confusing as the Army moved from NATO to MTO to ETO, and the can opener P38 was largely replaced by the can opener P-51!).

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

*And yes, I know it's hard to keep track of what I'm talking about when I write M3. Hard for you and me alike. Just imagine how hard it was for the soldiers in the stress of combat operations. I mean, what should you infer when somebody says in a quick radio or field phone report that "Division HQ is sending some M3s to support you"?? In the US Army of 1942, M3 could mean Stuart light tanks, Lee Medium tanks, upgraded cannons for your Lee tanks, armored infantry transport halftracks, tank destroyer halftracks, or new sub-machine guns!

So, would you be surprised if you walked into a shop and said "I'd like a model three please." to be asked "A model three what, sir?" …

6 pdr ATk gun was pretty decent as an infantry battalion anti-tank gun, being small enough to be easily

1.) Man-handled and operated by a small crew
2.) Towed by light vehicles
3.) Hidden from enemy observation

Plus it had pretty decent armour penetration (especially with the sabot round) at the ranges where the battalion really needed anti-tank defense capability (up to a kilometer or so).

As a tank main gun, it leaves a bit to be desired in versatility, since the HE shell produces much less bang than 75 mm HE shell, limiting its usefulness against infantry and artillery positions.

For long range dueling with Tiger tanks, it was not an ideal weapon.

T12 was standardized as the Gun Motor Carriage 75mm M3

A vehicle that is sometimes confused with T30 Howitzer Motor Carriage, a variant of M3 halftrack armed with M1 pack howitzer and fitted with a gun shield to the front.

Luckily this is not usually confused with the M8 Howitzer Motor Carriage, a vehicle based on M5 light tank (which is a development of M3 light tank) and armed with 75 mm M3 howitzer.

__________________________________________________________

Now I am getting a bit thirsty, so time for a mug of tea (or maybe three).

The 6pdr has a somewhat better performance at closer ranges, which was why 75mm gunned Churchill troops normally also had one tank with a 6pdr.With sabot rounds, it was way better than the 75.

In WRG 1925 to 50, if there were Tigers around, take 6pdr armed Crusader III or Valentines, not Shermans (as they could automatically penetrate C class armour up to 500m, whereas a Sherman needed to roll a 6).

You could do a version of the Two Ronnies' "four candles" sketch using M3s…

Thanks Mark, you're always knowledgeable.
BTW, if I may expand the topic, were there differences between the 6 pdr and the Soviet Zis-2 in matters of penetration? Toeppel seems to think highly of it in his book on Kursk.

The 6pdr had higher rof due to handier ammo. Especially noticeable in tanks. There were some Churchill crews lamented the upgrade to 75mm from 6 pdr due to the lower rof.

In a lot of Churchill tank troops in Normandy the make up was 2 with 75mm ( better HE ) and 1 with 6 pdr (better AT )
.

Handily the tube appears identical externally so you can probably designate Churchills as 6pdr or 75mm as suits.

Unless there's some other identifying feature whereby a Churchill can only be one and can't be either?

From pics that I have seen, 6pdr armed Churchills and Cromwells had visibly different Gun Barrels from the 75mm… mainly lacking the flash supressor. But… you can designate a tank as whatever pleases! Hollywood Does!
Churchill VII had various differences to earlier Marks, but hey, ho. Just have fun!

To make it easier to identify them on the table if you are using a full Sqn , use the Mk III (welded turret) with 6 pdr and Mk IV (cast turret) with 75mm .

Note though either Mk could have a 75mm gun , if you don't have many on the table .

Another way of identifying individual Churchills… or most other tanks… is to remove one or both front track guards, if model allows that. They tended to get a battering and so often removed.
Or just go with ID numbers, as in life, if scale allows.

And, of course,stowage. UK/USA tended to haul massive loads of various 'stowage' and loot. But…
I rather think that much would have been left with 'B' Echelon prior to actual combat, when possible. Doubt they would want to be a mobile Bonfire!

The British 75mm was designed to be interchangeable with the 6lbr. The crews were issued with a kit to make the conversion, so all Churchills at the beginning of the campaign had the 75. But as tanks were lost and they started dipping into the reserve tanks, these still had the 6lbr fitted. They came with the conversion kit, but there hadn't been anyone to make the change. So the crew had a choice, and many of them chose to keep the 6lbr.

Hi

For examples of the 6pdr anti-tank gun in action with British infantry in Normandy I would highly recommend 'Breaking The Panzers' by Kevin Baverstock.

Cheers Paul