Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Those who argued for the 6 pdr stated that the lack of a 6 pdr HE round in North Africa had created an unfortunate impression against the 6 pdr as a tank main armament. positions.
There are accounts of British 6 pdr anti-tank gun crews making their own case shells for close defence against infantry assault. This was done by removing the A.P. shell head, filling the cartridge with a suitable piece of cloth, filling the shell case with stones and gravel, and sealing it with another piece of cloth or encasing the shrapnel content in thick axle grease. This tactic was quickly improvised in the North African campaign, und there is some indication that tank crews employed it with the 6 Pdr. L.45 as well.
May be old news to some - I have just seen the Discovery Channel investigation into who killed Michael Wittmann.
I am not sure that the ranges quoted in Villers Bocage engagement were exactly right - if they were it suggests that even at 50 yds a British tank could not take on the frontal armour of a Tiger! Could not say if the tanks knocked out by Wittmann's Tiger were Cromwell's or Churchills - I think the former. But both would have been fitted with 6 pdrs?
One British tank had a perfect side on shot at point blank range - but could not shoot because the gunner was out of the tank relieving himself! How lucky / unlucky is that!
During the engagement were Wittmann's Tiger was knocked out - a Yeomanry Sherman Firefly engaged 3 Tigers from a position about 800m away (in a wood) knocking them out!
Wittmann's Tiger was engaged by Canadian Shermans from his left flank at under 200m. It looked like the hit that brewed up his Tiger hit at the rear left corner and set the fuel on fire - which ignited the ammo blowing the turret off!
I like to see the technical arguments that some of you guys have - using test data - but the real performance that matters is in the field. The Firefly guys said they could engage a Tiger out to 1200m but preferred to do so at 800m if they could.
You may well be right Dunmunro1 - the Cromwells and Churchills could well have been fitted with the 75mm.
But even so for them to have engaged at near to point blank (under 100yds) and not take the Tiger out would have been very un-nerving to say the least!
In 1943 there was a very lively debate in the UK over whether to keep the 6 pdr or move to the 75mm OQF, and although they were hopes of fitting the 77mm to the Cromwell and Churchill, this proved impossible to do. Those who argued for the 6 pdr stated that the lack of a 6 pdr HE round in North Africa had created an unfortunate impression against the 6 pdr as a tank main armament. They (including the UK minister responsible for tank production) argued that the 6 pdr HE round, which became plentiful in 1943 was sufficiently effective and that the increased AP performance of the 6 pdr made it a far better choice than the 75mm. Unfortunately, UK troops in Italy preferred the better HE of the 75mm, probably because German armour was relatively rare in Italy in 1943 and the terrain did not favour tanks. However, in Normandy, the 21st AG soon found itself facing 70-90% of all German armour in Francem during the entire Normandy campaign, and the lack of the 6 pdr in their tanks was a disaster.
I think it is very clear that the 6 pdr was a far superior tank gun than the 75mm M3/OQF and the Normandy campaign would have ended much sooner if 21st AG tanks had the 6 pdr as their primary armament because German tank losses would have increased while Allied tank losses would have decreased, and inevitably this would have led to the collapse of the German position much sooner. The 75mm gun allowed the Tiger, Panther and SP guns to effectively counter 21st AG numerical superiority in tanks by destroying them from hull down positions. The 6 pdr, especially with APDS, would have increased losses to German armour in hull down positions, and thus reduced Allied tank losses. It would have also greatly increased Allied tank moral by giving them a weapon capable of dealing with most German armour, even when met in hull down positions.
I agree with most of this, except there are a few observations that migh affect the debate. To start with the 75 mm calibre was the standard tank armament adopted by the Allied forces, and this was because the majority of tanks being fielded into the front line formations were US Shermans. By standardizing the ammunition supply, the Allies achieved a far better logisitical situation that the Germans could only dream of. Given the logistical difficulties faced by the allies following the breakout, I would think attention to logistics to be a far more important issue than an increase in lethality.
You also mention that there was some kind of disaster facing the Allies in their tank formations. Whilst I am the first to acknowledge the tough fight faced by the allies in the Hedgerows, I hardly think it was a disaster.....Allied Tank losses were heavy, but never cataastrophic (unlike the germans experiences). There is much debate in this and other places about the ratio of losses for specific battles, but overall the loss exchange rate was actually heavily in favour of the allies, after the debacles of Falaise, Cobra and the Ardennes are taken into account. As an example, during the vaunted Ardennes campaign, Peipers battlegroup suffered the loss of no less than 33 Panthers for no loss to the US forces, in just one engagement. I am unsure yet as to whether the Panthers were immobilised for lack of fuel (it seems likley), but so what..... a win is a win in my book, and just because the germans chose to adopt a plethora of differnt types, and pursue production choices that sealed their own fate, is still part of the equation in my book.
I actually think the decision to adopt the 75mm calibre was the right decision, whan the whole picutre is considered.
I have to disagree. IMHO, the adoption of the 75mm gun was a seriously retrograde step that allowed heavy tanks such as the Panther and Tiger to remain almost invulnerable when in hull down positions. Consequently Allied offensives that relied upon armour to punch a hole through the German lines in Normandy, simply stalled when faced with even a handful of hull down tanks or SP guns. The German army found the static, towed, AT gun to be relatively less effective in Normandy than elsewhere because of the intensity of Allied artilliery fire and the complete Allied aerial supremacy. Only AFV borne AT guns could retain their effectiveness after an Allied prepartory bombardment, and these AFVs repeatedly stalled Allied attacks, since Allied tanks simply could not cope with them with the OQF/M3 75mm gun, since the narrow frontage of 21st AG attacks precluded gaining a flanking position, in most cases.
Hi Dunmunro1,
The original quote for the range at which a British tank could take on the Tiger was taken from the account regarding Villers Bocage -
"I am not sure that the ranges quoted in Villers Bocage engagement were exactly right - if they were it suggests that even at 50 yds a British tank could not take on the frontal armour of a Tiger! "
Wittmann's Tiger as you correctly pointed out was hit from the side at somewhere around 150yds. If it had been on the frontal armour - who knows if it would have disabled the Tiger?
7.5cm M3 L/38.5 penetration performance against vertical 240 BHN RHA armour:
M72 APCBC, MV = 2,030 fps:
500m = 81mm
1,000m = 73mm
1,500m = 65mm
2,000m = 59mm
2,500m = 53mm
3,000m = 47mm
.
Here's a complete specifications list for most of the tank guns used during WW2.
5.7cm 6 pdr L/52
Projectile weight: 3.23 kg Mk.9T APCBC
Secional Density: 1.005
Muzzle Velocity: 831 m/s
Total Kinetic Energy: 1115 KJ
Kinetic Energy pr. cm^2: 43.69 KJ
Performance against 90 degree 240 BHN RHA armour:
500m = 103mm
1,000m = 90mm
1,500m = 78mm
2,000m = 68mm
2,500m = 60mm
3,000m = 52mm
_________________________________________________
.
Sure can, but like I've said before APDS was a poor ammunition type during WW2, it was inaccurate and poor against sloped armour, had poor killing power once penetration was achieved and in short supply. So I really do not understand why you're so obsessed with this projectile type. APCBC rounds were the most lethal AP projectiles used during WW2, and were prefered for that very reason, Firefly gunners prefering the APCBC over the APDS round.
5.7cm 6pdr L/52 gun with APDS:
500m = 160mm
1,000m = 140mm
1,500m = 123mm
2,000m = 108mm
2,500m = 95mm
3,000m = 83mm