Churchill Use of 6 pdr APCR

[rexford]

If memory serves me, David Fletcher from Bovington Tank Museum wrote a book on Churchill tanks. Did he discuss 6 pdr use of APCR?

Excuse me if my memory is totally off the wall, been feeling my age lately.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by rexford:

If memory serves me, David Fletcher from Bovington Tank Museum wrote a book on Churchill tanks. Did he discuss 6 pdr use of APCR?

Excuse me if my memory is totally off the wall, been feeling my age lately.

If he did, I don't recall it.

But then I don't recall ever seeing any source that states or suggests that APCR was issued for service. What did the CM:AK researchers base the availability of 6-pdr APCR on, does anyone know?

All the best,

John.

[Mark Gallear]

There are a series of books published by "Her Majesty's Stationary Office", some are by David Fletcher and have connections to the Bovington Tank Museum.

Churchill Tank Vehicle History and specification 1983 HMSO does not have a stated author.

it is mainly a reprint of the Service Instruction Book Churchill VII & VIII June, 1944. It has an extra forward and photos.

As it deals with the later 75mm version does not mention this point.

APCR was issued for D-Day to the AT-guns. Churchills with 6pdrs were used in Italy until the end of the war. You get the impression that things happen in that theatre a few months after NW Europe. They may have got APCR from around October 1944, also very possible that they never got this round supplied. There is the web site with the history Irish Horse? who had Churchills in Italy, which if it mentions the use of 6pdr APCR will solve it for you!

[flamingknives]

Mark, are you sure that you are not confusing APCR with APDS?

[MikeyD]

"Churchills with 6pdrs were used in Italy until the end of the war."

To illustrate how up-in-the-air some WWII facts still are, I recall seeing a photo of a line of battered Churchills in NW Germany in early '45. A couple vehicles back I could just make out the slender gun tube with counterweight of a 6 pdr Churchill mk IV! I had assumed - or had read somewhere - that the 6 pdr Churchill had definitely been pulled from NW Europe service, but there it was. So sometimes it seems there's facts, there's documented facts, and then there's what really happpened.

[Mark Gallear]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Mark, are you sure that you are not confusing APCR with APDS?

Yep, assumed this was what Rexford was on about?

Never common across APCR for the 6pdr gun used in any role. The book he is taking about describes AP M72 and APC M61 rounds for the 75mm versions.

Officialy there were no 6pdr Churchills used in NW Europe. However, in Italy they continued in Service in mixed units with the converted Churchill NA (and Shermans!) - the orginal intention was to replace them with the later marks with the 75mm gun but this never happened.

[flamingknives]

APDS was in use from D-Day, AFAIK, not APCR.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by flamingknives:

Mark, are you sure that you are not confusing APCR with APDS?

Yep, assumed this was what Rexford was on about?

</font>

[Simon Fox]

John,

Just blithely stating your opinion as categorical fact is more than sufficient, thankyou very much.

You're just cluttering up the thread with all this 'evidence'.

[Mark Gallear]

Flammingknives has caught me out on confussing APC and APDS before ! I honestly looked at it assumed he must be on about APDS!

I used the word official to make it clear that there is nothing weird about 6pdrs armed Churchills in Italy.

MikeyD could well be right - I have come across whole units equipped with Stuart IIIs when they should have had at Stuart IV or Vs. Also a training Cromwell which had thinner armour and was faster than the official tank and a single example was in use with a squadron. Presuambly they were supplied when latter versions where unavailable to supply as replacements?

Some weird things about the JohnS quote, did you copy it down right? (I like evidence!)

1 ARV (107 RAC)

4 Mk VII (1 9 RTR, 3 107 RAC)

7 Mk VI (3 9 RTR, 3 107 RAC, 1 147 RAC)

9 Mk IV 75mm (4 9 RTR, 3 107 RAC, 2 147 RAC)

1 Mk IV 6-pr (9 RTR)

4 Mk III 75mm (1 9 RTR, 1 107 RAC, 2 147 RAC)

5 Mk III 6-pr (2 107 RAC, 3 147 RAC)

The Mk III and IV had 6pdr gun non with 75mm as far as I know? (VI and VII are 75mm armed versions)

[rune]

Guys,

Went through everything I had and couldn't find anything. The only things I found on the net have to be taken with a grain of salt.

