Matilda Churchill, British Infantry tanks in action.

[Freebird]

Yes, the 2 pdr would be tough to use unless your enemy happened to be right in front of you!

It's a shame that the British were so unprepared before the war that they couldn't swich over from the 2/6 pndr's because they were so desperatly short of everything. They really needed something like the 77 mm early in '42.{the gun that was mounted in the Comet tank}

 

[CharlesBronson]

It's a shame that the British were so unprepared before the war that they couldn't swich over from the 2/6 pndr's because they were so desperatly short of everything. They really needed something like the 77 mm early in '42.{the gun that was mounted in the Comet tank}

Not only the penetration capabilities of the AP.

The lack of HE ammo wich hampered the british tank force during the early part of ww2 is ridiculous. That explain why the Grant was so liked in the desert, despite the huge design failures of the US made tank it had a dual purpuse gun wich was seen as a gift from god by the R.A.C.


Churchill NA 75.

This variant was a very complex convertion of a Sherman main gun and turret mantlet into a Churchill hull, not and easy task, but it had the advantage of the dual purpose 75 mm cannon.

It was used almost exclusively in the Italian campaing. For more information check this nice site.

Track 48 - Reviews - Panther Tracks

 

[Watanbe]

hmm this is a very very noob question but what size is a 2pounder and 6 pounder equivalent to in mm? Im assuming a 6 pounder is close to a 75mm?

The Cromwell was armed with a 6pdr yes?

 

[Glider]

Dont be afraid of asking any question.

The 2pd was a 40mm gun
The 6pd was a 57mm

Cromwell started with a 6pd but was changed to a 75mm pretty quickly. Each unit had a support version armed with a 95mm Howitzer.

 

[Watanbe]

Thanks for filling me in, I knew the Cromwell (favourite allied tank) had a 75mm but I thought that the 6pdr was equivalent.

What were the mm for the 17 and 25 pounders?

 

[Glider]

The 17pd was 76mm and the 25pd 88mm.

Interestingly the 77mm gun carried in the Comet was also 76mm. They always referred to the guns as the 17pd, 77mm and the 76mm (US Gun often used in US Shermans and M10/M18 tank destroyers).
All three used different ammo and they were afraid of confusion in supply, if they were all known as 76mm.

 

[Freebird]

Thanks for filling me in, I knew the Cromwell (favourite allied tank) had a 75mm but I thought that the 6pdr was equivalent.

What were the mm for the 17 and 25 pounders?

But the size of the gun does not always exactly indicate its power or efectivness. The small British 6 2 pdr were very effective early in the war, especially against the Italian tanks, as some of the Axis 50 75 mm were lower velocity short-barrel types.

The British 17 pdr was a much more effective gun than the US 75mm, even though they were almost the same diameter.

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

But the size of the gun does not always exactly indicate its power or efectivness. The small British 6 2 pdr were very effective early in the war, especially against the Italian tanks, as some of the Axis 50 75 mm were lower velocity short-barrel types.

The British 17 pdr was a much more effective gun than the US 75mm, even though they were almost the same diameter.

True on the 17 pdr, they could knock out tigers while the US 75 was less effective.

 

[Freebird]

True on the 17 pdr, they could knock out tigers while the US 75 was less effective.

The 75 was almost useless from the front, the 76 was better and the 17 pdr had a decent punch. Yet they are almost all the same size!

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

The 75 was almost useless from the front, the 76 was better and the 17 pdr had a decent punch. Yet they are almost all the same size!

I think it was because of the velocity of the two shells. If your talking of the M4 Sherman's 75, the barrel was shorter then one found on a firefly, which had the 17 pdr.

 

[CharlesBronson]

The 75 was almost useless from the front, the 76 was better and the 17 pdr had a decent punch. Yet they are almost all the same size!

Yea, the only problem is the 17 pounder was HUGE for a gun of its a caliber.

A picture of the cartrigdes used in ww2 british tanks: ( from Tony williams website)

47x376R (3 pdr Hotchkiss, similar to but slightly longer than 47x351R interwar tank), 40x304R (2 pdr AP), 57x441 (6 pdr APDS), 75x350R (US/British 75mm HE), 76x583R (17 pdr APDS), 76x420R (77mm mm in Comet tank), 76x134R (3" Howitzer for close-support tanks), 95x206R (95mm Howitzer for close-support tanks).

There was a Churchill proto armed with a 17 pounder, that was the Black Prince.

SPECIFICATION

Designation: Tank, Infantry, Black Prince (A43)
Crew: 5 (commander, driver, gunner, loader, co-driver-hull gi!nner)
Battle weight: 112,000lb
Dimensions: Length 28ft 11 in Track width 24in
Height 9ft Track centres/tread Width 11ft 3.5in
Armament: Main: 1 x 17pdr OQF
Secondary: 2 x 7.92 cal Besa MG (one co-axial)
Armour thickness: Maximum 152mm; Minimum 25mm
Traverse: 360°
Engine: Bedford twin-six 350hp
Maximum speed : 11 mph
Maximum cross-country speed: 7mph (approx)
Suspension type: Sprung bogies
Road radius: 80 miles (approx)
Fording depth: 3ft 4in (unprepared)
Vertical obstacle: 2ft bin
Trench crossing: 10ft

A43 Black Prince

 

[Watanbe]

Thanks for filling me in! How effective was the Cromwell's 75mm compared to the Sherman 75mm?

What stood a better chance against German tanks?

I've taken interest recently due to a book im reading about a Cromwell tank Commanders account during the invasion of Europe. Lucky to see this thread here!

 

[CharlesBronson]

How effective was the Cromwell's 75mm compared to the Sherman 75mm?

Is exactly the same cartrigde, the barrel in the Churchill/Cromwell gun was longer so it had slightly higher muzzle velocity but in other ways it was the same. It penetrated 61mm of armor at 500 meters range.

What stood a better chance against German tanks?

Good chances against Panzer III and IV

Some chances against Panther ( side armor)

No chances against Tiger I/II, unless a point blank shot in the side/rear.

 

[Watanbe]

Thanks for that, how would the Cromwell rate in comparison to the Sherman?

 

[CharlesBronson]

Ah...that is a good question
Both are very similar tanks, the Cromwell was faster, slightly better armored and less prone to catch fire when hit.

 

[Glider]

It was also a lot smaller making it slightly more difficult to hit. I have a photo somwhere of the two side by side which I will try to find.

The Sherman was a pretty big tank

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

It was also a lot smaller making it slightly more difficult to hit. I have a photo somwhere of the two side by side which I will try to find.

The Sherman was a pretty big tank

Yeah, too high a profile.

 

[CharlesBronson]

Probably the only advantage of the Sherman was it could be more easily "overgunned"

The 17 pounder variant of the Sherman, the Firefly was definately more neat than the 17 pounder armed variant of the Cromwell, The Challenger tank.

Firefly

Challenger

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

You're right Charles, the turret on the Challenger looks like one giant shot trap.

 

[Juha]

Thanks a lot agains, Charles B. Very interesting thread.

Vassili
Challenger was also too long and so rather clumsy.

Juha