If you go here:

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/britain/PenetrationTables.htm#6pdr

Look up the Churchill with the 6 pdr, then click on the 6 pdr to get the penetraion data and the above is what you get. I also found a miniature game that allows the Churchill to have the APCR. As I said, not very convincing sources, but listed them in case you were interested.

Rune

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Some weird things about the JohnS quote, did you copy it down right? (I like evidence!)

1 ARV (107 RAC)

4 Mk VII (1 9 RTR, 3 107 RAC)

7 Mk VI (3 9 RTR, 3 107 RAC, 1 147 RAC)

9 Mk IV 75mm (4 9 RTR, 3 107 RAC, 2 147 RAC)

1 Mk IV 6-pr (9 RTR)

4 Mk III 75mm (1 9 RTR, 1 107 RAC, 2 147 RAC)

5 Mk III 6-pr (2 107 RAC, 3 147 RAC)

The Mk III and IV had 6pdr gun non with 75mm as far as I know? (VI and VII are 75mm armed versions)

There were a lot of "mongrel" marks refitted to later standards so I believe the existence of 75mm armed MkIII and MkIV's is entirely correct.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rexford:

[snips]

Did he discuss 6 pdr use of APCR?

Excuse me if my memory is totally off the wall, been feeling my age lately.

If he did, I don't recall it.

But then I don't recall ever seeing any source that states or suggests that APCR was issued for service. [snips]</font>

[Mark Gallear]

Wow, John D Salts get even more interesting! Found a source saying 6pdr APCR!

The quote from Mr. Churchill's Tank: The British Infantry Tank Mark IV", by David Fletcher, Schiffer, Atglen, PA, 1999

1 ARV (107 RAC)

4 Mk VII (1 9 RTR, 3 107 RAC)

7 Mk VI (3 9 RTR, 3 107 RAC, 1 147 RAC)

9 Mk IV 75mm (4 9 RTR, 3 107 RAC, 2 147 RAC)

1 Mk IV 6-pr (9 RTR)

4 Mk III 75mm (1 9 RTR, 1 107 RAC, 2 147 RAC)

5 Mk III 6-pr (2 107 RAC, 3 147 RAC)

The Mk III and IV had 6pdr gun non with 75mm as far as I know? (VI and VII are 75mm armed versions)

I have hard time believing they are “mongrel” versions if they were updated from one Churchill standard to another then they become another mark, i.e. Churchill Is updated to III are now called IIIs not Is with 6pdrs. Not even sure, that some of these upgrades are possible without new turrets. Not heard of any such updates for these marks – those for the Churchill Is were understandable as a lot were made but were then deemed unusable for battle use except as CS tanks. I could easily be wrong on this one, as CMAK has expanded my knowledge of the Churchill considerably!

Seems unlikely that they are battle upgrades as the ones done for Italy, the NAs are very well known.

I suppose the other possibility is that they are Churchill 6pdrs sent as replacements to make up the number and the officer describing the unit is confusing the marks of different tanks in one troop?

As thought provoking as it is, I hope that BFC are not planning to wield some very strange Churchills in the next version of CM based on this evidence.

[ March 06, 2004, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Mark Gallear ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

[snips]

The Mk III and IV had 6pdr gun non with 75mm as far as I know? (VI and VII are 75mm armed versions)

I have hard time believing they are “mongrel” versions if they were updated from one Churchill standard to another then they become another mark, i.e. Churchill Is updated to III are now called IIIs not Is with 6pdrs. Not even sure, that some of these upgrades are possible without new turrets.

From "Mr. Churchill's Tank", pages 119-120:

"A report, delivered to the Tank Board in December 1942, revealed that Vickers-Armstrong was investigating the possibility of adapting the 6-pounder to fire 75mm ammunition. This involved enlarging and relining the barrel and altering the breech end to accept American 75mm rounds. The result could hardly be described as a major advance in the science of tank gunnery but it had two distinct advantages. It put British tanks on a par with their American counterparts, especially with the ability to fire a respectable high explosive round, and it meant that any tank (or armoured car come to that) which could take the 6-pounder could now be adapted to take the 75mm weapon; and this adaptation could be achieved by doing little more than changing the gun."

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

I suppose the other possibility is that they are Churchill 6pdrs sent as replacements to make up the number and the officer describing the unit is confusing the marks of different tanks in one troop?

I should have thought that unlikely, as the officer who signed the report was Brigadier W. S. Clarke, commanding 34 Tank Bde.

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

As thought provoking as it is, I hope that BFC are not planning to wield some very strange Churchills in the next version of CM based on this evidence.

Those are the vehicles that were really used, so why not include them?

Anyway, those aren't "strange". "Strange" would be things like the Irish Army's Mk X LTs, or the Mark VII up-armoured for test purposes to 235mm. This vehicle was shot at from 100 yards with three rounds from a German 128mm; one round knocked the turret off and the armour was badly smashed, but no actual penetrations occurred, and the two rabbits caged inside for the test survived unscathed.

All the best,

John.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

John Salt wrote:

and the two rabbits caged inside for the test survived unscathed.

Apart from shattered ear drums and a need for therapy for the next 6 months.

Regards

Jim R.

[PS]

Think you would find that the APCR round were never issued. Could not find out the main reason but CR rounds have poor long range penetration. The APCR were tested in 1942 (have not seen the Ian Hogg book which states October 1943), and the APDS rounds were first used June 1944 in NWE.

6pdr armed churchills were used in NWE (several good books on the Normandy battles have photos) but not very widely. Some units replaced one 75mm tank per troop (or kept one)with a 6 pdr tank because the 6 pdr had better penetration even with standard AP rounds. 6pdr tanks were used more widely in Italy. One knocked out a sunken Panther turret on the Gothic? Line.

All the photographs of Churchill NA 75s I have seen were modified Mk IVs. Churchills armed with British 75mm had a muzzle brake fitted so no mistake with a 6 pdr. The NA 75 did not have one but the Sherman mantle is a big give away.

Churchill Mk IVs, Vs and VIs were upgraded to Mk VII standard but I have never seen a 75mm in a Mk III turret (less of this Mark were made compared to the Mk IV and poss most were converted to ARV, AVRE or had a Mark IV turret fitted). If the original turret was retained it had the suffix LT after the mark number. Very easy to ID because of the square hull doors, driver vision flap and lots of welded on armour. Have seen a photo of a NA 75 so converted (hull only). The Marks ran from IX, X and XI.

Hope this has been of some use and is from memory only so sorry for any slip ups. If anyone would like the sources just ask.

I have always found BTS research on British weapons poor from when CMBO was released and the last two games have not been much better. CMBB had very few British tanks in anyway! With no in game editor they will never be fixed.

Rune, you said you found a mini game that allows APCR for churchills. Was this SPWAW because this will allow anyone to edit anything in the game.

[Rabidbvr]

Hello one and all...

this may help a little the site give all MKs of

Churchill... main gun and ammo load out

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/britain/PenetrationTables.htm#6pdr

hope it of some help

happy hunting

[MikeyD]

"All the photographs of Churchill NA 75s I have seen were modified Mk IVs."

I've seen a couple shots of Churchill NA75s with the turret roof ventilator in a different position so it may have been a mkV? Frankly those middle Marks between the mkIV and the big Churchill redo are a bit of a muddle for me.

Brit armor has always got 2nd-best coverage in the hobby press in my opinion. I don't know if it has to do with the notorious '50 year rule' which kept a lot of Brit documents under wraps, or if the maze of vehicle Mark has just caused peple to throw up their hands! I STILL get lost trying to follow the many Marks of Centurion and Chieftain!

[Mark Gallear]

Mark Neukom reliably informs me that "M1 57mm gun (the American version of the 6-pdr.) are listed as M70 AP Shot and M86 APCBC-HE, the latter

indicating an explosive filler -- which I was quite surprised to discover. Of course, this is the American ammunition for this gun, and would

[probably] not be available for the British guns."

I strongly suspect that the Churchills with 6pdrs in Italy only had AP not APDS let alone the US APCBC-HE.

Mark Neukom has the Fletcher book and says "a

photo on page 122 of a vehicle he calls the Churchill MkIII*, which is a Mark 3 (the welded turret is obvious) upgunned with a 75mm OQF Gun. The caption indicates possible combat use in NW Europe."

This is not included in the WWIIvehicles site list which follows the standard versions of the Churchills only as do almost all books.

I don't have a problem with such vehicles being included in a future version of CM as long as their rarity compared to the standard versions is expressed properly unlike the Grant/Lee in CMAK with the standard Grant used in the hundreds is made rare but the handfull of Lees are made standard issue!

[PS]

The Churchill Mk Vs were the close support version of the Mk IV armed with a 95mm How and a very bigger muzzle weight! The Mk III had a very nice welded slabed sided turret.

British troops in Italy had too put up with all the old stuff compared with the troops in NWE and only got the new much later on. Well the Germans did only devoted about 5% of their war production to the Italian Front but that was of no concern if you came up against a Tiger and you had no 17pdr armed tank to hand! The 76mm armed Shermans just lacked the real punch.

On a SPWAW forum there is a posting about the 76mm APCR with some information about 57mm/6 pdr APCR/APDS rounds. 6 pdr APCR might have been used but if they were it would have been very rare.

The rarity problem with Grant/Lee in CMAK sums up my comments about lack of research with regards to British armour. If a few of Mk IIIs were converted why worry. The Mk VI, IV NA75 and Mk III 75mm all have the same armour rating, gun etc in the game its not going to matter.

[John Kettler]

PS,

There's a simple and logical explanation for APCR's poor penetration at range--drag. APCR is nasty up close because the entire propellant force is applied to a projectile only a fraction of which is dense and heavy, thus allowing very high muzzle velocities and concentrating enormous kinetic energy within a small impact zone. This is why the Americans called theirs HVAP, for hypervelocity armor piercing.

Retired Master Gunner and ordnance instructor Ian Hogg explained the difference this way. You can take a ping pong ball and fling it at quite a clip, but it won't go far because its sectional density is very low relative to its area. Drag brings it down quickly. By contrast, you can fling a billiard ball quite a long way, but it won't go as fast because it weighs so much more, hence is difficult to accelerate. Its sectional density is high relative to its drag index, so it goes quite a distance. With me so far?

The kill vehicle, if you will, in APCR is a short rod made of tungsten carbide, and that rod is securely locked into a light alloy jacket. When fired at fairly close range, the projectile comes screaming out, slams into the target, the jacket is stripped off, and the core strikes home. What happens, though, at longer range isn't pretty, for the APCR shot behaves much like that ping pong ball we just discussed. Its drag cross section is just as great as for a full caliber AP shot or shell, but it is much, much lighter, hence slows down very fast as it goes downrange, resulting in poor penetration. The solution is APDS, which is like APCR in the barrel, but sheds the alloy jacket after coming out of the cannon muzzle, leaving a subcaliber core just like the business end of APCR, but without the drag penalty. The problem with APDS in WW II, though, was that the technology for separating the sabot from the penetrator was not well developed, and this affected both accuracy and penetration, since it could induce not just deviations from desired aimpoint but also yawing of the penetrator, resulting in suboptimal strike angles.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Claus B]

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

Officialy there were no 6pdr Churchills used in NW Europe.

As suggested previously, there were some 6-pdr Churchills in NW Europe in 1944/45 and they do show up in photos as well. The 6-pdr often had a big counterweight on the muzzle which can be mistaken for a 75mm guns muzzle brake, but if you look closely, it is evident that some of those tanks with a thngy on the muzzle are in fact 6-pdr armed Churchills!

According to some tables of tanks in 21st Army Group compiled by Peter Brown from archival material, there was 46 6pdr Churchills in 31st Tank Brigade and 57 in 34th Tank Brigade in June 1944. By December 1944 48 were found in 6th Guards Tank Brigade and 49 in 34th Tank Brigade. There was also a large number of Mk III and V 75mm conversions.

Claus B

[flamingknives]

Why would the 6pdr need a counterweight?

The 95mm how. did because the short barrel needs extra weight to balance the breech mechanism.

The 6pdr was fairly well balanced, by comparison

[John Kettler]

Claus B,

Are you the same Claus I corresponded with back when Panzer Elite was released and there was a big push on to get the gunnery penetration tables sorted out? If so, hello, and please post the URL

of your impressive site for the benefit of the troops. I recall it as a treasure trove of the first order. If you're not that Claus, hello anyway

and thank you for a historically meaty post.

Regards,

John Kettler